Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ATQ Transmission Line Grant Application (NSB)
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project Round VII PE; $� �� earrarc H J Algesuk fhuAhdu :Wk17wk gar Bay ov Hope Anakhnuk Pass O rlk"ied julg2-ti_.o North Slope Borough Project Location: Atqasuk, Alaska AEA 2014-006 Application Page 1 of 24 7/2/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ALASKA Grant Application - Standard Form ENERGY AUTHORITY SECTION 1 — APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) North Slope Borough Type of Entity: Government and Electric Utility Fiscal Year End: 06/30/2013 Tax ID # 92-0042378 Tax Status: For -profit Non-profit X Government ( check one) Date of last financial statement audit: December 14. 2012 Mailing Address Physical Address P.O. Box 69 1274 Agviq Street Barrow, Ak 99723 Barrow, AK 99723 Telephone Fax Email 907 852-0467 907 852-4115 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT I GRANTS MANAGER Name Title — Richard San Jose Assistant to Director Timothy Rowe Grants Administrator Mailing Address PO Box 69 Barrrow, AK 99723 Telephone Fax Email (907) 852-0863 (Richard) (907) 852 0251 (Richard) Richard. San orth-slope.orr (907) 852-0467 (Tim) (907) 852 4145 (Tim) Timoth y.RoweCcr�.north-slop e.org 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your application will be rejected. 1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box) An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or X A local government, or A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities); Yes 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the applicant's board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant's governing authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box ) I Yes Yes 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement (Section 3 of the RFA). 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at ftttp://www.akenergyauthority.or,q/veep/Grant-TeLnplate.pdf. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) Yes 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 2 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form ENERGY AUTHORITY project and who will be the primary beneficiaries. SECTION 2 — PROJECT SUMMARY This section is intended to be no more than a 2-3 page overview of your project 2.1 Project Title — (Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project). Type in space below Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project 2.2 Project Location — Atqasuk and Barrow Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will benefit from your project in the subsections below. 2.2.1 Location of Project — Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name. Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project's location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting "What is here? The coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows: 61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact AEA at 907-771-3031. Physical Location: Area of the North Slope between the communities of Atqasuk and Barrow. Community to Benefit: City of Atqasuk Atqasuk, AK latitude and longitude: 70.48122—157.42 Barrow, AK latitude and longitude: 71.291526 — 156.9 2.2.2 Community benefiting — Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. Atqasuk, Alaska will be the beneficiary of this project 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put X in boxes as appropriate 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type Wind Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat -only) Hydrokinetic Hydro, Including Run of River Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps Transmission of Renewable Energy Solar Photovoltaic Storage of Renewable X Other (Describe): Transmission of electricity by natural gas in lieu of diesel fuel for both power and heat. Small Natural Gas Request (Check all that apply) I Construction 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Pre -Construction Reconnaissance X Final Design and Permitting Feasibility and Conceptual Design Construction and Commissioning AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 3 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Al A-01A Grant Application - Standard Form ENERGY AUTHORITY 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed project. This phase of the Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line Project is for final design and permitting required for the construction of the transmission line as wells as home and building conversions to electric space heating. 2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, local jobs created, etc.) • From the feasibility phase of the project performed in 2010, the project provides significant cost savings over the continued use of diesel fuel in Atqasuk. Results of the economic analysis indicate the potential cost savings of $50.7 million over 35 years. • Conversion to a long-term and stable priced energy source for the village of Atqasuk. • Increase in power quality and reliability. • Elimination of outsourcing community funds for the importation of power and space heating energy. • Less noise and pollution in the Community • Lower probability of fuel oil and glycol spills in the Community • Is technically feasible • Has a predictable outcome • Power intertie could be extended to the community of Wainwright in the future. • The project will use fiber optics imbedded in the power line cable to control loads in Atqasuk from Barrow. The fiber optics can also be used to bring broadband capabilities to Atqasuk. 2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source of other contributions to the project. • The North Slope Borough is seeking $ 2,219,600 from AEA Renewable Energy Fund for the design and permitting. • The North Slope Borough will participate with resources valued at $201,782. 2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY Include a summary of grant request and your project's total costs and benefits below. Grant Costs (Summary of funds requested) 2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application 2.7.2 Cash match to be provided 2.7.3 In -kind match to be provided 2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $2,017,818 $ 201,782 $ 1 AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 4 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII �® Grant Application Standard Form GENED ENERGY AUTHORITY Project Costs & Benefits (Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully operational project) 2.7.7 Total Project Cost Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section I $ 17,342,837 4.4.4, including estimates through construction. 2.7.8 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not covered $ N/A by the project but required for the Grant Only applicable to construction phase projects. 2.7.9 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) I $ 1. 44 million, (annually) 2.7.10 Other Public Benefit If you can calculate the benefit in terms $ of dollars please provide that number here and explain how you calculated that number in Section 5 below. SECTION 3 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application. 3.1 Project Manager Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume and references for the manager(s). In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. North Slope Borough's project management approach to this project, and to its overall energy upgrade program, is to utilize a team approach consisting of North Slope Borough staff, external consultants and general contractors. Mr. Richard SanJose will be the Program Manager and will be the contact for any technical questions. Mr. Timothy Rowe is the Grants Administrator and will handle grant paperwork, amendments and financial matters. North Slope Borough provides a project team from its operating staff. The Program Manager, Richard SanJose, provides oversight to Project Administrators who interface with the Engineering Consultant and General Contractor. The PM and PA group provides internal focus and coordination of special projects including project development, planning, construction coordination, and reporting. The Engineering Consultant of the North Slope Borough provides technical input on design, feasibility, generation and distribution issues to the team. Additionally, the engineering group provides specifications, design and drawings for North Slope Borough construction of diesel power plants and distribution systems. The Engineering Consultant provides construction administration and commissioning input on behalf of new construction performed by the North Slope Borough contractor. The manager of administrative services, Timothy Rowe provides support in accounting, payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with NSB guidelines. The project management team's structure is designed to provide flexibility for the North Slope Borough participants. They have operational responsibilities to the Borough as well as project development responsibilities. This pr9ject is being funded and completed in phases. This AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 5 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ®anu Grant Application - Standard Form 11E) ENERGY AUTHORITY approach works well with the North Slope Borough's management style. The functional - interface relationships allow engineering tasks, village government and public relations tasks, procurement functions, and internal construction operations to be dovetailed into the project development process. Cross utilization of talent and resources is an advantage to the project delivery process, providing economies of scale for using project resources. For project delivery, an amalgamated team approach is utilized. To support the North Slope Borough team, design consultants and construction services managers are selected. Both disciplines are derived from a resource bank of professional firms with applicable histories of performance in rural Alaska. The construction services manager works concurrently with the design consultant through design development to provide constructability insight and value engineering to maximize the overall effectiveness of the final construction documents. Though a contract currently exists with Leland A. Johnson & Associates for the completion of the feasibility and conceptual design phase of the project, based on North Slope Borough procurement standards, this size of contract would require a solicitation of sealed bids. Upon receipt of the bids and inspection of the bids following North Slope Borough procurement standards, the contract would be awarded. This is anticipated to occur within 90 days of the end of the current phase of the project. 3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project. Start End Milestones Tasks Date Date Project Scoping and Contractor Request and review sealed bid Solicitation documents for the selection of the contractor. 1/1/14 4/1/14 Environmental Studies Cultural resources surveys, wetlands survey and ESA consultation materials 7/1/14 12/31/14 NEPA Document Support Prepare environmental impact and mitigation report 7/1/14 1/31/15 Permits, right of way, site control Obtain Federal, State and local agency complete permits 7/1/14 4/30/15 Geotech / Survey Reports Survey alignment and prepare report 8/1/14 10/31/14 Resolution of Land use, right of Utilize survey results to identify land use wav issues and right of way issues and resolve Engineering survey, alignment definition, 11/1/14 4/30/15 Basics of Design Document relimina en ineering, 8/1/14 1/31/14 Final Design Prepare CDs, material specs, structure layout drawings Complete final cost estimate 11/15/14 8/31/15 Final Cost Estimate 7/1/15 8/31/15 Update Economic and financial Complete revised economic and analyses financial analysis 7/1/15 8/31/15 Final business and operational Prepare business and operational plan Ian completed 7/1/15 8/31/15 Heat Conversion design @ 65% Prepare drawings for home and building facilities conversion to electricity. Prepare estimates 8/01/14 1 1/15/15 1 12/31/14 4/31/15 Heat Conversion final design Prepare final design and construction AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 6 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ®® Grant Application - Standard Form OECD ENERGY AUTHORITY � documents 3.3 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, accounting or bookkeeping personnel or firms, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application. Rico SanJose Project Administrator Timothy Rowe Grants Administrator The North Slope Borough will ultimately be responsible for successful completion of the project and will follow all applicable state and local procurement procedures in the acquisition of contractors. 3.4 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the Please provide an alternative contact p project and keep the Authority informed arson and their contact information. of the status. North Slope Borough will assign a project manager to the project. One responsibility of the project manager will be to compile periodic progress reports for use by the Authority. Weekly and monthly project coordination meetings will be held with the project team to track progress and address issues as they arise.. 3.5 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how i u would address them. Logistical and construction activities and weather all contain significant risks. The North Slope Borough routinely purchases Builder's Risk insurance to mitigate its exposure to these risks. In addition to outside insurance, the experienced team of North Slope Borough and contracted A&E firms with projects much like this one is similar circumstances reduces the risk. Logistics and weather are routinely issues in rural Alaska. The North Slope Borough has extensive experience working in rural Alaska under these conditions. Crucial to successful completion of projects in these environments are advanced planning and flexibility in timing. The NPRA Act and 1984 Barrow Gas Fields Transfer Act allow for the extension of the Natural gas from Barrow's gas field to surrounding NSB communities via gas pipeline or electric power transmission. Both UIC and ASRC have signed agreements to provide Right -of -Way access across their lands for the purpose of extending Barrow Gas to surrounding NSB communities. Every effort has been made on previous work to avoid routing the transmission line near any Native Allotments. Any environmental issues that arise will be addressed by adjusting the route corridor, technology or both so permits can be obtained. SECTION 4 —PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 7 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII Grant Application - Standard Form # � ENERGY AUTHORITY • The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds. • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. 4.1 Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available. Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. For pre -construction applications, describe the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this ap !ip cation. Barrow: Natural Gas: Natural gas in Barrow is a known and developed energy resource. It consists of three gas fields and provides energy for power and heat in Barrow. The current reserve estimates for each field are: South Barrow Gas Field = 8 to 9 billion cubic feet East Barrow Gas Field = 5 to 10 billion cubic feet Walakpa gas Field = 150 to 240 billion cubic feet Total: 163 to 259 billion cubic feet Currently Barrow consumes about 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas each year. At the current consumption rate the gas fields will provide energy for approximately 120 years. Gas availability is unlikely to be a concern for Atqasuk because the community demand will be less than 5% of the current demand by Barrow. Atqasuk: Wind: The Atqasuk Wind Resource Report prepared in 2010, shows the wind power class at level 3-4, (fair). This is typical of inland Villages and the low rating would affect the economics. Further, the technology has not been proven on the North Slope. The Borough has chosen to demonstrate this technology in the community of Kaktovik which has a wind power class at 5-6 (very good). Wind was evaluated in the "Energy Options for the City of Atqasuk" and was determined not to be economically feasible. Coal: Atqasuk has coal deposits that where mined in the 50's to provide energy to the BIA school in Barrow and for local resident consumption. Also in the late 80's the NSB operated a small surface mine that was used on a local coal demonstration project. The operation was small, providing coal for home heating. Small scale coal technology to handle both power and heat in Atqasuk was evaluated in the "Energy Options for the City of Atqasuk" and was determined not to be economically feasible. Regional Energy Distribution System: In a broad, longer term view, other resources may be enhanced by the intertie. In the future the Village of Wainwright could be tied into the Barrow to Atqasuk transmission Line. Coal -bed methane has been discovered and may prove viable in the future. Further down the coast near the Village of Point Lay, lies the western arctic coal reserves, a source of high BTU and low sulfur coal in vast quantities, (10% of the world's coal resource). A power network connecting all the Villages from Barrow to Point Hope and possibly Red Dog, Kivalina and Noatak could be powered from this resource for a very long time. AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 8 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII �400D A. Grant Application Standard Form SOMD ENERGY AUTHORITY 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. T Atqasuk: Distribution system — The existing distribution system is a three phase overhead system configured with two feeders from the power plant. Power is generated at 480 volts and stepped up to 4,160 / 2,400 volts with a 1,000 KVA station transformer connecting each overhead feeder. Power Plant — The power plant consists of two structures housing five generators with a total power capacity of 3,370 kW. The original power plant building includes two 3508 Caterpillar diesel generator sets rated at 450 kW each and one 3512 Caterpillar diesel generator set rated at 650 M. Adjacent to the power plant building is a prefab metal building that houses two 3512 Caterpillar diesel generator sets rated at 910 kW each. Fuel System — Diesel fuel is barged once a year for Atqasuk delivered first to the Barrow tank farm. In fiscal year2013 it was landed in Barrow at $ 4.38/gallon. From Barrow, the fuel is flown into Atqasuk or delivered by all -terrain vehicles. In FY 2013 fuel freighted to Atqasuk cost $ 2.18 / gallon. Once in Atqasuk the fuel is delivered to either the NSB Tank Farm with a capacity of 500,000 gallons or the power plant tank farm with a capacity of 88,385 gallons. The power plant tank farm is replenished from the NSB tank farm by truck when needed. Barrow: Barrow's electrical power is provided by Barrow Utilities & Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BUECI). The Coop purchases natural gas from the NSB Gas Fields at the wholesale price of $1.00 a MCF ($1 million BTU). It generates electricity and retails it to its customers at $0.11 per kWh. Power Plant — The Barrow power plant houses seven generators with a total capacity of 20,500 M. This includes two Solar Taurus gas turbines rated at 5,000 kW each; three Solar Centaur gas turbines at 2,500 KW each and two Caterpillar reciprocating gas units rated at 2,000 kW each. 4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. Atqasuk: The existing energy source used for power and space heating in Atqasuk is imported diesel fuel. The cost of diesel is higher in Atqasuk than other NSB Villages because it is an inland Village. Fuel is first barged into Barrow and stored in the NSB Barrow Tank Farm. From Barrow it is either flown into Atqasuk or freighted overland by all -terrain vehicles. In FY 2013 fuel was delivered to Atqasuk's tank farms at $6.56 / gallon. From the Atqasuk Transmission Line Feasibility study fuel was delivered in FY 2010 at $5.16 / gallon. This is a $1.40 / gallon increase or a 27% increase in just three years. This shows the price instability of fuel oil. AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 9 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII A_ ASKA Grant Application - Standard Form [7NJER AlT 1101'1 FY The use of electricity for space heating will reduce noise and emissions pollution, cut the size of the Atqasuk Tank farm in half, reduce the potential and high cost of fuel spill cleanups, reduce the cost of tank farm inspections and tank repairs and reduce regulatory involvement in the community. In addition, the problematic waste heat recovery system that has been the scene of three costly glycol spills will be utilized significantly less. Barrow: Barrow meets its power and space heating needs through the use of natural gas, a local energy resource. In contrast to Atqasuk the price for natural gas in Barrow has not increased from FY 2011 to FY 2013. It has been a stable priced energy resource for decades. The BUECI power plant generating capacity (20 MW) is sufficient to handle Atqasuk's power and space heating loads. The power plant operates at a peak of about 9 MW. Atqasuk's peak power load was 601 KW in FY 2013. It has been estimated the conversion of all residential customers in Atqasuk to electric heat will add 463 KW to BUECI's peak load. Combined with power the additional peak load would amount to 1064 KW. The conversion of Atqasuk's government and commercial facilities would add an additional 935 KW. Combined with power, residential peak loads and the loss of waste heat recovery (180 kW) the total peak load amounts to 2,180 kW. It is planned to use SCADA technology to monitor and control the electric loads in Atqasuk from Barrow. This will control any heavy start up loads after a system outage or reduce the commercial electric load if necessary. Also BUECI is in the planning process of upgrading and increasing the generating capacity of its power facilities. 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. Barrow uses natural gas a local energy resource developed by the federal government in the late forties and used by the community since the sixties to meet its power and space heating needs. The gas field and associated infrastructure was transferred by the feds to the NSB in 1984. It has been a stable priced resource since. Atqasuk, on the other hand, has used imported #1 Arctic Grade Diesel Fuel since its incorporation in the seventies to meet their energy needs. The proposed 70 mile electric power intertie between Barrow and Atqasuk will significantly reduce the cost of power to the customers of Atqasuk. Currently, the price of electric energy charged to Barrow residential customers is just under $ 0.11 per KWh. The cost of generating electricity in Atqasuk is around $0.84 per kWh. However the residential customers are billed at a subsidized rate: 1-600kWh @ $0.15 per kWh > 600 kWh @ $0.35 per kWh A customer using the average monthly consumption of 720 kWh pays in comparison the following: NSB Rate = $132 Barrow Rate = $ 79 Customer savings for the month = $ 53 By using gas from Barrow, Atqasuk would no longer qualify for Power Cost Equalization benefits. In addition to lower power costs space heating costs will also be reduced. The FY 13 landed price for fuel oil in Atqasuk was $6.56 / gallon. This equals $49 million BTU. In Comparison, electricity at $0.11 kwh equals $32 million BTU. AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 10 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ® ) ALASKA► Grant Application Standard Form DENERGY AUTHORITY The electrical demand requirements for Atqasuk with the intertie are as follows: Power consumption= 3,449,522 kWh Waste heat = 993,682 kWh Residential heat consumption = 2,387,532 kWh Commercial heat consumption = 4,688,222 kWh Total Consumption = 11,518,958 kWh As important as the direct cost savings would be, the conversion of Atqasuk's reliance on costly, unstable imported diesel fuel to a local stable priced energy source makes the transmission line project a viable long term solution to a critical energy problem. Further the continued use of fuel oil will not only be impacted by price instability, but more likely be accompanied by enhanced regulations and penalties. 4.3 Proposed System Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. 4.3.1 System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: • A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location • Optimum installed capacity Anticipated capacity factor • Anticipated annual generation • Anticipated barriers • Basic integration concept • Delivery methods Description The natural gas resource is not renewable but the intertie connecting two communities and replacing fuel oil with electrical energy fueled by natural gas qualifies for the AEA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program. The economic benefit is very significant in that expensive diesel fuel is being replaced by natural gas produced from the Barrow Gas Fields which are owned by the NSB. The Borough wholesales the gas to BUECI, the electrical coop in Barrow, at $1 per MCF which is equal to $1 million BTU. Fuel oil delivered to Atqasuk cost $6.56 / gallon or $49 million BTU. Atqasuk's peak demand is anticipated to be around 2,180 kW and includes all power and space heating requirements. The Atqasuk power plant, which will provide backup service, has a generating capacity of 3,370 M. The transmission line will be designed to withstand the harsh environment of the Arctic. The line will be operated at 69 kV. It will have a capacity of 10MW and have a line loss of 3.8%. 115 kV insulators will be used to avoid flashover from salt contamination. Optimum Installed Capacity BUECI has an installed capacity of 20,500 KW. Its operating peak is at about 9,000 KW. Anticipated Capacity Factor The anticipated capacity factor is 26.7. This combines the installed capacity at both BUECI and AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 11 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII o OLD Grant Application - Standard Form =011IIIED ENERGY AUTHORITY Atqasuk and the average daily usage of both communities. Annual Generation Annual generation at Atqasuk is expected to be 11.5 million kWh and at Barrow, 54.0 million kWh. Anticipated Barriers The Avian environmental concern near Barrow may require changes to the design or routing. This can only be determined after the permitting process moves forward. Basic Integration concept and delivery methods The Atqasuk integration will be accomplished by adding a three phase circuit and a step-up transformer at the BUECI power plant to energize the transmission line to Atqasuk. In addition, a recloser would be added to sectionalize the line in the event of a line fault. At Atqasuk, a step- down transformer and an automatic recloser would provide for automatic startup of the backup diesel plant in Atqasuk. The distribution system and service panels in Atqasuk will be upgraded to support the increased power that is required to provide electric heating in addition to the present demand for non -heating power. 4.3.2 Land Ownership Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. Organizations, communities and others that will be impacted by land ownership issue include: • City of Atqasuk • Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) • Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC) • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • Native Allotments City of Atqasuk: The community of Atqasuk original supported a transmission line project through Resolution 81-3 in 1981. Since representatives from the village were on the project team during the Energy Options for the City of Atqasuk study in 2008. Representatives from Atqasuk made up the Steering Committee that formed and monitored the progress of the Atqasuk Transmission Line Feasibility Study in 2011. The Atqasuk Mayor and Lead Power Plant Operator were involved in providing data, assisted in project team visit and monitored the progress of the Atqasuk Transmission Line Preliminary Engineering Study. The same two representatives will also provide oversight and local input throughout this project. ASRC and UIC: Both local Native Corporations whom are landowners on the North Slope provided to the Borough letters of concurrence to construct a power line across their lands in 1981. In addition both the National Petroleum Reserve Act of 1976 and the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984 obligate both Native Corporations to provide right-of-way easements to permit the NSB to supply local energy resources to Barrow, Atqasuk and Wainwright. The Transfer Act specifically mentions "... including the transmission of electricity from the Barrow Gas Field, or from any other source of energy chosen by the NSB, to supply Barrow, Wainwright and Atqasuk." It is our intent to keep all landowners involved throughout this project by holding public meetings. Native Allotments: The most significant concern maybe native allotments. The native allotments in the project area are have been well documented by the NSB. Since we are dealing with a technology that is flexible, we can avoid native allotments through the routing of the line. To date AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 12 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ®4 Grant Application Standard Form ® ENERGY AUTHORITY we have worked with the NSB to avoid all known allotments and have applied the Native Village of Barrow's minimum clearance of 200' between construction and a native allotment. 4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. • List of applicable permits • Anticipated permitting timeline • Identify and discussion of potential barriers List of applicable permits and timeline Federal: State • BLM Right -of -Way Permit — July 2014 to May 2015 • Wetlands Permit (section 404 and 10) —July 2014 to April 2015 • State of Alaska Use Permit — July 2014 to August 2014 • State of Alaska Easement — July 2014 to August 2014 • Fish Habitat Permit (Title 16) — July 2014 to April 2015 Borough Certificate of IHLC/TLUI Clearance, Form 500 — July 2014 to August 2014 NSB Land Use Permit — July 2014 to August 2014 Village District Permit, Form 700 — July 2014 to August 2014 Potential Barriers • BLM Right -of -Way — Consultation with the BLM is needed to determine the required level of documentation (Cat -Ex, EA or EIS). If an EIS is required the process could take 6 months to several years depending on BLM's requirements • Wetlands Permit (section 404 and 10) — USACE request for field study anticipated 4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how be addressed: • Threatened or endangered species • Habitat issues • Wetlands and other protected areas • Archaeological and historical resources • Land development constraints • Telecommunications interference • Aviation considerations • Visual, aesthetics impacts • Identify and discuss other potential barriers Threatened or endangered species Three federally listed threatened species (Spectacled Eider, Steller's Eider and polar bear) and one candidate species for listing (Yellow -billed loon) occur in the project area. We would seek an Endangered Species Act Clearance from the USFWS. Formal consultation may be required to determine if "take" under ESA would occur. We would need to ensure that construction of the transmission line would have no harmful impact on threatened species, AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 13 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII 1111111D Grant Application - Standard Form 40MED ENERGY AUTHORITY Construction would be timed to avoid impacts to migratory birds in compliance with the Migratory Bird treaty Act Habitat Issues The project could involve crossing anadromous fish streams, requiring a Fish Habitat Permit in consultation with the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. We would need to ensure the project would not impact any state refuges, sanctuaries or critical habitat areas, federal refuges or wilderness or national parks. Wetlands and other protected areas The project could involve placing utility poles in wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and therefore the project would require a Wetlands (Section 404 and Section 10) Permit. Also, a Wetlands Permit would be required if any poles were placed below ordinary high water of any navigable stream. Archaeological and historical resources There is the potential to find cultural or historic resources in the project area. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the undertaking would need to be reviewed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). During formal Section 106 consultation, the SHPO would determine whether additional surveys and mitigation would be required. In addition to the Section 106 process, the project would need to receive an approved Certificate of Inupiat History, Language and Culture/ Traditional Land Use Inventory (IHLC/TLUI) Clearance from the NSB. Land development constraints Because the Barrow - Atgasuk intertie project would cross land owned by the State of Alaska, a Land Use Permit would be needed from the Alaska Division of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW). A permanent utility easement and temporary water use authorization could be needed from this agency, as well. Also, as this project would likely occur within the NSB and two village districts, a NSB Land Use Permit and Form 700- Village District Permit would be required. The intertie also would cross Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, requiring the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Aviation considerations A finding of "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" would be sought from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if the intertie is routed near an airport. Visual, aesthetics impacts. The project would involve construction of utility poles ranging in height from 65 feet to 80 feet tall. These poles would be constructed largely between, rather than within, the villages. It is likely that there would be little concern for visual or aesthetic impacts, as communities often note that utility poles offer a helpful visual guide point when traveling outside a village. The project team would conduct community meetings to discuss visual impacts and how they could be minimized, in the unlikely event that visual issues arise. Identify and discuss other potential barriers National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations. Because the intertie would cross Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, the project would have to comply with NEPA. NEPA requires all federal actions, including the BLM issuing right-of-way across their land, to develop and disclose the project's purpose and need, alternatives (including a no -action alternative), and environmental impacts (natural, social, and economic). Typically, AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 14 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ®4NED ITGrant Application Standard Form � ENERGYAUTHOR- _ _ environmental disclosure documents (such as Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, or Environmental Impact Statements) are prepared by the federal agency but require input from the project proponent, in this case the North Slope Borough. 4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues (Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example: Applicants records or analysis, industry standards, consultant or manufacturer's estimates. 4.4.1 Project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost information should include the following: • Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase • Requested grant funding Applicant matching funds — loans, capital contributions, in -kind • Identification of other funding sources Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system • Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system This application is for the Final Design and Permitting phase of the project. We are requesting $2,017,818 for this phase of the project. The North Slope Borough will provide project administration for the project as in -kind match in the amount of 33,446, and will provide up to $168,336 for a total match amount 10% or $201,782 which will be based on the total award. The total cost of the phase will be $2,219,600. The total cost of the project is anticipated to be $17,342,800. 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by the applicant. (Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of reporting impacts of projects on the communities they serve.) From the Atqasuk Transmission Line Feasibility Study the costs to maintain the intertie are $90,000 annually. Cost to purchase electric power for both heat and power is $358,000. Intertie maintenance issues will be funded by the NSB Power & light operating Budget. Electric power would be paid for by the consumers through their monthly billings. 4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price rang( • Proposed rate of return from rant -funded project The Community of Atqasuk will make up the customers. It is an inland village with a population of 218 people. There are 57 residential and 61 commercial customers in Atqasuk. The BUECI rate AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 15 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ',�� Grant Application - Standard Form 111111111117) ENERGY AUTHORITY for residential customers in Barrow is about $0.11/Wh. Another option is to have the Borough pay BUECI a monthly contract rate and in turn bill the customers in Atqasuk. BUECI has the E-10 rate which is charged for their large customers. This includes a monthly fixed charge of $347 and a kWh charge of $0.0846/kWh. From The feasibility study the net present value of cost savings of the project over 35 years is over $50 million. 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. Please fill out the form provided below. Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. Annual average resource availability. See below. Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel) Natural gas in Barrow is projected to last over 120 years at its current consumption rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas. The Atqasuk Transmission Line Project will provide power to meet Atqasuk's power and total heating needs will increase the consumption of gas by about 12%. [_ Existing Energy Generation and Usage a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt' grid, leave this section blank) i. Number of generators/boilers/other 5 generators ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other iii. Generator/boilers/other type iv. Age of generators/boilers/other v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 450 KW, 450 KW, 650 KW, 910 KW, 910 KW Caterpillar reciprocating diesel gensets 1994, 1994, 2002, 2002, 2002 respectively 12.9 kWh/gallon b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor ii. Annual O&M cost for non -labor c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Electricity [kWh] In FY 13 total generated kWh = 3,447,700 kWh ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 267,196 Other 1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power. AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 16 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII isolu GOOD Grant Application Standard Form 40MID ENERGY AUTHORITY iii. Peak Load 601 iv. Average Load 409 v. Minimum Load vi. Efficiency 12.9 kWh/gallon vii. Future trends Steady d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 214,371 gallons ii. Electricity [kWh] 0 iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 0 iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] 0 v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] 0 vi. Other 0 Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage (Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels) a) Proposed renewable capacity 23,870 kW Barrow 20,500 kW & Atgasuk 3,370 kW (Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other) [kW or MMBtu/hr] b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 11,518,959 kWh for power and heat ii. Heat [MMBtu] c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] 0 ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] 0 iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons, 0 dry tons] iv. Other 0 Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system $17,342,800 b) Development cost $ 2,219,600 c) Annual O&M cost of new system $ 240,000 d) Annual fuel cost $ 1,040,483 Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity, tank 270,000 gallons farm repairs ii. Heat 214,371 gallons AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 17 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII NE) Grant Application - Standard Form wMMV) ENERGY AUTHORITY iii. Transportation b) Current price of displaced fuel $6.56 / gallon c) Other economic benefits Reduced oil spills, reduced tank farm cleaning and repair, reduction in power plant and tank farm non - fuel operating costs d) Alaska public benefits Elimination of PCE, reduced local noise and emission pollution and elimination of the cost of importing fuel oil. Strengthen local economy Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale $0.11/kWh Project Analysis i a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio Payback (years) 4.4.5 Impact on Rates Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit area. If the is for a PCE eligible utility please discus what the expected impact would be for both pre and post PCE. 1 Atqasuk will lose the States PCE benefit. However, since the Borough's existing rate is at $0.15 / kWh for the first 600 kW and the minimum level to qualify for PCE is around $0.14 / kWh. The impact of the loss of the PCE benefit would be minimal. Barrow would gain in kWh sales, especially if the project were developed to provide both power and heat to Atqasuk. It is highly probable the project could have a positive impact on BUECI's revenues causing the utility to lower its current rate schedule. SECTION 5— PROJECT BENEFIT Explain the economic and public benefits of your project Include direct cost savings, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. The benefits information should include the following: • Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project • Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, RCA tariff, or cost based rate) • Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits) • Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) • Discuss the non -economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the Pro AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 18 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ®GNIE) y Grant Application Standard Form �DENERGY AUTHOF311Y Atqasuk would displace approximately 17 million gallons of diesel fuel over 35 years costing about $128,935,000. Anticipated revenue is $1,040,000 annually There are several non -economic benefits such as: • reduction in emissions and noise pollution. • reduced anxiety due to the unpredictable price of imported fuel oil every year. • More reliable and quality power which has become more critical due to the ever expanding electronic technologies. • Lower probability of fuel spills. • Increase safety in the village due to the backup power and space heating equipment. 