The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSouthern Intertie Project Environmental Analysis (Eval) Final July 1999CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,INC.CibineASSOCIATION,INC. July 13,1999 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage,Alaska 99503-6690 Attention:Mr.Randy Simmons,Executive Director Subject:Southern Intertie -Environmental Analysis -W.0.4E9590081 Dear Mr.Simmons: POWER Engineers/Dames and Moore have finalized the Environmental Analysis chapters dealing with the affected environment and the impact magnitude.A complete Environmental Analysis (EVAL)report set is enclosed for your use as follows: 1.FINAL 2.MAP VOLUME 3.PROJECT DESCRIPTION GRAPHICS AND SIMULATIONS We have submitted the report sets to federal agencies involved in the EIS process at this time. We are preparing the permit application for a ROW through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge under ANILCA provisions and will submit that application shortly. Sincerely, Eugene ajornstad General ManagerTfENGIDIGGah Enclosures:1 report set as listed above. ct Lee Thibert Michael Massin Dora Gropp W.0.#E9590081,Sec.,2.1.3 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive *RO.Box 196300 *Anchorage,Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 ©FAX 907-562-0027 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT aaa ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (EVAL) JULY 1999 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - Prepared by | Dames &Moore POWER Engineers,Inc. Prepared for: _Intertie Participants Group Chugach Electric Association - .July1999 J 4 .;| Be a a Re mt me ct I en ee ee el ee el TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1.0 -Purpose and Need............sssesssssssesessssscssesnssssssssrsessnssssanscesscsssensessecssasenessensegnes 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Project ...........cessessscecsscsesscesessssssscsssssssssnsscessesssesscssssessseeeasseeseseesensanes 1-1 1.2 Project Background...ecessssssssesscescsscsesssssssssscssssccssevscenssceceseecesasessensesseenensens 1-1 1.2.1 How the Existing System is Operated...csssesscsccsssessrsssceassssecsseesesensees 1-7 1.2.2 Previous Studies.............scsssccsccecesesesessesscessesecessonsasssessecsessssssesenssenscesssseseenoes 1-9 1.2.3.System Planning and Operating Criteria...sesscsscesssceeceesessenscssnsesscees 1-10 1.3 Need for the Project ...........cssssesseccesseseccseessecsessessesseesens etscceesessesetasesessaseasonsesssessesoes 1-12 1.3.1 Reliability...cs ccscesessceseceseecceeceesensnsssesaesesscesseseescessssessoesssepesssoeseseasegs 1-13 1.3.2 Power Transfer Capability ............cccsscsscsccesssssessesscecssssesseseeseeseeseeserssesensnenes 1-24 1.3.3.Economic Generation.................-ccceccecesssececncceceeeetenecnssnccssccceeeeessucesssecceeeersenes 1-25 1.3.4 System Stability 0.0...ce eeeececsesesessscsececesescessesssesssesssenssessssossssnsssssosssareee 1-28 1.3.5 Spinning Reserves.............ccscscsssesceseeeeeees vestessesssesaseeasesecensceecenssoneesceeoseecetes 1-30 1.3.6 Line Losses and Maintenance ...........ssscsscsesesscesesesessseserssssseessessnesenss seseeees 1-32 1.3.7 Bradley Lake....ccssssssssssssccseescessseccessesccecscsesesessenesseesessseesesceesscssssssosens 1-33 1.4 Project Benefits and Costs ..........ccsssssscessescescescceseseseeeeeseeetensssseseeseessees peeceeesavenseeseees 1-34 1.4.1 Construction and Life Cycle Costs .0......cs eseesecsssssescsoreesseecesssssesecsessaseassenens 1-36 Chapter 2.0 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal ...............sesssssssssseosesssssoseoes 2-1 2.1 Overview of Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ...........sssssessseseeee 2-2 2.1.1 Overview of Alternatives to a Second Transmission Line Eliminated..........2-4 2.1.2 Overview of Alternative Transmission Systems Eliminated .................ee 2-5 2.1.3 Overview of Alternative Transmission Routes Eliminated ....eee 276 2.2 Overview of Alternatives Studied in Detail...cesccsecseseescenecsseeeecereseeesenseeasenes 2-8 2.2.1 Overview of the No-action Alternative...........cc:cccscessccccccsssesseecessseeees seseesecees 2-8. 2.2.2 Overview of the Applicant's Proposal ...........cs eesssscesseseceeeesseccesssseeseseeessnoeees 2-8 2.3 Consultation,Coordination,and ISSUES ............::csssscccssssecesesscscnsecesseneecnsreessenceesseeseess 2-30 2.3.1 [ntroduction..............cscescessceescesceesecesnscesecesscesseseeseeesseengeceeseecssssecssenssesssesesenes 2-30 2.3.2 SCOPING ......ceecccescesteccsessceeesseseeseecenseseesescssesceenscesceseesaeeeneseaeecenseesaseaneesnseeeees 2-30 2.3.3 Notification of Public Scoping MeetingS...........es eeeeeeeeees peevssessesenoeseosesenees 2-31 2.3.4 Public and Agency MeetingS ...........csssssesesssesssssestsetseersessssatesseseeeeee 2231 2.3.5 Written Comments ............cesccesesssessesscescesecsnscsessncsscaesasenseeeesensecesesetsresecsenees 2-31 2.3.6 Amal ySis.....ccccccscssescsesssessesssesescssssssesssesssesesesesseescaesesesesessteeseaestscsesssacsesssneses 2-33 2.3.7 Geographic Context ofIssues ..........:ssssessssceesestceceeseneeccesescescnesssecessseeseseesces 2-462.3.8 Agency and Special Interest Group Contacts .........s0000sesvteseesesaeatessaceeseenes 2-46 2.3.9 Community Participation .........ccscssssscsssssesssecesessseseesestseeesesseseneasacsecesseaseeees 2-50 2.3.10 Access to Information ........cccccccccscsssssssseseesssssescsssesterssssessesescsesesseneeeseerseecees 2-53 2.3.11 Native American,Indigenous,and Tribal Involvement................sesscsseseeees 2-54 2.3.12 Formal Consultation 0.0.0.0...ceccssssssscscececesscsesceenceeeenccesaeesapesasenseenesseeseseseeseees 2-54 2.4 Alternative Route Comparisons..........c.ccssssssssssssssescscsseesscnsasseseneacoesheseseseseasaeeesseseeees 2-55 2.4.1 Environmental Analysis Approach.........ccccscsssscscsssssssscsesesseeseesecsnseeteceseeeeees 2-55 2.4.2 Alternative Routes ........ccccssssessecssssssessssessesessssesecseenesssessecsesesscencsesseseeneeaeeseees 2-61 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 1 'Table of Contents July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\T ABLEOFC.DOC Environmental Comparison of Alternatives ...............scessssssssecereessoseoeqegereeees 2-622.4.3 2.4.4 Significance Criteria Analysis ..............escsecssssceesssesseesesceeseseeseenseeenes Dadisceeeee 2-102 2.4.5 Environmentally Preferred Route .............eeesssssecececseseseecessesesoees ES edeseeseee 2-102 2.4.6 Applicant's Proposal ...............ssscessscsecesesseeecesssecsersseeseseesssssesesceconsesoeeeeesoesees 2-102 2.5 Applicable Laws,Authority,and Related Statutes and Orders..................sees gessessoere 2-103 2.5.1 Regulatory Background ...........cc eesssessccsteseseseseessecsscececseceasesesecsecsecssoseasenes 2-105 2.5.2 Right-of-way Acquisition Process ..........:ssssscssssescescessessscsecceesecceeceseeseeseeeees 2-109 2.