5.1.1 Public Benefit for Projects with Private Sector Sales Projects that include sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines, etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from the project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See section 1.6 in the Request for Applications for more information. Renewable energy resource availability kWh per month) N/A Estimated sales kWh Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at privet sector businesses $ Estimated sales kWh Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) SECTION 6— SUSTAINABILITY Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum: • Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered. • How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations for the life of the project • Identification of operational issues that could arise. • A description of operational costs including on -going support for any back-up or existing systems that may be require to continue operation • Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits There are two options. One is to have BUECI in Barrow operate the entire facility including the power plant and distribution system in Atqasuk under an agreement with the NSB. They would collect and retain revenues from the customers in Atqasuk. The other option is for the Borough to retain jurisdiction over the line and enter into a contract with BUECI to purchase power at a bulk rate at the substation in Barrow. The Borough would continue to operate the transmission line, Atqasuk power plant and distribution system. The Borough would also collect revenues from the Atqasuk subscribers as it currently does. The O&M of the transmission line would become the responsibility of the NSB Light & Power enterprise and would use its budget and personnel to maintain and operate the line. If there is a need for capital investment the Borough would provide funds through its capital improvements AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 19 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII idillilliF7 �Grant Application Standard Form ENERGYAUTHORITY program. There should not be any significant operational issues since the Borough and BUECI currently operate power systems in the North Slope. The existing system will be kept as backup. We estimate $20,000 of fuel each year would allow for scheduled operation of the existing power plant. Since the power plant and water plant are connected, one or more of those existing operators can be trained to operate the facility as required. If BUECI operates the system in Atqasuk they can use the existing water plant operators and the planned SCADA system that would be used to remotely monitor and operate the power plant. The Borough is highly interested in monitoring the economics of this project. If it works as planned there are other communities that may benefit from a similar electrical intertie. The Borough is committed to assessing the benefits of this project and reporting it to the AEA, Borough Assembly and City of Atqasuk. SECTION 7 — READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants. Currently we are in the process of completing the Preliminary Engineering portion of the project. This should be completed by the end of this year. When Round VI is awarded in May 2014, the NSB and project team will be committed to this project and the team will be in place to proceed with this grant immediately upon receipt of a notice to proceed from the AEA. The NSB has conducted several studies related to this project since 1981. More recently the NSB completed the NPRA funded "Energy Options for the City of Atqasuk", 2008. The preliminary feasibility and assessment study identified the Transmission Line to Atqasuk as the most promising energy project for Atqasuk. Since, the Borough has completed the Borough funded power line study from Barrow to the Walakpa Gas Field utilizing the existing VSM pipeline support structures. This concept was utilized on the western route concept in the "Atqasuk Transmission Line Feasibility Study", completed in 2011. The NSB has also provided in -kind support of personnel to provide energy data, grant and project administration, technical input, project development and oversight, and assistance in right-of-way, mapping, native allotments and other land issues. SECTION 8 — LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION Discuss local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters of support or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from this project. The Documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of July 2, 2013. AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 20 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII ®4111111D Grant Application Standard Form 4001DENERGYAUTHORITY The community of Atqasuk is well aware of this project. They passed a resolution of support for the project as far back as 1981. On August 28, 2008 Leland A. Johnson and Kent Grinage, NSB Project Manager, conducted a town meeting in Atqasuk to present and discuss the findings of the "Energy Options for the City of Atqasuk". The transmission line was identified in the study as the best energy project for Atqasuk. In 2010 the NSB utilized a steering committee to develop and monitor the progress and results of the Atqasuk Transmission Line Project Feasibility Study. The Committee consisted of the Vice Mayor of Atqasuk and the Lead Power Plant Operator from Atqasuk and two NSB Division Managers. The Atqasuk Transmission Line Project Preliminary Engineering Project is being assisted and monitored by the same two Atqasuk representatives. One of the representatives is now the mayor of Atqasuk. He keeps the community informed of the project at the monthly City Council meetings. SECTION 9 — GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much you are seeking in grant funds. Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant. Provide a narrative summary regarding funding source and your financial commitment to the project The design and permitting phase of the project will require $2,219,600. These funds will be used to complete the design and permit the project and advance the project to the construction phase. The North Slope Borough will provide up to 10% match for the project in in -kind project administration costs and cash match based on the amount of the award. AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 21 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round Vll Grant Application - Standard Form ENERGY AUTHORITY Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in section 2.3.2 of this application, (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction and Commissioning). Please use the tables provided below to detail your proposed project's budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project. If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing the application please feel free to contact AEA at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grant Administrator, Shawn Calfa, at scalfaaaidea.org. Milestone or Task I Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds source or Matching Funds: Cash/ln- kind/Federal TOTALS kind/Federal State Grants/Other (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Milestone list below. ) Project Management _ $ $ $ 10/30/2015 $100,354 $40,246 Cash $ 140,600 Environment 0 0 Environmental Studies 12/31/2015 $102,273 $10,227 Cash $ 112,500 NEPA Doc Sup2ort 1/31/2015 $22,636 $2,264 Cash $ 24 900 Permits 4/30/2015 $22,636 $2,264 Cash $ 24,900 Engineering 0 $0 Geotechnical / Survey Reports 10/30/2014 $363,636 $36,364 Cash $ 400,000 Basics of Design Document 1/31/2014 $387,273 $38 727 Cash $ 426,000 Final Line Design 8/31/2015 $485,646 $18,354 Cash $ 504,000 ATQ Energy Conversion Design 0 $0 Heat Conversion Design 65% 12/31/2014 $162 000 $16 200 Cash $ 178.200 Ht Cony Final Desi n & CD's 4/30/2015 $189 545 $18,955 Cash $ 208,500 Contingency 10% $181,818 $18,182 Cash $ 200.000 TOTALS $2,017,811 $201,782 $ 2,219,600 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $0 $33,446 Cash $33,446 Travel & Per Diem $0 $6,800 Cash $6,800 Equipment $0 $0 Cash $0 Materials & Supplies $0 $0.0 Cash $8,800 Contractual Services $1,836,00 0 $0 $143,354 Cash $1,879,000 Construction Services 0 Cash $0 Other -contingency at 10% $181,818 $18,181. Cash $200,000 TOTALS $2,017,81 8 $201,782 $2,219,600 AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 22 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII �® A_ Grant Application - Standard Form 11111111111111119D ENERGY AUTHORITY SECTION 10 — AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM Community/Grantee Name: North Slope Borough Regular Election is held: Every 3 Years Authorized Gran- t Sigl Printed Name Jacob Adams Sr r(s): 7Date: 1" Tuesday in October Title Term S' nature Chief Administrative N/A Office ( , A r! I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents: (Highest ranking organization/community/municipal official) F Printed Name Charlotte E. Brower Mayor Grantee Contact Information: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: E-mail Address: Federal Tax ID #: Title Term Signat re 2011- 2014 PO Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 (907) 852-0467 (907) 852-4145 Timothy. Rowe@north-slope.orq 92-0042378 Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information. RE I E=D AS TO FORM NSB Attorney 94311 Dat AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 23 of 24 7/1/2013 Renewable Energy Fund Round VII �41111111111D LLLAS KA Grant Application Standard Form ®ENERGYAUTHORITY� SECTION 11 —ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A. Contact information, resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4. Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applications in separate electronic documents if the individuals do not want their resumes posted to the project web site. B. Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 8. C. For heat projects only: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating fuel for the building(s) impacted by the project. D. Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that: - Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match amounts indicated in the application. - Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. - Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application. - Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. E. An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per RFA Section 1.7. F. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations. Print Name Mayor Charlotte E. Brower Signature r;—) // L��2 1.VW� J G Title Mayor Date 41 AEA 2014-006 Grant Application Page 24 of 24 7/1/2013 Appendix A — Resumes Appendix B — Resolution The following resolution will be considered by the North Slope Borough Assembly on 10/8/13 NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH RESOLUTION SERIAL NO.41-2013 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM FOR FY2014 WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has established the Renewable Energy Grant Recommendation Program in Alaska Statute AS 42.45.045; and WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is soliciting competitive applications from qualified applicants for the purpose of recommending grants for renewable energy projects to be funded by the Alaska State Legislature for FY14; and WHEREAS, the North Slope Borough is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Alaska, and is therefore a local government and "eligible applicant" as defined by AS 42.45.045(l)(1); and WHEREAS, the North Slope Borough (Borough) is in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations; and WHEREAS, the Mayor or her designee is authorized as the point of contact to represent the Borough for the purpose of this application; and WHEREAS, the North Slope Borough desires to apply for funds to provide for and administer the following projects under this program: GRANT PROPOSED TOTAL PROJECT TITLE AMOUNT BOROUGH REQUESTED MATCH Kaktovik Wind Generation Final Design and $440,000 $44,000 $484,000 Permitting Atqasuk Transmission Line Final Design and $2,017,818 $201,782 $2,219,600 Permitting $2,703,600 TOTAL $2,457,818 $245,782 and Resolution 41-2013 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to AS 42.45.045(d)(1), the AEA has been directed to evaluate the benefit and feasibility of the projects, and prioritize projects that may receive assistance, with "significant weight" being given to the amount of matching funds an applicant is able to provide, and therefore the Borough proposes to provide funding at the match amounts indicated in the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The North Slope Borough Assembly authorizes the Mayor to submit an application for the grant projects listed above, to negotiate and execute any and all documents required for approval and management of grant funds, and to execute any subsequent amendments to the agreements to provide for the adjustments to the projects within the scope of services or tasks, and based upon the needs of the projects. INTRODUCED: ADOPTED: ATTEST: Jeannie Brower, Borough Clerk Date: Michael Aamodt, President Date: Charlotte E. Brower, Mayor Date: Appendix C —Feasibility Study Atqasuk Transmission Line Feasibility and Planning Study FINAL REPORT September 15, 2011 Project Sponsors: ALASKA '� ENERGY AUTHORITY Prepared by: Ln Leland A Johnson & Associates ek q, �������m���'M�^��� " ~~.x~,~. ~ .~. Findings ..~.. .«�,~ Table of Contents � Table of Contents List ofFigures List ofTables 1.ExeoQtiVe Summary A. Gunnnnmry--............................................................................................. '1 2. Introduction A. Background .................................................................................................................... @ B. Project Sponsors and Or8anizetion----^.....-..--.^—._—^^^~'^~'~~^--- 3 C. Project Objectives —..---------------..~.,~..~~---.~_....-4 D. Project Description ....... : .......... -----^^^—'~^^'~^'--'^^~^—^''~^'^^—�5 3. Engineering Design Basis & Perfimmance Criterion A. Project Design Engineering Scope Description ....................................................... .-7 B. Route Description. ......... --......... .................................................................... .......... / B. Atqasuk Power Transmission ROW WR- and ER-2 C. Recommended Structures .................................. .......................................................... / D. Electrical Loading ............................................................................. ............................. u E. Transmission L|neConnponeMt$—Bmsia & Performance Criterion ................................. 8 E.1 Structure Types ............................... ........................................................0 E.2 Weather Data Parameters .............................. ... ^.,,.......................... .......... ................ 8 E.3 Conductors ................................................................................................................... m E,4 Aeolian Vibration ........................................ ^.......................................................... 8 E.5 Sag & Tension .......................... .......................................................................... .... ' 10 E.6 ����veMosdFactor -----....~~....--.—...----_-...~.~.'....10 Loading E.7 Ground Clearance ...................................................................................................... 1O E.8 Load Flow Report st34.5 kV/\C................................................................................ 10 E.9 Load Flow Report ad69 kV AC ................................... .................................. ............. 18 E.1OLoad Flow Report sdOOhV DC ............................................ .............. ........................ 11 AtqasuxPower Line Transmission Study A Ilk M Table of Cont n s 11 E.11 Load Flow Report at 50 kV DC.................................................................................. E.12 One -Line Description for AC Operation..................................................................... 11 E.13 One -Line Description for DC Operation...........................................................12 E.14 HVDC Evaluation........................................................................................13 4. Geotechnical Engineering - Review & Commentary A. Purpose & Objectives......................................................................................... . .. I tj B. Prior work..................................................................................................................... 16 C. Geologic & Geotechnical Findings/Considerations...................................................... 16 C.1 Surface & Shallow Subsurface Geology.................................................................... 16 C.2 Routing: Geologic Considerations.............................................................................. 17 C.3 Geo-hazards.............................................................................................................. 17 D. Geotechnical Considerations for Timber, Steel, & Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Poles .................................................................... -.19 E. Geotechnical Considerations & Recommendations..................................................... 20 E.1 Alignment Routing..................................................................................................... 20 E.2 Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Structures............................................................... 21 5. Constructabilily Analysis, Technical Feasibility, & Cost Estimates A. Purpose, Objective, & Scope of Work.......................................................................... 22 B. Physical Description..................................................................................................... 22 C. Basis of Estimate .. ............... .... ......... ........................................................................... 22 D. Eastern Route 2 (ER2) - Physical Description & Basis of Estimate ............................ 23 D.1 Barrow Substation - ER2........................................................................................... 23 D.2 Barrow to South Pad Line Segment ER2 - Length: 5.8 Miles ................................... 23 D.3 South Pad to Atqasuk ER2 - Overhead (OH) Line Segment - Length: 62.6 Miles... 24 DA Tie-in for Walapka Gas Field to ER2 Segment - Length: 6.2 Miles ........................... 24 D.5 Atqasuk Substation ER2.......................................... . .......................... 25 E. Western Route 2 (WR1) - Physical Description & Basis of Estimate .......................... 25 E.1 Barrow Substation Western Route 1(WR1)............................................................... 25 E.2 South Pad Line Segment WR1 - Length: 5.8 Miles ................................................... 25 E.3 South Pad to Walapka Segment on VSM's, WR1 - Length: 18.8 Miles .................... 26 EA Tie-in for Walapka Gas Field Segment, WR1 - Length: 0.2 Miles ............................ 26 E.5 Walapka to Atqasuk, Overhead (OH) Line Segment, WR1 - Length: 48.8 Miles ...... 27 E.6 Atqasuk Substation Western Route 1 (WR1)............................................................. 27 F. Residence & Facility Heating Conversion in Atqasuk - From Diesel to Electric .......... 27 H. Review of Items Covered in Initial Matrix - Cost Per Mile..................................................29 J. Recommendations - Routing & Construction Methods ................................................ 29 J.1 Best Route Recommendation -Eastern Route 1, AC Power Supply .......................... 30 J.2 Western Route is Not Recommended as the Best - Reasons .................................... 30 J.3 Other Report Data Utilized (AC Power Supply) - Polar Consult Report ................... 30 J.4 Maintenance Requirements - AC Power Supply........................................................ 31 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 �� Table of Contend K. Estimate Basis Issues that Need Clear Understanding ................................................ 32 6. Environmental Considerations A. Introduction................................................................................................................... 33 B. Methods........................................................................................................................34 B.1 Avian Resources........................................................................................................ 34 B.2 Mapping Spectacled Eider Breeding Habitats............................................................ 35 C. Results & Discussion.....................,............................................................................. 36 CAAvian Resources........................................................................................................ 36 C,2 Spectacled Eider........................................................................................................ 37 C.3 Steller's Eider.................................................................................................. ........ 38 CAYellow -billed Loons..................................................................................................... 39 C.5 Other Species of Concern........................................................................................... 39 D. Spectacled Eider Habitats in the Project Area............................................................. 40 E. Potential Affects of Power Lines on Birds at the North Slope ...................................... 41 E.1 Collisions............................................................................................................41 E.2 Electrocutions............................................................................................................42 E.3 Habitat Loss............................................................................................................... 42 EA Increased Predation Due to Habitat Enhancement.................................................... 42 F. Wildlife and Habitat Related Regulations Affecting the Proposed Power Line ............. 42 G. Recommendations for Power Line Alignment: Re: Birds & Wetland Habitats ............ 43 L. List of Exhibits or Figures............................................................................................. 44 7. Permitting Considerations A. Introduction................................................................................................................... 49 B. Federal Permits & Authorizations................................................................................... 49 C. State Permits & Authorizations.................................................................................... 51 D. North Slope Borough Permits & Authorizations.......................................................... 55 E. Permitting Support — Engineering.....................................................................57 8. Economic Analysis A. Objective...................................................................................................................... 59 B. Methodology & Assumptions........................................................................................ 61 C. "Without Project" Case: Diesel -Based Power Generation & Heating System .............. 63 C.1 Annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs ....................................................... 65 C.2 Replacement & Overhaul Costs for Diesel Generation Units ..................................... 66 C.3 Summary of Cost Flows Associated with Existing Diesel -Based Power & Heating ... 66 D. Proposed Intertie Project Alternatives: "With Project Case.. .................................. 68 D.1 Costs Associated with the Proposed Intertie Project ................................................. 68 D.2 Costs of Purchasing Electricity from Barrow.............................................................. 69 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Table of o t D.3 Electric Power Only Scenario_ ................................................................................ _ 69 DA Electric Power & Heat Scenario....., .............................................................. ............ 69 D.5 Annual O&M Costs of Atqasuk Facilities.................................................................... 69 DA Capital Costs of Electric Heating Conversion............................................................ 70 D.7 Cost Flows for Project Alternatives............................................................................ 71 E. Financing Costs............................................................................................................ 80 E.1 Results for NPV of Cost Savings After Financing Costs ............................................ 81 E.2 Sensitivity Analysis... ..........................................................................•.................. 82 F. Economic Summary ...................................................................................................... 83 9. Conclusions & Recommendations A. Conclusions................................................................................................................84 B. Recommendations..........................................................................................86 10. References.............................................................................................87 Appendix A Design Engineering EXHIBIT 1 - Structure Types EXHIBIT 2 - Weather Data Parameters EXHIBIT 3 - Recommended RUS Conductor Tension EXHIBIT 4 - Aeolian Vibration EXHIBIT 5 - Conductor Sag and Tension EXHIBIT 6 - Conductor Loading and Overload Factors EXHIBIT 7 - Conductor Ground Clearances EXHIBIT 8 - Load Flow Report at 34.5 kV AC EXHIBIT 9 - Load Flow Report at 69 kV AC EXHIBIT 10 - Load Flow Report at 30 kV DC EXHIBIT 11 - Load Flow Report at 50 kV DC EXHIBIT 12 - One -Line Description for AC Operation EXHIBIT 13 - One -Line Description for DC Operation EXHIBIT 14 - High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Evaluation Appendix B Geotechnical Engineering EXHIBIT 1 — RS Group FRP Utility Pole Product Literature Appendix C Constructability Analysis & Cost Estimates EXHIBIT 1 - Eastern Route 2, ER2 Cost Estimate - AC Power Transmission, All Overhead EXHIBIT 2 - Western Route 1, WR1 Cost Estimate - AC Power Transmission, All Overhead iv Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Ilk ft 04 r► A Table of Contents Appendix D Environmental Considerations Figure 1 - Western Spectacled Eider Observations: 1992 to 2005 Figure 2 - Spectacled Eider Observations: 1999 to 2010 Figure 3 - High -value Breeding Habitats — Spectacled Eiders Figure 4 - Steller's Eider Observations: 1999 to 2010 Figure 5 - Yellow -Billed Loon Observations: 1950 to 2010 VAM v Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 1 Table of Contents List of Figures Figure 1 Atgasuk Transmission Line Routes............ 7 Figure 2 Schematic for DC Operation .............................................. ........12 Figure 3 Net Present Value of Cost Savings by Project Alternatives ....................60 Figure 4 Variable Costs per kWH, Current Situation vs Project Alternatives ........61 Figure 5 NPV of Cost Savings with Financing Costs........................................81 vi Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 to is No we 10 No 10 10 111110 A Ilk A A M Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1 Threatened and Candidate Bird Species Listed Under the ESA.......................................45 Table 2 Identification of High - value Nesting Habitat ...................................... .._......................... 47 Table 3 Classification Crosswalk Table Between NWI Wetland Types and WildlifeHabitat Types.......................................................................................48 Table 4 Net Present Value of Cost Savings..........................................................................59 Table 5 Benefit - Cost Ratio of the Proposed Intertie Project Alternatives.................................60 Table 6 Barrow Gas Field Gas Reserves..... . . ........ ................................................... 63 Table 7 Diesel Fuel Consumption Atqasuk Fiscal Year 2010................................................ 65 Table 8 Annual O&M Costs of NSB Power and Fuel Facilities, Fiscal Year 2010.......................65 Table 9 Annual Cost Incurred in Selected Future Years Under the "Without Project' Case....._..67 Table 10 Estimated Capital Costs of the Intertie...................................................................68 Table 11 Annual O&M Costs of the Intertie..........................................................................68 Table 12 Annual Electricity Requirements and Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow ............ 69 Table 13 Estimated Annual Fuel Costs for Power and for Heating Under Various Scenarios......... 70 Table 14 Estimated Annual Non -Fuel Costs for Utility O&M Facilities under various Scenarios...... 70 Table 15 Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with AC for Power and Heat ..........................72 Table 16 Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with AC for Power Only................................73 Table 17 Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with DC for Power and Heat ..........................74 Table 18 Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with DC for Power Only................................75 Table 19 Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with DC for Power and Heat ......................... 76 Table 20 Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with DC for Power Only ............................... 77 Table 21 Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with AC for Power and Heat.........................78 Table 22 Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with AC for Power Only ............................... 79 Table 23 Annual Financing Costs for Project Alternatives.....................................................- 80 Table 24 Sensitivity Analysis of NPV for Eastern Route Alternatives.........................................83 Table 25 Sensitivity Analysis of NPV for Western Route Alternatives ........................................ 83 Vil Alto) 1c:) Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 1. - Executive Summary The North Slope Borough is seeking to reduce its dependency on the use of high priced and unstable cost of imported diesel fuel to meet its energy needs in its Villages. Atqasuk is one of the most expensive Borough villages to supply with imported fuel oil. This study investigates the concept of connecting Barrow and Atqasuk with a 70 mile transmission line and using electricity produced in Barrow from its local natural gas supply to displace fuel oil used In Atqasuk to meet both power and space heating requirements in the village. The results of the study found that the project: • Provides significant cost savings over the continued use of diesel fuel in Atqasuk • Provides stable energy costs for the village of Atqasuk • Is technically feasible • Is feasible to construct • Has a predictable outcome • Minimizes the impact to the North Slope environment • Will provide broadband capabilities to Atqasuk Economic Analysis Eight project alternatives were evaluated and all are economically feasible compared to the current diesel -based system for power generation and heating. The economics of the alternatives are summarized in the following table. Net Present Value of Cost Savings of the Intertie Project Alternatives Eastern Route Western Route AC current DC current AC current DC current Power Only $35,324,295 $27,156,697 $17,246,676 $15,621,944 Power and Heat $50,675,352 $42,507,754 $32,597,631 $30,973,001 The above analysis assumes a 35 year life. Project Concept The recommended Power Line, as a result of this study is Eastern Route 2 (ER2), at approximately 68 miles in length and at an estimated cost of $16.7MM. This route utilizes existing infrastructure, avoids lakes and significant surface water, avoids existing Native Allotments, is the shortest and most economic route, minimizes river crossings and to the best extent possible avoids dense avian nesting areas and populations. AC versus DC Evaluation Alternating Current AC has emerged as the recommended power type selection. This option has lower initial capital costs, has greater reliability, better equipment availability, and has a proven track record for this type of commercial application. DC conversion technology in the size required is not mature enough to be considered for this project. 1 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 a Report of Findings Structures The recommended structure for this application is a 69 kV Transmission Line Structure, the TP-69. The Typical pole selected, for most of the line, is a 65 foot long Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) pole. This structure proved to be the most economic alternative compared to other structures. The light weight, strength and sectional single pole structure allows for ease of installation and spans of 700 feet. Project Delivery Schedule Construction should occur during the winter season, to prevent damage to the tundra flora, enable ad - freeze pile installation, enable tundra access for logistical support, and minimize impact to migratory avian populations. Based on the demand impact on the BUECI power plant system, the Transmission line should be installed in stages. The first phase would begin in 2013 and would involve connecting the transmission line to the Village power system only. The second phase would begin in 2015 and would involve the conversion of residential homes to electrical space heat. Non-residential space heating load is significant enough however to require the conversion of non-residential space heating loads to be brought on as the BUECI power facility improves its power capacity. The increase in gas consumption in Barrow by the addition of the electrical load or both the electrical and heating load from Atqasuk would have a minimal impact on the overall Barrow Gas Field production rate and reserves. Recommendations • Conduct a field reconnaissance trip to evaluate and "field adjust" the selected ROW alignment. • Perform land surveys, soil sampling, river crossing site evaluations, etc. • Along the proposed routes, determine ice jam issues, snowdrift zones, probe guy and anchor locations and do geotech explorations at long spa areas as the preliminary engineering effort develops. • Study and determine power line height vis-a-vis eider collision hazard in Alaska. • Perform tests on FRP poles to confirm their suitability for use in the permafrost soils that will be encountered on this project. • Determine the equipment and installation requirements to convert the heating systems in residences and other buildings in Atqasuk from fuel oil to electric. Because each conversion would be unique in some way, site visits would be required to every heated structure. • Update the economic analysis. • Investigate financial incentives including grants, low -interest loans, tax credits, depreciation deductions and other types of federal, state or private financial assistance that may be available. Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 2. - Introduction A. Background The North Slope Borough (NSB) is aggressively exploring ways to provide heat and power to the NSB villages but reduce its dependence on costly and unstable price of diesel fuel which is currently barged or flown to NSB villages. A previous feasibility study evaluated a wide range of energy resources and technologies for the purpose of reducing energy costs in Atkasuk. Atkasuk is one of the most expensive villages to energize because of its inland location and the associated extra cost of overland fuel delivery. The previous study concluded that electricity produced in Barrow using natural gas and transmitted via overhead power lines to Atkasuk was the most economically attractive alternative. This is potentially the first phase of a planned expansion of electrical support to other villages on the North Slope of Alaska. A power line to Wainwright is the logical next step. The added electrical load for such an extension was considered in the design of certain power transmission components in this study. This project would also reduce the carbon "footprint" for these communities, which ultimately will be beneficial to the health of the residents and for wildlife populations. There are some potential negative benefits to endangered avian species and waterfowl habitats in the project area. An assessment of these potential costs and mitigation means are also an important focus of this report. A B. Project Sponsors and Organization 00 The NSB acquired an Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Grant to study the possibility of providing a more economic power supply to the village of Atqasuk. The village is located approximately y� 65 miles southwest of Barrow, on the Arctic Coastal Plain. Power would be provided via a new power transmission line that would link existing gas fired power generation capacity at Barrow with the power needs at Atqasuk. North Slope Borough (NSB) stakeholders, and their assigned representatives, have commissioned this effort. go A Steering Committee was convened to ensure that community and borough objectives are being adequately addressed and the project remains under control. These responsibilities were carried out by �► performing the following functions: • Control project Scope by ensuring that scope of work aligns with the requirements of project sponsors, AEA and key stakeholder groups, City of Atqasuk and NSB. Keep community informed of project activities and findings. Provide input on Project scenarios and evaluation criteria. • Providing assistance to the project when required. • Attend/participate in Steering Committee and Project monthly meetings, including conference calls, workshops, and other meetings as needed. • Acceptance of project deliverables The Steering Committee established appropriate screening criteria for the power transmission system. Technical support and local control. A measure of the degree to which the start up and f 3 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings operation of an energy concept would require outside technical support; a high level of local control is ideal. • Technology maturity or readiness. A measure of the degree to which an energy concept has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. • System reliability. A measure of the absence of service interruption to a customer or group of customers and of the degree to which a power supply is free of significant frequency deviations, voltage flicker, and sags and surges. • Environmental considerations. How secure are the poles going to be in differing permafrost conditions along the route. The NSB Steering Committee was staffed with the following key personnel. • Doug Whiteman, Atqasuk Vice Mayor • Fred Kanayurak, Atqasuk Lead Power Plant Operator • Max Ahgeak, Division Manager, Power & Light • Kent Grinage, Division Manager, Fuel & Natural Gas The NSB Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study, was lead by Kent Grinage, as the NSB Project Administrator, and was managed by Lee Johnson, PE of Leland A. Johnson & Associates (LAJA). Specialty services were provided by the following Team: • Sakata Engineering - Electrical Engineering, Albert Sakata EE PE • NORCON - Construction Feasibility, Method, and Cost Estimate, Eric Worthington, EE EA • DEB Services & CE - Route Location, Right of Way and Report Compilation, David Bristow, CE PMP • Golder & Associates - Geotechnical Engineering, Richard Mitchells, PE • ABR - Environmental Considerations, Bob Ritchie, Principal/Senior Scientist • Northern Economics Inc., - Economic Analysis, Leah Cuyno, PhD. • Solstice Alaska Consulting Inc., - Permitting Considerations, Robin Reich, PE The NSB, the Project Administrator and the NSB Steering Committee were instrumental in supporting this effort by providing information and insight into the existing power generation and transmission facilities located at Barrow and Atqasuk. The LAJA Team would like to express it's appreciation for the cooperation and assistance provided by all participating entities. C. Project Objectives The objective of the Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study is to determine the most feasible system for transmitting power from Barrow to Atqasuk. Alternative power line routes (corridors) were identified considering the following criteria. • Maximizes use of existing infrastructure • Minimizes power line corridor length • Avoids geotechnical hazards • Avoids native allotments 4 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings • Is compatible with the most economically viable construction methods • Provides least environmental impact to migratory waterfowl nesting areas • Minimizes environmental impact to tundra and inland watersheds, Transmission system design alternatives were produced considering the following parameters. • Power -only and power -plus -heat village demand senarios • AC versus DC line voltage • Composite poles versus wood and steel • Construction methods • Construction and operating costs • Environmental Issues • Geotechnical engineering constraints • Permitting requirements • Life cycle cost analysis (economics) D. Project Description The project entails a design engineering, permitting, and construction effort that will provide a new power transmission line from Atqasuk to Barrow. Several routes have been studied in preparation for the selection of the most environmentally friendly, economically viable, and technically feasible route that does not impact native allotments. The following routes were selected after exhaustive alternative analysis of other conceptualized routes. They are as follows: Western Route 1 (WR1) — length of route, approximately 74 miles. Eastern Route 2 (ER2) — length of route, approximately 68 miles. Western Route 1 Both WR1 and ER2, from Barrow to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad, utilize existing road infrastructure (to Cake Eater Rd.) to facilitate construction, and uses/modifies the existing power line support structures along this road. WR1 then proceeds south and utilizes the existing 6" gas line Vertical Support Members (VSM) to support the power line from the Barrow Gas Field South Pad to the existing Gas Line terminus. The final leg of WR1 travels along a new cross-country route, on 65' tall, overhead power poles. Drill and slurry ad -freeze embedment is the construction method that will be used to install the power poles, during winter season. WR1 will require two river crossings (Meade & Inaru Rivers) and will be directionally drilled below the riverbed to minimize impact. This route was conceptualized in a similar manner to the existing ROW's established during oil development on the North Slope. This method was employed due to the successful record of the ROWS and their minimal impact to the environment. WR1 route ends at the Atqasuk Power Substation. 