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ..............:cstessesceessesees 2-110 2.6.1 Alternatives to a Second Transmission Line Eliminated............sevssseeanteeseeees 2-110 2.6.2 Alternative Transmission Systems Eliminated ..............:ccccsscescseeceecesreeesenees 2-117 -2.6.3 Alternative Transmission Routes Eliminated ..............cssccssssseesesssseeseseenseeees 2-119 2.7 Alternatives Studied in Detail ...............ccssssesccssssecsscecsescececsssesecessesesssncseesenseesenseseess 2-155 2.7.1 No-action Alternative............cesscscsescecsccssscseceseccsseceseessssesecereeenes veeseeesceeeeees 2-155 2.7.2 Applicant's Proposal,Including Alternative Routes and Route Facilities .....2-158 2.7.3 Hazards .0......ccccsscsscssssssscsscecssecsscessesessccesessssescesassseseseaseseaseseaccessensenseeseseeenees 2-216 Chapter 3.0 -Affected Environment...sesscssscecesssscessecccseenessescescescesceseeeseascaseaseateeseceass 3-1 3.1 Introduction ou...ceeessssssccssccesccesnceseceeccesessccsecsseescesseecsceseccecesesssnescacesseeseeseeseseeees 3-1 B.2 Climate ieee eeeesesecesecescecsecesceeneesceeeceesescesseesseeeceseensceeeeeeceeesceseeseceecseeseeenseaes 3-1 3.3 Geologic RESOULCES .........:ccsscsscessescessescesscecsecsessaccecesseenessssencsenensesacesnseeeeasenseatenseenses 3-2 3.3.1 Structural Geology and Seismicity 00...ee esscsesesseeessnecenseceeeesaseseeseeeesees 3-2 3.3.2 Earthquake-Induced Hazards ...........cccsscsssscssssseesscescecsscesseeseeeceeesseesesesseeserees 3-5 3.3.3.Mineral and Paleontologic ReSOUICES............s:ssccssccsssesecessesssessseescesntesseeenees 3-8 3.3.4 Inventory Study Methods............csssscsssssseesccesecsencesecseecseesenessseeseseeseesaeeesses 3-8 3.4 Water ReSOUICES ........cseeeesscesccsneescesteeeeenseceseesceseessesaeeeseseesneaeeaceeeesenseatenseesseessasenses 3-9 3.4.1 Watersheds and Streamflow...........cesessssssssessessessesessesseeesseeseseesseeseseseeenseseees 3-10 3.4.2 Watershed Soils 0.0.0...ce eeecscsscescessecescsssessecsecssessesscssesenceaeensceeseceesneesessneseeses 3-14 3.4.3 FlOOd ZONES .....ceescssssscesscesstecssccsesscneecssesenseesneesseeseeeeecseessesesesseesateceesensessee 3-14 3.4.4 Ground Water...cccccccsccsssssscsssesessessesecesceseeseeeeseeescensesseseeeesssaeeesesceeesesseseeas 3-15 .3.4.5.Inventory Study Methods...........cccesssscsssecssesseesseessseseeesstesseessueesseesaeeseeeneeaes 3-15 3.5 Marine Environment ............:.:cccccscccessscccesscesscccesscessssesessssessecseeesesseeenssseeesessseeeeseseees 3-15 3.5.1 Physiography and Bathymetry .............ccccsccssssssssesssscseseeeseeseesseseesseeceseseeeseees 3-16 3.5.2-Currents and Tides ........cc cescsssscsscssescssscessessecsesesneennesensesseecsseesseesusesseesneessees 3-16 3.5.3 Sedimentation ..........ccccceesesscsseessessescsssenceeeessessecsessuseaesaeeseeesseeseesecseesaeessenaeens 3-18 3.5.4 Sea TCO.esegecgecccesccssecssecsscessecssecssessessesssesssecsesensesseecssesecesessusesseesatecstenseessess 3-19 3.5.5 Marine Water Quality .......ccccccccsssssessesesessessesssssessssesssssseceessssessssessssssessesesees 3-20 3.5.6 Inventory Study Methods...csscsssessesscesessesscesscesseseessecseeseesessressesceees 3-20 ode 3.5.7 Alternatives.......saadecsessceceesnseesssaeesseseesascesnsesseaeeesesaaseessaceceunessessasecensaseneeseeeess 3-21 -,3.6 Biological RESOULCES ........:cccsccsssesssecssessecsscsscessssseessscsesecssecsesesssenscnsesesscesescscesssesaseues 3-29 -3.6.1 .Inventory,Study Methods...........ccsescssssssscssssscsscesessessssesssesssssseesseesessenseseseeees 3-29 3.6.2 ..Terrestrial Environment ............c:cscsesssescssscscessessesscessecesessessseasesnesseensesseeneees 3-30 3.6.3-Freshwater Environment..........c.ccccccessscssesseessesseseeesssecsncesesssecesesesssessesensesnce 3-48 3.6.4 Marine Environment ................00006 qescecessceesessceeessceecsnscesecesneaeeessneeceesseseesseess 3-52 Southern Intertie Project EVAL li Table of Contents July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\TABLEOFC.DOC 3.6.5 .Threatened and Endangered Species.............cssesecsssseeseserees vescesceeecceseceeeseees 3-54 3.6.6 -Alternatives .........ee eeessscsccerecssscssesessssessesssacesesenes sesceecessesesosscenseesessssssorseeases 3-55 3.7 Land Use esenteceessesssescecssesasenaconetenesseeoesescecsasecseesesesessoscsecsessenscesussosesosssonssseesenses 3-98 3.7.1 Inventory Study Methods...sessescssesessesseeseenenes sesessbensescesensesnsosesseooes 3-98 3.7.2 .Land Jurisdiction and Ownership ...........sscsscsssccssssesscessessesesessssssresseessesenseneees 3-99 3.7.3...Land Management Plans............:.:ccsssecsscssssescsccessescnssesecscenseseesesssessscsaseseoesees 3-103 3.7.4 Existing and Planned Land Use...stsssssessesssessseseenscaeesessescessessossesesesees 3-107 3.7.5 ..Transportation and Utilities ............teeseseecceesescerceesetesssssesessesssessesseesessesees 3-109 3.7.6 -Alternatives ...........cccssccesccsssseceeseeccscesesscescesseesessceescsscesacerceseaesesnessasonssoesseesonees 3-114 3.8 Recreation and Tourism .........c.ssccsscscsssceesescessccssssscesesessesseceneeseecsassccssscsscesessosssonennes 3-126 3.8.1.Inventory Study Methods..............:escssssceseesceeseecencceseeessceessressscessssensesoneenses 3-126 3.8.2 Tourist ..........cccscccsseccesseecesnscesscccossccessnccesscceesnccessseesneesesseeesconeesecsseesonssosenes 3-127 3.8.3 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 0.0.0...essssecessssreccceeseccescecescecesssoeseeesees 3-129 3.8.4 State Parks...ee esecesssesecescesecsscesscceseessenssessesecesssssasesascesesseseeseessossasenseess 3-130 3.8.5 State Lands...esesesesesseseecescccesencescessesessesaseasescseseeesnssssesetesesssesseseoeeees 3-131 3.8.6 Municipality of Anchorage...eecsesssesescssscseeesssssscssesesssesccereesssssenseseeees 3-131 3.8.7 Kenai Peninsula Borough........ee eeeseseeeceecceseececenscsesesenessssessvecesssonsonsneses 3-132 3.8.8 Altermatives 0...ccesseseseceseeesecsesceeseeceecsesenesassaseeneeeees Veesaveceeessensesessesenes 3-132 3.9 SOCIOCCONOMICS ..........ssecsesesseecesecescneceeccscstarsnceesscesaeeeseccscesesesesaseaeereseccessesanscsssoereseoes 3-137 3.9.1 Inventory Study Methods...eesscssseseeescsecesecsseseseeesesssesossessesaseeesenoaes 3-138 3.9.2 Kenai Peninsula Borough oo...ee eeeecesseeceeececeeceseeeseessseseescacseussessseseeenases 3-138 3.9.3.Municipality of Anchorage ............scesccsccescssccesseenseccesersnseseeesscessecasessseecssesees 3-145 3.10 Subsistence oo...escsessescesoseeceeeessscssesscsscesaseceenseesesescsensscesesseeeeseeeserssssesererseaoes 3-151 3.10.1 Ninilchik oo...eeccssescecsecesseseecsecsesenessesessccescesesceeeeeesasaceacsarsesseseeseesseeseeeses 3-153 3.10.2 Cooper Landing oo...eeecceeecesseeceeessscterssessesssssesesseseeseseossssesessonsssessneneses 3-154 