5 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Eastern Route 2 Both WR1 and ER2, from Barrow to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad, utilize existing infrastructure. ER2, at the Barrow Gas Field South Pad travels further to the east, along a new cross-country route, on 65' tall, overhead power poles. Drill and slurry ad -freeze embedment is the construction that will be used to install the power poles, during winter season. ER2 will also require two river crossings (Meade & Inaru Rivers) and will be directionally drilled below the riverbed to minimize impact. This route was also conceptualized in a similar manner to the existing ROW's established during oil development on the North Slope. This method has been successfully employed for many years on the North Slope. The ER1 route ends at the Atqasuk Power Substation. Both routes are designed to minimize infringement upon known, densely populated, avian nesting areas. Both avoid established native allotments. Both routes avoid installing VSM's at lakes, surface ponds, and river drainages (as possible). WR1 and ER2 also provide power to the remote Walapka Gas Field, although ER2 is connected via an intertie shown as Route 2A. 0 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 40 Report of Findings 121111 io 3. — Engineering Design Basis & Performance Criterion 40 wo wo A. Project Design Engineering Scope Description: Evaluate and select from the power transmission options currently being studied. They are High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) vs. 3-Phase Alternating Current (AC), and are analyzed via comparative technical and economic viability and system reliability. • Provide design engineering to select the line parameters that can provide the least environmental impact to avian populations and also determine the most economic transmission line from Barrow to Atqasuk. • Minimize footprint of new facilities and utilize as much existing infrastructure as possible to avoid impact to sensitive flora. Determine design parameters for wind and ice loads in arctic conditions. Develop the design of a power transmission system that will serve Atqasuk and also facilitate a future expansion to Wainwright. • Produce transmission line concept designs to the Preliminary Engineering phase or sixty percent (60%) of overall design completion. Assess both power -only and power and heat demand scenarios. B. Route Description There are two proposed Right -of- Ways (ROW) that were studied for this effort. They are shown on Figure rt 1, Atqasuk Transmission Line Routes. They are Western Route 1 (WR1) and Eastern Route 2 (ER2). Both line routes traverse south of Barrow over terrain that is mostly flat with not much change in elevation. Adjacent to, and along the proposed line routes, are many shallow lakes surrounded by typical tundra, low-lying vegetation. The route has no roads but there are some existing snowmobile trails. The total lengths of each proposed route are as follows: N • WR1 -Approximately 74 Miles ER2 - Approximately 68 Miles ~ C. Recommended Structures A As part of this design effort support structures for the transmission line have been identified and selected. The recommended structure for this application is a 69 kV Transmission Line Structure, the TP-69 as w shown in the attached drawing, see Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 1 — Structure Types. The Typical pole selected, for most of the line, is a 65 foot long Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) pole, with required sub -grade embedment determined to be 11.3 feet in depth. This structure consists of two offset high strength fiberglass insulators mounted on either side of the pole and a single vertical high strength 10 insulator mounted at the top of the pole. This structure is capable of supporting transmission lines that approach the structure at small angles, with the provision of a side guy wire retaining anchor. This I% structure proved to be the most economic alternative compared to other structures since it is easier to 004 construct and is less costly than H-frame arrangements. The line could operate at 34.5 kV initially and later would operate at 69 kV. Insulators for this line are to 11% be 115 kV type to avoid flashover from salt contamination. 11111114 7 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 I/r Pk Pk PROJECT LOCATION O u,d o d` ■ �kooar< LEGEND Western Routs 1 Eastern Route 2 Watakpa Power Line Spur Route 2A Existing Gas Lines Native Albttrnent REFERENCES 1.) AERIAL IMAGERY DOO DATED AUGUST 2005 WAS PROVIDE BY USGS AND DISTRIBUTED BY ALASICA GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION CENTER (GINA) EXISTING GAS LINE ROM 2a Wslakpa Power Line Pr . Western Route 1 Base Case '` 4 1i= Eastern Route 2+. „ (RT.2) *j 1, Npl 8 0 8 ATOASUK r SCALE MILES ATQASUK TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES Leland A. Johnson & Associates n..eo.s.�so,u Report of Findings D. Electrical Loading & Line Loss As determined from previous load study information, and updates provided by stakeholders, Atqasuk has a current peak load demand of 603 kW; with average daily demand of 384 kW. The peak electrical load for Atqasuk is estimated to increase to 1.0 to 2.0 MW when considering adding the heat load to the power load caused by the conversion of residences and facilities from diesel heating to electric heating. If power is extended to Wainwright, for power load only (no heating load), the peak load would be increased by 1.0 MW extended in the future. The proposed line, sized for 69 kV, can carry a total of 10 MW of power, and will have less than 3.8 % power loss, which is an adequate/acceptable voltage drop for this scenario. E. Transmission Line Components - Basis & Performance Criterion 1 — Structure Types As determined from the available historical weather data, the isokeraunic levels are low, so the design does not require the use of any overhead ground wire for lightning protection. As a result, the design will utilize a single pole structure, Type TP-69, and occasionally, the H-Frame Type TH-1. These two types of structures will be installed for use by the AC Power Line Transmission scenario. Type TP-69 structure, with only two top insulators, will be installed for use in the DC Power Line Transmission scenario. Also, the structures will have sub -grade embedment with a design allowance of +10% in additional length plus 5 feet, to achieve greater pole stability. Compacted backfill, when ad -freeze slurry cannot be employed, will be used to aid in providing lateral and uplift resistance of the poles. There is considerable information available regarding jacking and creep that occurred on the GVEA Lattice Intertie from Healy. While jacking and creep are two issues requiring regular maintenance review, in the cold permafrost, north of the Brooks Range, over -drilling has worked well to nearly eliminate this problem. The method was instituted to place the power pole supports well below the active layer at the NSB power grids. The following material selections were considered and evaluated, as a cost basis, for the overhead transmission line portion of the design: • Wooden Poles, Full Length Pressure Treated, Douglas Fir. Pressure treated per REA 1728F- 700. • Steel Poles, with similar strength properties as wooden poles; with a provision for ground fault protection. • Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Poles. • Insulators - the 69 kV Structures will utilize 115 kV Insulators to avoid potential flashover caused by in -situ or coastal salt contamination. 2 - Weather Data Parameters Based on research of the available historical weather data, see Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 2, Weather Data Parameters, the following design criterion (cases) are applied for the conductor loading and anchoring design: 00 V � 8 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study I 0 September 15, 2011 to I"'" r W�ft r Report of Findings r • Per NESC, Heavy Loading District Condition — Load = 0.5" ice with 4 lbs./sf. Wind Load = 40 mph r on the exposed conductor. r • Wind Load = 110 mph or 31 Ibs/sf with no ice on the exposed conductor. • Wind Load on Insulator Swings = 49 mph or 6 Ibs/sf with no ice on the exposed conductor, for use as basis in horizontal clearance calculations. 3 - Conductors r Selection of the conductor is one of the most important design decisions made, as it is the critical component of any power transmission system. A large group of candidates were reviewed for selection as the design and cost basis for this project. The following conductors were considered during the process: fr • ACSR • ACSR/AW • ACSS/AW • 1350 Aluminum Conductor * • AAC 6201 • ACAR • AWAC • ACSR/SD • T2 The factors considered when determining the conductor selection are as follows: • corrosion considerations — resistance or allowance • material strength • voltage drop properties - resistance • thermal capability • economics of use w N As determined during the selection process the recommended conductor is the Hawk/Aw 477.0 MCM ACSS/AW which has the adequate resistance properties, has adequate strength, and exhibits good corrosion resistance. The T2 type conductor will also be used at selected locations, as needed. T2 is a pair of stranded aluminum, steel reinforced conductors twisted around each other at nine foot intervals. They differ from standard conductor that has a smooth appearance and is not twisted. The twisting provides light reflections allowing birds to see the conductor eliminating conductor -bird collisions. The recommended, applied tension to the conductor, are per the RUS Table 9-2 found in Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 3, Recommended RUS Conductor Tension. 4 - Aeolian Vibration There are two types of Aeolian Vibration to be considered during the design effort. They are Aeolian Vibration and Galloping Vibration. Occurrence of Aeolian vibration is typically encountered in high - tensioned power lines. Per the design, this type of vibration is not expected, but as a precaution Armor Grip Suspension (AGS) will be installed on all conductor attachments to minimize the potential for this problem. It should be noted that this project will not utilize high -tensioned power lines. 9 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 A Report of Findings To address Galloping Vibration, which is expected, the longest spans will be designed to be no longer than 700 feet in length, installed at Single Poles, and no longer than 1200 feet in length, installed at the H-Frame Structures. The conductors will be subjected to Double -Loop Galloping Vibration where the required clearance is maintained. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 4, Aeolian Vibration, Required Clearance. 5 -Sag and Tension Conductor Sag and Tension Data, per NESC Load Cases: • Span Basis - 700 feet and 1200 feet respectively. • Conductor Basis - 477 MCM ACSS/AW. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 5, Conductor Sag & Tension Resultant Calculation With the conductor temperature at 60 F, at a 700 foot span, the resultant sag is expected to be 14.72 feet, and expected NESC Load Case tension equaling 7,004 lbs. With the conductor temperature at 60 F, at a 1200 foot span, the resultant sag is expected to be 43.83 feet, and expected NESC Load Case tension equaling 7,448 lbs. If conductor temperature is -50 F, the resultant sag is 36.40 feet and the tension is 28% of ultimate strength. The 60 F criteria therefore controls. E.6 -Loading and Overload Factor The power line will be designed per NESC Heavy Loading District, applying REA Grade B Overload Capacity Factors, for Poles, Cross -arms, Guy Assemblies, and Insulators as shown on Table 11-3. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 6, Conductor Loading and Overload Factors. E.7 -Ground Clearances The line will be designed for 69 kV Power Transmission capacity so the expected conductor ground clearances, when the conductor temperature is 90F, at full load, will be per the RUS Table 4-1. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 7, Conductor Ground Clearances. It is recommended that 21.6 feet of vertical clearance from conductor to ground, is maintained, for most locations, when the fine conductor temperature is 60 F. 8 - Load Flow Report at 34.5 kV AC Case At 75 miles in length, under a 2 Mw load, and using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected loss is 2.8% with a 4.66% voltage drop. Case information as provided in the referenced EDSA Report. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, vo Exhibit 8, Load Flow Report at 34.5 kV AC. t*A r* 9 - Load Flow Report at 69 kV AC look Case 10 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 94 94 Report of Findings up At 75 miles in length (to Atqasuk), under a 2 Mw load, and at 67 miles in length (to Wainwright) under a 3 U6 Mw load, using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected overall loss is 2.02%; with a 0.15% voltage drop for W* Atqasuk and 0.95% voltage drop for Wainwright. gao Case At 67 miles in length (from Junction), under a 2 Mw load at Atqasuk, and under a 6 Mw load at Wainwright, using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected overall loss is 3.28%; with a 1.0% voltage drop for ilo Atqasuk and 1.96% voltage drop for Wainwright. Q* Case information as provided in the referenced EDSA Report. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, 00 Exhibit 9, Load Flow Report at 69 kV AC. GO q 10 - Load Flow Report at SO kV DC G* Case At 75 miles in length (to Atqasuk), under a 2 Mw load, using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected loss is q 9.12%; with an 8.36% voltage drop. �r Case information as provided in the referenced EDSA Report. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 10, Load Flow Report at 30 kV DC. 1� 11 -Load Flow Report at 50 kV DC C" Case no At 75 miles in length (to Atqasuk), under a 2 Mw load, using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected loss is 04 8.98%; with an 8.24% voltage drop. ca Case information as provided in the referenced EDSA Report. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 11, Load Flow Report at 50 kV DC. 12 - One -Line Description for AC Operation The BUECI feeder circuit from the power plant will be configured to provide power and power plus heat and will include a dedicated 4160V Breaker. From the breaker it will be routed to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad. A 2 MVA Transformer will be located there with a 34.5 kV Re -closer, installed at the Barrow 0^ and Atqasuk ends of the power line. When using the 69 kV option, 69 kV SF6, Low Profile Type Breakers E will be considered for installation. Atqasuk will be configured with a 2 MVA Transformer, a 4160V Re - closer, as well as a 34.5 kV Re -closer. See the referenced One -Line Diagram for clarity. See Appendix 0% A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 12, One -Line Description for AC Operation. 01114 014 OR At the Atqasuk Power Plant a new 21VIVA Transformer will be installed on a pad configured in a similar manner to the existing 1 MVA Transformer located there. Both the 34.5 kV feeder circuit and the 69 kV feeder circuit option will use a re -closer for protection, and an SF6 Low Profile Circuit Breaker. The 4160V Stepped -down voltage will be routed through a re -closer that should connect to TIP2 or B1 L2P as is needed or convenient. See Figure 2 for clarity. P} A 11 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings TAP2 4 65A POWER HOUSE (NOTE 7) NC 81 L3P1 1500 AT 1000 K /A-PAD-MTD 1600 AF 45OKW �r� 3-140A TIP1 �{i ®- r—� } -- B11_2153 425KW — -- 480.4180Y/2400V .L 3KV NOTE a B1 L2P2 460V, ..KW�- -�--- 2500A 91OKW oG - r1 480-1160YI2400V 910KW Q ^ 3-140A TIP7 A�{t qED -[)-� TIP3 T° 3nt ). 1500 AT NO 1600 AF 1000KVA-PAD-MTD 3KV NOTE 6 3x15 TIPS 1x Figure 2 Sc e rL - t QaTransformer& Protw;tlon 13 -One-Line Description for DC Operation 1111110 The BUECI feeder circuit from the power plant will be configured to include a dedicated 4160V Breaker. 1111110111 From the breaker it will be routed to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad. A 2 MVA or 5 MVA Transformer will be located at the South Pad and will step down voltage to 480V, and, with a separate breaker will is provide power to the inverter modules. These modules will convert 480V AC to 1500 V DC. This DC output will be connected in series to achieve the desired 30 kV or 50 kV DC result. Line Protection will be by provided by installing one 30 KV or 50 KV DC Breaker at Barrow and another at Atqasuk. The DC converters, located at Atqasuk and Barrow, will require installation in weather-proof enclosures for protection. At Atqasuk the 480V AC output from the DC Converters can be tied -in to the power plant main bus through a 2500A 480V Breaker. Another feasible option explored is to step-up the 480V AC output from the DC Converters with a 2 MVA Step- up Transformer, and tie-in to the power plant system through a re -closer; that should connect to TIP3 or 131 L2P2 as is needed or convenient. It should be noted that the proposed line configuration is the bipolar type, utilizing similar structures as the AC line except that of the three conductors provided, only two are used. lM is IN IN 10 Ift See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 13, One -Line Description for DC Operation, the referenced One -Line Diagram, for more detailed information regarding the DC Power Line. 12 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 No OR 00 111110 00 Ilo 00 No 1110 ww. Report of Findings 14 - High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Evaluation DC Converter Technology • As a part of this study, significant effort was expended researching the possibility of utilizing a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) "light" line feed for power transmission. • As a result, two principal suppliers of HVDC equipment, were identified. They are Siemens and ABB. Unfortunately both companies do not offer equipment sized for the load capacities discussed in this study. They do offer equipment rated at 10 MW at 140 kV capacities, however if this equipment were utilized as estimate basis, it would increase the project cost by approximately $10.OMM; not including the cost impact associated with a Walapka Power Line Tie-in. Company representatives did not seem too enthusiastic and indicated they believed this was "not a good fit for their equipment • Although the cost of the HVDC transmission line was found to be less than the AC transmission line, the converter technology made the overall HVDC system less cost effective. No current or past project effort could be found that has utilized HVDC systems with power loads of similar size, as compared to this project's requirements. • Tier Electronics, a manufacturer of smaller HVDC systems, did provide an attractive initial price offering for 2 MW units, but after further review of the company, and no response to additional requests for project history of the units they manufacture, it was determined that this equipment source will require further verification. The initial quotation was used in this budgetary estimate, and a request for a written quotation was promised at a later date. • Tier Electronics did indicate that they can provide training and technical support, but did not include the cost in their original proposal. • It should be noted that Tier Electronics technical personnel advised that the increased load resulting from electric heating, would require utilizing their 4 MW capacity units. They also indicated that their equipment is more "load sensitive" than a transformer, and some increased capacity is required to address this. • Tier Electronics HVDC equipment is manufactured and rated to withstand -40 Deg. C temperatures, but additional heating capacity will be required for temperatures below -40 Deg. C. • The Denali Commission recently completed a review of HVDC technology for an Alaskan application and they endorsed the suggestion to provide a third power conductor. It was also suggested that power transformers should be pre -positioned to provide a "backup transition" to an alternating current (AC) system. DC Converter Costs The DC Converter cost quotations are provided by Tier Electronics, an electronics manufacturer located near Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This is the only vendor that provided converter costs. The two DC Converter options offered are as follows: • Two each, 480 VAC to 30 kV DC converters, with one located at Barrow and another located at Atqasuk. This equipment will provide 2 MW of capacity. Cost: $ 1.9 MM US, for two converters. • Two each, 480 VAC to 50 kV DC converters, with one located at Barrow and another located at Atqasuk. This equipment will provide 5 MW of capacity. Cost: $ 3.985 MM US, for two converters. 13 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 r"P-- 10 Op Report of Findings it is It should be noted that ABB was approached to provide a proposal, since they have a previous track record of completing many projects in Europe, but in their response the only offering was for equipment capable of providing 80 kV DC of conversion capacity with a power rating of 40 MW_ The two converters were quoted at $30MM to $35MM US which included the associated DC/AC Switchyards. For more detailed cost information, see Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 14, DC Converter Costs. DC Converter Reliability The life span of this electronic equipment is measured in "mean time between failures" (MTBF). This MTBF is normally high for a single converter and the equipment could be expected to experience some potential component failure. Due to the Converter MTFB, it should be considered that the Converter Components Plan, a scenario that would require having 20 to 40 converters installed in series, would only allow for a minimum of one or two acceptable failures. If more failures occurred, the whole system would fail, and not provide the adequate, reliable DC voltage output. Maintenance expertise is not readily available and there are not adequate training opportunities provided or available, in the remote communities where this equipment is being considered for use. With these issues the actual reliability that the proposed converters will provide should be questioned. The proposed converter equipment will be factory tested at the Northrop facility near Milwaukee, but this equipment has never been utilized for a similar commercial application. There is no proven track record of performance for this application since it would be a "first" for TIER Electronics. In consideration of the foregoing facts, we must conclude that a DC system is not viable for our situation. A HVDC Conclusions For the advantages of HVDC vs AC power see Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 15, Advantages of HVDC vs AC Power. It is not the least cost option. The cost estimate was based on the written quote received for a 4 MW HVDC system. The quote indicated that a third conductor for a ground would be required. The requirement for a third conductor was not utilized for this estimate as it is not a HVDC design requirement. • HVDC Equipment sources are not readily available. Tier Electronics, is only known source of HVDC equipment with the capacity required by the project found. Tier's equipment does meet the project performance criterion of 2 MW - 4 MW of power at 40 kV to 70 kV. A 10 MW minimum and 110kV minimum" equipment was proposal provided by ABB and Siemens. They provide the bulk of the equipment, for the HVDC transmission market, and although HVDC is * suggested for this project, it was indicated that their gear is not a good fit for this project; $10MM for the equipment without any provision to tie to Walapka Gas Field. • Polar Consult Alaska, Inc, a group funded by the Denali Commission, is developing HVDC technology, and was studied for potential use in this project. It was found that the technology F4 they are developing is still in the prototype stage and is sized well below the design requirements for this project. It was also indicated they realize the need for 50kV 100 kW to 5 MW capacity HVDC units but there are no current plans for further development. • The use of a Single Wire Earth Return (SWER) is advocated by the Denali Commission report A findings, but as the authors indicate, "the SWER is rarely used because it induces modest ground currents and voltages that can rapidly corrode some buried metals". Conventional HVDC is 14 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 M J Report of Findings M defined as using two wires to prevent a ground return and is required to protect the NSB gas field infrastructure per the current electrical codes. • HVDC utilizes technology not common in the region, nor can manufacturers with similar design r requirements be located. HVDC system theory appears to be well founded. However. the lack of information for similar systems does not allow a viable review of durability and economics associated with HVDC systems, and, at this time would not be the proper choice for this project's use. in short, HVDC technology maturity is too low to be considered for this project. t% I� t� !i A A A 15 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study A September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 4. — Geotechnical Engineering — Review & Commentary A. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this work was to review existing geotechnical and near surface geologic data along two transmission line alignment corridors developed in conjunction with other members of the design team. The purpose of the data review was to determine if significant geotechnical hazards could be anticipated along the proposed alignments. The work relied on existing publically accessible geotechnical literature and imagery augmented with our general geotechnical knowledge and experience in the area. A site reconnaissance or subsurface exploration program was not included under this scope of services. The project objectives are to provide a narrative of reasonably expected geotechnical issues along the proposed alignments and provide conceptual level geotechnical design considerations for the transmission structures. A discussion of potential geotechnical issues for fiber -reinforced polymer (FRP) transmission poles in cold clirriatelpermafrost areas is also included. Identification and discussion of potentially significant geotechnical hazards and design considerations that may severely impact project costs is also provided. Design -level geotechnical engineering recommendations were not included under i this scope of services. B. Prior Work Environmental and engineering analysis for a power line between Barrow and Atqasuk was completed in the early 198o's by Jack West Associates and others. This report included power lines between Barrow, r Atqasuk, and Wainwright with the Barrow to Atqasuk alignment approximately 70 miles long. The West report provided limited geotechnical field data along the proposed routes. Subsequent to the West report, the North Slope Borough (NSB) has considered several alternate alignments between Barrow and i Atqasuk. i C. Geologic and Geotechnical FindInge/Considerations i A variety of options were considered for the conductors and support structures. Details of the proposed alignment and utility pole geometry are provided by other members of the team. At this time the preferred i option for the vertical supports are monopole structures with structure adjustments for longer spans over lakes and drainages. r Golder was tasked with three geotechnical items for conceptual -level engineering: i Summary discussion of reasonably expected shallow subsurface geology and thermal states along the proposed alignments. 0 Summary discussion of potential geo-hazards related to the transmission line construction and operation and maintenance (O&M). Geotechnical considerations related to use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) utility poles in lieu of conventional timber or steel transmission pole structures. CA - Surface and Shallow Subsurface Geology Thq proposed Barrow to Atqasuk power line will lie entirely within the Teshekpuk Lake section of the Arctic Coastal Plain, See Figure 1. This is an area with little topographic relief. Occasional pingos and tundra -covered sand dunes provide the only break in an otherwise flat horizon. The Meade River, near Atqasuk, and scattered tributary streams, incised a few feet into the plain, provide the only drainage for much of the area. Poorly developed drainage ways flow toward the coast at the northern end of the project area. 1b 16 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 imill k.J iA A A A Rk Report of Findings The entire coastal plain is underlain by permafrost with a seasonal thaw depth of up to a few feet in undisturbed, windswept areas. Permafrost will extend deep in the project area, in excess of 1,000 feet, which is not uncommon. Deeper seasonal thaw may be encountered along drainages, under areas with deeper snow cover, and where the tundra mat has been disturbed. As a result the region is poorly drained and very marshy in the summer. A network of ice -wedge polygons covers the coastal plain and elongated thaw lakes are common. The lakes are generally shallow and range in length from a few feet to several miles in length. These lakes have been reported to expand by as much as three (3) feet per year and several generations of drained lakes have been identified. Beneath the tundra cover, a sequence of Quaternary Age marine sediments are present over nearly flat, coal bearing, Cretaceous sedimentary rocks. Wahrhaftig reported in USGS Professional Paper 482 (1962) that the overlying unconsolidated sediments range from 10 to 150 feet in thickness. The coal bearing rocks are exposed in the banks of the Meade River which is in the vicinity of Atqasuk, but are much deeper to the north. These rocks are composed of silty sandstone and limey siltstone with shale - like inter -beds. The more durable sandstone units observed near Atqasuk were generally about 2 to 4 inches in thickness. C.2 - Routing: Geologic Considerations There are few geologic conditions that will significantly impact the route for the power line. The following conditions, however, should be considered as the route is finalized. Additional discussion is presented under following Geo-hazards section. • Avoid locating structures immediately adjacent to the migrating lakes, with special attention given to the ends of the larger lakes • Avoid locating structures in or immediately adjacent to small streams especially at stream junctions where seasonal aufeis (overflow ice) may occur • Shallow rock may be encountered at the southern end of the line. Drilling in the rock may be difficult with conventional disc -type auger commonly used for foundation installation in the area, but the banded nature of the material suggests that it may be possible to penetrate. Based on our review of the proposed alignments identified on the attached imagery, several key areas of geologic concern are identified. Key areas of concern include: • River Crossings - Two (2) Ea. along Right of Way and rock strata encountered. - Inaru River - Meade River • Ice Rich Permafrost - can be mitigated with field adjusted embedment length of VSM; commonly practiced and known as "pupping". C.S - Goo -hazards As discussed above, ice -rich permafrost under the tundra surface is expected along the transmission line corridors. Both alignments will traverse areas with large numbers of surface water bodies. Thus, the alignments are expected to require numerous guy anchorages. The active layer, or depth of seasonal thaw, is expected to be 1 to 3 feet where the surface vegetation is intact. Deeper seasonal thaw and potentially degrading permafrost can be expected in areas with damaged surface vegetation, along a larger surface drainages, near a larger surface water bodies, and in areas with significant snow drifting. 17 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings re to in general, the shallow soils 15 to 20 feet below the tundra mat will be ice rich organic silt with the to potential for thick sequences of massive ice. Geotechnical work form the early 1980s conducted approximately 10 to 15 miles westerly of the proposed alignments encountered a live tundra mat with an No underlying peat and organic silt layer to 4 to 6 Feet below the ground surface. In general, icy mineral silt was encountered below the organic sift with occasional layers of silty clay to approximately 20 feet below grade, the limit of the explorations. Soil moisture, as a percentage of dry weight, ranged from 200 to 500 percent within the uppermost 5 to 7 feet decreasing to 50 to 70 percent to 12 feet below grade further decreasing to approximately 25 to 35 percent of dry weight below 17 feet. Within the upper 10 to 12 feet below grade, soil moistures in excess of the dry soil weight should be expected. As discussed it) the Geology section, the soils near Atqasuk are re -worked wind deposits, generally considered dune deposits_ The shallow subsurface soils near Atqasuk are generally fine sands to coarse silt by particle size and will typically have lower soil moisture contents, roughly slightly above thawed state saturation concentrations. In Atqasuk the near surface sandier soils generally have fewer massive ice layers; however, massive ice can be expected in areas with more silty and organic soil deposits. Pore water salinity is prevalent in the permafrost throughout the Barrow area and should be expected along most of the proposed alignments, with a reduction in pore water salinity near Atqasuk. Pore water salinity will depress the freezing point of the permafrost. Near Barrow, pore water salinities have been encountered at concentrations resulting in un-bonded permafrost at ground temperatures near 25° F within foundation pile embedment depths, 15 to 30 feet below grade. In general, pore water salinities up to 8 to 18 parts per thousand (ppt) should be anticipated along the A alignment at depths cOMmonly expected for utility pole embedment. However, larger pore water salinity concentrations up to and exceeding 35 ppt have been encountered near Barrow and should be expected along the proposed alignments. A Shallow ground temperatures have been measured in Barrow and Atqasuk over the past 30 years on numerous construction projects. In general, ground temperatures near 20° to 25° F at 15 to 20 feet below grade can be expected near Barrow. At the base of the active layer, the ground temperatures will increase to 32°F and ground surface temperatures will vary in response to annual air temperature variations. Permafrost temperatures will vary depending on local conditions, including albedo, snow drift, slope orientation, vegetation and other factors. Engineering climate indices including average thaw and freezing indices (ATI and AFI, respectively) indicate a warming trend from the 1950-1978 period to the 1978-2004 period. The Barrow area average climatic indices are summarized below. 1950-1980 1980-2004 Average Air Temperature: 7.5 °F 11.2 °F Average Thawing Index: 400 'F-days 670 'F-days Average Freezing Index: 8,700 'F-days 8,240 'F-days As noted, the Barrow area has experienced a general warming trend with potential impacts to longer design life facilities. This general warming trend should be expected along the transmission line corridors and throughout the design life for the structures. ter= 18 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Along the proposed alignments, several geo-hazards should be anticipated: Ice -rich Permafrost - Ice rich permafrost may experience additional creep under sustained load, particularly for lateral load conditions such as guy anchors. Also, deeper thaw into the underlying perrriafrast may occur If the tundra surface Is damaged. Creeper thaw may result in a deeper point of fixity for lateral toad analysis. Elevated Pore Water Salinity - Pore -water salinity will depress the freezing point in the permafrost. In addition, conventional drill and slurry ad -freeze foundation systems may experience accelerated creep under moderate to light loads in higher salinity permafrost, particularly for steel piles. Snow Drift - In areas subject to deeper snow drifting, the ground surface will be insulated from winter cooling air temperatures with a potential for warming or degrading permafrost. As permafrost warms, a reduced ad -freeze bond capacity and reduced lateral resistance should be expected. Seasonal Lake Ice - The larger water bodies may have water sufficiently deep to not freeze to the mud line. If so, permafrost degradation may be occurring. In general, the lateral extent of the permafrost degradation will be limited, particularly if the shoreline is wind swept during the winter. However areas along the shorelines adjacent to deeper water should be checked for potentially deeper thaw or warming permafrost. Larger Surface Drainages - Several geo-hazards should be considered along larger surface drainages. First, seasonal ice jams have occurred along larger drainages with the potential for damage to pole structures. Second, the larger drainages may have deeper thaw channels and 1 oxbows or channel meanders may have unfrozen soil states, depending on localized hydraulics, vegetation, and river geometry. Third, the larger drainages may have significant snow drift conditions that may alter the thermal regime along the banks. Fourth, channel migration and erosion are active geomorphic processes that may impact structures adjacent to active drainage channels. Lake Shoreline Erosion - The larger lakes along the proposed alignments have a noted NW -SE elongation orientation. This orientation is related to the prevailing winds and some thermal degradation and erosion may occur along the northern and southern margins of these lakes. Vertical members planned along larger lakes should consider the potential for shoreline migration over the project design life. D. Geotechnical Considerations for Timber, Steel and Fiber Reinforced A Polymer (FRP) Poles 14 It is understood that the vertical support members will be direct -buried using conventional drill and slurry construction practices. In Barrow, it is understood that BUECI traditionally re -uses the auger cuttings as slurry aggregate with potable water. Pole embedment depths by BUECI are generally 10 feet. BUECI reports few problems related to utility pole performance in Barrow, however isolated utility poles have experienced problems in Barrow near'surface drainages or along roadway shoulders where permafrost degradation may have occurred. Axial and lateral design loads for the transmission system have not been developed at this conceptual level, but it is reasonable to assume that if larger spans are utilized, this will result in installing taller poles along the transmission alignment, and significantly greater lateral loads should be expected. Lateral loads will be developed normal to the conductor alignments due to wind an ice loadings and along tangents where conductor directions change. At these tangent points, it is understood that guy anchors will be required and a free-standing monopole structure is not feasible for the expected design loads. ° 19 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study r: September 15, 2011 i Report of Findings f Timber drill and slurry ad -freeze foundations have a successful performance record, in the Barrow area, installed in higher pore -water saline permafrost. Nearly all conventional timber ad -freeze piles in permafrost areas are specified as untreated, rough cut material. Utility poles are generally treated, but limited axial or lateral loading problerns are apparent due to the preservative treatment along the embedded pole sections. i Steel piles have experienced accelerated axial creep in higher salinity permafrost in Barrow, even under relatively low sustained axial loads (wrt to buildings and structures). Lateral creep has also been reported along guy anchors for communication towers in the Barrow area, resulting in loss of tension and repeated operations and maintenance cost for guy cable re -tensioning. Very little performance data are available in the literature or through field performance for FRP pole structures in icy permafrost conditions. The ad -freeze capacity should be determined for FRP materials and potential creep related variables. Field and/or laboratory bench testing can be conducted to estimated ad -freeze capacity. Likewise, the robustness of FRP poles to transport and handling should be considered. If the FRP i products are sensitive to handling and transport relative to timber or steel products, the impacts due to handling and transport should be determined. All FRP manufacturers contacted make full length FRP utility poles. Golder personnel were able to locate only one manufacturer for nested or sectional FRP utility poles, RS Group in Calgary, Alberta. Based on preliminary discussions with RS Group, they have installed their FRP products in areas with seasonal frost but not in permafrost conditions. Based their literature, the cold regions FRP installations have performed as designed. For more information see Appendix B, Geotechnical Engineering, Exhibit 1, RS FRP Pole Structure Examples. E. Geotechnical Considerations and Recommendations Based on review of existing geologic and geotechnical literature along the proposed transmission line alignments (WR1/ER2) and our current understanding of the project, we offer the follow geotechnical considerations and recommendations at the conceptual planning and development level: EA - Alignment Routing Along the proposed alignment routes, the following elements should be considered as the conceptual level effort develops: • Terrain unit mapping based on existing data sources should be conducted along the preferred route(s) for possible field assessment of shallow subsurface conditions. • Coupled with local resident knowledge and experience, ice jam issues along drainages should be monitored during breakup to assist with route selection. • Late spring flyover should also map relict snow drift zones for future thaw probing • At the end of the fall season, hand thaw probing should be conducted at potential areas of deeper thaw at proposed pole and guy anchor structures Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Geotechnical explorations should be considered at the longer span areas if larger tension loads are expected Potential slurry aggregate sources along the alignment(s) should be identified to reduce aggregate transportation costs. Likewise potential slurry water sources should be identified to reduce water handling and transportation costs. E.2 - FRP Structures Since limited performance data are available for FRP structures in permafrost using drill and slurry ad - freeze design, we recommend considering laboratory and field-testing with the planned FRP products to determine basic geotechnical design parameters. This effort should include determining sustained ad - freeze bond capacities, pore water salinity influence on ad -freeze bond strength, lateral load and deformation behavior, and basic handling and constructability considerations. The University of Manitoba has published and unpublished structural performance data on FRP structures. Coordination with Dr. Dimos Polyzios, at the University of Manitoba, Department of Civil Engineering should be considered. Golder established preliminary discussions with Dr. Polyzios for this submittal and additional effort is recommended to follow up with his research and findings. 21 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 5. — Constructability Analysis, Technical Feasibility, & Cost Estimates A. Purpose, Objective, & scope of Work The project scope of work included developing a construction method, material selection, and r representative cost estimate for a new power transmission line from Barrow to Atqasuk; that addresses the environmental considerations for executing a power line construction project in an area where endangered avian populations are present. The construction method and material selection for installation, were crucial choices, bearing in mind the potential environmental consequences, so "minirnal impact" was a significant part of this effort's mission goal. The construction basis and feasibility, technical feasibility of chosen construction method/materials, and budgetary costs developed for a feed to the electrical distribution grid at Atqasuk were the primary deliverables. Also included in the scope of work was a tie-in to the Walapka Gas Fields so it can be provided with power from low-cost power generation r in Barrow; on a least cost basis. This is possible due to the development of Eastern Route 2, whose alignment would make the Walapka Gas Field tie-in possible. See Figure 1, Atqasuk Transmission Line r Routes: Western Route 1, WR1 and Eastern Route 2, ER2. r B. Physical Description The Construction Cost Estimate is based upon on procuring and constructing a new power transmission line capable of supplying power from Barrow to Atqasuk, Alaska; located approximately 65 miles SSW of Barrow. These villages possess minimal existing infrastructure, and only winter trails currently exist i between their locations. Some of these winter trails are near the proposed power line alignments. The proposed right-of-ways or alignments, WR1 and ER2, are located near critical nesting areas for the Steller's Eider, Spectacled Eider, and Brant Goose, of which the Steller's Eider has been classified as an endangered species. r The estimate is based upon on an assumed maximum load of 608 Kilowatts (KW) power load supplied by the BUECI power -plant in Barrow. It should be noted that review of the anticipated heating loads indicate that the stated 2 MW requirement may be low, but the change in cost is not significant, as a function of initial project cost. However, related upgrades to the Atqasuk distribution system, including transformers, electric drop services, metering, and installation of electric powered heating equipment may ultimately produce a required power load approaching 2.5 MW. To address this increase in load, while addressing potential line loss, the design promotes conductor and structure material strengths that maximize span lengths. This serves to reduce costs, while applying allowed NESC and IEEE design parameters, which would allow a much larger power load increase without significant cost increases. The changes to the "step-up" and "step-down" power transformers would typically be the only item required for the increased loads. It should be noted that the load increase is caused partially by low ambient temperature which allows an increased load on the transformer, A requirement for a 100 Kilowatt (kW) Tie-in at the * Walapka Gas field, is also included in the estimate, and that load has been taken into account. A C. Basis of Estimate A Estimate is based upon historical data and recent material vendor quotes. A • Assumed labor costs are based upon Davis/Bacon or Union Scale pay rates, per the Fall 2010 Rate Schedules. Accuracy should be within a -10% to +25% of cost certainty. It should be noted that several industrial commodities' costs, especially copper, have escalated substantially since the quotes were received, and should be indexed, during the next estimate effort. • No allowance is provided beyond installing switching and controls, for an electronic interface between the existing powerhouses. The NSB power loads and equipment costs. for any additional A connections, should be minimal but the BUECI power and control interface may be a bigger issue i 22 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings since it is not just required to find a working solution, but one that BUECI concurs with. For example their equipment may require upgrades and a solution to enable matching signal inputs to older existing technology. • No allowance for Right of Way (ROW) or land acquisition is incorporated and is assumed to be provided by others. • Labor Productivity Rates are based on trained, craft personnel and other Direct Costs are based upon the assumption that construction effort will be one year in duration. • the Construction Schedule is heavily dependent upon a one-time, on -time, comprehensive, material delivery via Sowhead Barge Service, which occurs annually. There are other options available, but there would be significant cost impact if utilized. • The estimate is based upon constructing a power transmission line with 2 Megawatt (MW) operating load at 69 kilo -volts (kV), designed with 110 kV spacing/insulation on overhead (OH) segments that comply with the National Electric Safety Code (NESC). • it is planned to tie into the existing control system with a Fiber Optic Cable (FOC) circuit through a Supervisory Control And Dada Acquisition (SCADA) system. A side -benefit to installing this link is broad band access will be available between Barrow and Atqasuk. • Provision for utilization of reflective conductors to prevent bird strikes is included in the estimate, as a protective measure, but permitting issues may require additional items with undefined procurement and construction costs. D. Eastern Route 2 (ER2) — Physical Description & Basis of Estimate I DA Barrow Substation — ER2 ` • The construction estimate is predicated on the power transmission line tying into the existing 4160 volt power line, with a drop to the substation at that same voltage, and the power feed output at 34.5 1 kV; achieved by routing through a 2 MVA transformer. • An issue requiring resolution is the basis for the power and control interface between the BUSCI and the NSB facilities. While an important and vital part of the system, the differences between the as -bid and the as -found condition are: not expected to cause significant cost impact. • No underground (UG) cable is not utilized in this power line cost estimate. No reactors are required to offset the capacitive reactance. • It is assumed that there is adequate space available at BUECI, to allow for the required transformer, breakers, switches, control module, or other required appurtenances. • This work is assumed to be in the summer season although it should be noted that the substation equipment has the longest material order lead time. • Existing support facilities in Barrow are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. D.2 Barrow to South Pad Line Segment ER2 - Length: 5.8 Miles • This work is assumed to be performed during the summer season, and is predicated upon utilizing the existing ROW/roadway, for an existing power line. During the construction effort personnel will 23 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study ?`. September 15, 2011 Report of Findings r install new 78' tall RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, with embedment of approximately 13' feet in depth, along the existing ROW. This work, especially in Barrow area, will be performed with the system energized. • The existing 4160 volt circuit conductors will be relocated to new poles. An allowance is provided for all new dead end and angle structures. Approximately 50% of the tangent structures to be provided transformers cut-outs are required per National Electric Safety Code (N ESC) clearances. Some and will also be relocated to new structures. Short outages for transfer of the services will be required on this segment, but timely warning to the affected consumers should not be an issue. Additional ROW footprint may be required, for guy anchor installation, due to the taller poles requiring longer guy leads. Existing support facilities in Barrow are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. D.3 South Pad to Atqasuk ER2 — Overhead (OH) Line Segment — Length: 62.6 Miles • This work is assumed to occur during the winter season and is predicated on utilizing low ground * pressure equipment for that construction, installing typical 63' RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, embedment at approximately 12' feet in depth. • Sand -slurry will be utilized to backfill the drilled excavation and will also be placed inside the bottom section to address the issue of the pole hollow core strength, if required. • Additional pole sections will be carried by crew to modify pole length if required due to terrain or ice lenses encountered during excavation. • A Cat Train Camp will provide support services including housing and meals for the crew. • ROW alignment was chosen to avoid long water crossings and selected native allotments. ROW alignment was chosen to minimize Eider impact as shown on ABR's Eider Density map. ROW alignment was chosen to minimize transmission line length. 13.4 Tie-in for Walapka Gas Field to ER2 Segment — Length: 6.2 Miles 4 • This work is assumed to occur during the winter season and is predicated on utilizing low ground it pressure equipment for that construction, installing typical 63' RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, with embedment at approximately 12' feet in depth. • The cost estimate includes OH Power Feed to the Barrow Gas Field with distribution poles and step- down transformer bank at the gas line terminus. Route length may vary slightly, depending upon further study of existing gas field infra -structure and terrain. It was problematic locating a route that avoids the significant surface water and lakes. 4 0 Fused taps are utilized to provide protection and isolation for loads. 4 • Similar Structure can be provided for small cost impact for the future Western Tie-in. 4 0 Further work and discovery may determine that circuit switches, with SCADA control, might be 4 required with a cost impact of approximately $82K additional cost. A 24 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 M 1� A r Report of Findings ■ ■ D.5 Atqasuk Substation ER2 10 • Is A A E. The cost estimate is predicated on the power transmission line feeding the existing 4160 Volt Power Line from a tie-in to a 2 MVA transformer located at the power house. An issue requiring resolution is the basis for the power and control interface between NSB facilities. It is assumed the existing power plant will be retained as emergency back-up power, but it may be advantageous to provide remote control of that plant at Barrow. It is assumed that there is adequate space available at the Atqasuk Power Plant, to allow for the installation of the transformer, breakers, switches, control module, or other required appurtenances. This work is assumed to occur during the summer season although it should be noted that the substation equipment has the longest material lead time. Placing the order in time to utilize ice roads for the delivery of heavy electrical equipment, is the assumed basis. Existing support facilities in Atqasuk are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. Western Route 1 (WR1) — Physical Description & Basis of Estimate EA Barrow Substation Western Route 1 (WR1) • The construction estimate is predicated on the power transmission line tying into the existing 4160 volt power line, with a drop to the substation at that same voltage, and the power feed output at 34.5 kV; achieved by routing through a 2 MVA transformer. • An issue requiring resolution is the basis for the power and control interface between the BUSCI and the NSB facilities. While an important and vital part of the system, the differences between the as -bid and the as -found condition are not expected to cause significant cost impact. • Underground (UG) cable is used for a significant part of the line, so approximately 4 MVAR's of Reactors, to offset the capacitive reactance, will be required and result in about $453K of cost impact to correct the issue. • An issue requiring clearer definition is the location of the substation that feeds the Power Transmission Line at the BUECI site; and/or to provide an allowance for a connection to this site from the power line feed location. It is assumed that there is adequate space available at BUSCI, to allow for the required reactors, transformer, breakers, switches, control module, or other required appurtenances. Additional footprint is required at the substation due to the required reactors and their breakers. • This work is assumed to be performed during the summer season and it should be noted that the substation equipment has the longest material lead time. • Existing support facilities in Barrow are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. E.2 Barrow to South Pad Line Segment, WR9 — Length: 5.8 Miles. Common to Both Routes • This work is assumed to be done during the summer season, and is predicated upon utilizing the existing ROW/roadway for an existing power line. This construction effort will install new 78' tall RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, with embedment of approximately 13' feet in depth. 25 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 r Report of Findings • This segment is assumed to be installed during the summer season; and is predicated upon utilizing the existing ROW/roadway for at) existing power line. This constructioc} effort will install new 78' tall RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, with embedment of approximately 13' feet in depth. This work, especially in Barrow area, will be performed with the system energized. The existing 4160 volt circuit conductors will be relocated to new poles. Allowance is provided for all new dead end and angle structures. Approximately 50% of the tangent structures to be provided are required per National Electric Safety Code (NESC) clearances. Some transformers and cut-outs will also be relocated to new structures. Short outages for transfer of the services will be required on this segment, but timely warning to affected consumers should not be an issue. Additional ROW footprint may be required, for guy anchor installation, due to the taller poles requiring longer guy leads. • Existing support facilities in Barrow are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. E.3 South Pad to Walapka Segment on VSM's, WR1 — Length: 18.8 Miles • This work is assumed to be done during the winter season and is predicated on utilizing low ground pressure equipment for the installation of a steel messenger cable on the existing VSM's. • A bolted support assembly, to attach the messenger cable to the VSM is the basis of the estimate, and it is planned to install the 3-phase, jacketed, medium voltage cable, (Okonite CLX) and the FOC in a 1 % inch HDPE duct; carried in CAD clamps which is typical construction method at the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, • Additional anchors will be required to resist the imposed strains. • A Cat Train Man Camp will provide support services including housing and meals for the crew. • The ROW Alignment is the existing 6" Gas Line VSM routing. • Cable Insulation will be limited to the 35 kV Conductor, due to cost and constructability constraints. • There will be a step-down transformer bank located at the Barrow Gas Field terminus to enable the tie-in to the existing grid. Further work and discovery may determine that circuit switches, with SCADA control, might be required with a cost impact of approximately $82K additional cost. • The cost estimate includes an OH Power Feed to the Barrow Gas Field with distribution poles and step-down transformer bank at the gas line terminus. E.4 Tie-in for Walapka Gas Field Segment, WR1 — Length: 0 .2 Miles • This work is assumed to be done during the winter season and is predicated on utilizing low ground pressure equipment for that construction, utilizing the current maintenance facility as a connection point. • There will be a step-down bank at that gas field terminus to tie into the existing grid • Further work and discovery may determine that circuit switches, with SCADA control, might be required with a cost impact of approximately $82K additional cost. 26 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings E.5 Walapka to Atqasuk Western Route, Overhead (OH) Line Segment, WR1 — Length: 48.8 Miles • This work is assumed to be performed in the same manner as the Eastern Route with installation occurring during the winter season and utilizing low ground pressure equipment for that construction. Typically 63' RLS single composite pole vertical support structures will be embedded to twelve (12) feet in depth, • Route will start at the southern terminus of the Walapka gas field VSM's and follows the Eider friendly route originally identified. • Slurry will be utilized to backfill the drilled excavation and will also be placed inside the bottom section with a "fly bucket" to deal with issue of hollow core strength if required. • Additional pole sections will be provided, for construction personnel to modify pole length if required, due to terrain or ice lenses encountered during drilled excavation. • A Cat Train Man Camp will provide support services including housing and meals for the crew. • Should it be determined that circuit switches with SCADA control are needed, that potential cost impact has been identified and would result in approximately $82K of additional cost. E.6 Atqasuk Substation Western Route 1 (WR1) • The construction estimate is predicated on the power transmission line tying into the existing 4160 volt power line, with a drop to the substation at that same voltage, and the power feed output achieved by routing through a 2 MVA transformer • An issue requiring resolution is the basis for the power and control interface between NSB facilities. It is assumed the existing power plant will be retained as emergency back-up power, but it may be advantageous to provide remote control of that plant at Barrow. • It is assumed that there is adequate space available at the Atqasuk Power Plant, to allow for the installation of the transformer, breakers, switches, control module, or other required appurtenances; with no additional cost impact. • This work is assumed to occur during the summer season although it should be noted that the substation equipment has the longest material lead time. Placing the order in time to utilize ice roads for the delivery of heavy electrical equipment, is the assumed basis. • Existing support facilities in Atqasuk are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. F. Residence & Facility Heating Conversion in Atqasuk — From Diesel to Electric It has been clearly identified that the conversion of residential and NSB facility heating systems, from. 1 oil -fired to less expensive electric heat, is the most likely source of significant power load escalation, but it is a more economic solution to the villages' heating needs. The current heating source is heating oil or diesel fuel, which is flown in and is extremely costly. Utilizing electricity would decrease current heating costs by approximately 30%, as well as decrease the carbon footprint of the community. To provide a more accurate cost estimate, it would require site visits to every heated structure and an analysis of the waste heat system. 1 27 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings o If there is adequate space for the installation, a separate electric boiler would probably be the least cost option. A control box, to retain the existing boiler capacity for back-up, could be installed for approximately $2500 per residence. It is estimated the service requirements are to provide a 9 kW 31.000 BTU heating source, per residence. o Electric baseboard or radiant heat is another option that may be preferred. The cost is dependent upon the routing for the power supply feed, as well as the equipment locations. costs would be similar to the boiler as indicated in the heating unit described above. o At the other end of the spectrum, as a worst case scenario, some residences may require changing their existing distribution transformer, upgrading their electrical service, increasing D existing load center capacity from 100 amps (typ.) to 200 amps; as well installing a larger electric boiler or other electric heating equipment. There exists potential to overload the current service configurations with this load. For example a 68,000 BTU boiler, as reviewed, 1 requires a 240 volt, 80 amp breaker with a #2 copper power feed from a source located at the opposite side of the building. This conversion could cost on the order of $12K to $25K, depending on circuit routing and structural/architectural restoration costs. o The conceptual cost estimate (+/- 50%cost certainty) for residential heat conversion is approximately $1.072MM, and does not allow for remodeling costs or items required, beyond the basic conversion. The estimate is based upon a performance requirement that the conversion matches the current heating equipment BTU rating. The estimate does not allow for upsizing transformers, services, load centers, or installing electric boilers, and strip heaters. This work could be performed by local maintenance personnel to potentially reduce costs. NSB maintenance personnel have indicated they are available to perform that scope of work, but there is no agreed -to budget established within the estimate that reflects NSB feedback on productivity or labor rates. This should be accomplished during the next estimate effort. o A concern that arose during this study is that if the existing, back-up oil -fired equipment, required in the event of a power line outage, does not receive regularly scheduled R maintenance, doubts would arise as to the reliability of the back-up equipment, during an outage, and the fear is that many of the 'original oil -fired heaters" will not be operational when needed. o The conceptual cost estimate t+/- 50% cost certainty) for NSB Facilities heat conversion, h including utilizing the available waste heat, is approximately $.88MM. Oil -fired boilers are in A place as emergency back -Lip, but it should be noted that the existing heat exchangers should be replaced with commercial grade electric boilers. Review and discussion of this issue N should be accomplished during the next estimate effort. o NSB maintenance personnel who have indicated they are available to perform that scope of R work, have presented a reasonable way forward, and further NSB input is required to establish it as a project basis. Another opportunity to explore this will occur if the power transmission line is built. A From a preliminary review of the economics of residential and NSB Facility heat conversion, utilizing the estimated budgets required for completing the work, it would appear there is a comparatively short payback period required, as a result of doing this work. A potential increase in cost to the base proposal may occur as a result of increasing the size of the "step-up" and "step-down" transformers at existing units with new ones rated for 3 or 4 MVA. That additional cost is approximately $50K. Given the number of variables, at this point in the project development effort, it is difficult to foresee if this p will be required. Since the heating loads are highest when the ambient temperatures are lowest, the transformers may not require upgrade due to fact that the transformer core is cooled by those lower ambient temperatures. 28 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 M Report of Findings 1 H. Review of Items Covered in Initial Matrix To review, the estimate is based on using the following: Structures - RUS standard pole -line, single pole, and H-Structure type construction, using the least cost option for pole height that complies with NESC design requirements, i.e. ground clearance and phase clearance criterion. Costs are shown for each type of structure identified during this study, and are expressed below as the supply and installation cost per mile for the support type used, as follows: j o Treated Douglas Fir Poles, H-Structure — $318,212 per mile. o Treated Douglas Fir Poles, Single Pole Structure — $223,876 per mile. / o Direct Embedded Steel H-Structures, supplied by Valmont — $232,102 per mile. o Direct Embedded Steel Single Pole Structures, supplied by Valmont — $192,446 per mile. o Composite Poles, H-Structures, supplied by RLS—$236,735 per mile o Composite Single Pole Structures, supplied by RLS—$172,788 per mile Use of the existing 6" VSM's (gas line VMS), with 25 foot spacing, to support the cable with a messenger cable, typical to the methodology used on oil field projects with 35 kV cable—$660,140 per mile Use of the existing 6" VSM's (gas line VSM's), with 25 foot spacing, to support the cable with a messenger cable, typical to the methodology used on oil field projects with 15 kV cable—$388,989 per mile a Installing new 6" VSM's with 45 foot spacing to support the cable with a messenger typical to the methodology used on oil field projects with 35 kV cable—$995,946 per mile • Installing new 6" VSM's with 45 foot spacing to support the cable with a messenger typical to the methodology used on oil field projects with 15 kV cable—$742,180 per mile, • Trenching through ice road on tundra and installing 35 kV CLX cable—$1,576,912 per mile • Trenching in road from Barrow to South Pad and installing 35 kV CLX cable—$1,407,185 per mile Using, as cost basis, Standard Alternating Current AC Power Transmission at 24.9 kV, 34.5 kV, 69 kV and 110 kV. j • Using, as cost basis, High Voltage Direct Current Transmission at 30kV and 50kV. Review of connection requirements to provide cost basis for power feeds required for the planned r loads. J. Recommendations — Routing & Construction Methods A significant portion of the costs for this project are driven by the logistics required to perform construction on the North Slope. No road system exists and access is assumed to be permitted only on a winter trail, with low ground pressure equipment. Our estimates do not include an ice road, An ice road would be required to support winter trenching activity to prevent damage to the tundra; that would take many years to re -vegetate. 29 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 i� ■ Repot of Findings • The primary focus of the power line routing involved avoidance of the high -density, nesting areas utilized by endangered N. Slope bird species: Steller's Eider, Spectacled Eider and Brant Geese. J.1 - Best Route Recommendation i Eastern Route 2 (ER2), AC Power Supply, due to the following: • Has the lowest total installed cost: $16,577, 142. • Is the route with the least potential impact to the endangered bird species. i I • Is the shortest, most viable route given the information provided, avoiding lakes and river crossings to the greatest degree possible. 1 • Construction methodology has a proven track record in the arctic environment. I • Materials or alternates are available from multiple sources I • boles chosen for use are reported to get stronger in a colder environment and have a 40 year warranty; which is two times the warranty duration period provided by steel manufacturers. Their 1 lighter weight allows for the use of small helicopters to install the assembled structure and allows air 1 transport of much taller poles. Less field assembly is required. 10 Uniform manufacture allows defining the exact requirements for connection hardware installation. This is not offered or possible with typical wood structures. 1 • See Appendix C, Constructability Analysis and Cost Estimates, Exhibit 1 —Eastern Route —ER2 Cost 1 Estimate 1 J.2 - Western Route 1 (WR1) is not recommended as the best route due to the following: 10 Route crosses some of the more dense nesting areas encountered during the study. 10 Route has considerably more cost: $31,787,570, or almost two times the installed cost of ER2, due to 1 the 35 kV cable cost impact, a rapidly escalating cost element, due to correction caused by HV cable construction capacitive reactance mitigation. • Route would be more difficult to maintain or repair. • The capacitive reactance created by the cable is about 4 MVARs which would need to be offset, which is technically complex and difficult to do. • Material Pricing for this estimate was completed during the Fall of 2010. It should be noted that certain commodities prices, including copper, have escalated since completion of the estimate. Material costs should either be indexed for the cost escalations over time, or re -priced. • Retrofit of an existing VSM takes more time and varied resources to complete the work. This segment of the of the route would take a comparatively longer period of time to construct as opposed to typical overhead line structure installation. • See Appendix C, Constructability Analysis and Cost Estimates, Exhibit 2 — Western Route — WR1 Cost Estimate J.3 - Other Report Data Utilized (AC Power Supply) — Polar Consult Report, August 2009, Denali Commission The Polarconsult report defines AC line cost as $296,000 per mile with a range of $140,000 to $400,000 per mile. The $296,000 per mile cost is in agreement with the Napakiak value used 30 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings r earlier in their report and seems reasonable as we understand the project actual cost was a little higher. The reason for this is that H-piles were used for pole foundations in an area that is very susceptible to frost jacking. This constituted a significant part of that project's cost. These values also serve to validate our cost estimate. • The report proposed long span, tall pole, installations with SWER HVDC system construction. We concur but maximizing span lengths has always been considered one of the economic design . solutions for both AC and 2-Wire, and conventional HVDC lines. NESC clearance issues, caused by Aeolian vibration and Galloping vibration are the primary reason that a SWER HVDC could achieve longer span lengths. • The report proposed alternative utilizes hollow fiberglass poles, similar to the composite poles used in this project's estimate basis. They are proposed for similar reasons except that the composites required (and those are currently in production) are stronger and have a longer installation history. J.4 - Maintenance Requirements — AC Power Supply • Tracking Review via over -flights or from a snow machine, where detecting hot spots with an . infrared spotter, should reveal any problem areas well in advance of a failure caused by tracking. Tracking surveillance should occur the first year after construction and about once every three years thereafter. One reason a coastal route was avoided is that it would add salt . spray to the power line, causing a tracking problem. • Dampener or bird diverters, if installed, should be visually inspected yearly, as well as checked . for vandalism. Damage to conductors or insulators, from firearms, is one of the most common . causes of damage. • Changes in river or stream flow should be reviewed to confirm that no structural foundations . are being adversely impacted by the waterway channel change. •0 Spot checking the tension on bolts, perhaps every 20th structure, on a regular, basis per a structured maintenance program is advised, even though it is uncommon for lock washers and . pal nuts to allow the structural hardware to loosen. . • Anchor creep or structural jacking mitigation will be required, especially if the Western Route 1 with it's many VSM's, is chosen. The forces imposed by a pipeline and by a messenger strand supported cable are not usual, so an inspection of the support members and anchors should . occur yearly. • Equipment required for maintenance should be defined and it is assumed that some of the equipment required for construction should be transferred to the line maintenance crew or contractor for use. These items are as follows: o low ground pressure man -haul o a man -lift mounted on a flex track piece of equipment o a drill mounted on a flex track piece of equipment o a 20 ton boom crane on tracks similar to a Grove CN20. Those costs are in the Maintenance budget assuming that at least half the cost goes to the construction budget and the value for demobilization of that equipment is transferred to the maintenance budget. ~� 31 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 LIM Report of Findings • Estimated maintenance costs include a basic O&M cost of $1,315 per mile for all alternatives, an annual cost of $50,000 for V5M inspection for the Western Route alternatives, and $50,000 for converter inspections for the ❑C alternatives. K. Estimate Basis - Issues That Need Clear Understanding It should be noted that "economies of scale" can be achieved as a result of employing standard types of design and from permitting requirements; if the majority of the design is standardized and repeatable, and the volume of repeatable work resulting from permitting requirements is larger enough. Although costs will be affected by the final route location, and some costs could change significantly, the estimate cost certainty should be maintained at the-10%1+25% range. The estimated project cost is based on un- esca€ated costs for materials, labor, equipment, quoted or assumed construction costs, and the proposed construction methodology appears to meet the project requirements. The construction schedule is heavily dependent upon material deliveries via a barge that completes one delivery per year to Barrow, and is this cost €s included in the estimate. Market demand may escalate material costs included in the current cost estimate. 32 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings i 6. — Environmental Considerations r A. Introduction The goal of this project is to lessen North Slope community dependence on economically and r environmentally costly diesel fuel which currently is barged to the communities annually. The project would also represent a reduction in the carbon "footprint" for these communities, which ultimately will be beneficial for wildlife populations, but the implementation of the projects comes with some potential costs . for wildlife, especially bird populations. The evaluation of the avian resources and waterfowl habitats in the project area, as a precursor to an assessment of the potential costs for birds from implementation of the proposed power line from Barrow to Atqasuk, is the focus of this report section. The proposed power line would run from the gas processing plant in Barrow south approximately 129 km (80 miles) to the village of Atqasuk on the Meade River. Currently the NSB is proposing two alternative routes for the power line (a Western Route [Base Case] and an Eastern Route [Preferred Alternative]; see Appendix D, Figures 1 to 5). During initial planning for the sighting of these two alternative routes, environmental concerns (e.g., avian occurrence and avian habitat information) were included in discussions to try to reduce the potential for impacts on threatened bird species and bird species of conservation concern. A route previously envisioned (during the early 1980s) for a power line from Barrow to Atqasuk was rejected at an early stage in planning because it ran close to the coast and likely would have necessitated more maintenance due to corrosion from salt spray. A power line along this coastal route also may have represented more of a collision hazard for migratory birds because of the prevalence of coastal fog and its effects on visibility of the power line. Of the two alternative routes selected, the northernmost section of the Western Route would follow existing power lines and gas pipelines associated with the Barrow gas fields south to Walapka; where possible, the power line would be laid alongside gas pipelines and would be connected to existing vertical support members (VSMs). The majority of the Western Route for the proposed power line, however, would be OH from Walapka • south to Atqasuk. The OH portion of the line would involve single -pole construction and support poles would be spaced from 700 to 1200 feet apart. The power line would be elevated approximately 60 feet off the ground. The proposed Eastern Route power line would be all OH and the pole spacing and line • elevation would be as noted for the Western Route. Because formal design plans and routing of the proposed power line also depend on engineering and economic concerns, environmental analyses represented only one set of concerns discussed during the planning phase. Factors such as cost (buried . versus OH), location of private lands, location of existing infrastructure, and human health and safety were evaluated. Finally, environmental mitigation measures deemed feasible at this stage of design, including the possibility of using reflective wire (T2) to increase visibility for birds and placing some • portions of the power line along existing gas pipelines, as proposed for the Western Route, were considered. Overhead power transmission lines can result in direct effects on birds through injury or mortality due to collision or electrocution (e.g., Manville 2005). Although no comprehensive estimate of annual mortality of . birds in North America is available, mortality rates can be substantial (Day et al. 2007). The few comprehensive studies in Alaska suggest that although most birds do avoid collision with power lines, many collisions and consequently fatalities do occur (Anderson and Murphy 1988, Shook et al. 2009). . Many factors such as weather, migratory patterns, season, and behavior patterns unique to individual bird species can affect mortality rates. Birds also can be affected indirectly by the construction of power lines (e.g., creating perches for avian predators and the displacement birds from important habitats). • Important environmental features of interest included two threatened eider species (Spectacled and Steller's Eider) both protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other sensitive, closely related ' resources (e.g., wetlands and avian habitats). To accomplish the evaluation of this environmental information, ABR, Inc. —Environmental Research & Services (ABR) reviewed available literature and unpublished data available on these threatened eider species, as well as other species of conservation . - 33 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 M Report of Findings concern (e.g., Yellow-bi#led Loans, a candidate species under the ESA, and Brant, a species of conservation concern), mapped important wetland habitats used by the most common threatened species in the area (Spectacled Eider), and briefly summarized known and potential impacts of overhead power lines on birds in northern Alaska. This report provides a summary of those resources and potential impacts related to the proposed power line. Because engineering plans for this project are preliminary, we limited our presentation to the power line itself and did not discuss any associated facilities that may be required. B. METHODS BA Avian Resources We first identified all endangered, threatened, or candidate bird species listed under the ESA that occur in the Barrow—Atqasuk region, as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010a), and all bird species of conservation concern likely to occur regularly in tundra habitats the Barrow—Atqasuk region (Table 1). To identify bird species of conservation concern, we used the conservation concern lists from organizations that have specialized experience with various bird species groups in Alaska, including Water bird Conservation for the America's North American Water bird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002 and 2006), Alaska Shorebird Group's Conservation Plan for Alaska Shorebirds (ASG 2008), and Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group's Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions (BPIFWG 1999). In addition, we use the conservation concern lists from management agencies in Alaska that are likely to be involved in the permitting process for this project, including USFWS's Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008), Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Species of Special Concern (ADFG 1998) and Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ADFG 2006), and the Bureau of Land Management's Special Status Species List for Alaska (BLM 2005). We then focused on collecting information on the occurrence of four water bird species (Spectacled Eider, i! Steller's Eider, Yellow -billed Loon, and Brant) for which detailed observational data are available from aerial survey work; this information was displayed in map form to help in developing the two proposed alternative alignments. Primary sources of information on these water birds species included unpublished databases on bird observations in northern Alaska developed from broad -scale aerial survey programs managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (e.g., the North Slope Eider Survey and Arctic Coastal Plain breeding pair survey), as well as information from more localized aerial surveys during the breeding season by ABR, USFWS, and the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management in the Barrow region. We also mapped more site -specific information on water birds (e.g., Yellow -billed Loon nests and Brant nesting colony locations) using USFWS and ABR generated databases. In addition to the information on water birds, we acquired and presented GIS data on the location of native allotments, . which were important to avoid in designing the alignment for the proposed power line. Although a jurisdictional wetland determination will eventually be required during the Section 404 wetland permitting process for the project, we only mapped those wetland habitats in the region that were known to be of high value for breeding Spectacled Eiders (see below). The wetland habitats preferred by Spectacled Eiders also are used by other waterfowl species on the North Slope, so this mapping provides some information on the occurrence of breeding habitats for a larger set of waterfowl species. . From the scientific literature, we summarized natural history information on habitat use, timing of use, and history of collisions with power lines for each threatened or candidate species, especially in northern Alaska, to help assess the potential for these species to collide with OH power transmission lines on the r North Slope. r r34 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 r r Report of Findings Finally, in June 2010, we conducted an aerial survey along the original (coastal) power line route that was envisioned in the 1980s to assess waterfowl habitats and record the presence of Steller's and Spectacled Eiders in that area. The observations from that survey are displayed in Appendix D, Figures 1, 2, and 4. B.2 Mapping Spectacled Elder Breeding Habitats High -value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat was mapped for the project area between Barrow and Atqasuk using existing, publicly available National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland mapping available digitally from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010b). The NWI mapping available for the project area was prepared using aerial photography obtained in 1979 and 1985. The mapping of breeding habitats was used to help identify potential power transmission line routes that would cross fewer areas of high -value breeding habitats for eiders and other waterfowl species. Breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders are roughly representative of breeding habitats used by other waterfowl species on the coastal plain, and especially the water body/wetland complexes used during brood -rearing by species such as Long-tailed Duck and Northern Pintail. The approach used to map high -value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat (a combination of nesting and brood -rearing habitats) was based on first identifying preferred nesting and brood -rearing habitats and then equating or "cross -walking" those habitats to the available NWI wetland types in the project area. The polygon boundaries for Spectacled Eider breeding habitats are based on the NWI wetland map boundaries and because the NWI mapping is coarse scale, the final map of breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders also is coarse scale. The identification of preferred nesting habitats for Spectacled Eiders was based on information collected during field surveys in the Colville River Delta (Johnson et al, 2004), the Kuparuk oilfield (Anderson et al. 2009; Stickney et al. 2010), and the Prudhoe Bay oilfield (Warnock and Troy 1992) (see Table 2). The technique to map preferred nesting habitat involves identifying suitable nesting habitats that fall within 100 meters of aquatic marshes and open water bodies because Spectacled Eiders most often nest in proximity (usually <100 meters) to water bodies and especially wetland/ water body complexes (Anderson et al. 2009; Stickney et al. 2010; see Schick et al. 2004 for more information on the identification and mapping of high -value Spectacled Eider nesting habitat). In the area mapped for this study, five broad habitat types were considered high -value for nesting and/or brood -rearing (Tables 2 and 3). The NWI wetland types mapped in the region of the proposed power line were cross -walked and classified into eight wildlife habitat types (Table 3). Five habitats were treated as high -value nesting and/or brood -rearing habitats, two represented large open water bodies, and one represented lacustrine barrens (Table 3). High -value nesting habitats for Spectacled Eiders were delineated using a GIS by buffering out 100 meters from the edges of high -value brood -rearing and all open -water habitats and then selecting all high -value nesting habitats that occurred within those buffer areas. High -value breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders then were assembled by combining the high -value nesting habitat polygons (within the 100-meter buffer areas above) with the polygons representing high -value brood - rearing habitats. Large open water lakes (> 20 acres in area) were not considered high -value brood - rearing habitats, but preferred nesting habitats within 100 meters of the shorelines of large lakes were considered high value for nesting. Habitat selection and geo-processing were done using Arc GIS 10.o. The assessment of the habitats present in the region of the proposed power line and the cross -walking with the NWI types previously mapped were conducted using color infrared (CIR) imagery for the project area acquired during summer 2002 (2.5-meter pixel resolution; supplied by Golder Associates Inc.). 35 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings C. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION C.1 -Avian Resources i Approximately 70 species of birds commonly occur in the Barrow area (Pitelka 1974). Additional species will occur in the project area because of €tie additional inland habitats found near Atqasuk (e.g., riparian ' scrub and foothill scrub habitats), which are not found on the Arctic Coastal Plain near Barrow. The i project area's avian communities are dominated by water bird species including loons, waterfowl, i shorebirds, gulls, and jaegers. The diversity of passerine and raptor species (including owls) is far lower than water birds in the area. Roughly half of the birds recorded regularly breed in the area, while others I are rare breeders or migrants (Pitelka 1974). Nearly all birds using the study area are present during the 1 spring, stammer, and fall (May to early October). Based on the set of eight bird conservation concern lists 1 noted above in Methods, 21 of the 70-plus species that occur in the project area currently are considered species of conservation concern and three are listed as threatened or candidate species under the ESA 1 (Table 1). 