3.10.3 Hope ...eeeecsececsssescscseseesecseccsesessesscesssesceeseeeccsnceassseasensageasesseesecessesassesseeeses 3-155 3.10.4 Summary...ceeecesseeeesecssseesscerecsceecsensesescceneseseneeseaenassseseatasessensseesenseetes 3-156 3.11 Visual RESOUrCES..........cescsescesceseceeeceecesccseceessescceessnneescessessetsceseaeensceseeseeesssserseeseones 3-157 3.11.1 Inventory Study Methods......:....ceeeccesecseeesseeseeeees testes locesssasssseessecooseneneeees 3-157 3.11.2 Aesthetic Influence of Regional Landscapes...loll teceseeeseteeeeseeeesereeee 3-166 3.11.3 Aesthetic Influence of Local Landscapes .........sesseslavetiveslnsvesseesssesessiesseesteasee 32193 3.11.4 Alternatives ........cesccscsesessesssesesesescssssessecseeeesSedaclaviveccclesdsesbiesestseseasestserseseeee,32195 3.12 Cultural Resources ....c.ccccescsessssscscssssscssscscscsscecsssssesasnsevietscecilvsnsesessssscalaseeszeesessens 3-213 3.12.1 Cultural History occ cccseseseeesecesesesessssssesesesteisestibeealessesneesteceseneesseesees 3-214 3.12.2 Inventory Results ....c.cccceccssessessesessessssscssesssssessesssssiiielesslasessseluscsasssssesssseeees 32217 3.12.3 Sensitivity Model slesseneseeiel Chapter 4.0 -Environmental Consequences ............:cssssccsesessereeeds vaevebesi leescaeedecseseserseereoseesA.V Introduction ...eescscsssssseccccssseceesceveceesnssuseesssssseesessenseeeeeennessotlbesatessensesseneeerseeeeessuee -4e] 4.2 Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning Process .......:vevtlavsesscestesssessceeeccee 402 4.2.1 Proposed Action....c.cccscccscssessssesessessssessesesssees WivedKi cectibcessselessesseesMeise =402 4.2.2 Types of Impacts...veeseseseseseeeees Ce Lehadsditlecteeseeereeeeie 409 4.2.3 Significance of IMpacts........ccccsesccsssssscsescseesedevesbiessasdesvelelesssssscsesseeseeesesses 4-10 Southern Intertie Project EVAL lll ae :Table of ContentsJuly1999Le \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\T ABLEOFC.DOC 4.2.4 Initial Impacts «0.0...eeessescsessscsssssnsseesrssseceeceenesrseesscsnssssnssessesssesenrssseseseses 4-11 4.2.5 Mitigation...essesssesessssssssssesssssssesssssssssessesssssecessensesseasssesesssensenssoesesseseees 4-12 4.2.6 Impact Assessment Results...cecscsssssssssssssessscssesesesessesssesssssessenesesseneeeees 4-16 4.3 Geologic Resources,Water Resources,and Marine Environment ............-:esceseeeees 4-19 4.3.1 Impact Assessment Methods...............sceccscsereesecessesseesenssssscesssseseessesesssnesoeeos 4-19 4.3.2 Assessment of Impacts by Alternative...tesesscssesessseesseeseceesssscssesseens 4-21 4.3.3 Watershed Impacts SUMMALY qu...ccscssessesssseessesseesessseseccecssessscesssesseessessees 4.34 4.4 Biological ReSOULCES .........ss escssescesseseesecessessensesecsseseesesscsssnssoesssssesonessscsssesensscsessneness 4-40 4.4.1 Issue Identification...eeeccsssescescrccsessesccesssssesseesessssescesssseossossosesonsoseeees 4-40 4.4.2 Impact Assessment Methods.............ssssssessesesesseesesesesecssseceseseserssssseassesesceoes 4-41 4.4.3 General Analysis of Impacts ...........csesscssessesecsscsessssesesessscesseessecsecusssesesoenans 4-46 4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation by Alternative ...........teeeesessececssessseesscsecseseeseeeees 4-57 4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts oct escssecsseseesecessseceensessscssssesssesssssssssssssssessesseesees 4-92 4.4.6 Impact SUMMALY ......ee eseeeceeeesecerccseeeeecenssessessssssnecsesesesescesssssesersenesoeesoes 