1 Most breeding birds on the North Slope arrive on their tundra nesting habitats in late May and early June 1 and begin to nest as soon as suitable tundra nesting habitats are snow -free. After nesting, departure is 1 highly variable among species, but most shorebirds and passerines have left the area by late August or 1 early September, while the larger migratory waterfowl and loon species, which have longer developmental periods, linger into October and November. Ptarmigan, Gyrfalcons, Snowy Owls, and 1 Common Ravens may occur in the project area during the winter months. 1 Three features of the bird community are most important in discussing the development of OH power lines in the region. First, 24 species of conservation concern breed in, or migrate through the region (Table 1). Two of those 24 species (Spectacled and Stealer's Eider) are classified as threatened under the 1 ESA, while a third species (Yellow -billed Loon) has been identified as a candidate for listing under the ESA. The presence of the two threatened species in the project area will necessitate Section 7 consultation under the ESA to evaluate the expected impacts on those threatened species from ' construction and operation of the proposed power line. Candidate species also are sometimes considered in Section 7 consultations. ' Second, raptors also are often associated with power lines and are known to use power line poles as perches, although most raptor species nest in the foothills of the Brooks Range rather than on the coastal plain. Juveniles of some species, however, including Golden Eagles, do use coastal plain habitats in the study area (Ritchie et al. 2003), and migrant adult and immature birds of other species such as Peregrine 1 Falcons also occasionally occur on the coastal plain. Golden Eagles receive special protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Third, Point Barrow is one of the most prominent locations in the migration pathways of water birds in spring and fall in North America. During spring migration (May), hundreds of thousands of water birds pass Point Barrow following early season, near shore leads in the ice (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Many species also may fly inland of Point Barrow as indicated by telemetry studies and visual observations (e.g., Troy 2003, J. Schmutz, LISGS, pers. comm.). Fall migration past Point Barrow occurs in early July through October or November (Suydam et al. 2000). Additionally, near shore marine waters, including Elson Lagoon, east of Point Barrow and Ledyard Bay west of Barrow, are important for staging and molting water birds in the region (Fischer and Larned 2004, Lysne et al. 2004). 36 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 i Report of Findings d C,2 Spectacled Elder Spectacled Eiders occur in disjoint coastal breeding populations in arctic Russia, western Alaska, and d northern Alaska (Petersen at al. 2000). The subpopulation in western Alaska has undergone severe declines in abundance (Kertell 1991, Stehn at al. 1993) and this precipitated listing the species as threatened by the USFWS in 1993. Historical records of Spectacled Eider abundance in northern Alaska are less certain, but some data suggests recent declines in numbers (Warnock and Troy 1992, TERA 1993, Peterson at al. 2000). The USFWS suggests that the Arctic Coastal Plain in northern Alaska now supports the main breeding population of Spectacled Eiders in Alaska (USFWS 1996, Larned at al. 2009), r with a relatively stable population between 5,000-7,000 breeding pairs (Larned at al. 2009). Spectacled Eiders arrive on the tundra in the study area in late May or early June (Johnson and Herter, 1989, USFWS 1996). Nesting begins by mid -June and eggs start hatching in mid -July (Warnock and Troy 1992, Anderson and Cooper 1994). Although specific nesting studies have not occurred near Barrow, studies in the oilfields of northern Alaska show Spectacled Eiders use a variety of habitats for nesting, including salt -killed tundra, aquatic sedge with deep polygons, and non -patterned wet meadow within i drained lake complexes (Warnock and Troy 1992, Johnson at al. 2000, Bart and Ernst 2005, Anderson at al. 2009). Nests are often on small islands, peninsulas, and pond shorelines usually within a meter of water (Anderson at al. 1999, Bart and Ernst 2005). These habitat types occur between Barrow and Atqasuk and breeding pairs of Spectacled Eiders are regularly recorded there (Larned at al. 2009, Obritsekewich and Ritchie 2009; see Appendix D, Figures 1 and 2). During brood -rearing (mid -July to early September), Spectacled Eiders use a variety of aquatic habitats including water bodies with emergent vegetation on their margins, basin wetland complexes, and occasionally deep open lakes (Warnock and Troy 1992, Anderson and Cooper 1994, Johnson at al. 2000). When young are capable of flight, Spectacled Eiders move to near shore marine waters, and then depart the coastal plain, usually by mid -September. After leaving breeding areas, Spectacled Eiders move to molting areas along the western coast of Alaska (Ledyard Bay, Norton Sound) and the eastern coast of Russia (USFWS 1996). Spectacled Eiders are found concentrated during winter in polynas of the Bering Sea near (Petersen at al. 1999). Within weeks of females nesting, male Spectacled Eiders depart the coastal plain. Most males (71 %) outfitted with satellite transmitters in the Prudhoe Bay region did not stopover along the Beaufort Sea Coast, but took more inland flights to molting areas in the Chukchi Sea (TERA 1993). Females, however, flew to coastal waters and followed a more marine route to the Chukchi Sea during their outbound migration (TERA 1993). During the molt and non -breeding season, Spectacled Eiders are primarily benthic feeders that prefer deeper marine waters where crustaceans and mollusks are available as a food source, but during the breeding season, they forage for crustaceans and other invertebrate prey in shallower ponds and lakes (USFWS 2006). In 1993, the Alaska breeding population of Spectacled Eider was listed as threatened. Although critical wetland habitats were proposed for Spectacled Eiders on the North Slope by USFWS, none was 1 designated because nesting habitat was not considered to be limiting for this species. Only Ledyard Bay ` in the Chukchi Sea was delineated as critical marine habitat for molting eiders (USFWS 2001). Spectacled Eiders regularly occur as nesting birds in the project area and are widely distributed from Barrow to Atqasuk (Appendix D, Figures 1 and 2). The maps on Figures 1 and 2 display observations of males made during aerial surveys in the pre -nesting period (the presence of a male is often, though not always, associated with a nest nearby). Concentrations of observations of males during the pre -nesting period are variable depending on the years of survey data being evaluated and consistent spatial patterns in occurrence generally are lacking (compare Figures 1 and 2). Nesting habitats preferred by Spectacled 37 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Eiders are widely distributed in the project area (see Appendix D, Figure 3 and text below) and this explains, at least in part, the wide distribution of Spectacled Eider observations in the area. C.3 steller's Elder Most of the world poptlation of Steller's Eiders breeds in arctic Russia and winters in northern Europe or along the Alaska Peninsula (Pacific population) (Frederickson 2001; USFWS 2002). The Alaska breeding population of Steller's Eider occurs in two regions, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Y-K Delta) and near Barrow in northern Alaska. Once a common breeder on the Y-K Delta (Kertell 1991), nests are rarely reported there now (Flint and Herzog 1999). Similarly, although their former nesting range in arctic Alaska extended from Wainwright to Cape Halkett, the Steller's Eider currently is an uncommon breeder there (Johnson and Herter 1989, Fiederickson 2001), with the greatest frequency of birds nesting within —20 km (12 miles) of Barrow (Quakenbush et al. 2002; see also Appendix D, Figure 4). Aerial surveys support this northern concentration of eiders as sightings of Stealer's Eider pairs decline south of Barrow (USFWS, unpublished data; Obritsekewich and Ritchie 2009), although pairs are observed as far south as the Atqasuk area (USFWS, unpublished database; ABR, field survey data, 2010; see Appendix D, Figure 4). The population size of Steller's Eiders breeding on (lie Arctic Coastal Plain, including Barrow, is difficult to determine because of the variability of sightings among years and low numbers of birds recorded during annual aerial surveys (e.g., Larned et al. 2010, Ritchie and King 2004). The recovery plan for Steller's Eiders estimated the breeding population in northern Alaska at hundreds to low thousands (USFWS 2002). Steller's Eiders arrive in pairs on the coastal plain near Barrow in late May to early -June, often concentrating in wetland areas along Gaswell Road and Footprint Lake (e.g., Quakenbush et al. 1995, 2000; Obritschkewitsch and Martin 2002; Obritschkewitsch et al. 2001; Rojeck and Martin 2003, Rojek 2008). Pairs start to scatter across the tundra, and begin to nest in mid -June soon after tundra habitats are snow free (Obritschkewitsch and Martin 2002; Quakenbush et al. 2004). The preferred habitats of Steller's Eiders near Barrow are water bodies with pendant grass (Arctophila tUlva), but streams and Carex ponds are also used during summer (Quakenbush et al. 2000). Importantly, whether they breed in a given year in the Barrow area is influenced by the occurrence and abundance of lemmings and their predators such as Snowy Owls (Quakenbush and Suydam 1999). Nesting has been verified for Steller's Eiders at Barrow in only 10 of 17 years since 1991 (Rojek 2008). After hatch in late June through mid -July, Steller's Eider broods use tundra ponds, often with Arctophila vegetation, within 1 km of natal ponds until fledging (-40 days; Quakenbush et al. 2000). Failed and post - breeding birds also use water bodies with Arctophila present, but have been recorded in larger lakes, lagoons, and near shore waters of the Chukchi Sea (Quakenbush et al. 200D). Steller's Eiders actually spend most of the year in shallow coastal habitats, especially in the littoral zone and coastal lagoons where they feed on mollusks and other benthic invertebrates (Fredrickson 2001). Most of the Russian -Pacific population, including the Alaska breeding population, of Steller's Eiders move to near shore habitats along the Alaska Peninsula, where they undergo a flightless molt for about three weeks (Jones 1965, Petersen 1980). Some eiders remain in these molting areas through the winter, but many move to wintering areas on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula from Cook Inlet through the Aleutians (USFWS 2002). In 1997, the Alaska breeding population of Steller's Eider was listed as threatened based on the contraction of the Alaskan breeding range and resulting increased vulnerability of the remaining population to extirpation (62 FR 31748; USFWS 2002). Critical habitat has been designated for Steller's 38 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Eiders only in western Alaska (66 FIR 8850); no critical habitat has been designated in northern Alaska including the Barrow area. As noted above, the nesting of Steller's Eiders on the Arctic Coastal Plain currently is concentrated in the region surrounding Barrow. The frequency of nesting by Steller's Eiders (as indicated by observations of pre -nesting males) declines as one moves south of Barrow towards Atqasuk (Appendix D. Figure 4). Other spatial patterns in nesting are generally lacking and the species has been found to breed throughout the northern portion of the project area. It should be noted that surveys for this species generally have not been conducted south to Atqasuk (with the exception of the 2010 surveys by ABR along the original coastal alignment for the proposed power line). The frequency of nesting of this species in the Atqasuk area, however, is expected to be lower than in the northern portion of the project area. CA Yellow -billed Loons Yellow -billed Loons are uncommon breeders on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska (Johnson and Herter 1989, Earnst 2004), but concentrations of nesting birds occur in some areas such as the Colville River Delta and between the Meade and Ikpikpuk Rivers (Earnst et al. 2005, J. Schmutz, USGS, pers. comm.). They occur in low densities between Barrow and Atqasuk (<1 bird/259 km2 or 100 mi2), and increase in densities along the Meade River (Earnst 2004). Few nests of Yellow -billed Loons have been recorded in the project area (Appendix D, Figure 5). Yellow -billed Loons arrive on the breeding grounds in northern Alaska in the last week of May and early June (Earnst 2004). Nest initiation begins by mid -June, hatching occurs in mid -July, and broods usually are raised in the nesting lake (Earnst 2004). Nests are built on peninsulas, shorelines, islands, or in emergent vegetation, usually in or adjacent to large deep, fish -bearing lakes, often with complex shorelines (Earnst et al. 2006). Although few Yellow -billed Loons nest in the study area, they regularly use the Chukchi and Beaufort N coastlines near Barrow during migration in spring and fall (North 1994). In spring they will follow leads in the ice north and east and in fall they migrate west along the coast. Peak migration occurs before late August, while some birds linger in coastal areas into late October (North 1994). Generally considered M coastal during migration, many birds migrate overland (Anaktuvuk Pass: Irving 1960). Recent telemetry studies show birds banded east of Barrow flying overland through the study area (J. Schmutz, USGS, unpublished data). Currently, the Yellow -billed Loon is classified as a candidate species under the ESA (72 FIR 31256; USFWS 2010a). The ESA does not provide any statutory protection, but the UFSWS does encourage cooperation with other state and federal agencies and industry to limit detrimental effects of activities on this species. Rather few observations of either Yellow -billed Loons or nests of Yellow -billed Loons have been recorded in the project area, but there is a notable concentration of observations to the east of Atqasuk and east of both of the proposed power line alignments (Appendix D, Figure 5). C.5 Other Species of Concern Twenty-one other bird species of conservation concern occur in the area (Table 1). All of these species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. One of those 21 species (Brant, a small arctic -nesting goose) nests in small colonies near the proposed power line alignments in the project area (Ritchie 1996; see Appendix D, Figure 5), and is valued as a subsistence resource on the North Slope. Brant 39 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 M No toReport of Findings populations throughout North America have declined substantially because of habitat changes on their wintering grounds (Reed et al. 1998). Two additional species (Golden Eagle and Rough -legged Hawk) are noted here because of their history of, or potential for, electrocution at OH power lines. The Golden Eagle is considered a species of conservation concern but the Rough -legged Hawk is not (Table 1). Both Golden Eagles and Rough - legged Hawks breed in the northern foothills of the Brooks Range (Kochert et al. 2002, Bechard and Swem 2002), while Golden Eagles, primarily sub adult birds, occur on the coastal plain in low numbers ly► (Ritchie et al. 2003). D. SPECTACLED EIDER HABITATS IN THE PROJECT AREA A total of 110,102 hectares (272,067 acres) of high -value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat was identified in the region surrounding the proposed power line project between Barrow and Atqasuk (Table 3, Appendix D, Figure 3). The majority of the breeding habitats in the mapped area were nesting habitats (65% of the total mapped area). Nesting habitats were represented by seven NWI wetland types, which roughly correspond to two broad wildlife habitat types (Patterned and Non -patterned Wet Meadows) identified as nesting habitats in other studies (Tables 2 and 3), Brood -rearing habitats accounted for the remaining 35% of the mapped area and were represented by 21 NWI types. These 21 NWI types were 10 interpreted as three broad habitat types (Shallow Open Water without Islands, Sedge Marsh, and Grass Marsh). Deriving wildlife habitat types from existing NWI maps was effective in identifying general areas with a high density of preferred breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders, but there were limitations in equating NWI wetland types to water bird breeding habitats. The primary limitation was developing a "clean" crosswalk between NWI types and wildlife habitat types. NWI wetland types are classified based on vegetation structure and hydrology whereas wildlife habitats, as mapped by ABR, are classified based on geomorphology, surface form, vegetation structure, and disturbance (see Burgess et al. 2003; Schick and Davis 2008). The effect of this likely would be an overestimation of the amount of preferred breeding habitats in the mapped area because the NWI classification does not differentiate wetland types based on landscape variables such as geomorphology and local -scale variables such as surface form. Additionally, because the NWI mapping for the region was completed over 25 years ago, with aerial photography dating from 1979 and 1985, there may be errors in habitat determinations due to landscape changes over N time and also due to variations in the NWI mapping techniques used across the mapped area. a Nevertheless, with the understanding that the amount of high -value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat 14 may be overestimated in the mapping area, the Western Route for the proposed power line was sighted to try to avoid crossing large concentrations of high -value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat as much as possible (Appendix D, Figure 3). This effort was challenging, however, given the widespread occurrence of high -value habitats in the project area. N A 14 40 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 r Report of Findings E. POTENTIAL AFFECTS OF POWER LINES ON BIRDS AT THE NORTH SLOPE EA Collisions The greatest environmental concern for birds associated with the development of OH power lines is the potential risk of injury or mortality caused by collision with overhead wires, including any guy wires. For the Barrow—Atqasuk power line, the primary periods of concern for bird collisions would be spring (May — June) and fall (August —October). A few species (ptarmigan, Snowy Owls, and possibly Gyrfalcons and Common Ravens) may winter in the area and they would be at risk throughout the year. Estimates of mortality rates of birds at power lines are quite variable (e.g., Day et al. 2007), but when it occurs mortality can be substantial (Manville 2005). Although information on bird mortality at power lines in Alaska generally is limited, some studies in northern Alaska have been conducted. In the Prudhoe Bay area, species involved in fatal collisions with OH power lines included Pacific Loon, unidentified Eider, White -fronted Goose, Long-tailed Duck, Northern Pintail, shorebirds, and passerines (Anderson and Murphy 1988). Four non -fatal collisions of waterfowl species, including a male King Eider, also were recorded. In 3 of the non -fatal 4 collisions, the birds flew up into wires after being disturbed by vehicles or humans on the ground. The estimated annual mortality of birds at the Lisburne power line in Prudhoe Bay S was 2.7-19.9 birds/km/year (Anderson and Murphy 1988). In Barrow, most records of dead birds found beneath power lines were recorded during USFWS ground - based surveys for nesting Steller's Eiders; often data on these specimens are incomplete or anecdotal (USFWS unpublished database, Fairbanks, AK). However, during specific power line surveys in Barrow between 2007 and 2009, 43 dead birds were located during searches of 1190 km of power lines; 25% percent of all birds found were waterfowl (NSB 2010). Limitations of this study included the absence of estimates of the detestability of carcass and estimates of the level of predator scavenging, and the authors believed their counts were underestimates of the actual number of bird collisions with the power lines. Note that the NSB (2010) report is in draft form only, and hence any conclusions should be considered preliminary at this time. Importantly, however, eider mortalities due to collisions at power lines were documented in the NSB study. Bird flight diverters were installed on some segments of the Barrow power transmission lines studied. In the USFWS data on mortality of ESA -listed species (USFWS, unpublished database, Fairbanks, AK), four Steller's Eider power line collision records are present, including two recorded during NSB surveys near Barrow (NSB 2010). Only one Spectacled Eider was found during power line searches near Barrow (NSB 2010). Steller's Eiders also have been recorded colliding with OH wires at Cold Bay on the Alaska Peninsula (USFWS, unpublished database, Fairbanks, AK). On the other hand, no eiders have been recorded during mortality monitoring of OH power lines in western Alaska (Stebbins to Saint Michael and Nelson Island; Gall and Day 2007, 2008), although the power lines studied occur in areas where eiders are known to migrate and breed. Other species, particularly ptarmigan, were recorded as collision victims in the western Alaska studies. Portions of the Nelson Island power line studied did have bird flight diverters installed (Gall and Day 2008). Although power line monitoring studies in interior Alaska (generally a forested landscape) pose issues of ■ comparability with tundra habitats on the coastal plain in northern Alaska, they offer valuable insights into some of the species groups most vulnerable to collision with OH power lines. Intensive monitoring of the 230 kV GVEA Northern Intertie transmission line on the Tanana Flats revealed that numerous species collided with the power line (Shook et al. 2009), Prominent species included water birds in the Tanana R Flats section of the Intertie: in decreasing order of occurrence, Mallard, Northern Shoveler, and Green- {•:,;i ; 41 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings winged Teal, were identified during ground -based surveys (Shook et al. 2009). In upland portions of the intertie route, where collision rates were greater, passerines and galliform birds (especially ptarmigan) were commonly found (Shook et al. 2009). A corrected estimate for collisions ranged from 11 to 15 birds/km of power line per year for the entire line; the variation in collisions was substantial, however, resulting in large confidence intervals For the estimated collision rates (Shook et al. 2009). r � E.2 Electrocutions r power lines also pose a risk of mortality to birds by electrocution, particularly for larger perching birds like raptors when they ground themselves landing or departing from cross beams at the tops of power line poles (APLIC 2006). Golden Eagles, Rough -legged Hawks, Gyrfalcons, and Peregrine Falcons, all summer residents in northern Alaska, would be at the greatest risk. This risk can be mitigated substantially, however, if raptors are considered in the design of wire junctions at poles. Perch guards, for example, can deter landings on power poles (APLIC 2006). r" LA 0 E.3 Habitat Loss Direct loss of wildlife habitats associated with the construction of a power line from Barrow to Atqasuk probably would be minor and is unlikely to substantially affect bird populations in the area. However, some additional functional loss/alteration of avian habitats in the vicinity of the proposed power line from disturbance and associated infrastructure construction could occur. The amount of habitat loss expected can be calculated after final engineering design work for the project has been completed. E.4 Increased Predation Due to Habitat Enhancement The increasing number of towers, utility poles, and other man-made structures in northern Alaska have become a concern to the USFWS because this infrastructure provides potential perches and nesting . platforms for predatory and scavenging birds, particularly the Common Raven, which preys on threatened eiders and other birds species (largely by taking eggs during nesting). Raptorial birds, including Peregrine Falcons and Gyrfalcons, also will use man-made structures as nest platforms (Ritchie 1991) and Golden Eagles will undoubtedly use power poles for perches from which to hunt, increasing the potential for these birds to prey on tundra -nesting birds and increasing the level of bird predation in the region. As noted above, perch guards on power poles can help to deter the use of power poles as perches by predatory r and scavenging birds. F. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT RELATED REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE PROPOSED POWER LINE Several federal environmental laws and regulations related to wildlife and wildlife habitats will be pertinent to the development and operation of the proposed power line and its associated facilities, including the r Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Clean Water Act (Section 404). The Endangered Species Act will affect the proposed power line project because of the presence of the two threatened eider species and the candidate species (Yellow -billed Loon) in the project area. Consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA will be required to determine the potential for r take of these species under the ESA; Section 7 consultation should begin as soon as final alignment r 42 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 A Ilr Report of Findings designs are developed because the consultation process can be lengthy. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act will apply if the removal of Common Raven nests, for example, is requested by the USFWS; this species, like all migratory birds, is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. According to the act, all native birds are considered migratory, even if they may be resident in a particular region. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides specific protections for Golden Eagles, which can be vulnerable to electrocutions at OH power lines. to The National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental analyses such Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements for actions by federal agencies, will apply to the Barrow Atqasuk power line because federal lands (e.g., the NPRA) under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management will be affected. The Clean Water Act requires a Section 404 permit for any dredging and/or filling of wetlands, which will occur during drilling foundations for power poles, gravel filling at associated facilities, and road construction. _J G. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POWER LINE ALIGNMENT: IN REGARDS TO BIRDS AND WETLAND HABITATS Based on the information gathered to date and knowledge of potential collisions risks for threatened species using the project area, any OH power line developed will cross through high -value breeding I� habitats used by the two threatened eider species, the candidate loon species, and other water bird species. In addition to breeding -bird considerations, the study area also is used by birds migrating between the Arctic Coastal Plain in the western Beaufort Sea area and the Chukchi Sea to the west. Most migration of water birds, however, probably takes place along the coast outside of the project area. The USFWS has concerns about OH power lines and their potential impacts on birds, particularly threatened eiders in northern and western Alaska. Required operating procedures listed in the Record of Decision for the Northeastern NPRA EIS (BLM 2008) state that: "to reduce the possibility of Spectacled and/or Steller's Eiders colliding with above -ground utility lines, such lines shall either be buried in access roads or suspended on vertical support members except in rare cases, which are to be few in number." The procedures go on to note exceptions, which include: "overhead power lines may be allowed when engineering constraints at the specific and limited [emphasis added] location make it unfeasible to bury or connect the lines to a VSM." With these points in mind, the Western Route for the proposed power line was designed with eider and other water bird resources considered. In particular, the Western Route was designed to (1) follow existing power lines and gas pipelines (connected to VSMs) south from Barrow to Walapka; (2) avoid high -value nesting habitats for Spectacled Eiders as much as possible (see Figure 3); (3) cross areas of the coastal plain with lower densities of Yellow -billed Loons and traditionally used Brant colonies (see Appendix D, Figure 5); (4) avoid crossing the main channel of the Meade River; and (5) maintain a relatively short route for economic and engineering reasons. Avoiding areas of concentrated nesting of the two threatened eider species was difficult to accomplish in the design of the Western Route because both eider species are widespread in the project area with no clear spatial patterns of occurrence (see Appendix D, Figures 1, 2, and 4). Because burying the entire power line is not an economically viable option, hanging the power line on the VSMs of the gas pipeline south to Walapka would reduce the amount of OH power line and reduce collision potential accordingly. Importantly, the existing gas pipeline in the project area crosses the most important breeding habitats for Steller's Eider (immediately south of Barrow), so using any portion of the gas pipeline infrastructure could reduce collision potential with this species. The design of the Western Route only took into consideration possible breeding habitat for Spectacled Eiders, but similar habitats are used by other water bird species during breeding on the North 43 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 r Report of Findings ip Slope. Additionally, other water bird species use these same habitats during migration in terrestrial and freshwater areas. Using reflective power transmission fine cable (e.g., T2) may help minimize collision hazard for birds. / Another option to increase the visibility of power lines to birds is to install bird flight diverters. Bird flight / diverters have been shown to reduce avian interactions with power lines (Day et al. 2007), however they have not been found to weather arctic environments well (Gall and Day 2008) and therefore may have limited utility for this project. r Although the height of power lines may result in different effects on birds depending on flight behavior / (e,g„ lower local flights versus higher migratory flights, power line height and collision hazard has not / been adequately studied in Alaska. It is possible, however, that higher pole heights could reduce the number of poles needed and reduce perch and electrocution potential, especially for raptors. In addition, higher line height might reduce the number of collisions of breeding birds when making local flights, as (i their local -flight altitudes may generally be lower than during longer migratory movements. L. List of Exhibits or Figures / See Section 9. List of Exhibits or Figures — Environmental Considerations / Figure 1 - Western Spectacled Crider Observations: 1992 to 2005 r Figure 2 - Spectacled Eider Observations: 1999 to 2010 ■ Figure 3 - High -value Breeding Habitats -- Spectacled !riders Figure 4 - Steller's Eider Observations: 1999 to 2010 Figure 5 - Yellow -Billed Loon Observations: 1950 to 2010 r ■ ■ r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ v ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 44 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study ■ September 15, 2011 IP ko of Findings IPReport IF Table 1. Threatened and candidate bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act r (ESA) and bird species of conservation concern likely to occur regularly in the IP Barrow—Atqasuk region, North Slope, Alaska. Conservation status categories are shown for each species and listing organization. r IP Species USFWSe BLM° ADFG° WCA° ASGe BPIF' r Brant B Sensitive — — r (Branta bernicla) species Threatened Species of IP Steller's Eider species under special — — — 0 (Polysticta stelleri) ESA concern Spectacled Eider Threatened Species of species under special — -- — (Somateria fischera� ESA concern IP King Eider Featuredfor Sensitive (Somateria spectabilis) species species conservation Featured Common Eider _ species for R — (Somateria mollissima) conservation Long-tailed Duck Sensitive Featured species for — - - — r (Clangula hyemahs) species conservation Red -throated Loon Species of Sensitive Featured Species of (Gavia stellata) conservation species species for high concern conservation concern Featured Pacific Loon - species for - — — (Gavia pacifica) conservation Yellow -billed Loon Candidate Sensitive Featured Species of (Gavia adamsii) species for y species species for high — ESA conservation concern Northern Harrier Featured A (Circus cyaneus) __ species for — -- — conservation 10 Golden Eagle Featured 10 (Aquila chrysaetos) species for - -- — i conservation Gyfalcon Featured Priority (Falco rusticolus) — species for — species for conservation conservation Peregrine Falcon Species of Featured (Falco pereginus ssp, conservation species for — -- -- tundrius) concern conservation American Golden -Plover Species of (Pluvialis dominica) - — high — . concern Study 45 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Species USFWSa BLMb ADFGe WCA' ASGe BPIF' Species of Species of Whimbrel conservation - -- — high — (Numenius phaeopus) concern concern Species of Species of Bar -tailed Godwit conservation — — high — (Limosa lapponica) concern concern Species of Western Sandpiper _ — high — (Calidris mauri) concern Dunlin Species of Species of (Calidris alpina ssp. conservation - high — arcticola) concern concern Buff -breasted Sandpiper Species of Featured Sensitive Species of (Tryngites subruficollis) conservation species for species high — concern conservation concern Species of Featured Species of Arctic Tern conservation species for high - — (Sterna paradisaea) concern conservation concern Snowy Owl Featured Priority species for -- species for (Bubo scandiacus) conservation conservation Short -eared Owl Featured (Asio flammeus) species for — -- conservation Smith's Longspur Species of Featured Priority (Calcarius pictus) conservation species for - — species for concern conservation conservation Hoary Redpoll Priority (Acanthis hornemanna) - — --- species for conservation a. USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Birds of Conservation Concern (for Bird Conservation Region 3, Arctic Plains and Mountains) (USFWS 2008); and Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Delisted Species in Alaska (USFWS 2010a). b. BLM: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species List (BLM 2005); sensitive species only are shown, threatened and candidate species listed by BLM duplicate the listings by USFWS 2010b. c. ADFG: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Species of Special Concern (ADFG 1998) and Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ADFG 2006). d. W CA: Water bird Conservation for the Americas, North American Water bird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002 and 2006); species in the higher concern classes only, species of moderate and low concern are not shown. e. ASG: Alaska Shorebird Group, Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan Version Il (ASG 2008); species of high concern only, species of moderate and low concern are not shown. f. BPIF: Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group, Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions (BPIFWG 1999). g. Dash indicates the species is not listed or its conservation ranking is below the threshold for inclusion in this study (see notes d and a above). Nnrfh Slope Bpro�gh 46 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission September 16, 2011 Report of Findings Table 2. Identification of high -value nesting habitats for Spectacled Eiders in the Barrow— Atqasuk region, North Slope, Alaska. Only coarse -scale habitats were identified as derived from National Wetlands Inventory mapping of the area (see Table 3). Regularly Used Habitats Equivalent Wildlife Habitat on the North Slope` Sourceb Type in Project Area Salt -killed Tundra 2 No equivalent type Aquatic Sedge with Deep Polygons 2 Sedge Marsh Sedge Marsh 1 Sedge Marsh Carex Ponds 3 Sedge Marsh Old Basin Wetland Complex 1 Patterned and Non -patterned Wet Meadow Patterned Wet Meadow 2 Patterned Wet Meadow Non -patterned Wet Meadow 1, 2, 3 Non -patterned Wet Meadow a When in proximity (usually <100 meters) to water, including water bodies and aquatic marsh habitats (see text). b 1 = Kuparuk oilfield (Stickney et al. 2010; Anderson et al. 2009); 2 = Colville River Delta (Johnson et al. 2004); 3 = Prudhoe Bay oilfield (Warnock and Troy 1992). A901- i ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i i i Study 47 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission September 15, 2011 Table 3. r Classification crosswalk table between National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetland types and wildlife habitat types. Acreages represent the areas of each wetland type illustrated on the map of high -value Spectacled Eider habitats (see Figure 3). Codefl Wildlife Habitat Type isNWI • L2USA Lacustrine Barrens L2USC Lacustrine Barrens L1UBHb Shallow and Deep Open Water without Islands L2UBHb Shallow Open Water without Islands PUBF Shallow Open Water without Islands PUBH Shallow Open Water without Islands PEMl/UBH Sedge Marsh PEMl/UBF Sedge Marsh r PUB/EM1F Sedge Marsh PUB/EM1H Sedge Marsh PEMI/217 Sedge Marsh PEMI/2H Sedge Marsh . PEM1H Sedge Marsh L2EM2/UBH Grass Marsh L2EM2/UBF Grass Marsh . L2EM2F Grass Marsh . L2EM2H Grass Marsh L2UB/EM2H Grass Marsh PUB/EM2H Grass Marsh PEM2/lF Grass Marsh PEM2/lH Grass Marsh PEM2/UBF Grass Marsh PEM2/UBH Grass Marsh PEM21? Grass Marsh PEM2H Grass Marsh PEMI/2E Non -patterned Wet Meadow . PEM1C Non -patterned Wet Meadow . PEM1E Non -patterned Wet Meadow PEM1F Non -patterned Wet Meadow PEMI/SS1F Patterned Wet Meadow . PEM1/SS1E Patterned Wet Meadow Total Acreage of High -value Nesting and Brood -rearing Habitats Breeding Use by Spectacled Eiders None None Low value brood -rearing Low value brood -rearing Brood -rearing Brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting and brood -rearing Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Nesting Acres n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 24,986 14,436 23,016 172 3,033 1,265 1,239 1,873 2,920 37 164 6,987 7,168 507 2,003 2,165 36 1,073 120 2,676 7 10,432 30,451 41,040 70,248 24,004 272,067 a NWI codes used on publicly available wetland maps for the Barrow—Atgasuk area from USFWS (2010b); codes follow the classification described in Cowardin (1979). n NWI code refers to large lakes (>20 acres in area) following Cowardin (1979). 1 1 1 1 48 1 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15. 2011 Report of Findings 7. — Permitting Considerations A. Objective Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc (Solstice) was engaged to determine potential permit requirements for the construction of a proposed electrical intertie between Barrow and Atqasuk, Alaska. Our assumptions for the intertie are as follows: The intertie would be overhead and approximately 60 to 70 miles long. The utility poles would range in height from 40 feet to 80 feet tall. The intertie alignment would cross wetland complexes and anadromous streams. The project could cross property owned by the State of Alaska, the Federal government, the North Slope Borough, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Below is a list of potential permits and authorizations that could be required for the project, based on current understanding and knowledge of the project. B. Federal Permits and Authorizations Wetlands (Section 404 and Section 10) Permit It is likely that a wetland permit would be required for this project because utility poles would be placed in wetlands under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Also, a wetlands permit would be required if any poles were placed below ordinary high water of any navigable stream. Responsible Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Statutes: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1977) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1890) Rationale: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under ordinary high water of any navigable water of the United States. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Timing: Permits are issued following a Coastal Consistency Determination by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) (see below for timing). Contact: Section USACE, Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 Phone: 907.753.2724 Fax: 907.753.5567 49 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 I J i N • T T r R . T h p 1 R A g i S pr re Ti reN T pr fu 1 C Ju 55 ` A P Fa ju 1 Ph R eport of Findings ational Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation here is the potential to find cultural or historic resources in the Barrow - Atgasuk Intertie project area. o make the permitting process more efficient, consultation with the Alaska Department of Natural esources (ADNR) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) should occur during the permitting process. he project could wait for the permitting agencies to complete this consultation as a part of their process; owever, Solstice has found that completing the NHPA consultation with the SHPO helps to move the ermitting process forward. esponsible Agency: DNR SHPO tatute: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) ationale: ection 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic operties. The project must consult the SHPO regarding potential impacts to cultural and historic sources in the vicinity of the project. ming: HPO is required to respond within 30-days of the submittal of a findings letter. If no response is ceived, the project can assume there would be no impacts to historic properties. otes: he SHPO could request a field survey for cultural resources, which could increase the timing on this ocess. The SHPO could also find that the project could impact cultural resources. If this is the case, rther consultation would be needed. ontact: dith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer 0 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1380 nchorage, AK 99501 907.269.8721 x: 907.269.8908 dy_bittner@dnr.state.ak.us 50 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 1 Reporf of Findings Endangered Species Act Clearance i Spectacled eider and the polar bear, both listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), may be found in the Barrow - Atgasuk Intertie project area, (Polar bears are also regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which has separate consultation requirement, which could occur i concurrently with this process.) To make the permitting process more efficient, consultation with the U.S r Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding impacts to listed endangered species assist in moving the permitting process forward. The project could wait for the permitting agencies to complete this consultation as a part of their process; however, Solstice has found that completing the ESA consultation helps to move the permitting process forward. i Responsible Agency: 1 U.S Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Statutes: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (1973) N Rationale: A consultation required by Section 7 must be performed for any activities that may affect species formally listed as threatened or endangered. Timing: The USFWS has 30 days to respond to a findings letter Notes: The USFWS could request additional information on the project or species and could require a field survey, which could increase the timing on this process. The USFWS could also find that the project could impact ESA -listed species. If this is the case, formal consultation with the USFWS would be 1 needed and could take additional time. 1 Contact: Ted Swem, Branch Chief Endangered Species Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 101 12th Ave., Room 110 i Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: 907-456-0441 Fax:907-456-0208 ted_swem@fws.gov C. State Permits and Authorizations 1 Coastal Consistency Determination Most of the intertie project would occur within the North Slope Borough Coastal Management District; therefore, it is subject to review under the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Although the North Slope does not have a final coastal management plan in place, a consistency determination with the ! State's coastal zone enforceable policies would be needed. ■ r ' 51 g. -it' o)l Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study `� September 16, 2011 Report of Findings Responsible Agency: Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) Statute: . Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), Alaska Statute (AS) 46.40 (Water, Air, Energy, and Environmental Conservation; The Alaska Coastal Management Program) Rationale: r Using the statewide standards and local enforceable policies established by a local coastal planning board, the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) evaluates the effects a project within coastal zone boundaries will have on coastal resources and uses. Timing: The coastal zone review process begins after a Coastal Project Questionnaire is submitted and approved and after the USACE has issued their Public Notice. After initiated, and if the process is not paused after 1! a request of additional information or elevated because of major issues, the process takes 60 days to complete. Within this 60 day process, there is a 30 day public comment period. r Contact: Christine Ballard, Project Review Assistant DNR, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 550 West 7th Ave., Ste. 705 . Phone:907.269.7478 Fax: 907.269.3981 r christine.ballard@alaska.gov i Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit Because the Barrow — Atgasuk Intertie could involve crossing anadromous fish (salmon) streams, it is likely that a Fish Habitat Permit would be needed. A Fish Habitat Permit is needed for any work in an anadromous stream, including crossing an anadromous fish stream during the winter on ice. i Responsible Agency: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Habitat Statutes: AS 16.05.841-871 (Fish and Game, Fish and Game Code) Rationale: Any activity or project that is conducted below the ordinary high water mark of an anadromous fish stream requires a Fish Habitat Permit. ADF&G has statutory responsibility for protecting freshwater M t. 52 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 1 r Report of Findings anadromous fish habitat and providing free passage for anadromous and resident fish in fresh water r bodies. r Timing: The Fish Habitat Permit cannot be issued until DNR DCOM issues the Coastal Consistency r Determination. It is reasonable to expect this permit to be issued within five days of the issuance of the r Coastal Consistency Determination. Contact: Mac McLean, Regional Supervisor r Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat r 1300 College Rd r Fairbanks, AK 99701-1599 Phone: 907.459.7281 Fax:907.459.7303 ■ mac.mclean@alaska.gov State of Alaska Land Use Permit Because the Barrow —Atqasuk Intertie would cross land owned by the State of Alaska at the crossing of the Meade River, and potentially at the crossing of the Inaru River, a land use permit would be needed. Responsible Agency: ADNR Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW) Statutes: 11 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 96.010 Rationale: Land use permits are authorizations issued to use State land, on a temporary basis, for a variety of purposes. The permits range in duration from one to five years. They are intended for temporary, non- permanent uses. Land use permits are also issued for most activities in navigable waters because the State owns most land below the ordinary high water. Timing: The Land Use Permit application requires a 30-day public review. The Land Use Permit cannot be issued until DNR DCOM issues the Coastal Consistency Determination. It is reasonable to expect this permit to be issued within five days of the issuance of the Coastal Consistency Determination. Notes: A $100,00 non-refundable filing fee is required by regulation (11 AAC 05.010(5)(B)). Checks should be payable to the "State of Alaska". Contact: Alexander Wait 53 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings , i DNR, DMLW, Northern Region Lands Section i 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699 Phone: 907.451.2777 I Fax:907.451.2751 aj.wait@alaska.gov i y State of Alaska Easement Because the Barrow — Atgasuk Intertie would cross land owned by the State of Alaska, a permanent utility easement could be needed. Responsible Agency: ADNR Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW) Statutes: AS 38.05.850 (Public Land, Alaska Land Act, Permits) Rationale: Easements are issued on state land for uses including telephone or electric transmission and distribution lines. Timing: The easement application requires a 30-day public review. The easement cannot be issued until DNR DCOM issues the Coastal Consistency Determination. After the public and agency notice, a written decision document will be completed and an Early Entry Authorization (EEA) is issued for construction and survey. Once construction is completed and an approved as -built survey is received, a legal easement is issued and recorded. Notes: A $100.00 non-refundable filing fee is required by regulation (AS 38.05.850). Checks should be payable to the "State of Alaska" Contact: Dianna Leinberger DNR, DMLW, Northern Region Lands Section 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699 Phone: 907. 451-3014 Fax: 907.451.2751 dianna.leinberger@alaska.gov T' 54 At asuk Power Line Transmission Study Q September 15. 2011 r Report of Findings r D. North Slope Borough Permits and Authorizations r r r North Slope Borough (NSB) Land Use Permit r All projects occurring within the NSB outside of a village must acquire a NSB Land Use Permit. Because . most of the Barrow-Atqasuk Intertie area would be on NSB managed lands, a Land Use permit would be . required. It is likely that the project would be administratively approved by the Borough. Responsible Agency: r NSB r . Statutes: NSBMC Title 19 Rationale: r All conditional development or uses and master plans must receive approval prior to commencement. r . Timing: . Approximately 35calendar days from the time of permit acceptance to obtain an approved permit, assuming the review is not paused for additional information or elevated. r Notes: . There is a $1,500 fee for an Administrative Approval and a $3,000 fee for a Conditional Development . Permit. Contact: Susan Kittick-Atos Planning and Community Services Department North Slope Borough P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 55 e W-- 5 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Form 700-Village District Permit All projects occurring within the NSB within a village district require Village District Permit. Because a portion of the Barrow-Atqasuk Intertie area would be in the Atqasuk Village District and likely the Barrow Village District, a village district permit would be required. ~ Responsible Agency: NSB M Statutes: North Slope Borough Municipal Code (NSBMC) §19.30.070, NSBMC §19.40.060, NSBMC r §19.40.110, NSBMC §19.50.030 r Rationale: * The NSB requires permits for all use and development (as defined in the NSBMC §19.20.020), including residential, commercial and public structures, operations, and facilities in Village Districts. This permit r application must be used to obtain approval for uses and development in Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Atqasuk, Nuiqsut, Anaktuvuk Pass and Kaktovik. There is a separate Barrow Zoning District Application. Timing: r Approximately 35calendar days from the time of permit acceptance to obtain an approved permit, assuming the review is not paused for additional information or elevated. Notes: A $200 permit application fee is required. Checks should be made out to the North Slope Borough. r Contact: Susan Kittick-Atos Planning and Community Services Department North Slope Borough P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 1� tl 56 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 �J 0 Report of Findings Form 500-Certificate of Inupiat History, Language and Culture/ Traditional Land Use Inventory (IHLC/TLUI) Clearance Because the Barrow-Atqasuk Intertie project would be seeking a NSB Land Use Permit, a Certificate of Inupiat History, Language and Culture/Traditional Land Use Inventory (IHLC/TLUI) Clearance could be required from the NSB. Responsible Agency: NSB Statutes: r NSBMC§2.16.110, NSBMC §19.50.030(F) and §19.60.040(K) Rationale: . All projects seeking a new Land Use Permit from the NSB for industrial/commercial development in a Resource Development, Conservation, Scientific Research, and Transportation Corridor District for a use A or development that consists of an earth -moving activity, ice road, or seismic survey that has not already * been issued a Certificate of Inupiat History, Language and Culture/ Traditional Land Use Inventory (IHLC/TLUI) Clearance. According to the NSB, while Applicants are required to obtain clearance from the SHPO to obtain state permits, SHPO clearance alone may not be sufficient to ensure that sites listed in the NSB's TLUI are protected. The IHLC clearance process is to protect TLUI sites. Timing: Timing for this process is unclear. The approved Certificate of IHLC/TLUI Clearance should be submitted with the NSB Land Use application. Notes: A $100 permit application fee is required. Checks should be made out to the "North Slope Borough." ■ Contact: North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services lnupiat History, Language & Culture Division, IHLC Coordinator P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 Phone:907.852,0422 Fax; 907.852.4224 R Permitting E. � g Support -Engineering Should the need arise, or if there is a continuation of this effort, engineering will provide technical support to personnel charged with examining and identifying the permitting requirements for this project. Information developed during this phase of the project will be secured and provided to the relevant personnel upon client request. Providing accurate design engineering and project basis information to a permitting effort is considered a priority support function for our Team members. Successful debrief of w 57 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings ect design basis project in support of the permitting effort, can be instrumental in making the accurate Pra 1 i at due diligence has been done; development of a project capable interested permitting agencies aware th of being successfully permitted i i i i r ■ r r r ■ r r ■ r i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ Is f 58 �� — • Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 P a Report of Findings g. — Economic Analysis A. Objective This section presents the economic analysis of the proposed electric power transmission line, (intertie) between Barrow and Atqasuk. The economics of the proposed project is evaluated by estimating the net present value (NPV) of the cost savings associated with the proposed intertie project. The cost savings are measured by comparing the costs associated with the existing power generation and heating system in Atqasuk ("without project" case) against the costs associated with the proposed project. The NPV of cost savings (present value: of the net benefits of the project) provides an estimate of the economic feasibility and informs the choice between alternative project options; the best option is the one with the highest NPV. This approach follows the same analytical framework used by the Alaska Energy Authority in evaluating the economics of Renewable Energy Fund Grant applications. Estimating the monetary value of reducing outages or other potential (social and environmental) benefits is outside the scope of this study. This study evaluates a number of options as shown below (more detailed description of these options is provided in a prior section of this report): The Western Route (WR1) versus the Eastern Route (ER2); An Alternating Current (AC) line versus a High Voltage Direct Current (DC) line; Electrical generation for Power only versus Electrical generation for Power and Heat. Eight configurations arise from the combination of these options for route (Western vs. Eastern), current type (AC vs. DC), and electric usage (for power only vs. for power and heat). 4 and Figure (enclosed in this section for clarity) show the net present value of the cost savings for each project alternative. The results of the economic analysis indicate that the intertie option through the Eastern Route with AC current used for power and heat has the highest net benefit with an NPV of cost savings of $50.7 million. In general, a higher NPV is achieved with the Eastern Route than with the Western Route, with the AC type of current than with the DC type of current, and with the use of electricity for power and heat rather than for power only. Hence, the option with the least estimated capital costs and the highest possible fuel displacement (power and heat) make the most economic. sense based on measuring the net present value of the cost savings. 5, on the other hand, shows the calculated benefit -cost (B/C) ratios of the different project alternatives. As shown in the table, all eight project alternatives provide positive B/C ratios and therefore are all economically better compared to the "without project" case (that is, the existing power generation and heating system in Atqasuk, given the base case assumptions used in the analysis). Table 4 .Net Present Value of Cost Savings of the Intertie Project Alternatives Eastern Route AC current DC current Power Only $35,324,295 Power and Heat $50,675,352 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. Western Route AC current DC current $27,156,697 $17,246,575 $15,621,944 $42,507,754 $32,597,631 $30,973,001 'Electric transmission lines are interconnections between electrical utility systems permitting exchange or delivery of power between those systems. They can transfer electricity from a centralized power plant that produces low cost energy to high cost areas. 59 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Figure 3. Net Present Value of Cost Savings by Project Alternative $60 - — - - - $60 --- - - r $40 - - / c $30 / E / $20 $10 / / Ci U m / Q � / Source: Northern Economics, Inc. / 57 g1 g� ro `U `PUS° 9U�� `Y .��� � n t19 ob Table 5. Benefit -Cost Ratios of the Proposed intertie Project Alternatives tb Eastern Route Western Route 01 AC current DC current AC current DC current 011 Power Only 3.35 2.25 1.58 1.51 Power and Heat 4.00 2.80 2.00 1.94 4 shows the results from a cost-effectiveness perspective, measured in terms of variable cost per kWh R given current price and cost levels. The total variable cost of diesel generated power under the current situation is 72 cents per kWh. As shown in Figure , the variable cost per kWh under any of the project alternatives would be considerably lower at 20 cents per kWh if electricity is used for power only and 11 cents per kWh if electricity is used for power and heating. While the North Slope Borough currently incurs the cost of 72 cents to generate a kilowatt-hour of ! electricity in Atqasuk, the electric rate per kWh paid by customers of electricity is much lower. The electric rate in Atqasuk has not changed since 1984: residential customers only pay $0.15 per kWh for the first ■ 600 kWh (and $0,35 per kWh for every kWh over 600), the aged and handicapped are net charged for the F first 600 kWh of consumption (and $0.35 per kWh for every kWh over 600), and commercial customers . 60 lF i'di L i -:••:;. y •':;r la()I Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings pay $0.20 per kWh for the first 1,000 kWh, $0.30 per kWh for consumption up to 10,000 kWh, and $0.35 for every kWh of consumption over 10,000. The North Slope Borough would potentially realize a significant benefit from reducing the cost of electric generation through the proposed intertie project and the homeowners and commercial users would benefit from the added safety and security associated with a more stable energy system $0.50 $0.40 $ 0.30 $0.20 $0.10 Figure 4. Variable Costs per kWh, Current Situation versus Project Alternatives Electric Power Only Electric Power and Heat Diesel Generated Power Source: Northern Economics, Inc. The figure above calculates the cost per kWh of the different scenarios given current price and cost levels, if however all the future stream of fuel and non -fuel costs are considered (including repair and replacement costs of existing facilities) the estimated cumulative variable cost per kWh (in real terms, undiscounted) would be as follows: 1 Electric Power Only: $0.20 per kWh; 2 Electric Power and Heat: $0.11 per kWh; 3 Diesel Generated Power: $0.72per kWh. B. Methodology and Assumptions On one hand, an intertie would provide benefits (cost savings) achieved through the offset of diesel generation costs at the Atqasuk facilities. On the other hand, the construction and the operation and 61 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings maintenance of an interne would involve castS�eT�h [witlioutet n prit of each oject ect situatilternative compares on) with the costs assoe costs ciated ated of the existing power generation and heating sy p 1 with the proposed project alternatives (with project scenarios). ,rtiis economic analysis determines if the benefits to be realized with the intertie are greater than its costs, The benefits of the project are savings in fuel and non -fuel O&M costs at the Atqasuk facilities ("without project" sitt-iation). The costs of the project are the costs related to the development and construction of the interlie, annual casts For O&M of the intertie, costs for electric generation and transmission of electricity frorn Barrow to Atqasuk, and costs for convefsion to electric Beating systems at facilities and residences in Atqasuk. The following are the main assumptions used in the economic analysis: r The economic analysis covers the period between the years 2011 and 2049. l All the costs are reported in real terms and expressed in constant 2010 dollars. I All cost flows (future stream of costs) are discounted to their present values using a 3 percent annual discount rate (same discount rate used in the evaluation of AEA Renewable Energy Fund Grant applications). The analysis assumes that the additional natural gas usage and generation capacity at BUECI required to meet the Atqasuk demand —even during peak load- is sufficient to avoid imposing additional costs in the system at Barrow. • The analysis does not include cost of land, right of way costs, or salvage value at the end of the study period. 1 Only direct quantifiable monetary economic costs are considered. The rest of this section is organized in the following order: An analysis of the existing diesel -based system for power generation and heating in Atqasuk, i.e. ' the "without project" situation; '0 An analysis of the eight proposed projects alternatives, i.e. the "with project" situations; '0 A comparison of the economics of the "without project" case with the "with project" alternatives; '0 Estimates of potential financing costs associated with the project alternatives; /a A sensitivity analysis considering changes in key assumptions; and • Conclusions. 62 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings i i C. "Without Project" Case: Diesel -Based Power Generation and Heating System The transmission line concept impacts directly several utilities and municlpal services in both Barrow and Atgasuk. This section will provide an overview of the following existing facilities BUECI, Barrow Utilities Electric Coop Facilities, the NSS Barrow Gas Fields; and the NSB Atgasuk P&L Electric Power Facilities and Fuel Tank Farm. Description of existing Barrow electric power facilities Barrow Utilities & Electric Coop Inc. (BUECI) is a member -owned cooperative (not -for -profit organization). It is governed by a nine member board of directors. The utility cooperative was established in 1964 providing electricity, natural gas, water and sewer services to this community of approximately 4,500. BUECI operates a total of seven generators using high-pressure natural gas or diesel fuel when needed for temporary back-up. Five generators are turbine engines manufactured by (2 Solar each 5MW Tarus Gas Turbines and 3 each 2.5 MW Centaur Gas Turbines), and two are reciprocating generators from Caterpillar. The BUECI Power Plant has a maximum generating capacity of 20,500 kilowatts (20.5 megawatts). In FY 2010 BUECI generated 51,391,520 kWH. The average daily demand was 5,867 kWH and had a peak load of 8,400 kWH. Description of existing Barrow Gas Fields The Barrow Gas Fields consist of three fields. The South Barrow Gas Field, developed in 1949, is located four miles south of Barrow. The East Barrow Gas Field, discovered in 1974, is located seven miles east of South Barrow Gas Field and the Walakpa Gas Field, discovered in 1980, is located 15 miles south of Barrow. In 1984 management of the Barrow Gas Fields was transferred from the federal government to the North Slope Borough with the passage of the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984. This Act also gave the Borough the permission to extend the natural gas to surrounding North Slope Villages of Atgasuk and Wainwright via gas pipeline or electric transmission from Barrow. From the last reserve analysis report performed by PRA in 2006. The reserves of the Barrow Gas Fields are presented in the Table 6 below. Table 6: Barrow Gas Field Gas Reserves Gas Field _ Reserves South Barrow gas Field 8 to 9 billion cubic feet East Barrow Gas Field 5 to1 0 billion cubic feet Walakpa Gas Field 150 to 240 billion cubic feet Total A 163 to 259 billion cubic feet 63 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 16, 2011 Report of Findings The City of Barrow consumes about 1.5 Billion Cubic Feet a year. At this annual consumption rate the Walapka Gas Field alone has a 100 to 160 year reserve capacity. Description of Existing Power and Heating System in Atqasuk cated 60 Atqasuk is an Insane °ver. Atgasulc}s 2010 estimated papa ate North Slope Borouh �on was ?_471Ies south of ThepommuBn�y s poweralongrrow the banks of the Mead regliirsmenis are provided by the Atqasuk Power & Light (ATQP&t_), an enterprise formed under the North Slope Borougli (NSB)• Currently. 10o percent of the power is generated by dieset fuel. The community's heating system is also primarily based on diesel fuel. The heating equipment in each residential and non-residential building is typically boiler -based hydronle or forced air. ting The price of di d fuellinl Balivered to Atqasu k rrow plus $2 16 pernFY gallon ot deliv ry castper of fuel from Barrow tofAtgas k. The gallon of landed city a e Atqasuk costiOf fuel delivery ied in slat the therefo enratively h gh. The jomunity is isolated urney ey waterways fuel or roads that suk starrtto the ts with village) the co the delivery of a one year Supply of fuel to Barrow's Tank Farm in late summer. Throughout the year, fuel is transported from Barrow to Atqasuk by airplane owned by Everts Air Fuel or driven overland by Crowley's CATC❑ All Terrain vehicles. rtrn The Atqasuk fuel facilities are currently operated by the NSB Public of orks gafalo s) at the power plant ent. The current system consists of five 17,000-gallon tanks (total storage cap and two 250,000 gallon -tanks (total storage capacity of 500,000) at the Atqasuk tank farm dispensing station. I }1e ctuantily of diesel fuel cansun�ed for power generation and heating in Atqasuk during FY 2010 is 8 gallons of diesel fuel for power generation and a shown in Table 7. The power plant consumed 250,23 variety of Lasers consumed about 216,000 gallons for space/water heating. Cut of theestimated4G6,23$ gallons of total fuel consumption for energy, the majority was used by the power plant (54 percent), followed by 22 percent corresponding to the NSB Departments (including NSBPVV. Health, P.S.O., Fire Department, and Mayors Department). The school and residential users accounted for 10 percent each and commercial users for the remaining 3 percent. In FY2010, the power plant used 2 50,2 38 gallons of diesel fuel to generate 3,269,832 kWh of electricity During the same period, the community's electric power load (total sales or demand) was 2,916,985 kWh for 57 residential customers, 2 community facilities, 41 commercial customers and one federal customer. Generation and distribution losses account for roughly 12 percent of the power generation. Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Repot of Findings Table 7. Diesel Fuel Consumption in Atqasuk, Fiscal Year 2010 Diesel Fuel Consumption (Gallons) Percentage Power Generation Power Plant 250,238 54% Diesel used for Power. 250,238 54% Heating Commercial 15,450 3% Residential 48,833 10% School 47,893 10% NSB Departments 103,795 22% Diesel used for Heating 216,000('') 46% Total Diesel for Power and Heat 466,23E 100% Source: North Slope Borough Fuel Division M Note: According to NSB Fuel Division records, the total fuel consumption of the community was 490,148 gallons. i The power plant used 250,238 gallons, leaving a balance of almost 240,000. It is estimated that 10 percent of this balance was used by vehicles, hence the diesel fuel consumption for heating is inferred to be 216,000 gallons. C.1 Annual O&M Costs In FY 2010, the total costs of operating and maintaining the NSB power and fuel facilities amounted to approximately $3.65 million, with $2.40 million for fuel costs and $1.25 million for non -fuel costs (Table 8). Fuel costs accounted for 68 percent of the cost of providing power generation and heating to the community. About $1.29 million was spent on fuel for the power plant and $1.11 million for heating fuel (Table 8). Non -fuel costs in FY 2010 consisted of $1.07 million for power and $0.18 million for heating (Table 8). A Non -fuel costs include staff, inspections, equipment maintenance, and other miscellaneous costs. Table 8. Annual 0&M Costs of NSB Power and Fuel Facilities, Fiscal Year 2010 O&M Cost Component A Power Fuel Costs Non -Fuel Costs Sub -total: Heating R Fuel Costs Non -Fuel Costs Sub -total: Total: R Source: North Slope Borough, Fuel Division R A 65 FY 2010 ($) $1,290,327 $1,070.104 $2, 360, 431 $1,113,785 $179,488 $1, 293, 273 $3,653,704 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings r It r &M costs were estimated for the existing system assuming that the intertie Pis not built ("without ifpro,, e b tect" situation}.Future fuel casts are determined given the current fuel consumption for power and heat and projected diesel fuel prices. The quantity of fuel consumed in future years is assumed to stay at the if current consumption levels. This assumption is based on the forecast of zero percent growth of Atqasuk's r population (Alaska Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics). .the prices of diesel fuel in future years are projected as follows. The price of fuel delivered to Atqasuk . Consists of the price of landed fuel in Barrow plus the delivery cost from Barrow to Atqasuk. Half of the delivery cost is assumed to be a fixed cost and is projected to remain constant in real terms. The other . half of the delivery cast as well as the landed fuel price in Barrow are both assumed to follow the trend in crude oil fuel prices under the Energy Information Administration's mid -case projections (Annual Energy Outlook) These projections are available until 2030; fuel prices for the years beyond 2030 were extrapolated by assuming the same trend as the previous 10 years (2021-2030). Based on these assumptions, the price of diesel fuel landed in Atgasdk is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent. Future non -fuel O&M costs are assumed to stay constant in real terms, which would be equivalent to assuming that they increase in nominal terms at the inflation rate. C.2 Replacement and Overhaul Costs for Diesel Generator Units The ATQP&L power house has five diesel generator units with the following capacity: two 450 kilowatt generators, one 580 kilowatt generator, and two 910 kilowatt generators. The total generation capacity of the power plant is 3,300 kiiowatts, more than sufficient to meet the average and peak loads of the community during the study period. The study assumes a one time replacement (over the period of analysis) of the five existing generator units at an estimated cost of $7 million, including the cost of shipping and installation in Atqasuk, For the three largest generators, the study also assumes major overhaul costs of $330,000 every 5 years and top end overhaul costs of $180,000 every 2 years. These costs are based on information provided by NC Machinery, the local distributor for Caterpillar diesel generators, and cost information from similar projects experienced in other North Slope communities. Note that the costs for minor overhauls are already included in the above mentioned annual O&M costs. C.3 Summary of Cost Flows Associated with the Existing Diesel -Based Power and Heating System ("Without Project" Case) Table 9 shows some of the future annual costs for Atqasuk power generation and heating if the proposed intertie project is not built (the "Without Project" Case). Projected annual costs for the years 2011 (start year of the analysis), 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2049 (end year of the analysis) are shown in the table. The estimated present value of all the annual future costs from 2011 through 2049 is approximately $118.5 million. 66 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 I I I Report of Findings Table 9. Annual Costs Incurred in Selected Future Years under the "Without Project" Case [ millions] 2011 Cost Item: O&M Costs 3.633 ! Fuel Costs 2.383 ! Fuel Cost for Power Generation 1.279 � Price ($79 allon) 5.11 Gallons (in thousands) 0.250 b Fuel Cost for Heating 1.104 Price ($/gallon) 5.11 Gallons (in thousands) 0.216 b Non Fuel Costs 1.250 Power Generation 1.070 Heating 0.179 i Scheduled Repair and Replacement Costs - Replacement of diesel generators (in 2025) 1 Top End Overhaul(every 2 yrs starting in 2013) Major Overhaul (every 5 yrs starting in 2015) - Total Costs 3.633 PV of Costs (2011-2049), 3% discount rate 118.534 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates A R 67 i 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2049 4.203 4.520 4.699 4.897 5,104 6.769 2.953 3.271 3.450 3.647 3.854 4.510 1.585 1.755 1.851 1.957 2.069 2.420 6.33 7.01 7.40 7.82 8.27 9.67 0.250 0.250 0.250 0,250 0.250 0.250 1,368 1.515 1,598 1.690 1.786 2.089 6.33 7.01 7.40 7.82 8.27 9.67 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 1.250 1.260 1.250 1.260 1.250 1.250 1.070 1.070 1.070 1,070 1.070 1.070 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.510 0.330 7.510 0.330 0.610 - 7.000 - - 0.180 0.180 - 0.180 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 4.713 4.850 12.209 5.227 5.614 5.708 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings D. Proposed Intertie Project Alternatives: "With Project" Case D.1 Costs Associated with the Proposed Intertie Project 1 For all project alternatives, the environmental studies are assumed to take place during 2011 and 2012 at r an estimated cost of $60,000, including the environmental assessment and possible Section 7 consultations.z Construction of the intertie is assumed to take place over a 2-year period, with capital costs varying by alternative as shown in Tablel0. The corresponding supporting engineering and construction management activities also occur during the same period and are estimated to be about 12 percent of the capital cost. The operation of the proposed intertie begins in 2015 and lasts 35 years. The annual operation and maintenance costs for the inter -tie vary by project alternative as shown in Table 11, These costs include a basic O&M cost of $1,315 per mile for all alternatives, an annual cost of $60,000 for VSM inspection for the Western Route alternatives, and $50,000 for converter inspections for the OC alternatives. Table 10. Estimated Capital Costs of the Interne (2010 $) i Year Eastern Route Western Route . AC DC AC DC Environmental Studies 2011-2012 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Construction Cost 2013-2014 15,123,237 22,029,108 31,430,744 32,047,314 Engineering &Construction Management(12%) 2013-2014 1,814,788 2,643,493 3,771,689 3,845,678 Source: Estimates are based on information provided by consulting engineers for this project. Table 11. Annual O&M Costs of the Intertie3 (2010 $) Year Eastern Route Western Route AC DC AC DC i Intertie O&M 2015-2049 89,946 89,946 96,521 96,521 VSM Inspection 2015-2049 50,000 50,000 Converter Inspection 2015-2049 50,000 50,000 Total O&M: 89,946 139,946 146,521 196,521 Source: Estimates are based on information provided by AEA program managers and consulting engineers for this project. all 2 The cost of a potential EIS process is not included since at this time it has not been determined as required. A 3 The estimated O&M cost per mile was determined in consultation with AEA program managers, Jim Strandberg and Chris Mello. VSM and converter inspection costs are based on estimates from the project's consulting engineers. 68 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 is it 6L J Report of Findings D.2 Cost of Purchasing Electricity from Barrow The annual cost of purchasing electricity from BUECl depends on the price of electricity in Barrow and the quantity of electricity required to meet Atgasuk's needs. The future casts of Electricity purchased from BUECI are projected assuming that the quantify is the same for all future years and that the price remains constant in real terms. For the price of electricity, this analysis assumes BUECI's E-10 rate for electricity of $0.0846 per kWh plus the annual fixed charge of $4,164 (or a monthly fixed charge of $347). The quantity of electricity varies depending on the scenario considered-- electric power only or electric * power and heat (see Table 12). D.3 Electric Power Only Scenario The actual electric power sold in Atqasuk (based on FY2010 data) is 2,916,985 kWh. This electric power demand is increased by 15 percent to account for 12 percent distribution and transmission losses in Atqasuk plus 3 percent transmission losses through the intertie. Hence, the asinual electric power requirement in Atqasuk assumed in this analysis is 3,354,533 kWh. The corresponding cost of purchasing electricity for power is $287,957 (=3,354,533 kWh* $0.0846/kWh+$4,164) (see Table 12). DA Electric Power and Beat Scenario Under the alternative scenario of electric power and heat, the estimated quantity of electricity is significantly higher. The community would require additional purchases of 8,895,101 kWh to meet Atgasuk's requirements for heating. This amount was determined by multiplying 216,000 gallons of fuel consumed under the existing diesel -based heating system by a factor of 130,500 BTU/gal and by a factor 11110111 of 97 percent for the assumed efficiency of the heaters. The resulting quantity in kWh is 8,013,604. This amount is increased by 11 percent to take into account electric heating distribution losses in Atqasuk (8 is percent) plus transmission losses through the intertie (3 percent), which results in the estimated 1118111 8,895,101 kWh electric heating requirement. The corresponding cost of purchasing electricity for the combined power and heating scenario is estimated to amount to $1,040,483(= 12,2249,634 kWh" $0.0846/kWh+$4,164); see in the following Table 12. Table 12 .Annual Electricity Requirements and Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow 110 Scenario Electric Power Only Electric Power and Heat Quantity of Electricity Required (kWh) 3,354,533 12,249,634 For Power 3,354,533 3,354,533 For Heating 8,895,101 Cost of Electricity ($) $287,957 $1,040,483 For power $287,957 $287,957 For heating $752,526 Source: Estimates based on information provided by NSB Fuel Division D.5 Annual O&M Costs of Atqasuk Facilities With the intertie and without the need to operate their diesel generators except in emergency situations, the Atqasuk power utility should be able to realize significant cost savings in both fuel and non -fuel O&M costs. Table 13 summarizes the estimated annual fuel costs for power and for heating under the two electric usage scenarios. It is assumed that the utility will purchase one month's worth of fuel supply (equivalent to 20,853 gallons for power and 18,000 gallons for heating) to be kept in storage as backup. Since the 69 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study 0 September 15, 2011 p Report of Findings F fuel cost per year will vary depending on the projected price of fuel, the table below shows the estimated annual fuel costs given the current fuel price of $5.156 per gallon as well as the estimated average r annual fuel costs given the projected average fuel price over the 35-year period. r Table 14 shows the estimated annual non -fuel casts for power (Atqasuk power plant) and for heating (primarily related to the tank farm/dispensing station operations) associated with each of the scenarios. The estimated annual non -fuel costs for the power only scenario represent about 36 percent of the total non -fuel cost currently incurred by the utility ($1,25 million); a reduction in cost of about 64 percent. For the power and Neat scenario, the estimated non -fuel costs represent 29 percent of the current total non - fuel cost of the utility; a 71-percent reduction in annual non -fuel cost. In addition to offsetting fuel and non -fuel O&M costs, ATQP&L would benefit from the extension in operating life of its existing generators if the intertie Is constructed. For the purpose of this analysis, it is A assumed that with the intertie, ATOP&L would be able to avoid replacement and major overhaul costs during the study period. A Table 13. Estimated Annual Fuel Costs for Power and for Heating under Various Scenarios Scenario cost Item Electric P?t] Electric Power and Heat Current Fuel Price Current Fuel Price Ave over 35 years For Power 107,527 107,527 167,527 A For Heating 1,113,785 92,815 144,606 Total: 1,221,312 200,342 312,133 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates based on information from the North Slope Borough, Fuel Division Table 14. Estimated Annual Non -Fuel Costs for Utility Operations and Maintenance Facilities in Atqasuk under Various Scenarios Scenario ' Cost Item Electric Power Only Electric Power and Heat For Power 268,457 268,457 For Heating 179,488 89,744 ' Total: 447,945 358,201 Source: Estimates are based on information obtained from the North Slope Borough, Fuel Division D.6 Capital Costs of Electric Heating Conversion Under the scenario of electric power and heat, the existing diesel oil fired boilers and furnaces in buildings would be replaced by electric heat. Residential buildings would likely have base -board heaters in each room. In the larger non-residential buildings (i.e., school), the central heating boiler or furnace may be converted or replaced with an electric unit. The existing heat distribution system may be usable in these cases. The capital costs for the conversion to electric heating systems in residences and Borough facilities are A estimated at $1,952,000. These costs would take place in 2013 and are estimated at $880,000 and $1,072,000 for facilities and residences, respectively. A �; •. 70 Atqasuk Power Line Transmiaslon Study September 15, 2011 b WO Report of Findings D.7 Cost Flows for Project Alternatives The costs described in the previous subsections are reflected in the next eight tables (15-23) that show detailed future stream of annual costs (for selected years) associated with each of the proposed intertie project alternatives. The last rows of each table show the estimated NPV for the cost of the alternative, as well as the NPV of the costs savings compared to the case without project shown previously in Table 9. 71 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 C4 N M N N O N N N O O N 1� O O O 1� M N r M N O O r C O O O 0 O G O O C O C O M N 00 f- O N d M r O 00 O Oi r OD M N O N OD O O d �O (0 O) O O N h O O O {O M r r M N O O r G C O O O G C O O O C O O M N 00 O! O 00 h � M OD 00 O r OM N 0 (0 N O M Ifs O O O N N h O O O � N r r M N O O T O O O O O C G O O G O C O M N O r- O r M O 0 O M O OI r 00 M N O N O (0 O) O O N h O O CDW 10 N N M N O O r O O t7 C O O O O C O O O O M N 00 h O d N d 00 00 O O) r OD M N O N O V M r 1{! O O OD N r r M N N 0 O r O O O O O O O O O O O O YOf 0 r is o a m O tM0 LO O) r h O d c V) O M 94 N n 0000 Oi O CO 1 1 1 0 oq Oo 1 r M 1 1 M ti d r 07 1 1 N R N 1 r O r 1 d n W N 1 r n N O C r M ' a LO co / ti � C4 ' F- c W �° of ao O � � ' � r Q N c N L 'd O r � 1 co) CDO w 1 d 'a+ C d � _ 1 m W rn E U. M O V CY 0) ' M i a! r cl N OM�I QJ C V V O W ram. .�+ w yto Q rd .-� L "'' C M Q c m N o 0 as C otl 3 m L° 3 m N a 2 m O V E V O a o a� f- o a� M o a v c o t rn v V d 2 0«-. = o o3 U P i4 cas irs O O Vo mLL LL c d L o . o -o.00 o 10W ' ad Li Z V a Z ) W¢ 0 V. z I� O O N N O N O O N N M N 0 N V � m M N O N A le O - O COD M r O N C� O O O !+ Cl) N M N O C r O C O C O C C O O C7 O C O M r N 00 ph O N � M r Oyyp Op p C?N � O O O CM OO r M CD CA N O O T O O O O O 0 C7 O 0 C O O O M r N CO ti O CO 1-V M CC) w O r O N I� O O O CO N r M N O C e= O O C O O G G O O C O O O M r N M C� O r M CO O M W O r M M N O N M N V N O W 0 O r O O G O C7 O O O O C O O O M r N W h O V CO N V W W O e} r O M N O N O A M .r- Cn Cp 0 r O N I- O CD CO N r M N O O r O O O O O O O O O O O O O M T- LC) r N CMO O CO) r r r a- O CMO O M C" Oco w T r O C of +. e E C o > 01 O C .. U C L g C O ) C rn 'C d c 'CA O C O c 3 O co m O w +, _ v W W d a O a o CL �. `o a1) = '0 y CC+ 0 C c H w O a� L o d CDC 2 'O LL 3 IL C C6 +' m Q � U o U 7 LL 3 a=� O tL R O U O LL O Z a 30 o a C o a 7 u O_ > O U al C N N _ v d W .• p, -a c, m rn a> m 7 o O m w L) w Q C) L)) O V i i r O� r p! CO CD M Cr! o N M r C Cl r C0�1 CO O , r Chcn a c o ,.y y i ti O N c r CV , m c M y , qr CD CV y r � Q , Q , N a0 T ,T co 0 Go , OO Op coC4 O O C'9 46 C7 ti � N 1 E N N r G N C — V r U r+ 0 v W M C O C C a V IL ss W t" w 3 j N y ca o U U O U O U p d o ' .� IL o O O N N N lY N O N N N co O N r r O N p r O O to r N T M CID CA co 0 0 o0 O O I- " O 0 � O r N N O O O O N N N O O O d O O O N N O N C O O O r r O h h O r O O w CA r N N O O O O M w w 00 CO r O O O C O O O N r O •- O C O r N N O O O O N ti r L N r O G O O C CD O N r C r O O O O r r O ti N O O W N N O O O O r CD r N r N N O O O O tN O M COO ti LL'f r r7 � N r G O O O O C O r r O r O G O ti 10 N r O M r r r a r M r N O O Ch r r r r O N M co O CO O M C9 C6 C � � � o r lq C* N ti N N Go r Cq N N C7f f. M N Cri N N M PM9 N N M M CD N r r Ip0 Ci CO N r r c o 0 0 r a� g m ° U. U L d O c CO E c Wu c v to C c 0 m a uW O o� 0 a Q W t i a' o g- V L N o a�6i = O 0 E Ill r H o ti L o a? Je �'' a1Oi 4 N � a O yy ti� O v ad O W O C> LL 3 O a ii m 2 LL h O V O d LL c 0 Z i1 N o a N o w Q LL u 2CDd- W `o r+ O V a V aci a m d 0 L rn o L o m ,,0` f� C7 r N OD ph O et t0 N � OyD 00 O N O N r- O O O Am N �~-• M N O co O T O C7 O O C7 6 6 O O O O O a) ~ T cli O arO- Oro M N O O N M O Cb O M C00 M N W Cl).