4-104 4.5 Land Use Resources...........essssscssssssssssesscssseccsesessessensassscssesesesesesescecssscesesesenesessnensens 4-113 4.5.1 Impact Assessment MethodS............ccccscssscscssesescsscsscssssssssssecsssnsensesseneneeeese 4-114 4.5.2 Impacts to Land Use and Land Management Plans...0..........:csccssssssssssssosneees 4-116 4.5.3 Assessment of Impacts by Alternative....eesesescesssecesceeesessseesessesesseoesoees 4-125 4.6 Recreation and Tourism ReSOurces...........csccseccssscceecesecsesseceessesseeseceeseessessesossesoaseeees 4-136 4.6.1 Impact Assessment Methods..............:ccsscesscesecsesceseceecceserescececesusessssensesesonseoss 4-136 4.6.2 Overview of Impacts On Tourism ..............sccsccesscseseeccessececesceesecscseeeseseesesooes 4-138 4.6.3 Assessment of Impacts by Alternative...ceseeeceecesesecceeneceeesesreessesserees 4-1384.7 SOCIOCCONOMICS ......cess ceessescesscecesscesecenessescensccsseacesesesessenscaseeesseeseacessesgeeesssseesenseeaee 4-145 On4.7.1 Impact Assessment Methods..............::ccsscssceessecsecssessssseecesccenscsenseneeesessncesneens 4-145 4.7.2 Assessment of Impacts by Region ..0.........ccessssssessesceeeeeccersceeeesceneesereeseseses 4-157 4.7.3 Rate Impacts from the Project...sesesssssseseesetecesecesseesseceseeseceseesnseseeseeuss 4-173 4.7.4 Environmental Justice 0.0...eccscssssssecscceseceeccesacesscssecsnesseeseesesseenceeseeeseeeeees 4-177 4.8 Subsistence oo...ceeessssecssecsssccesteessccesecssneessneeesseeseeseessceseaeesueeesseeeseeaesscereneeseseeseanes 4-183 4.9 Visual RESOUICES........cecseseeecesceseesctsseescsceecnscesescsceescssceasseccasesssacescsretessenseeteasenseneeees 4-184 4.9.1 Impact Assessment Methods..............:cssssssccsseesesssceseceseesecescesseceseeseacesceeneeens 4-185 4.9.2 Simulations and Photographs..............ccscssscsscscsecsssesseesecessesseesscecsceeaseeeeeseeees 4-191 4.9.3 Assessment of Impacts by Route Option ............ceseesessesssesseeeceeeessenceseceeeeees 4-193 4.10 Cultural Resources...ecsssessescescetececsessessescescessesscessensassceeeensessensnsesrsesseaeereseasenes 4-211 4.10.1 Impact Assessment Methods............ec escesescssseesceeseeseceseceneceseeeneensetenaereesoneenes 4-211 4.10.2 Assessment of Impacts by Alternative............ccscsssssssecesscessseecsessessceereeserees 4-212 4.11 Electric and Magnetic Fields and Noise ..........c:ccssscssccsseesseescessceeceescessceseseneseneceseees 4-214 4.11.1 Audible Noise and Interference 2.0.0...te sessesseseeceseeecesseeceeesseneestensseseeeeseeses 4-214 4.11.2 Electric and Magnetic Fields ............:csscsscsccsssescssccsecsssesessssscesessesseceesensenees 4-217 4.11.3 Project Conclusions ..........:.ecsssscececseseeseeseececcesssceeesaceececseecessuccscaneneeseeessenesees 4-221 4.12 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ...........cscsssesccsccecseseesseccseeccscesceecencneeseseesceseesceeree 4-222 Southern Intertie Project EVAL IV Table of Contents Oo July 1999 \WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\TABLEOFC.DOC References Preparers and Contributors Acronyms Glossary Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\TABLEOFC.DOC Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Purchasers'Percentage Shares of Bradley Lake Capacity and Of Annual Project Costs ..........ccsccsscssssssssscsssscsecsssessssssescesessceescsnssacsssensenesenssacensensens 1-4 1-2.Reference Numbers for Studies