�- M N O CA coN G r O O G O O G C O O O O C fh T CYi N 0p O r O N ti O S N VO' a^D CDC) n N Q O N r C'9 N O co N co r O O O O O O O O O O O p M r p T O O T" r N O O O CMD N N fo � W COO co N 6 Cq N O GoO r O O c;O O C C6 C7 C5 G C O CA r CV N C9 a— N OO 1- O O r NOrnA nOOQ cc N O O O cl) ON D Op O r O O O O d G C O O C Q O N r rcli Nr CO N O CO r � O CR r N N O r � O OOO O OOO CG r O Oi N r O N O M CNO w M Cl) Nco p M to O CA e+i � o c � d 3 _o 0 LL N N a+ m U. c O g c v N c w. to c O O N 7� j 0 G! O a+ Ci N AD r a al O C w O N7 O ` I y a e V o W w AL c L i3 m° cu tm iEO mc eivF- o ma�I oa `m�LL H o _ y°c- O a 8V a)°° a 2 oO p` o V o LL o �LL a i o ° cR .c L° 2 1 o 0 > c c LL z vm Zw w o a I O O N M O N N N O N M! N O N f` r r O ti N O OI r N O OD t0 O Oi OD OD O O O O M W O 00 fp f~ r N N O O O O ti N N O N r O O O O 0 O C N N C N O O O N r O O r M 0 O OD 00 W O� 00 00 O 0 0 O O wCp O � r N N O O O M o IR r (p N r C O O O C O C N r O r O O C ti r r O ti f` O O N � 00 m O O O> 00 OD O O O O 0 m o co ti r N N O O O O N ti r 10 N r G O O O C O O N r O r C O C rn rp- pop a� r 0 LO eW�} W 0 N N O O O O W 0 �t N r C C O O O O O N r O r G O O w co M O p~ O O O O M �O(pp O COp ti r N N O O O O Rn r M N r O CI r r O C fa r O C* O C9 C C C - c 'O m C GI 1: o C01 !� r�0 as g O a c cc c y c C O « o= O '° C O m E O W (D a w yo 0 c a 42 ... a�i x w O H H yob 0 N o 0. « 2 O v U. CD 7 C (ac $ 0 0 v cd +ii1 0 C� LL d 3 O a c r- m N x `o u- O V 0 ri Z i, m 0- o a G _o a ri O_ CD C u Of y w 10 .. 61 O U g � f0 v 4 i5 m ti 3 o m W 0 W 0 0 N O �O !V le 0) N N M N O N N O N N COCIA C4 W N! N O r N a z w M H N tV N h CI m N N O CO N N y F" O cad x b �I G7 O a w U d Qi N;I W CU 4J y Gl 41 U Q1 .O f], O W w O U r4 N v F a C LL 0 O Is N O O N LO O N 0 N M O N r r O N r 00 M N O N M P O r- O w O r O N h M N M N O 0 r O O O O O O O O O O C7 O 1� M r N W I- O N V M r 00 O O er r 00 M N O N {O O fD er tC! CD O r O N 1� O O O ID M r r M N O C r CD 0 C O O O O O O O O C er r M M N O N W 00 t0 M 1n fD O O W N r r M N O C r O O G O O O G O O C O O 1- M N M Ih O r M W W M O "te- 00 00 M N O N M F� v m N O Cn N h r O O O O W N r M N O O r O O O O O C O O O O O O N 0 N N O er M r Ip Cp O r O N 1� O O O CD N r r M N O O r O O O O O O O O O O O O b !D ti r 00 rl CO r L6 r V- LO c M co h � � cm IiJ r � r O O � 07 {y N i+ 00) O Go 0)r r O -- c 3 O � U" o m 7 C 13 47 •+ v, c as E > W m t r+ ° o o V a CU ai 2 c 0 C 'o o► c '� y E 'a► W d C N �s-. e g`. ad p c Q E w W c o G. �- 0 ., w V 3 O a ° m Q 2 L p" C H E w L` E F- w o w V L 3 O a L p � N 2 L ° V c O he 7 cyC ra. a 0 s v 0 a 0 V d 0 U.Z 3 a0 L o LL �. m 2 L o LL +� O p m 3 �+- ' c 0 a `m o a O d a Q N u. v u M. OO7 W `o w a :° N �n d �' N ca z C1 L o Co N � M • 01 O0 M .r ey cn N 0o C'9 ' t O r E m a m .N 00 N e- M T o O N N C r N d 3 00 r ti N ti r Cl) N C-4 co co m M co F O N .41 O r d IL IL +q o 0 Vr y - o a Fo- Z o a � Y N r � Q Cl) 00 O ti 1A �1 0 co OCD H O M VJ N a� r y r C� O C U to LU ? _C > CO aD o 0 o V a o �°- z Cl) O N O @M O N N O N N O N CD O N a N M O N O N r� r r O r� r- O W r N O O W 0 a Cq 00 O O O O M to O Cp � CD � C CDO O O O O G N N O N O O C7 r N N O O O O M N CR r CD a G O O O O O O N " O T G O O P r r CD r- r- O O N a O CD w O a o� M O o 0 0 o m w m m Pn r N O O O O N f� T lCy N r O O O O O O O N r O T O O O r� r T O P h O to r CO LfJ O 00 O a e» OO O O O O O r T CD ti T N N O O O O r W CD 0 N r C3 C O O G O C CV r O r O O O ti r �- O P h O O O N M O 00 CA a R O o 0 0 o a o M cc ti r N N O O O O C7! CD r m N T C G O O O O O r r O r C O O LC m r- r- r o T r- p r N r a T co w 1� O r IA r a T O N O CND C; PO U) d r C - c 3 t � LL o .d � m 3 LL C C Cl) N +O+ E cp G w Cli C 0 +L+ o a ) 0 ++ N O V Co °' C w N O O a a _d LU W m a 48 chi o 0. a16i 2 U) O J E H w O Q o a af0i 2 10 a 7 w c L) O" Vo a= o LL m o LL V O W C Z a d o d o a O m LLS9 C ICU)C� Ir W w U N m N i3 rn 2 m m m Cq N 0 r N Lo w r N w N lh O r, O co O CV N m It N ti H ai w O C7 N O M C9 CV Report of Findings E. Financing Costs The NPV results from the previous section are equivalent to a baseline scenario where the project is financed with 100 percent equity and no debt. In this section we consider four alternative financing schemes with varying debt -equity ratios (see Table 23). For all project alternatives, the annual financing costs are calculated assuming that the intertie capital costs will be financed through bonds. The study assumes a 5 percent interest rate on the annual bond coupon payments plus annual deposits to a reserve fund (earning 3 percent interest) to cover the debt at the end of the 20-year term. As shown in Table, the financing costs for the power transmission line vary depending on the project alternative and depending on the debt to equity ratio. Project alternatives with higher capital costs and larger percentage of debt imply higher financing costs. For example, the annual financing costs of the Eastern Route with AC current are estimated at $659,492 assuming that 50 percent is financed with debt through bonds and 50 percent with equity, so Table23. Annual Financing Costs by Project Alternative No me 1114 111110 Power only me 50 percent debt so 70 percent debt 20 percent debt go 100 percent debt Power and Heat 50 percent debt 70 percent debt 20 percent debt Eastern Route Western Route AC DC AC DC 659,492 960,642 1,370,627 1,397,515 923,289 1,344,899 1,918,878 1,956,520 263,797 384,257 548,251 559,006 1,318,984 1,921,284 2,741,255 2,795,029 744,614 1,045,765 1,455,750 1,042,460 1,464,071 2,038,050 297,846 418,306 582,300 100 percent debt 1,489,229 Source: Northern Economics estimates. N iA M-, e 2.091,529 2,911,500 1,482,637 2,075,692 593,055 2,965,274 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 r PA IN Report of Findings E.1 Results for NPV of Cost Savings After Financing Costs The previous subsection described the cost saving flows of the project before financing, which are the flows used in most benefit -cost analysis. These flows reflect the expected outcomes of the project itself and contain no information about the way the project might be financed. Any given project can, in theory at least, be financed in many different ways, involving different passible combinations of debt and equity finance, and, different debt arrangements. Different arrangements in rates of interest and/or maturities will generate different financing costs for the project's owners. The NPV of cost saving afterdebt financing costs determines whether the investor will be willing to participate in the project on the conditions offered to him. The NPV after financing should not determine which project alternative to choose; this decision should be driven by the NPV of cost savings from the project itself calculated in the previous subsection. Otherwise, a "bad' project could look good simply by virtue of its sponsors having access to concessional funding on terms more favorable than what the financial markets offer. Conversely, a "good" project may look "bad" only because its sponsor is unable to secure more favorable loan conditions available elsewhere in the market. For this reason it was important to first consider the project's economic feasibility before financing cost. Figure 5 shows the NPV of cost saving after debt financing costs for the eight project alternatives, considering different percentage of debt. The results show positive measures for all Eastern Route alternatives, indicating that the Eastern intertie would be attractive regardless of the percentage of debt required. The results for the Western Route are mixed; the DC option and the AC option with electric power only would not be attractive under very conservative assumptions (i.e., highest financial costs due to 100 percent of debt required). Figure 5. NPV of Cost Savings with Financing Costs 60 40 - - - 30 y 20 C 10 I e4 0 — T -10 -20 V�y1 �0�� �y1 il my� eel Q 9° Q° 20 percent debt 50 percent debt 70 percent debt 100 percent debt Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 81 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 r r r r Report of Findings r r r E.2 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was conducted to establish the extent to which the NPV results are sensitive to the values assumed for certain key parameters. The NPV of each of the eight project alternatives are re -estimated by modifying one assumption at a time while maintaining the rest of the assumptions as in the base case. Each of the key assumptions is r modified into a favorable and an unfavorable scenario as follows. Price of diesel fuel landed in Atqasuk: -� The favorable scenario for the project consists of high diesel fuel prices. In this sensitivity r scenario, fuel prices are assumed to increase at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent. This rate is consistent with the trend in crude oil prices projected by EIA in its high case scenario. -3 The unfavorable scenario for the project consists of low diesel fuel prices. In this sensitivity scenario, fuel prices are assumed to decrease at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent. This rate is consistent with the trend in crude oil prices projected by EIA in its low case scenario. to 0 Electric load requirements: -� The favorable scenario for the project consists of a high electric load. In this sensitivity scenario, the quantity of electricity purchased from Barrow is assumed to increase at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent. This rate is consistent with the high growth rate population forecast for Atqasuk (NSB 2011). -> The unfavorable scenario for the project consists of a low electric load. In this sensitivity scenario, the quantity of electricity purchased from Barrow is assumed to decrease at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent. This rate is consistent with the low growth rate population forecast for Atqasuk (NSB 2011). N Real discount rate: M — The favorable scenario for the project assumes a low discount rate of 2.3 percent (i.e. 0.7 percent points lower than the baseline case). The 2.3 percent corresponds to the real discount rate for projects that last more than 20 years recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular A-94. The unfavorable scenario for the project assumes a high discount rate of 3.7 percent. This . rate was chosen to be the symmetric opposite from the unfavorable scenario since it assumes a discount rate 0.7 percent higher than in the base case scenario. Table 24 and Table 25 summarize the results of the sensitivity analysis for the Eastern Route and the Western Route alternatives, respectively. The results indicate a positive NPV of cost savings in all cases under the Eastern Route. Under the Western Route however, the analysis shows negative NPVs under low electric loads for the Power only scenario. Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 82 Report of Findings Table 24. Sensitivity Analysis of NPV for Eastern Route Alternatives East Route — AC Power Power and Heat Baseline - Mid case for all 35,324,296 Fuel Price - High 63,400,756 • Fuel Price - Low 20,895,076 Load - High 19,219,446 Load - Low 13,112,155 Real Discount Rate — High 29,702,117 Real Discount Rate — Low 42,001,258 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates 60,675,352 97,542,322 20,133,290 36,317,913 26,920,865 42,930,688 59,890,001 East Route — DC Power Power and Heat 27,156,697 55,233,158 12,727,478 11,051,848 4,944,557 21,765,906 33,579,242 Table 25. Sensitivity Analysis of NPV for Western Route Alternatives Baseline - Mid case for all Fuel Price - High Fuel Price - Low Load - High Load - Low Real Discount Rate — High Real Discount Rate — Low West Route - AC Power 17,246,575 45,323,035 2,817,355 1,141,726 -4,965,565 12,034,086 22,394,380 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates F. Economic Summary In conclusion, the best alternative appears to be the Eastern Route with AC current used for electric power and heat, both from an economic feasibility point of view and from the project's owner point of view. All the eight project alternatives are economically feasible as they have a positive NPV of cost savings compared to the current diesel -based system for power generation and heating. The intertie project appears to be cost effective as the cost per kWh seems reasonable in magnitude and is significantly lower than the equivalent cost per kWh of the existing system. The proposed project would stabilize the cost of energy in the community of Atqasuk and the North Slope Borough would benefit from potential significant cost savings resulting from the proposed project intertie. s Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study A September 15, 2011 83 Power and Heat West Route - DC Power 16,621,944 43,698,405 1,192,725 -482,905 42,607,754 89,374,724 11,965,692 28,150,315 18,753,267 34,994,477 51,467,985 Power and Heat 30,973,001 77,839,971 430,939 16,615,662 32,597,631 79,464,601 2,055,570 18,240,192 8,843,144 25,262,657 41,372,876 -6,590,196 10,531,342 21,717,290 7,218,514 23,759,913 39,606,033 r Report of Findings 10. References ABR, Inc. —Environmental Research and Services. 2003. Update of Yellow -billed Loon registry. Final report, prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Fairbanks, AK. 16 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2006. Our wealth maintained: a strategy for conserving Alaska's diverse wildlife and fish resources. Juneau. Alaska. Available online- http://www,sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewidelngplan/ (accessed May 17, 2010). Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 1998, State of Alaska species of special concern (November 27, 1998). Available online: http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/species—concern.php (accessed May 17, 2010). Alaska Shorebird Group (ASG). 2008. Alaska shorebird conservation plan. Version 11. Anchorage, AK. Anderson, B. A., and S. M. Murphy, 1988. Lisburne Terrestrial Monitoring Program, 1986 and 1987: the effects of the Lisburne power line on birds. Unpubl. Report prep for ARCO Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by Alaska Biological Research, Inc. Fairbanks, AK. 60pp Anderson, B. A., and B. A. Cooper. 1994. Distribution and abundance of Spectacled Eiders in the Kuparuk and Milne Point oilfields, Alaska, 1993. Report for ARCO Alaska, Inc., and the Kuparuk River Unit, Anchorage, AK, by Alaska Biological Research, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 71 pp. Anderson, B. A., A. A. Stickney, T. Obritschkewitsch, P. E. Seiser, and J. E. Shook. 2009. Avian studies in the Kuparuk Oilfield, Alaska, 2008. Report for ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., and the Kuparuk River Unit, Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.. 48 pp. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on power lines: the state of the art in 2006. PIER Final Project Report CEC-500-2006-022. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC, and California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. 207. Bart, J., and S. L. Earnst. 2005. Breeding ecology of spectacled eiders, Somaferia fischeri, in northern Alaska. Wildfowl 55: 83-98. Bechard, M. J. and T. R. Swem. 2002. Rough -legged Hawk (Bufeo lagopus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 641. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIFWG). 1999. Landbird conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic regions, Version 1.0. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. Burgess, R. M., C. B. Johnson, B. E. Lawhead, A. M. Wildman, P. E. Seiser, A. A. Stickney, and J. R. Rose. 2003. Wildlife studies in the CD South study area, 2002. Third annual report. Final report preapred for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. by ABR Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 93 pp. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Special status species list for Alaska. Instruction Memorandum No. AK 2006-03. U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage, AK. Available online: http://www.bim.gov/nhp/efola/ak/2006im/imO6-003.pdf (accessed November 13, 2007). Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131 pp. Day, R. 1998. Predator populations and predation intensity on tundra -nesting birds in relation to human development. Report to Northern Alaska Ecological Services, USFS, Fairbanks. ABR, Fairbanks, AK. Day, R. H., A. K. Prichard, L. B. Attanas, J. E. Shook, and B. A. Anderson. 2007. Mortality of birds at power lines: a guide for studies in northern Alaska. Unpublished report prepared for BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc. —Environmental Research and Services, Fairbanks, AK. 136 pp. Aiqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 16, 2011 87 r Report of Findings DOI. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed designation of critical habitat for the Steller's elder. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Part 17. USFWS. Earnst, S. L. 2004. Status assessment and conservation plan for the Yellow -billed Loon (Gavia adamsii). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5258. 42 pp. Earnst , S. L., R. M. Platte, and L. Bond. 2006. A landscape -scale model of Yellow -billed Loon (Gavia Earnst, habitat preferences in northern Alaska. Hydrobiologia 567: 227-236. Earnst, S. L., R. A. Stehn, R. M. Platte, W. W. Larned, and E. L. Mallek. 2005. Population size and trend of Yellow -gilled Loons in northern Alaska. Condor 107:289-304. Fischer, J. B., and W. W. Larned. 2004. Summer distribution of marine birds in the western Beaufort Sea. Arctic 57: 143-159. Flint, P.L., and M.P. Herzog. 1999. Breeding of Steller's eiders, polysticta stelleri, on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Canadian Field -Naturalist 113:306-308. Fredrickson, L.H. 2001. Steller's eider (polysticta stellen). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 571. The Birds of North America, Philadelphia, PA. Gall, A. E., and R. 11. Day. 2007. Movements of birds near a proposed power line corridor and windfarm sites at St. Michael, Alaska, summer and fall 2006. Unpublished report prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ASR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 36 pp. Gall, A. E., and R. H. Day. 2008. Monitoring bird interactions and bird flight-diverters along a power line and at a windfarm on Nelson Island, Alaska, 2006--2007. Unpublished report prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR. Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 23 pp. Johnson, C. B., R. M. Burgess, A. M. Wildman, A. A. Stickney, P. E. Seiser, B. E. Lawhead, T. J. Mabee, J. R. Rose, , and J. E. Shook. 2004. Wildlife studies for the Alpine Satellite Development Project, 2003. Report prepared for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Anchorage, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 155 pp. Johnson, C. B., J. R. Rose, J. E. Roth, S. F. Schlentner, A.A. Stickney, and A. M. Wildman. 2000. Alpine avian monitoring program, 1999. Final report, prepared for ARCO Alaska, Inc., and Kuukpik Unit Owners, Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. Johnson, S. R., and D. R. Herter. 1989. Birds of the Beaufort Sea. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK, 1989. 372 pp. Kertell, K. 1991. Disappearance of the Steller's eider from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Arctic 44:177-187. Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. McIntyre, and E. H. Craig, 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 684. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, 1, Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Conservation for the Americas: the North American water bird conservation plan, Version 1. Water bird Conservation For the Americas, Washington, DC. Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E, Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2006, Conservation status assessment factor scores and categories of concern for solitary -nesting water bird species. Addendum to Water bird Conservation for the Americas: North American Water bird Conservation Plan, Version 1, April 17.2006. Water bird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC. Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15. 2011 88 1 Report of Findings Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2006. Eider breeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. Unpublished report by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. 56 pp. Larned, W., R. S. Stehn, and R. M. Platte. 2008. Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey. Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Waterfowl Management Branch, Soldotna and Anchorage, Alaska. Lysne, L. A., E. J. Mallek, and C. P. Dau.2004. Nearshore surveys of Alaska's Arctic Coast, 1999-2003. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. North Slope Borough (NSB). 2010. Restoration and enhancement of habitat adjacent to Barrow II (REHAB II). Draft report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK, by North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management. Private Stewardship Grant FWS #701817G432. 9 pp. Manville, A. M. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science —next steps toward mitigation. Pages 1051-1064 in C. J. 1 Ralph and T, D. Rich, eds. Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings of the 34d International Partners in Flight Conference , 2002. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. * North, M. R. 1994. Yellow -billed Loon (Gavia adamsh). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 121. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Obritschkewitsch, T., and P. D. Martin. 2002. Breeding biology of Steller's eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2002. Technical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. 33 pp. Obritschkewitsch, T., P. D. Martin, and R. S. Suydam. 2001 Breeding biology of Steller's Eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 1999-2000. Technical Report, NAES-TR-01-04, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK, and North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, AK. 113 pp. Obritschkewitsch, T., and R. J. Ritchie. 2009. Steller's Eider survey near Barrow, Alaska, 2008. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, AK, and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 15 pp. Petersen, M. R., P. L. Flint, W. W. Larned, and J. B. Grand. 1999. Monitoring Beaufort Sea waterfowl and . marine birds. Annual Progress Report prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Biological Science Center, Anchorage, AK, 1999. pp. 33. Pitelka, F. A. 1974. An avifaunal review for the Barrow region and the North Slope of arctic Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Research 6: 161-184. Quakenbush, L., and R. Suydam. 1999, Periodic nonbreeding of Steller's eiders near Barrow, Alaska, with speculation on possible causes. Pages 34-40 in R.I. Goodie, M.R. Petersen, and G.J. Robertson, editors. Behavior and ecology of sea ducks. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 100. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Quakenbush, L., R. Suydam, and T. Obritschkewitsch. 2000. Habitat use by Steller's Eiders during the breeding season near Barrow, Alaska, 1991-1996. Unpublished report by University of Alaska Fairbanks, a North Slope Borough, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK. 45 pp. Quakenbush, L. T., R. S. Suydam, K. M. Fluetsch, and C. L. Donaldson. 1995. Breeding biology of Steller's Eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 1991-1994. Technical Report NAES-TR-95-03, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Alaska Ecological Services, Fairbanks, AK, and North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, AK. 53 pp. Quakenbush, L., R. H. Day, B. A. Anderson, F. A. Pitelka, B. J. McCaffrey. 2002. Historical and present breeding season distribution of Steller's Eiders in Alaska. Western Birds 33: 99-120. r Quakenbush, L,, R. Suydam, T, Obritschkewitsch, and M. Deering. 2004, Breeding Biology of Steller's Eiders (Polysticta stellen) near Barrow, Alaska, 1991-1999. Arctic 57: 166-182. Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study • September 15, 2011 s 89 Lim Report of Findings Reed, A., D. H. Ward, D. V. Derksen and J. S. Sedinger. 1998. Brant (Branta bernicla). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 337. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Ritchie, R. J. 1996. Aerial surveys for nesting and brood -rearing Brant and other geese, Kasegaluk Lagoon to Fish Creek, Alaska, 1995. Unpublished report for North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 28 pp. Ritchie, R. J. 1991. Effects of oil development on providing nesting opportunities for Gyrfalcons and Rough - legged Hawks in northern Alaska. Condor 93: 180-184. Ritchie, R. J., R. M. Burgess, and R. S. Suydam. 2000. Status and nesting distribution of Lesser Snow Geese, Chen caerulescens caerulescens, and Brant, Branta bernicla nigricans, on the western Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. Canadian Field -Naturalist 114: 395-404. Ritchie, R. J., and J. G. King. 2004. Steller's Eider surveys near Barrow, Alaska, 2004. Report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, AK; North Slope Borough, Barrow, AK; and Alaska Army National Guard, Fort Richardson, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 15 pp. Ritchie, R. J., A. M. Wildman, and D. A. Yokel. 2003. Aerial Surveys of Cliff -nesting Raptors in the National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska, 1999, with comparisons to 1977. Technical Note 413. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. BLM/AK.ST-03J016+6501+023. 66 pp. Rojek, N. A., and P. D. Martin. 2003. Breeding biology of Steller's Eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2003. Technical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office, Fairbanks, AK. 42 pp. Rojek, N. A. 2008. Breeding biology of Steller's Eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, AK. Technical Report. 45 pp. Schick, C. T., and W. A. Davis. 2008. Wildlife habitat mapping and evaluation of habitat use by wildlife at the Stewart River Training Area, Alaska. Final Report, prepared for Alaska Army National Guard, Fort Richardson, AK, by ABR, Inc., Anchorage, AK. 54 pp. Schick, C. T., G. V, Frost, and R. J. Ritchie. 2004. Spectacled and Steller's eiders surveys and habitat mapping at U. S. Air Farce radar sites in northern Alaska, 2003. Prepared for U. S. Air Force, 611th Civil Engineering Squadron, Environmental Planning, Elmendorf AFB, AK, by ABR, Inc. Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK. 56 pp. Schoen, J., and S. Senner. 2002. Alaska's Western Arctic: A summary and synthesis of resources. Unpublished report by Audubon Alaska, Anchorage, AK. (Available on CD), Shook, J., R. H. Day, J. Parrett, A. Prichard, and B. Ritchie. 2009. Monitoring interactions of birds with the northern Intertie Power line, Interior Alaska, 2004-2006. Unpublished Report prepared for Golden Valley Electric Association and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 71 pp. Stehn, R. A., C. P. Dau, B. Conant, and W. I. Butler, Jr. 1993. Decline of Spectacled Eiders nesting in western Alaska. Arctic 46: 264-277. Stickney, A. A., B. A. Anderson, T. Obritschkewitsch, P. E. Seiser, and J. E. Shook. 2010. Avian studies in the Kuparuk Oilfield, Alaska, 2009. Report for ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., and the Kuparuk River Unit, Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.. 41 pp. Troy Ecological Research Associates (TERA). 2003. Molt migration of Spectacled Eiders in Beaufort Sea region. Report for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, by Troy Ecological Research Associates, Anchorage, AK. 17 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (US FWS). 1996. Spectacled Eider recovery plan. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK, 1996. 157 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Steller's Eider recovery plan. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK. 27 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Alaska's threatened and endangered species. Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 90 STRUCTURE TYPES ID 1 EXHIBIT 1 i n z � 1 ..1 .yry �NNM• M Nrn iAM M N Yp y` 1,1 1 N i NV Ch fCc+ 1 1 N N M M N M I A M F h 1 wq N A C W _Nnr dor-row4-'a� I EXHIBIT 2 WEATHER DATA PARAMETERS Imp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c ryi''�o ��•�y � � r 3 S S o s+ •G c t � pAGIFICOCEAN ~ r �p a dr � fq tQ Vr-I0 >v ai mW �d O 4 to +4 4 4, 4� w Is o d4. ci a9 H 04 Lei jj H r4 .0 m ai r4 W 0 ob'0 'O WA 44 0 W U 4 H 4J � a 44 W a 44 3 3 M a w a a�� W 41 N w O k ' a � � v } T r �a r � r i r r r r r r r r r r r r r EA 1 BIT z coNTn. EXHIBIT Z(CONTD.) 00 r EXIIIBIT z CONTD. N w U 00 41 44 N44 O O ti-I al a co 3 m �Ch sue+ r4 ,r ca94 �► 8 � d 9 u 444 y di F+ N O ab Wind at Barrow Alaska - Data sources Hourly data from the NWS (1945 - 2002). When the data was collected with greater frequency, only one observation was taken per hULII. Daily statistics - To summarize the hourly data on a daily basis; the following statistics were used. Maximum daily wind -speed 75th percentile daily wind -speed. Since periods with sustained winds appear to cause the greatest damage, this was done to capture days with a greater duration of high winds. Wind Speed Barrow, Alaska 7511 Percentile Daily Wind speed — max monthly values EXHIBIT 3 - Recommended RUS Conductor Tension TABLE 9-2 RECOMMENDED REA CONDUCTOR AND OVERHEAD WMARE 4 AEOLIAN VIBRATION A. TP-69 STRUCTURE with 700 Rs PLS-CADD Version 6.33L 1:21:29 AM Sunday, October 10, 2010 Lata .E-r gi nCGYi ll er i f`P_S Project Name: 'h:\barrow-atqasuk line asrc\sag and tension\barrow atgasuk.loa' Criteria notes: Double loop galloping with wire spacing at one quarter of span between structures # and # with wind from Right Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis 'B' # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) (ft) (ft) ------------------------------------------ 1 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 -22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 2 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 -22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 3 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 -22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase)(0 clearance means ellipses intersect) 1:1 2:1 3:1 1:1 0.04 4.99 2:1 0.04 2.60 3:1 4.99 2.60 Double loop galloping with wire spacing at one quarter of span between structures # and # with wind from Left Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis 'B` # # Zen Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 1 700.0 16.65 '0.0 22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 2 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 3 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase)(0 clearance means ellipses intersect) 1.1 2:1 3:1 1:1 0.81 4.52 2:1 0.81 1.89 3:1 .4.52 1.89 Double loop galloping with wire spacing at three quarters of span between structures # and # with wind from Right Structure Ahead Mid Tnsul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis `BI # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. ------------------------------------------------------------- (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 --22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 2 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 -22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 3 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 -22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase)(0 clearance means ellipses intersect) 1:1 2:1 3:1 1:1 0.04 4.99 2:1 0.04 2.60 3:1 4.99 2.60 4 f I 1 1 I '- Double loop galloping with wire spacing at three quarters of span between structures # and # with wind from Left 1 ' Structure set Phase ' # # ' 1 1 2 1 ' 3 1 Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis 'B' Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg)--(ft)_--(ft)---(ft) 700.0` ^16.65w ~G.Ow_r22.9 0.0 22.9 6.9 6.9 4.4 4.9 1.4 1.4 700.0 700.0 16.65 16.65 0.0 22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase)(0 clearance means ellipses intersect) 1:1 2:1 3:1 1:1 0.81 4.59 2:1 0.81 1.89 r 3:1 4.52 1.89 r r r r r r 0 r r r r r r 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 B. TH-1 STRUCTURE with 1200 FT RS PLS-CADD Version 6.33L 1:42:10 AM Sunday, October 10, 2010 Sakata Engineering Services Project Name: 'h:\barrow-atqasuk line asrc\sag and tension\barrow atgasuk.loa' Criteria notes: Double loop galloping with wire spacing at one quarter of span between structures # and # with wind from Right Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis 'B' # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg)(ft)(ft)-(ft) Y--^-r1-1200.0 r-~---T -J- --- T 1 46.40 0.0 -22.9 17.5 8.1 3.5 2 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 -22.9 17.5 8.1 3.5 3 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 -22.9 17.5 8.1 3.5 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase)(0 clearance means ellipses intersect) 1:1 2:1 3:1 1.1 2.24 12.64 2:1 2.24 2.24 3:1 12.64 2.24 Double loop galloping with wire spacing at one quarter of span between structures # and # with wind from Left structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Axis Minor Axis Dist. 'B' Set Phase Span Span Sag Swing Angle Swing Angle Len. Len. Len. # # Len (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) (ft)_ _(ft) 1_ 1200.0 _..46.40 1 0.0~--22.9rT 17.5f 8.1 8.1 3.5 3_5 2 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 22.9 22.9 17.5 17.5 8.1 3.5 3 1 1200.0 46.40 Q.0 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase)(0 clearance means ellipses intersect) 1:1 2:1 3:1 1:1 2.24 12.64 2:1 2.24 2.24 3:1 12.64 2.24 Double loop galloping with wire spacing at three quarters of span Ibetween structures # and # with wind from Right Structure Ahead Mid Insul Sparc Major Minor Dist. set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis 'B' # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) (ft) (ft) _-_-_--------_-.__----------------------------r--------------�- 1 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 -22.9 17.5 8.1 3.5 2 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 -22.9 17.5 8.1 3.5 3 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 -22.9 17.5 8.1 3.5 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase)(0 clearance means ellipses intersect) 1:1 2:1 3:1 1:1 2.24 12.64 NP 2:1 3:1 Ob ID r r i r r r r r r r r r 2.24 2.24 12.64 2.24 I r Double loop galloping with wife spacing at three quarters of span between structures # and # with wind front Left' structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. set Phase span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis 'B' + # # Len Sag Angle Angle Lela. Len. Len. 1 (ft) (€t) (deg) (deg) (ft) (ft) (ft) r�1~frM 1 1200.0~� 46.400.0 -22.9 17.5 8.1 3.5 2 i 1200.0 46.40 0.0 22.9 17.5 8.1 3.5 3 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 22.9 V S 8.1 3.5 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase)(0 clearance means ellipses intersect) l:l 2:1 3:1 1.1 2.24 12.64 2t1 2.24 2.24 3:1 12.64 2.24 0 O r �o O O ako 44 o W _ sa 3 N Wt 4 W H d 3I Id ~ S 3f O �}++ r) 7 •b / / -rl O tiff WIV W En -11W 4 =Q z mtn �{ Y' li .••I �4 ai Id r6 5 � 7e M C11 a 0 M U 0 0 W w w} ' N rt m W t3lfu U U a N U $4 O N W CS 91 0 Q} -.3 u] AA O -11 N ONt6 ttl WMP+UU Nam: yam' 1 Vt 1 1 1 fA � I W LO r-1 No r- r en.at M co O A-gr r-I �-1 11 W W I }• i v l lD O`-IMC}D r0 N I r-I rl r1 r-I r'1 rl r-I N N Ci w I NQ'tnw VN 61-440 V I M�DLn z.MMMN I I HdP 1 W NH MOr V MN [zS� I �NN rI s--I uJ LWa W 1 rr OHO MOOIa��N Ol r M al� mrlO r I '0 mlq NNNNr-I I 1>+ E " 3 w I vt r C-4cl rlH NN i fp W I o r ON ON t.D m rr-1 00) � 1 ! [QQ�1 rjil II ror C, } I MMN NNNr-Ir-1 I I ulM0%D -jMwtor 1 t }1 I ID Oc'7r m0) I � � a••. 1 NNrN P'1.--I rNd' U W I mriao0lrrLf)rLn 0! tO r M 07 m149 kD I Mwrr Ln ao � I V t r-1 N O o p t d} r r to M Ctl Gf I w M M M M N43 N �-} .--I M�MV�OOntnO 1 Ol yr N 0) tD Ip N %f) N tO to Ln w v M M N N a�OrOltnwrvtO } W I O0 LOO ko wr d I l ^ p 0 N� la lX3 en la nN I 1 a I r<N V' MNN I } I � 61O I to M O yi I eD -C r O\ r m N 0114 i +orrrmmrn -Im MOtnOtn NNrI`1 M o� t-I m 61 r in r r' v l MO amo rr %DeND L" :v ' dp I rrtn Mr-trn lDMQ1 �(nm MNNNr~ M to M H w } i+}LL7M 1DOtn in r Sl rM MN O tiJ •0 1 'DtinLONN01lON M Fi ���� cnMMN Pij �Or61N ��?1m0C W W i CD 0-VNCA�D N O\mO 4+ ,Q I r LO LO d' d. co M N -11 ir�'VV 1 I N N N N I f ON N N N I m W lfl CD tD lD l0 �D IQO at I w S rtO OOOOOOO t` j l0 l0 lND lN0 lD to . WO ;--100000000 NO pO 00000 µ l 1 l 10 O O O O n O O O 14 1 1 0 j 1 f 00 000000CD A I i t p41 1 1 A I IYJ U 5-t CD N 000 N� C13 1100 F4�� I O M 1a mc-1 rl � t go a 14 xvw coww�+x jr-IN M -V to eDr0761 ! � I Obi 1 y,l j ar N Otr SIT i%"i ri R7 M O }a7j I OI N .' I V' M Mm I M 1 m m en Ls.)N-I r¢r1 I N 1 i 1 1 CM I 1 t- Mvl•�Neomen Q i rar• 4. aLnU>w0 ' t end "Mtotowm a M M M 1 �.I I +n m r} 4 O5 O i�t�C7M6}��OSN 1 Dl T• M m to M r•t CS7 r • �1i Q I W MMNNNN�`"'I i I NM0'nr5 O +n intn v, �a N Ln �n r r, 1 t*l c•F cv r•l a r1 00 � s•I I t] t L: S D i Q7 tr1 Or v t+IPl G7 N ri i rr rlr-in-, V'v1� a 1 to r{ A 1` M[ V N N N N N I I i 1+1wr'i�' oo Qtn[7 rMI*7No00wm �{ �� tD N •N T�F O I �u1 d MCr?NN 1 wCV m4 r-It—Mt�G 0 q i�Zy j 1�'i hl N •ri 'r 4• � i SV N N N N •--t � � ''� Q l � 01 5 G1 �'1 O V• 01 � �D df O .{ G} 1 S` er•1 C7 t� u1 n7 r-1 6S 00 14 j M to M a'OLHOm0 13, ! rMM Np dj H �'� � j Wen In d.paN•MM N I 041 I ! I 43 I 1 1 � I dr a ooiNto N in lr{ C%a 1 rlN Mcq to tD i-co OL 1 s I l 1 .► I ONOOMOHIn tO ' 1 } a� 1�}i I rnln d�rnmr �Nr t I m 1 1 pi v I 1Um01HMMrON •� 1 I a•t'1MCa•u?�/7 Q I Ci.► I rMwMwrWOO HVM 001 4I m10MC0•1rrgMrLoa b I m v v v v m m m m Fl 1 i� + rl pl ti i M N r1 n.4 .i H .i H 61 LA rN WOC+ rl @ @ k l9 N 1-4 Go 1D w w w Cl) v] i FI Cqj I M 61 O >n N 1 0 VA t r N N N N N N N N pIS 1 0 E " I I •.. l mrn-it HaH W r1r warnr.4Mmmr-w 0% W r- Ln rnr N H rNNNNNNNN I } 1 1 Od•kDNIf) NHrw f 1 VJ T a. v v m mMw WOO 1 I pi kzC 6 C;Nw lOOM 1 ' I rnNNMMM M�•a 1 i{ I mnMw Ln OW(1 1 W m 1 NmIUHIt1W Hrn+n d U.-. I na1n1o0 LOr- l0 � H v 1 wrn�o61HM�O01N O � 1 wm mIVwa mca I N I I I H HHN O U 4i I co HmLON 00wr-1 QQ 1 p I c•)w w Ln Ln In awa 1•�v I ' .N-1 �U j iJ O t I MW6�1Nd•nCY co co m0M1 QQ r- ap ' Or WmMN HOIm Irr{{{ •rl ty � ; iANNNNNNr-IH O 1 o+wwlnr W OIHM 4.� ii 1 d•MMMMMMa•w 0 v w i ONmra'm i[YrM I� 1 W4.� ap�� @ I IDm N'arw�OH 1 Ic}mm10wN Om N 1 ,54 1 Q _ nMMM<`'iM MN fV �i 1 OO4T U7rN mom m 0 f.t I N Id 1 �ONHmLn WmwM pp,, -r1'rl 1 MOlmt0InNMN H �•y IC IA•k0 1 1 1 m0}�O Wu)01mN0 W it O I rNNNNNNNN 0 �I I m w r M--- I O H I w01mOrnN0mw E TEI 1 nmmmmmmNN +Cy 0t; 1 a Wolnao�n omNo �-•" O >♦ '� f �1 I c) •w %D N W �D N 61 m @ m 1 N rl r r w M �• .-s er H I,I f W W ii L 4 1 Ira mw l.wrlrM rl 1 N N H H -1 H r•1 N A W pi I lOmTC; CN �w •OC. 1 d'NNM M M Mma' U d 1 X T O $ }I O V^ 1 rw IA 0 N O dl 1 NMHrmI(}Il1mCD W Oa _ b 0. U +} 1 mm Mw�O WOH m� k 1 MH 0nNH.-I CD IO 4•i I mM Hm u1MOr�' ZO �o�olnul+n�nww ) ; -W r04 H-4 rr•I rm•I H Ch NN ..I 1.}'aj A -P W� : T}� dp cmNMNHO01 I ,O O H i0 I tf}NNNNNNC�1 e-•I 1 ON W[-V�W Mr en q y({� 1 W 1 101gNwnrnlfiOH O'},I }•I w 1 ON CO n'•Hi-nN ,••� rpI 1 Mm W W.WN O W W •g W I WIn Nwnrl Mcn In W W i� Q i rMMMMM MNN �.+ I M01 m wvMHOfr A O !+ I N W'''I nf'1MMMMMNN fi 1 [ j I +W+ 1 'O e6 �"N I W014D IDmNO1Or 1 a 1 rnwrnlomMn�on I Ft 1 mrnromHMHn 1 � I w01 m1DrnMHmr dwW ® 1 NMrrwH�oH•n N b W�0O U 1 1 r-M MM0MMNN OIQ 4? i v001wr �w d'N W rn @ UN --`E.� 1 W ir}l r! 02 1 NN HN HH HH p .... I v I Z ' .ri im I 1 l t [ttN NNNNNNN Nm5 rcV Om1 V• .Y •�{10 D) 16 $$1 OOOOOOOlO O ci V rl+I Ln m Lf) V H „ #4 NNNNNNN rj 10 W W F•. H C] 3 u C7 y H � 1 r-100000000 LgQI ir�l rI l ONmn r-H rrN Q •�{ N Id' I Cn (n N w r (n of M l- U j1 %w W 444 p� 'fll 1 I NO OO OOOOG H R•e'I •1� 1 c'10} QO cn m M""4 01r rl 3 W 1a N V fd 1 1 I \0O OO OOOOO H HO i n M MM MMMN N Z O 41 >I d I O 1 1 1 1 i M W$4 r4 ro� r-I 0 1 —.T. L 1 11 000000000 r{ --- a M In Wq IW y .5 .Z too41w 1 O (~]WdN -q)40NWW �Q 0 ri jpp, ornO ar N U N ori��lri� U ¢0 0clkZ 41 Id Z t ed n .� to +» 1 pa + ;4 IL) RI IA W tq `,>~ p' Q I th rl Pq No o v W ttW1 W 4 7 y'4) 140 ; HNMa and nmrnr1Nf"Iw I�1 �Orm0� EXHIELT-61 CONDUCTOR LOADING AND OVERLOAD FACTOR TABLE 11 - 3 REA GRADE B (NEW CONSTRUCTION) RECOMMENDED OVERLOAD CAPACITY FACTORS TO BE APPLIED TO NESC LOADING DISTRICTS LOADS 'tical Tran Ve,,, s c- Lo i d ' nct wi �CROSSAR_11iS 'Vertical - �adsa;,.] wind W i..rb At c Veftidal.- LOacl.s��t�4_'u' Transverse 0.. s Wind tji-ke r-einsion wo GUY 4TTM,-IRIEN TS Transverse N_ CONDU F "o . I - - W.9 L' YS Joo'� 10 40% - (Sep Table. 85) (see! EXHIBIT 7 - CONDUCTOR GROUND CLEARANCES TABLE 4-1 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF CONDUCTORS -TO -GROUND IN METERS (FEET) . o�reary:8�ta fi c�; 0 AN* TABLE 4-1 (CONT.) RECOMMENDED MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF CONDUCTORS -TO -GROUND IN METERS (FEET) r r EXHIBIT 8 r � r LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 34.5 KV AC Basis - Information from the following EDSA Report: Line Length - 75 Miles 2 Mw Load, r Using 477 MCM wire produce the following: 2.8% losses and 4.66% voltage drop, r EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. Page 1 . Project Name: Date 10/06/2010 . Title Drawing No. = Time 04:38:50 am Company . Revision No.: Jobfile Name: barrow test Engineer : Check by : . Scenario 1 - Date r . Sysstpan-Information Base KVA 10 Frequency Unit System . MaxIterations Error Tolerance 100000 (kva) 60 (HZ) U.S. Standard = 1000 10.000 (kva), 0.000100 tpu), 0.0100 M # of Buses entered = 2 !! of Active Buses - 2 # of Swing Buses 1 # of Generators 0 # of Loads = 1 # of Shunts = 0 of Branches entered 1 # of Transformers 0 ' # of Reactors 0 # of C.B. = 0 1 1 `1 I 1 Abbreviations 2-W xfmr - 2-winding transformer None = None contributing 3-W xfmr = 3-winding transformer P_Load = Constant power load Autoxfmr - Autotransformer PhS xfmr = Phase -Shift Transformer DReactor - Duplex Reactor Series Series Capacitor F_Load - Functional load ShuntC = Shunt Capacitor FeederM - Feeder in Magnetic Conduit ShuntR = Shunt Reactor Gen - Generator Z Load = Constant impedance load I Load - Constant current load Ref °C = Reference Temperature Power Flow By Fast Decoupled CONVERGED Iteration: 3 EXHIBIT 8 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT X5 KV AC EDSSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 ' Page 2 Project No_ Date 10/06/2010 project Name: Time : 04:38:50 am Title Company . Drawing No. Engineer Revision NO.: Name: barrow test Check by Jobfile Date rpScenario Summary of Total Generation and Demand P(K➢d) Q(KVAR) S(KVA) PFM Swing Bus(es): 2055.590 187.805 2064.152 0.000 99.59 0.00 Generators 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Shunt 0.000 Static Load 2000-000 1000.000 2236.068 0.000 89. 44 00 Motor Load 0.000 0.000 Total Loss --806�641^ Mismatch -'-52^921- 2.670 -5.555 Bus Data • V P Q C . Bus Name Type Mag(V) Ang(deg) (KW) (KVAR) (KVAR) ------- _---- —-------- Barrow -- Swing 39500 0 39500 0 0 _ 0 2000 1000 . Atqasuk P Load ^^— T-- ---_-_� Total Generating Sources 0 p -2000 -1000 0 Total Bus Loads Branch Data • e Library CodeName R X Bit Ref °C Branch Name C Type (Ohms) (Ohms) (Mhos) -- - - - --------- - - - - - - '---__- ---- ----_ ___ --^ — --� • 101001 1 Feeder ACSR 47-7-4.69 r 13-3503 44.0933 0.000432 40.0 9KHMIT 81CONT:) LOAD FLAW REPORT AT 34.5 KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. : Page 4 Project Name: Date 10/06/2010 Title Time 04:38:50 am_ Drawing No. Company Revision No.: Engineer Jobfile .Name: barrow test Check by Scenario : 1 - Date Bus Voltage Results Bus Name Type V DROP ANG P Q PF (VOLTS) (8) (DEG) (KW) WAR) (8) Barrow Swing 34500 0_00 0.0 2056 188 99.59 Atqasuk P Load 32992 4.66 -4.1 -2000 -1000 e9.44 Branch Power Flow Values Branch Name CY Type Library CodeName From -> To Flow To -> From Flow Losses (KW) (KVAR) (KW) (KVAR) (KW) WAR) 101001 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 2056 188 -2003 -994 53 -901 EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. Page :5 Project Name: Date 10/06/2010 Title _ Time 04.38:50 am Drawing No. Company Revision No.: Engineer Jobfile Name: barrow test Check by Scenario : 1 - Date Branch Current Flow Values Branch Name CI Type Library CodeName Current Angle Ampacity Loading (A) (Deg) (A) M 101001 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 35 -5.2 590 68 LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AG EDSA Advanced Power Flaw Program V5.70.00 Project No. Page I Project Name: Date 01/09/2011 Title Time 06:00,27 pm Drawing No. Company Revision Na.: Engineer Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi_w_69._l0-22-10 Check by Scenario . x - Date System Information Base KVA - 100000 (kva) Frequency = 60 (HZ) unit system = U.S. Standard MaxItera}ions = 1000 Error Tolerance = 10.000 (kva), 0.000100 (pu), C.0100 M # of Buses entered - 5 of Active Buses = 4 of Swing Buses = 1 # of Generators = 0 # of Loads = 2 # of Shunts = 0 # of Branches entered = 4 0 of Transformers = 1 X of Reactors = 0 # of C.B. = 0 Abbreviations 2-W xfmr •- 2-winding transformer 3-W x_fmr - 3-winding transformer Autoxfmr - Autotransformer DReactor - Duplex Reactor F Load - Functional load FeederM - Feeder in Magnetic Conduit Gen . Generator I Lead - Constant current load None None contributing P Load x Constant power load phS xfmr = Phase -Shift Transformer SeriesC Series Capacitor ShuntC Shunt Capacitor ShuntR ti Shunt Reactor Z Load c Constant impedance load Ref 'C d Reference Temperature Power Flour By Fast Decoupled CONVERGED Iteration: 4 EXHIBIT 9 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC SDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. : Page 2 Project Name: Date 01/09/2011 Title Time : 06:00:27 pm Drawing 140. Company . Revision No.: Engineer : Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi w_69. 10-22-10 Check by : Scenario : 1 - Date Summary of Total Generation and Demand P(KW) Q(KVAR) S(KVA) PF('3) Swing Bus(es): 5100.561 -797.748 5162.570 98.80 Generators 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Shunt 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Static Load 5000.000 2500.000 5590.170 09.44 Motor Load 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Total Loss 99.823 -3314.60D Mismatch -y 0.739 16.860 Bus Data Bus Name Type V P Q C Mag(V) Ang(deg) (KW) (KVAR) (KVAR) Barrow Swing 4160 0 0 0 Atqasuk P Load 69000 0 -2000 -1000 Junction None 69000 0 0 0 Wainwright P_Load 69000 0 -3000 -1500 ~~0 - -^ Total Generating Sources 0 0 Total Bus Loads -5000 -2500 Branch Data Branch Name Atgasuk Fdr Junction Fdr Wainwright Fdr C# Type Library CodeName R x B/2 Ref °C (Ohms) (Ohms) (Mhos) 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 6.2937 20.7868 0.000102 40.0 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 7.0566 23.3064 0.000114 40.0 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 12.0153 39.6840 0.000194 40.0 Transformer 6 Line Voltage Regulator Data Branch Name C# Type Library CodeName R x F Tap T_Tap (%) ($) (PU) (PU) Barrow xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 5000-3-L 0.6000 6.9700 1.000 1.000 1 I I 1 1 r` EXHIBIT 9 iCONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC EosA=Advanced �power FlleIT Program V 5.70.00 Page 3 Project No. Date O1/09/2011 Project Name: Time 06:00:27 pm Title company Drawing No. : Engineer Revision No.: Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi_rr_69._10-22-10 Check by Scenario Bus voltage Results Bus Name V DROP ANG Type (VOLTS) M (DEG) P (KW) Q (KVAR) PF (%) -------------------- Swing 4160 -0.00 0.0 5101 -798 -1000 96.80 89.44 Barrow P Load 60.15 24.0 -2000 5032 251 99.BB Atqasuk unction 6923239 -0.35 24.4 None 68345 0 95 23.1 -3000 -1500 89-44 Wainwright PTLoad Branch Power Flow Values C# Type Library CodeName From> To Flow (KVAR) To -> From (KW) Flow (KVAR) Losses (KW) Branch Name (K.VAR)-------- -- -- ------ ------------------------ ----- --- -- ------ -----�-- -^------ ---- --- 2006 51 -2001 -1004 6 - Atqasuk Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 417-4.69 200 3B - 953 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 5069 -1173 -5031 Junction Fdr 973 3025 -254 -3001 -I507 24 - wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 1169 32 1760 1 2-W xfmr 5000-3-L 5101 -798 -5069 Barrow Xfmr 372 Branch Current Flow Values Type Library CodeName Current Angle Ampacity Loading (A) l 1 Branch Name C# (A) (Deg) 1 Feeder ACSR 977-4.69 43 38.9 590 7% Atqasuk Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477 -4.69 25 29.2 590 496 Junction Fdr Wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 U6 8.9 Barrow xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 5000-3-L Transformer & Line Voltage Regulator Loading C4 Type Library CodeName Capacity (PU-- l PU Branch Name --(KVA)oadi{$)-_ _____ -- -----___---Y----------- -- -------- ---------------- ---(KVA)-- 6100 5163 B5$ 1.000 1.000 Barrow Xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 5000-3-L EXHIBIT 8 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT fig KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. : Page : 1 Project Naive: mate : 01/11i2011 Title Time : 01:49:38 am Drawing No. Company Revision No.: Engineer Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi w_69._10-22-10 Check by ; Scenario : 1 - Date System Information Base KVA = 100000 (kva) Frequency = 60 (HZ) Unit System - U.S_ Standard MaxIterations - 1000 Error Tolerance = 10.000 (kva), 0.000100 (pu), 0.0100 (%) # of Buses entered = 5 # of Active Buses = 4 # of Swing Buses = 1 # of Generators = 0 # of Loads = 2 # of shunts = 0 # of Branches entered = 4 # of Transformers = 1 # of Reactors = 0 # of C.B. = 0 Abbreviations 2-W xfmr = 2-winding transformer 3-W xfmr - 3-winding transformer Autoxfmr - Autotransformer DReactor - Duplex Reactor F Load = Functional load FeederM - Feeder in Magnetic Conduit Gen - Generator I_Load = Constant current load None = None contributing PLoad - Constant power load P_hS xfmr = Phase -Shift Transformer SeriesC = Series Capacitor ShuntC - Shunt Capacitor ShuntR - Shunt Reactor 2 Load = Constant impedance load Ref °C - Reference Temperature Power Flow By Fast Decoupled CONVERGED Iteration: 5 �� EXHIBIT 9 (CONT.) _LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. Page : 2 Date 01/11/2011 Project Name: Time 01:49:38 am Title Drawing No. Company Revision No.: Engineer Jobfile Name: brw to atq__awi w_69._10-22-10 Date by Scenario 1 - Summary of Total Generation and Demand d --- = � -= t 5 P(Ku) 4 () S(KVA) PF(%) Swing Bus(es): 8262.924 1417.423 6383.615 0.000 98.56 0.00 Generators 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Shunt Static Load 8000.000 4000.000 8944.272 0.000 89.44 0.00 Motor Load 0.000 0.000 Total Loss 261.396-2588.178 -- ] Mismatch --1.528 5.601 r Bus Data r ------ = i Bus Name 4 Type V PMag(V) Ang(deg) (KW) (KVAR) -------------- C (KVAR) ------------------------- Barrow Swing 4160 0 -0 -0 00 -1000 P Load 69000 0 -20_0 Atgasuk Junction -0 None 69QOD 0 0 -3000 Wainwright P_Load 69000 -6000 -_- 0 0 0 Total Generating Sources -8000 -4000 Total Bus Loads Branch Data Branch Name C$ Type Library CodeName R (ohms) x (Ohms) B/2 Ref "v (Mhos) Y'Y ^y ^- -- Atlasuk Fdr Junction Fdr Wainwright Fdr 1 1 1 Feeder Feeder Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 ACSR 477-4.69 ACSR 477-4.69 6.2937 7.0566 12.0153 20.7868 23.3064 39.6840 0.000102 40.0 0.000114 40.0 0.000194 40.0 Transformer & Line Voltage Regulator Data Branch Name C# Type Library CodeName ($) X F Tap T (pT) (TaTa p (g) ----- Barrowrxfmr--__--'- -1 2-W xfmr 7500-3-L ------ - 0.5700 7.4700 1.000 1.050 1 1 EXHIBIT 9 ICONT.) 1� LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC 1 EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 ' Project No. Page 3 Date 01/11/2011 project Name: Time 01:49:38 am rJtie Drawing No. Company 1 Revision No.: Engineer Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi w_69._10-22-10 Check by Scenario 1 - Date ' Bus Voltage Results Bus Name Type V DROP ANG P Q PE - .-... (VOLTS) M.. (DEG). (KW) - (KVAR) ' Swing 4160 -0.00 0.0 8263 1417 98.56 1 Barrow Atgasuk P Load 69691 -1.00 22.7 -2000 -1000 89.44 Junction None 70025 -1.49 23.2 8117 1536 98.26 ' Wainwright P Load 67649 1.96 20.6 -6000 -3000 89.44 1 Branch,PowerFlow Values Branch Name CN Type Library CodeName From To(KVAR) To(�,From {�AR) l�L;,,Jes (?C--- Ataasuk Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 2007 25 -2001 -1001 6 - 976 junction Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 8206 716 -8112 -1538 96 - A-21 Wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 471-4.69 6111 1511 -6009 -30Q2 106 _ 1491 Barrow Xfmr r 8263 1417 -9210 -717 1 2-W xfmr 7500-3-L 53 700 Branch Current Flow Values Branch Name C# Type Library CodeName Current Angle Ampacity Loading (A) (Deg) (A) M . _ __ _ __ _-------- -------------- ------- Atgasuk Fdr~- 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 17 22.4 67 20.3 590 3% 590 11% Junction Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 52 9.3 590 9% Wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 ' Barrow Xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 7500-3-L 1164 -9.7 • Transformer & Line Voltage Regulator Loading ' Branch Name C# Type Library CodeName Capacity Loading F_Tap T-Tap ------------ --..--»-..�- -------------------------- --- ------ -- --- --- ---_ -- - -- - • Barron Xfmr 1 Z-W xfmr 7500-3-L 9150 8364 92% 1.000 1.050 EXHIBIT 10 LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 30 KV DC ' EDSA�DC Load Flow Program V6.10.00 ' Project No. Page : Date : 1 08/11/2010 Project Name: Time : 08:27:44 pm ' Title Company Drawing No. Engineer : Revision No.: Check by : Jobfile Name: barrow to atgasuk do ' Date 1 System Information MNumber ' of Buses 2 1 Number of Branches ' Number of Rectifiers 0 0 Number of Inverters Number of Batteries 0 Number of Dc/Dc Converters - 0 BaseKW 100 kw Default voltage 250 v 1 Periods 0.00010 pu 0.010 kw 0.010 % ' Tolerance 20000 Iterations 90 % Low voltage limit Abbreviations 'None ' oC — Temperature in °C Load = None contributing = Constant P load Batt D switch - Battery P - Dynamic switch Rect = Rectifier Dc Gen = Dc generator Res RXl = Resistence = Double circuit resistence Dc/dc = Dc/dc converter Rx2 = Single circuit resistance F Load - Functional load Constant x load Sp1itL = Battery split lower bus {Load 5plitV = Battery split upper bus Invert IF Ref = Inverter - Load flow reference 2 Load = Constant 2 load Mstart = Motor starting EXHIBIT 10 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 30 KV DC Bus Input Data # Bus Name Type Description -TM -~^ 1 101010 DC Gen (period: 1) 2 101013 P-Load (period: 1) 2000.00 Branch Input Data 8ystemV RatedV Load IV) (V1 (kw1 30000 30000 30000 30000 (Feeder Resistances in editor are at 25.0 °C) # Branch Name Description RX2(ohms) LF Ref °C ---------------------------------------------- --- - 1 101013 -- -� 34.4785 90.0 Branch Connection Information # Branch Name From Bus Name To Bus Name --------- ------------------------- 1 101013 I --------------- 101010 101013 I DC Load Flow Results I Period : 1 DC load flow converged Max mismatch : 0.000001 pu 0.000 kw at bus: 101013 ` Total time : 30.00 min Time for the period: 30.00 min 1 Bus Result in Period 1 # Bus Name Type V V Load I LowVFlag (A) (v) (pu) (kw) --------------- -------- ' __ ______ _ - 1 101010-----.----------- ------ ------ ------ - Dc Gen 30000.0 1.0000 2182.48 72.75 2 101013 P Load 27491.7 0.9164 2000.00 72.75 Branch Result in Period 1 # Branch Name Type ------Loading------ Loss Voltage (KW) Drop(V) (Amps) (KW) r 1 101013 - Y -- Feeder - --72 75 2182 475 182.475 2508.28 1 EXHIBIT 11 f nett FL OW REPORT AT 50 KV DC EDSA DC Load Flow Program V6.10.00 project No. Page 1 Date 08/11/2010 project Name: Time ; 09:06:53 pm Title Company Drawing No. c Engineer Revision No.: Name: barrow to atgasuk do Check b y J•obfile Date - System Information Number of Buses 2 1 Number of Branches Number of Rectifiers 0 Number of Inverters 0 Number of Batteries 0 0 Number of Dc/Dc Converters BaseKW 100 kw 250 v Default voltage 1 Periods 0.00010 pu 0.010 kw 0.010 % Tolerance 20000 Iterations 90 Low voltage limit - Abbreviations °C = Temperature in °C None P Load Batt - Battery D switch = Dynamic switch Rest Dc Gen - Dc generator Res RX1 Dc/dc - Dc/dc converter RX2 F Load = Functional load SplitL I Load = Constant I load Sp1itU Invert IF Ref = Inverter = Load flow reference Z Load Mstart = Motor starting = None contributing = constant P load - Rectifier = Resistence = Double circuit resistence = Single circuit resistance = Battery split lower bus = Battery split upper bus = Constant Z load V EXHIBIT 11 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 50 KV DC Bus Input Data # Bus Name Type Description 1 AtgasukY P—Load (period: 1) 2 Barrow Dc Gen (period: 1) Branch Input Data SystemV RatedV Load tv) (v) (kw) 50000 50000 �' T 2000.00 50000 50000 (Feeder Resistances in editor are at 25.0 °C) # Branch Name Description RX2(ohms) LF Ref °C 1 T Line 94.4692 90.0 Branch Connection Information # Branch Name From Bus Name To Bus Name 1 T Line - Barrow Atqasuk DC Load Flow Results Period : 1 DC load flow converged ! Max mismatch : 0.000001 pu 0.000 kw at bus: Atqasuk Total time : 30.00 min Time for the period: 30.00 min Bus Result in Period 1 # Bus Name Type V V Load I LoWVFlag (v) (pu) (kw) (A) ^-^ 1 Atqasuk PLoad 45882.1 0.9176 2000.00 43.59 2 Barrow D_c Gen 50000.0 1.0000 2179.50 43.59 Branch Result in Period 1 # Branch Name Type ------Loading------ Loss Voltage (Amps) (KW) (KW) Drop M 1 T Line Feeder 43.59 2179.500 179.500 4117.91 EXHIBIT 12 ONE LINE DESCRIPTION FOR AC OPERATION The BLIECI feeder circult from the power plant will be configured utii➢zing a 4180V Breaker and from there it will be routed to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad. A 2 MVA Transformer will be located there with a 34.5 kV Re -closer installed at the Barrow and Atqasuk ends of the power line. When using the 69 kV option, 69 kV SF6, Low Profile Type Breakers will be considered for installation. Atqasuk will be configured with a 2 MVA Transformer, a 4160V Re -closer, as well as a 34.5 kV Re -closer. See the enclosed one -Line Diagram. G "'T _'-PJ One -Line Dlaivram — AC Operation r r r r r ONE At the marine r Both th rp an SFo that sh r r! r r r r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I EXHIBIT 121CONT.i LINE DESCRIPTION FOR AC OPERATION Atqasuk Power Plant a new 2MVA Transformer will be installed on a pad configured in a similar r to the e)dsting 1 MVA Transformer located there. e 34.5 kV feeder circuit and the fig kV feeder circuit option will use a re -closer for protection, and LOri PIoIf GiiCiiri nre8li�i. T iie 4 fgC/1% Stepped Q4Wn V4it8�0 Will tie rOUted through a re-CIOser quid connect to TI'P2 or B1 L2P as is needed or tconvenient. See the following schematic for clarity - POWER HOUSE (NOTE 7 1_ 500AT 1800 AF 45OKW G 425KW p— r1 48M 650KW Qi 250D 910KW I� 910KW 1500 AT 1W0AF 1000 KVA4'AO4M TAP2 NC X 611.3121 TIPt =-y-' 8112P3 460-4160`f�4W NOTE - Bt L2P2 480-41MMA400V 3-14m TIPT TIP3 1000 KVA-PAD-MTQ 13KV NOTE - MUM -x NO 1x Schematic For AC OoeraSon - Stop Down Transfornrer & Protection r r r r EXHIBIT 13 r -- r ONE i.INE DL=SCRIPTION FOR Be OPERATION S See the following One -Line Diagram fsu clarity. . Barmw L3:30000 V a r 10 Barrow Cana . AC 4§:50PD0 V r OC 101018 r r SO1G39 . _ Unpol¢a Conn r7G 102b r -- . Walaiga Load Sri: 1$l V rJuncdron b$:6D000 V r 4c n � r r1010'68 — � IYgasuk COM+ v r UNalnewWbt Eon. - .�..-. k-ASO V . 9 • O V b A 101045 . 1Gi046 r ,aagasuk . �h:4160 V "- Clue -[:ire Diagram - DC .ODMZqn- r EXHIBIT 14 HIGH VOLTAGE DIRECT CURRENT EVALUATION DC CONVERTER COSTS U V 1 E � ��".., T^ A eooanl% c�=K1 A 0ln A TIER 4 - 00 "' v r ,..... Gmaii Charlie from I MW to 30kw 1 message Jeff Reichard <jar®telc.corry To: Albert T Sokoto <atsakata@gmaiGcom> Albert T 5akata <atsakata@gmalLcom> Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:32 AM New cost is $1,900,100 for the system. It will be the same physical size but each module will be 480VAC to 15MVDC for a 415W output (30kV totalj. The added costs are for a higher level of isolation, higher voltage / number of IGST's and the transformer sae will increase slightly. The transformers are in the enclosures. So it is a 480VAC to 30kVDC system with 2 identical converter assemblies, one for each end. Jeff Reichard jar9fte1c.com Tier Electronics LLC www TierElectronics.com 262-251-6900 Fax 250-1999 EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) ■ r flC OONVERTER COSTS Gmail Abed T Sakata <atsakata®gnWLcom> r HV system r3 msssages - _.------__—_-- Jeff Relehard <jaP&Ortic.eum> Fro Sep 3, 2010 at 12-.38 PM To: Albert T Sakata <etsAD1a@gmaiLcom> The 30kV system could be easily made as large as 5MW I� • If we went to 60 W we could also go to 5MW but that would b e higher in cost than the 30 W 5MW syste m Jeff Reichard j>tf Tier Electronics LLC www.TiorElactronics.com 262-261-6900 Fax250-1999 Albert T Sakata <atsakataft"Lcom> Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:37 PM To: Jeff Reichard <jar@telL-.com> Bca Albert Sakata catsskata@gci.nst> Jeff How much the cost will b e for the 50 kV with 5MW. Thanks Albert T. Sakata Saksts Engineering Services 907-351-5532, 907-344-6508 fax loUGkdUA ati Jeff Rekhard <jar®ts5c.c8m5p- -- — Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:25 AM To: Albert T Sakata <atsakatalagmaiLcom> $9.985,000 forthe 50kV 6M W system that consists of 40X moddes for each side stacked to make the 50WOC. This is a 480VAC to 50kVDC design consisting of 2 AC to DC converter assemblies. This system has an ABC disconnect per converter module. Thank you Jeff Reichard larrLteAaoom Tier Electronics LLC ~.TlerElectrork3.com 262-251-6900 Fax250-1999 EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) Gmail DC trSlmli' Won systOm 1 message.- — — - -- -- Jeff Reichard ejar@tegc.com> Tuel Aug 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM To: Albert T Sakata <otsakata@gmailcom>, "Abort T. Sokoto' <atsakata@gcinet> The HV transmission system consists of: Abort T 5akata <atsakata f gmail.com> Each side has 20 unfits that are in parallelfor the AC side and operate at 480VAG and in series on the DC side and operate at 7WVDC each The 20 units are broken down into 2 sets of 10 to forma +/- 7.5W line 0 SkV total), center DC grounded thru resistance All the units are bimdirectional so they can beset to push power into the grid or pull power from the grid On the opposite side there are 20 more units configured the some way One side is set to deliver powerthe other side set to supply power Allthe blocks are the same for the power cubes Each set of 20 power cubes has a single master controller If one power cube fads thenthe system can keep running with slightly lower power untilthe cube is replaced All power cubes have overvokage protection Who DC side Fiber optics are used for isolation to insure safe operation To build a higher power system the number of cubes could be doubled to make a 4MW +1-15kV system Spare power cubes can be ordered and kept on hand for rapid field replacement and minimum down time All the power cubes and their software is identical Power cubes have simple status lights (Running / Faulted) Available options are: Touch screen display System circuit breaker Fiber Optic to Ethernet interface Energy storage units Added VAR capability for poor bads EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.I Note'. M will be f mi tedirg this unit at a Northrop Grun�xman FaO tY so You can witness the ro in operation Jeff Reichard r b Tier ilectrorics tLC ww TterElev�ontcs�n 262251-WW Fm 250-1999 IP r ■ ly s 1p It OP i. 00 00 00 1 I EXHIBIT 14 CONTD. I 1 I DC CONVERTER COSTS - CONVERTER ARCHITECTURE ■ i�L It �► L IN iiw�aa ii H�o� IN �i If it INli fi ii li Tii 1 i 1 41 1 1 EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) ABB HVDC Budgetary Quotation From: "Huntley Ik Associates" <huntJey_8_assodates@us.abb.com> To: atsakata@gd.net Date: 09/29/2010 02:30:26 AKDT Subject: KVDC Light -- Transmission Line Albert I received this response while we were on the phone: amazing I Christer to very familiar with Alaska an we've had "try cbsCussions over the peat several years. As for the ABB HVDC technology, he [s the Bushes Devabpment Manager for A$B HVDC in North America and has been with ABB for 45 years; how about that? We Is evallebte for further discussion regarding HVDC. I think he Is dear on where the areas of opportunity exist. We can discuss further on Friday - BR/thuok Chaster ErNesordTPSIUSTRNABB [Wn9r o izos phi To Hun%y&Ass9ah &Mdd_Yiroeth GTRAWWB cc &"Wt rkvoc Ugtd—Trmsmisdm Una Chuck, In reference to email from Mr Albert Sakata of Sakata Engineering Services, dated 918=10, I would like to clarify where we stand today regarding the our HVDC Light technology with respect to low power application The technical papers that M r Sakata refers to in his email were written In the late 1990s to early 2000's. These papers describe some of the early efforts of ABB to get the HVDC Ught to market and are Indeed discussing systems of relatively small capacity ( 3MW - 50 MW). The technology as described in these papers has evolved, but the fundamentals are the same. The original Intent of the FNDC Llght was to cover the lower range of HVDC transmission projects (> 300 MW), however the market has driven the development in the opposite direction, due to the flexibility and black start capability of the technology. Therefore we are now offering HVDC Ught systems for 1100 MW at a transmission voltage of +/- 320 KV. In discussing the Barrow to Atgasuk transmission project, ttua lowest DC voltage, we are able to otTer today is Be KV aC and with a power rating 40 MW. Converters of this aloe cast in the order of US $ 30- 35 rrWilon total for" two converters and associated DCfAC switchyards. I%b transmission Ilre oast Inckded. Therefore, at first glance, It appears that a 115 kv AC line would be more cost effective, however, If there are other clrcumsterces, such as you have to Erderground the transmisson for some considerable distance, we do not see the economics In using our HVDC Light technology. Having said, this, I would be happy to continue the dsrxssion concerning this and other possible FNDC Llght applications, via small or in person here in the Pacific NAI or In Alaska during my next visit. Best Regards, Christer Eriksson I f EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) us:3DDDD V G 6 MVA%im i conv AC w 60000 V OC r 10f018 r e r � r 101039 UW4li Coma Etc. 1+l:480 V � ,1D 10�26 Junction i 1D1D68 �1D1460 C9nv CSC 1AC 1Makn ItCOnv 1h:4801! at ■ � t3 3 MVAXt3 2~4R � 101046 1alale i V i 3 i EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) Advantages of HVDC over AC transmission The advantage of HVDC is the ability to transmit large amounts of power over long distances with lower capital costs and with lower losses than AC. High -voltage direct curreremote from load- transmission allows efficient use of energy sources centers. i In a number of applications HVDC is more effective than AC transmission. Examples include: M Tindersea cables, where high capacitance causes -additional AC losses. Endpoint -to -endpoint long -haul bulk power transmission without intermediate 'taps', for example, in remote areas • increasing the capacity of an existing power grid in situations where additional 1 wires are difficult or expensive to install Power transmission and stabilization between unsynchronized AC distribution systems • Connecting a remote generating plant to the distribution grid. + Stabilizing a predominantly AC power -grid, without increasing short circuit current Reducing line cost. HVDC needs fewer conductors as there is no need to support multiple phases. Also, thinner conductors can be used since HVDC does -net suffer from the skin effect Facilitate power transmission between different countries that use AC at differing voltages and/or frequencies ` Synchronize AC produced by renewable energy sources i Disadvantages of HVDC over AC - transmiasio-n The disadvantages of HVDC are in conversion, switching, control, availability and maintenance. ' HVDC is less reliable and has lower availability than AC systems, mainly due to the extra conversion equipment. Single pole systems have availability of about 98.5%, with about a third of the downtime unscheduled due to faults. Fault redundant bipole systems Provide high availability for 50% of the link capacity, but availability of the full capacity is about 97% to 98%.http•//en wikipedia orgLwild&IVDC - cite note-15#cite note-15 The required static inverters are expensive and have limited overload capacity. At smaller transmission distances the losses in the static inverters may be bigger than in an AC transmission line-. The cost of the inverters may not be offset by reductions in line - construction cost and lower line loss. In, contrast to AC systems, realizing r-nultiteminal systems is complex, as is -expanding r existing schemes to multitema nal systems. Controlling power flow in a multiterminal DC system requires good communication between all the terminals; power flow roust be i r r r EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) actively regulated by the inverter control system instead of the inherent impedance and phase angle properties of the transmission line. Multi -terminal lines are rare. High voltage DC circuit breakers am difficult to build because some mechanism must be included in the circuit breaker to force current to zero, otherwise arcing and contact wear would be too great to allow reliable switching. Often -- -'---' r__ Operating a HVDC scheme requires many spare parts to be kept, often eXclualvel Lor one system as HVDC systems are less standardized than AC systems and technology changes faster. Line Configurations mono -pole and earth return DC line In a common configuration, called monopole, one of the terminals of the rectifier is connected to earth ground. The other terminal, at a potential high above or below ground, is connected to a transmission lisle. The earthed terminal may be connected to the corresponding connection at the inverting station by means of a second conductor. If no metallic conductor is idled, -current flows in the earth between the earth electrodes at the two stations. Therefore it is a type of single wire earth return http //en wikilpedia org/wiki/Single wire earth return. The issues surrounding earth - return current include: IF • Electrochemical corrosion of long buried metal objects such as pipelines. Underwater earth -return electrodes in seawater may produce chlorine or otherwise affect water chemistry. • An unbalanced current path may result in a net magnetic field, which can affect IF magnetic navigational compasses for ships passing over an underwater cable. • Permafrost ground resistivity can be very variable. * These effects can be eliminated with iwaallatienofa metallic return. conductor between the two ends of the monopolar transmission line. Since one terminal of the converters is connected to earth, the return conductor need not be insulated for the full transmission voltage which makes it less costly than the high -voltage conductor. Use of a metallic return conductor is decided based on economic, technical and environmental factors. EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) Most monopolar systems are designed for future bipolar expansion. -Transmission line towers may be designed to carry two conductors, even if only one is used initially for the monopole transmission system. The second conductor is either unused, used as electrode line or connected in parallel with the other. BI.polar DC line A, 3 DC line http://en.wiWedia.org,/wiki/File:Hvdc -bipolar schematic.svg In bipolar transmission a pair of conductors is used, each at a high potential with respect to ground, in opposite polarity. Since these conductors must be insulated for the full voltage, transmission line cost is higher than a monopole with a return conductor. However, there are a number of advantages to bipolar transmission which can make it the attractive option. • Under normal load, negligible earth -current flows, as in the case of monopolar transmission with a nwtalli c earthreturn. This induces zarth return loss and environmental effects. • When a fault develops in a line, with earth return electrodes installed at each end of the line, approximately half the rated power can continue to flow using the earth as a return path, operating in monopolar mode. Since for a given total power rating each conductor of a bipolar lime carries only half the current of monopolar lines, the cost of the second conductor is reduced compared to a monopolar line of the same rating. • In very adverse teem, the second conductor may be carried on an independent set of transmission towers, so that some power may continue to be transmitted even if one line is damaged. A bipolar system may also be installed with a metallic earth return conductor. Bipolar systems may carry as much as 3,200 NM at voltages of+/-600 M Submarine cable installations initially commissioned as a monopole may be upgraded with additional cables and operated as a bipole. ■ r EXHIBIT 14 (GONTD.I r r A bipolar scheme can .be implemented so that the polarity of one or both poles can be r changed. This allows the operation as two parallel monopoles. If one conductor fails, transmission can still continue at reduced capacity. Losses may increase if ground electrodes and lines are not designed for the v&a current in this mode. To reduce losses in this case, intermediate switching stations may be installed, at which line segments can r be switched off or parallelized. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ► ► 1 1 EXHIBIT 1 - IRS FRP Pole Structure Examples Exhibit I — RS Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Utility Pole Structure Examples & Product Applications configuration that optimizes logistics costs. ■ FRP Utility Poles, H-Structures i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ s P P I� Figure 3 — Sectional, H-Structure Transmission Pole, completed, with guy anchors and conductors in place. Sectional FRP Utility Poles, are Manufactured by IRS Group, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Figure 2 — Sectional, Single Pole structure assembled at site and erected. Light weight and simple connections make site assembly less complex; which equates to lower field costs. Figure 4 - Sectional, H-Structure Transmission Pole Installation utilizing Boom Truck, Light Weight assembly optimizes lifting equipment. EXHIBIT 1 - RS FRP Pole Structure Examples i FRP Utility Poles, Single Pole Structures i i i i i 1 1 M 1 ! 1 1 1 ! 1 i ! ! ! Figure 5 — Sectional, Single Pole Structure: Transmission Pole, completed, with conductors in place, Foie, completed, with guy anchors and conductors In place. 1 2 Figure 6 - Sectional, Single Pole Structure: Transmission Pole installation utilizing Boom Truck; optimized lifting equipment. iA t};` j Figure 8 — Sectional, Single Pole Structure: Installation near or at existing infrastrucutre. Light weight allows easy install at areas with multiple interference. N 0 .4: = N 0 W 'y � Y/ CD E a) = U_ Q tm H C d �C CD J ca w`, U W � Q a° A � cr w Q E a 0000paaaa O c o o O o 0 0 0+ ' 000�oco$0oof�opopl+Id O V �llOO��NODNlb01�� Oof-rc�ff�1�M00 N O !A H 0ooCD0C sQ o000000 ii aalloOo onfO uNo'r�9 11� �O r C aptirrMc91. NV) Go .. o0000000 o000000a 'g V 0 rOogogp r! of Oo_� q Um C 041000000 R7 7 c aplAodooM co M N N N p ni I N a� _ M H O ��ppON�OaO t7QDMNN0 C _ 1A O j = 00 O O M oa000aoa oa000000 o 0 00000000 0 O 0 CLan 0 * 0 CO N fNOD V-�0p .*cotn03,N M OD O O O O O O O M O O O O O 2 8 OONOIAOOO Ri E`AdF�?d?iRt�� t o CrrrrrMr�r- r 0� In Q A O •+ p w 6f m � as J24f m Y O a C C N OQ Qm� o .x r a.0 V c�vM,wc�7vViafi n� co 0 <- N p E N fQ W YY� � Y/ , C0 J a G! ^ 3¢ pW L Y � U cc S aE a E W H O IL t N 3 m rA 0 V Q W Q (4 d a a 0 0 O t7 n fa Cl O C7 M O kQ r Y Uf S . uq tt] O f] f? to tR O 4 t4 4 IQ [11 4 w 7M W CV CJetfsi[V�od6]3+t rn w C7 O O N (� t[t r C7 N Ql r eo W cv t17 crl us tv rn ca V tt7 CV ry u7 ch 4 �-t0'd=Uim�Oo c0 G(Qeti� oo�[V cYi Wa N N f7 fD M r t!7 aJ fd ['7 r 117 of M 03 W to tt3 ry M M 0� M W W Ov . N tp M to W 0 0 0 0 Lo 0 0 0 0 1- le O to f� �+ moNNInLQInOOItInLQOOf-.:CRltf b4ti1liN0 WM NCCODMpN3f/1OOMD r 49 w dam? t►3 w Q9. 40 fig O to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to tt1 fA to Oq to tff O 0 0 1A tfJ 0 0 W f? tPi N w 0 0 �0fpaF--mfcpmcON�O)�tNNppw N'�^�Nr tM0 OOco0C3 InMO�W 1WtV W gItV W COpp tOh�e�-Nl40- LrdtA�fM9fH m O f!9 49 ffddf99}� to nj j� F CONOMONN'It ItON(I"tORCRCgtn ;triWM�p f0 a WV)i[`- 010WCq 9tcm0 -e J 7 toW ODtO+Ytto ItwOONitNflt� co r N tt7 N co ON = � co N0OOOOON0OOOI*co00 MOONOOOOetOp OONTOO C � � OOtnGNOD� WONW �ODOO�tA = OC CWO V,W0WM,*W001'00 O to O N o O p O O O O 0 O O O O O O'tOV!OOOOOOOOONO00 O M7V000;inw000 fJOatiDw0a N000O 1-0C20r Nrc;V t.± ot7hl�t01� NiV�fD1�N[�f+N rn r W fID Ob fA� m ��NrN �d9��d9�f!l69�E9�d9Er9��dg� r �l) N M O M 0 0 0 0 to O O O O M W O O a4�///0���70 V Il-V [(s0�0MyNO7000a4T(400 Pl 07 P7 {�Y W Iwo to ^ W T W to y� T tip CO T th fig r f/9 tR ff} ff} C f►} N9 d3 aw'd.l W W W WOtnmmoo amo No►01- NfAtlt�fA CR f0+-tTOOtO.1~ C � cm N m O LL to a t� E C m �Ci N C �N49 Y a COm �. Q� t0A co .0�'' �E]E m� �luuxmw�� oaic�a�t�o Q o E cc -coo I w O U c c� m c m �m o LL � a �V a40) t' �mv o amoo Ep coop 0gq°1t w d Ci c c R c crQNpO.ac vml�v�F-aDa�HQOQtoQLL M� TTj O N Q I O0Cl04C7C300�i] d[7 U7C71� p1, VC ggU7t3Ca Q r+O r e' m N W W In M C� d�� cl W C> toOoeft1-�N(n N�M(DCnlf)N C? ❑L O e� d��O f�+ O V p�pO d ti (f 1 d co u OQ co 1� U) 1� 1A d N Cd V.-d�rl! 41 O 0 O (DC%l _ LO OD ce) ��pp 59� dN3b~9� ��m 49,40 DA l0to!700aAppo CQ7O9OI1-�30 O�OQhF[r)S00LQ1� 6pONM pr 0)i O to 1 O0 CO� n a O t- Z3G a o o O 0 N h C N W ,Oww Y! � L y � O IW6- Q C w�, W ..J u Q a. a) �c vI cc R aw Q CDWO OOOOO o0glno$gqqq& qq'l: Cn O t�NaDGo go ND(�On ;Ukco Cr) CD t- 00 C7 O CDO�Np1-Iza00iim�1s M � � ill O 4& b3 6} O F- O N M O h; N N It ao N OR LQ et 0 03 0) co f� O co co �I 0� � 0o �p 1r1 0) T OD CO moo 0 at (� �OMp0 J 7 Oc0Wc(0tiM dO0 UO9cn �O . = N h OO N La O N OO t OD OD d: lA C O O O M O OC) 0) W 00 1. OG G W 0 00 r 0 400 � J 2 p O oz O .'7 p�Opp{{ G O O N � q O q O IN (0 CL C N � M (A C�7 00 1l- 4O") l~9 CO I- O I�- T 0) le f- OD m O CD (0 0) 0 00 V) r- r � IA N O N 4644, Q9. Ef} fR in lh O Co o a o o r) 00 040 1� et Olot 0 0 0 0 d: N O O ppppf�O(� U) U)Oe-�O V fR t9 C 1A NO It 0o It 4& 4& N co 0 0 OD NN 0) 00 00 If) O N r- oCM1AN0)Ih 000 N CA U LL O G L2 E c co O a? a �� SA 2 O) m � w E � t 0 > c C3 o E ryn W E w ��' as p �— mU m c V m q�� �n � W—LU CL g n�Q-am 4, 0-it r' wed O L M Z w O C Z V 4 0 U IttotocaF-d`LLCO = w L ID c .Q w N-0 y � U) co �a H W CO n C� ■� J U 3a Q .r Y � cm a 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O in N 0 T Oct QCL c OO M O H v p o o o 0 0 OOOCppIO �+ O O pO !T N 0 © to V k7 N CO rC1mCf W Mri rCENC3m 1� h MERrNt- iff T Lf} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O OQCDnQ r to NOOotn ` In CO T OD Nt W W O cf U'i 99 f� M O W O O O O Cl O b In 0000 LL7 L6 1� O iO O O o 0 N OD OD 00 O W to T CO)T Ntn ii? e g o o v - t+4 co c`r� N C] 000o n 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O � OOD O OMD M M 4A 0 co O F 0 o a oo�000��o MO�OOO�t00� ov, O J OOONmN O OOf F°- LA m O NO pQ 00000 {O M (O M�00O00000 O J CD N 0 G O cm co T �,, 0 0 00000000a Ci O 000000000 o O C3 Cd0OCpprApOp 0 S S iA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f- O O O pOdOOMI*OfO I� W N N ONNONrO MIV1f)r ItA` d} p o tR W&& 40 93, v 0 O O O O O O O~ n O O M 0 0 a0w0c, ccLgg { � � co ul # o 0 O IN T CL O C � cr C7 o W M Q ` W AR O C Y O in E ID g oa9 a 7 C jj O SOC 20 U O CD m y W@ IncoCq� m amjUEa�E pin > a``m � `o=EL Y m_ AA O V N [Mry 19LL cnco&0wg JJ T IV f" 16 E E X L W0 O U W w a E I co co O V N p V/ lb ,O w /YI � v/ N H 0 i Q c N J a L U CU O Q w+ CL d) U cr E a2? Q OtiRA F o�n[vDve` 6a(000erooiNO�N0) iO (*rNO I�GQr(O�MNrO r [� 1A P1 O �c+ 00 in O 0 �r00r ToI T(lko ti T T 69 (/A EA V. W IA G r 59 tV �cq pNm vaiu0f0oN(���yyti 0 MOMVNOOOl4{19(f?Od 0M0 Cis$ ODP'tOr1 co � ws M v�� c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C 0 C (7r-NNN0000NN 0 q O (pOM0) 0(O1(V Go g ` m 1` T L �0pp0 e m WIN mU). m J (V 64 H V (orl(�TOD�� NOOCO �� (o O (7r hMMW Ln (D1_0 Ln � Nw�TW) M�(oticT r J aOnCl) N in O Is _ E-- ` wNlAONoDd0 co VIn oar)oaoai4Cd —r:ao C d 0 Ck O o r C r G O r oa00000000000 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N N '9N1290Goin(Do(D Va a C43OMrMM N Cl InN r GDNT CDh M w H6&i9 « (A MOCV) O000co $O ItOdpO.N0000p�`•`V� O O NCSO tot fA 1A V- � O 0 R-4%EAba OOf� OM to o0TM M o c) O Cl tp �k N 040 Ok C OLn M �(V9 � r C J U � Q � E c p N A �w N I3 ayi Q0�+a� r= od o° o N r d U m 41 O � _ U �_ c ILL ao �i caU D CO) COU 2.0 cowl, 4comcF-MQ13<w LLM to r � Fxi E W 9 W y 0 c m W 0 0 O 1 1 1 1 ' N ' O W INIw � rv, t > Y/ ' ` Q W r J cNa i1 r r o¢ aCD r U o s r o r a. C i.+ E QL V L r 4? aU- 0 r r E r � w r r 0 r cc a r r r r r� O SIG 0000,- 000u�o0 Q er (V of N ED 0 - I %I � ,� Ny N 0 Cc, [V �+ oInQ000Q OI�OOOOm �+1Cp0001AEA N lq Nq� at N C UGC O w 00000 Ily o N O o o O Q N O (` In � C 0 0 0 O �O mNNNNo00N W 619, GOD. M 40 M Or (J} CA O r 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 q� L" aa00000 aop�000co� � cn C9 V) T. M M M O � � r O w O O Q O N C C . 7 C cmO N C!O m = M OR0 M O O O O O O O o O 0 0 0 0 O V O N C O O C ti _ O QQOOaam V Occ OC Oo0ci asNfA00D N C 7 to o o r M M +r r r N > Y O C O d y `tli O C ++ a .0 a p o m y p � .0 > Qqj O Q O C C C° 0 3 0LL F= 3 a Q C CL E > YcoY .a rx v to IL IL(ac AU j m CL o1T M ai 07 P 0 !R � 4 o E U 3 j w O E U j O UID �m Ev E W O_ cl m s .. w Qa-0L) co t: CL O w F- No Q O f0 ¢ p p p 0 0 0 O O O O p 0 C7 C7 O O O O 0 0 g 0 0 +. O 0 O 8 6 a a 0 0 O 666 Liom L NN 00 Ci o00 � ie O dappo �1 EiY WD U), � � [� (�! � a) ENfY [U7 SSOSSoao89 0 OT O IOA N O O O 16 69 kn v- 1Q 1l a0 emm_ at �jj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O TO em D LOi a (�O ` to T to 0c ri T W W" AN N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O J 3 S N 0 000 C 10Q 4 GI N O i F m O O O N -w O o 0 S M CD M INN 0 i O O 0 0 m co0 O co pppp p O S S 0 0 0 O O O O O (� pCp G G O Q C pOp O p O p Op O Q O S 813 O V g 9 O N coc� �Oy ESN S r fA N WD. �V V3 ER E 4 W3, 19 OMO V F vt w O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 M a o 0 0 o a c a a v p COO O O W O /pO p LO ��w(0 W O a C Tv v T !" T T r T a r �' � v o c, o Or w 0 M Q c00 Y 'C '` LISN O N M E m m Y 0 O CL Q4j 0 c p € CL 55[[ m �a r a.0 eo * a rL LL (0 lG O 1 0 ._ (A ca a° W ' ■� N E C O d Q O C 0 (u J Lm U U p¢ a � amW V 'G a 0 ca cOn C�7 ua7• I lOn O OR Q to G O ccR C Lq N O N ado. cp C7 fO (V G C1 N 'V• O d W `C r G M W _m a1 C) O r O N� in O N-r� 0 LO O r M p OC rG oo W m M N7 N Ck f0 c+) n N Cl 1��41A7777 (pip c7 O It cv_ = W V ehtF C t[0y0 M d'} M �uLO Cc Go Op� M T- W M cow o n� m O" W �A Ccfl FA � E9 fA E9 4A v3 M sFr V coc+�,noa000g�n0000n�vu� � d• r!] N M IfY IA O 'Y V) to O CD r.oyyo u7 1MM� U upQ o, hl r 0 0*0� N O OOi d� Efl Ef} i-. Es N O lc O O M aO ti 0 0 a0 � O Q W� � LO r r N T T r N r N C ea �a ea m ss cn sa ec _a C � N a+ Mp M a 0 0 o o 00 0 o a o o 0 o w w O) 1M aD Ln Uj 0 0 0 q q 0 0 q O q N a V M M G CO �Cf7l 1°)n M O [ItL M ��C act aM0_ I IQ LO J ��E13 49,� Ln ��EM9fl9 EW5, tN � J F- m N O M O N N qd v, o N N v� ao (O CO L o (0 ui i+ In do m o V) W cr) O N N cc i� ti 7 M 00 `� h OD v co m�aD N ry O F w N O O o 0 0 0 N O O a 0 sf 0 O O M O O 9�y O O O a� a 0 0 0 N r o 0 -w 0C O O O O N cO � aD O N aD � aD O O mt N c o +n c ao of ao ao vi ao o a ao Z T r T T O O o 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 r O ui�co�oouioocoouiadoadaocoo o N D N N IV V in o O r 1- W O O r V N ti Ci O c! t• ti aD ti N N f0 f� N N M N � a0 N i!3 !f} f nM E9 fl3 V� fl3 d`? Vi (9 69 00 60 �'tova.00c�0000 NOo E9 M Ln (pNy v �Mp V fA '�C Mp 603 N ODD CO) T iA 40 iA N'? Erg 1 N Gpl� fa WR 0 0 & ti Y7 O OD OD N 1n O aD co ti C) M ; a0 C 0)1-- N C) N� N O) 4! N M 0) _j r r r Q1 O E L N c0 E G rLa m VJ y CL10 v E N co E > a > E Q Om O CL E aU ac—amo cri rn a v u.0 W c r bo r c c m cc c m c t 0 0 a a v etfAl`fDi--Q¢wf—QD¢(AQIL cnCr Q Q Y U) M L C a 0 0 U) N C� G C K E W V cc cc L 3 N 0�Q0cpQtiaDOp 0raCu)[7 CR r N Im ti CO p C7 O O r c m O C.) (-- io p [f,7 O �S'7Q OV(0O)�toto cV *0� 0.w,�7a 141 C' �fp1 = W O (j cnef M�ilNW(V(QOiorr IACFI 'Co �tIOMNG3d L c%!cAImrl-1 g S afi IN t r 0 4 l��y at q) N t��y r icpp i"i � #� �tl (a(yyt �(A�}� 49 m r V tfT cA r r•V) OO�y (�00 C'70ON 0cA U)Sb3ORC+7Oa OOCID O�In �[D %�y'i01� LO �EHiN9� � Gam? IAA pryp ��4A0 ~ d3 r C C � d? m O9SOCID 00c0ona0(AON LP O () ratOOUl O(ANO0W(f)W�d 10 ONOOOOpNICf`Of�0)M �V ti ❑) fO OD OD � at � r 1p�� 0)M Wy 1f 1 t IIIO (pc+]atff)0D LD'f � ►N+ Ne+IN j reN rNNllN]fAW�1A dNN O ta H ` In 0NOO Ml!v:�pp 0ccq -tCORCR rN. p coOOCOr6cocNw)� 0 p8pONr(OCi LnMN(D (OOr� to = v(q oOcc0_O(00 ci N LinN co in r N c9 ch r r CV co p r N V C O NN0aU,ow0co0 ppW)000J0 ch d 0 0 0 0 0 47 NN O O O r r 0 r0000�0atON ODOOOcf1 j O C 00 v O cm C O G C 0D 0 0 O CO o�odaoOr•od$ddddo (O O10 O r R (R q q 0 0 0 0 0 2 (O ��S1+(Of)�M��(��DpL ((k OOCAMI(N�V e*OOOr($�cA ox Mw. O f- 609 fA 03, a at c' M O O c 7 0 M 0 0 0 0 Ui"ItO0 It0It0(Dcri 0 v�WCO a 84 1% 9 4 a fa cc 0o m o0 00o MIn g1,mCM � (`07 �++ T-00�pNN w cm S(Or(UODNr(49.6mm)00 � r r r r r r r � U = Je a v � N m ) •� U oo c 0.0 m0V N Is Y CR �� � fn $ a l_ E2ogoa0 CL 219 I.t '- P!-a n 2 0J O co P T N � C C V i C QNj N ii O � e ■ram a Y/ � C = o � Q N c Q C 0 W U as � ¢ °a a C � C ty C E . - W V Y 3 e cr Q 9 r p V �c pvopppi,M�$voi,coon�1p1:gCk OMODl1l�OA �NGCO3 Noo �QMtif�ODO��MO a6aP-corz co MAN if PZCS I�cV aD�c� AEOHaM�}VlN�0 0+ffl 0o 00w0GC0001- O;2 ,R�OONClLQLl/OOOf- tQ �;q IDi1 001 r' r �+ VI M 0 M a CD m O0 O 01 fA il om co 'M ^ oodco i _r0CD0Ofl1W eN (06%C4M3. C .., ow000O000000W QIll%QCRC!IQC!gRlAOO1� a d0 C C) �O NOD CID CA(V�tGC+1�MM N 'QOOCAe�00O�OCfl lion 'N r O ItfimN'dmoC3 c+Mp�p o J tNp1�1-wof r-dllO�Mw EOR�d�COW D) F O� OQ O t,% 'It N N "t cq "t 00 LQ M0M!,OwlMSV0w't8 t NNCA �- Op co f.0t 00 p ccvv sr dO00D� O> Nn� r- MM NN m � s MN W O(MwIt lO1OJ*�M 000s�OD ca coo 000 O O O N O 0 0 O O 0 O ti O r O v O O O N o 0 C y ivy aDo C��spptc00CjQ �- V co co co O OM�'NOlMC) b 1� OF�W 11(4ItNh0)0)w CA_ MWW 61*r-- V Ne- Ica (o M LO a V).M �S SA r !�J Vt VT W M O ��yy O O O O O M O D O O ?It�OvtC! QOgr(4 V fH :14O lF?� co 0i r fR10�� N d3 EIi fli fR d> +d9 dg � 00 v 00) OD Wo co J C �'c.14 o-wnMp�MNOMJNtnC9 M �N r -M U LL � •� C °0 a o_ uu��m � may T U p o m m m E� m e m 0 c �cac W m cS6< E m p imp a off_ o�0m (�j r C C Q m L C 10 — LL 1 Mu crn� Ea Da c`�il°0¢od�t LL co 0 Iti e eQ 1 1 r N b V b ~ A C7 0C300000 [7 C7 a C7 n p p p O C7 C7 O Q C7 'Rol,O66606a r lf7 C7 LV O C7 lC1 h N O C7 aft 2 00 , 2 8 2 CV 00 CO C7 00 ti ti r 0) T C 7 f� 0 T C7 h n M co)TrNrrNu's CA U3 fA df 49 eV)- [f) Ef} 64 b4 dy O C7 n 0C7C7Ote)ON O n C, OO C7O1A00 O 96 IA O 0 CO C7 C? a C7 M h Vr r N p C7 p d p0o Oq'Or r- u) C 3 N o n 1Cl C+I O CoN (� OA Ct] (Cbf C+; 00 d) 00 Op ry TT Qi T cli c 1 T rA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O I Q ? O pp O Q O O O 0 O o r 1A O N_000 0L) 0 C7 O M�M In M 1+7 h 0 �+0�+rr�� Ln 0 M � I co c O o 0 0 0 ooaoo�o c .� C3 as �0000mo Go N �cmmv n T L. OD O O Na00a000 `� m 00 �D a Q c o o o o OO O I L _ O J � cm w 1 � o o O 0o000o0 o 0 0 ooa0000 0 o 0 G C O C o V 0 0 0 00 0r c o Itct ct - - 0 N 1 J o O a0 J 4-0 4a 4& � 1 U O O O O O a 0 u) O C9 0 0 0 0000i•ov, 3 a b Ln N °° �ao���4 1 O 1 Y 0 LM r a c , a T O} T cr cm r S 0 a7 1 QLL a c w O ea a E v. U o � b 1 1 /0, Q E 41 tm U v N N Y ��•m0 O 1 ,Y t"o d c Ln � cm y o a.� 1 l0 D L). I.O.Sfl �) € ` 0 10 Q � o v a' , a L) cvc`�a c�aviV)0(a2 P m 0 LO 0000aiDW0o9a W a a O 0 0 0 N O o 0 0 t\ « H M O O O O a r O a 0 0 M��M�AO�Olnlff0 Y 1 V 00 W Ot O mot' Ot K 000 (1� O 2�2� a M C 0004 CO tiL] Q Oc'h Ill 0_ 000�C]reA0 toCSP N eMc�0��(n"� ec N (ONi a) I00 0000W0000 �!7 O O O O O 0 N 0 0 0 0 tL U OT.. W 00 V 0001Of1p0 O r. O Wi CCL� Cli at Ot cl cq p C NM � f 9 �} iN N 405, im, / _ C F- ' .O O O Oa O a o a 0 0 0 as A L" 000000u�0000 ui«iomvdci0000M NcM0gtN0r V Q W aLO � E ~ ' > JA 0 0 a a a 0��N O O O O O O O ' C l t O N 0 0 ` J � CV Cl) 0 t It O ' �� � o0o 000ao0oMoa000 0000vo 0 c Oo00o0oo0ov 0 o 90 .- to W)0 0 o Ck tOo !� ao o ao m tl- Ln 0 0 0 cm 1 �� ..j QI to F W LD N O V- O ap t+ ���� O1 Go c(l 1 L U 1 u aC0o0CV) oo0OM aQ0o0vu)000-W c C aRCL6 6ouoao6 a. N � �O C 7 U v � cr a o N l c U a; o ¢ IL � m st a E > Y �+ C G M W � O N E c y C m ci m C o M to .� mom' Y d av ;i M=c € Lq U. CL -W a a o>QYY a.,�eQ a U MMaiMcog v "�,�a8 n ►l 1 1 r 1 r • Barrow S3 40 * r • i lit n p a R s l r+n1r ri•- 'ry •�• ,�� � Kkrom Morn � .ii 1� lip• I } •� l 1� l 1 �� • 1 � / :raj pA Ali _ [_ r ,� : ••.l s / 1 aC , '[' y +,'i�liiy�• `1� � 1 � n_ •�-•'I '��• '� � fir• lr r'.••� :. °f .. �k' 1 .• 4 �•r :4). Figure 3. High -value breeding 1er habitats forSpectacled 'A in the Barrow—Atqasuk region, ,nlgntilrk _ � �j •? i�-� � � fals�i'v���� .e�1� iYSli�'t�ll�Y � '� North Slope Borough OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. Box 69 Barrow, Alaska 99723 Phone: 907 852-2611 or 0200 Fax: 907 852-0337 or 2595 email: charlotte.brower@north-slope.org Charlotte E. Brower, Mayor MEMORANDUM To: NSB Department Directors From: Charlotte E. Brower, Mayor C�l/la Date: September 23, 2013 Subj: Acting Mayor I hereby delegate Reed OHair, Director of Administration & Finance, as Acting Mayor effective September 23, 2013 through September 29, 2013 or until my return. In the event that Reed Oliair is not available during that period, I delegate Ethel Patkotak, Borough Attorney acting until Reed OHair return. Please extend your cooperation to Reed and Ethel during my absence.