Addressing Key Project Issues ..............::sseseseeseoees 1-9 1-3.Electrical Utility Planning Criteria oo...ce essssseeeceeseccsesseseesssseessssssessseseeesensoeses 1-11 1-4 How the Southern Intertie Project Would Fulfill Applicable ASCC Planning and Operating Criteria...cess ccseseeeesscccesescenecneesetneessenessseess 1-15 1-5 =Quartz Creek Line-Unscheduled Outages 0.0...ce esssescssescseeeensceeccsecseecesceseesenees 1-16 1-6 Quartz Creek Line-Causes of Unscheduled Outages 0.00...eeesseecessceceseeeteeteeseeeecs 1-17 1-7 =Railbelt Electrical Utility Customers .........cssssssssessssessseescsssessessessecsesesssesseseseeseaee 1-18 1-8 Homer Electric Association Annual Outage Hours Per Consumer Five Year AV€rages.......cssccccssccssesssssccesscessscsssessscsssacenaessscessasscsseesnsccesnsceseacecseesessetes 1-23 1-9 |Comparison of Peak Demand Forecasts for 2010 (MW)DFI 1989,1998 ................1-27 1-10 Railbelt Systems Frequency Deviation and Load Shedding Events............esssesesees 1-29 1-11 Net Present Value of Benefits for the Project..........cscsscsssssessseresessssssssrseessesssensseseeees 1-36 1-12 Summary of Benefits and CoSts..........cee ssesesscesecesesseccsececnecescsssesessosseensseesssosensenes 1-37 2-1 Alternatives Considered versus Project Purpose and Need ..............cscssseseseseeceseeeeeees 2-3 2-2.Overview of Alternative Route DeScriptions.............ccsseseccsecesreesceecesseteseneteeeaseeeses 2-19 2-3 Summary of Letters Received from Agencies,Communities,and Special Interest Group .........cceccsssccssrscsssecssecsesesesscseccscacecsnecsnceeseceuseeceecessnsecscesesseeenseserseeanes 2-32 2-4 -Tssues Identified 00...eeesesesseescesceseecncnecseecneseeescsssecseeserssaceasensesensessesaeecsoneesseneee 2-38 2-5 Contacts with Agencies and Organizations ............c:csccscsesessesssseeeeeeseceeteeseseeeseeeeeeeees 2-47 2-6 -§CWG Representation ...........cesccessesseseeceserecsseeseesseesceeeaceesesseesecscsseneceesaeeceeseaeeacesenees 2-50 2-7 -Issues Raised by CWG Membes ...........cccssssssscsscesecestesscssscessesseeesscesseeseesseeessesseesenes 2-52 2-8 Alternative Route Segment ............ceccssssscecesecescecsetseecsncesseeeeneesseecseeeaneeseeaeeesensees 2-61 2-9A Alternative Route Comparison -Kenai Lowlandsuu...eseeseessseceeeseeeeeseteseeteneeeeens 2-68 2-9B Alternative Route Comparison -Turnagain Arm.......c...ccceesessseessecseeessseseeeeeesseesaees 2-77 2-9C Alternative Route Comparisons -Anchorage Area..........cscsscssscessssssseesecseeeeteceeeeenees 2-85 2-10 Construction-Related Disturbance for Alternative Routes ............::cssccssccseceseeeeeeessees 2-99 2-11 Anchorage Route Option Compa rison...........cecssccesesssescesceseeesceecseersesesesseseeeeseesnseerees 2-101 2-12 Environmental Laws,Authority,and Related Statutes and Orders ..........cscscceseeees 2-104 2-13 Quartz Creek 115kV Transmission Line Avalanche Risk Exposure 1991................2-130 2-14 Avalanche Damage to the Quartz Creek Line...eessesecseseeeseecceecenseeeseneeeeeeees 2-131 2-15 Summit Lake Group Avalanches Involving 50 Percent or More of the Path............2-132 2-16 Alternative Screening -Relative Comparison of Routes ...........:ceescesseeesseeeeeeseneees 2-139 2-17 Comparison of Extreme Route Features .0........ccccscscsccescsceseseseceeeeeeeceaeesseseeesseneneees 2-141 2-18 Alternative Screening -Relative Comparison of the Risks/Benefits to the System by Altermative........ce cccsssesecsecsssseseescescceseeeeseneneseaeesssseeseeeseesereeeeeseeresesenseees 2-148 2-19 Quartz Creek Routing Alternative Common Outages Affecting Both Lines.............2-147 2-20 Summary of Overhead Line Design Information ..0....ee eesseeeeeeeceeseneeeeeceeceneees 2-161 2-21 Project Description/Overhead Line Segment .00..0....ee eeesessesseesecceeceereesensectsetereesees 2-163 Southern Intertie Project EVAL V1 Table of Contents July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\TABLEOFC.DOC 2-22 Estimated Construction Crews and Equipment Needs for Project Construction.......2-171 2-23 Typical Construction Equipment and Access Conditions ..........:scssssessssessessceeseenes 2-173 2-24 Project Description -Underground Submarine Cable Links ...0......teeesesseseeneeseeee 2-175 2-25 High-Voltage Extruded Dielectric Land Cable Design and System Components -138KV ou...eescsssesceeccsscsesseesessesessessesssssessusssenssseeusssssavsnseeereessteneeneoes 2-177 2-26 Underground Construction.............essssssesssssccessscsesssscsseesssscssscessssesssssssssssseeesesesensenees 2-182 2-27 Equipment Needed for Underground Construction Process ........ccssscssssseessesessscsens 2-182 2-28 Typical Submarine Cable Designs Submarine Cable Constructions -138kV...........2-187 2-29 Submarine Cable Installation Equipment ...0......tess cesectecseseseeseeseceesssensnereseesees 2-188 2-30 Transition Sites -Summary of Locations and Features ..........tee eseseeeseeesceeeeeeesenees 2-200 2-31 Substation Sites -Summary of Locations and Features ..............seseeseseseeeceeeeereeteees 2-205 2-32 Equipment Needed for Substation Construction Process ...........scssscessessesssesesceseeeees 2-214 3-1 Criteria and Sources Used for Earth Resources Map..............sscssssssssscssosessecssssesessees 3-3 3-2.Major Vegetation Types and Characteristic Species ...........eseeescesseesseeeeseeseeesereesees 3-31 3-3 _Bird Species of the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Area.............ssssssessessesseseseseenees 3-92 3-4 -'Terrestrial and Marine Mammal Species «0.0.0.0...eee seecssseseesceceseeecseessessesseseessesesseeoe 3-94 3-5 Fish Species of Marine and Freshwater Environments.............::scccsssccsesessesesseseseseees 3-95 3-6 Anadromous Fish Stream CrossingS.........:cscsscsscssscssssecssnessosesscsscceseessseeseesseeseeseeaes 3-96 3-7 Marine Algae and Invertebrate Species .........eessssescecesecssseceeceeesassenseesssseeesseesscesenes 3-98 3-8 KNWR Management Prescriptions............ceccesssscsssesseeseesseseessceencceseesecsscaseseneeeeeeass 3-103 3-9 KNWR Recreation Visitor Coumts...........cc eeeessseeeccecesecssceesersenseseeeersaeesensesuseeesees 3-129 3-10 State Park Recreation Visitor Count ..........cceesesesscscesscecseetecsecensceesensesssenesesesserees 3-130 3-11 Kenai Peninsula Borough and Communities -Racial Composition ou...eeeteeeeee 3-139 3-12 Kenai Peninsula Borough and Communities -Income/Poverty Level 1990.............3-140 3-13.Kenai Peninsula Borough Communities Employment 1990 U.S.Census Data........3-141 3-14 KPB Wage and Salary Employment...esessesececesesscceseseseseseceessseessseasenssseseees 3-142 3-15 Kenai Soldotna Area Employment:1990-1995...cescsscesccseseseceeeesscceeeeeacereeeeees 3-143 3-16 Historical Population Estimates Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula Borough..............3-146 3-17.Anchorage Population by Planning Areas 1990 to 1996.0...eseeseeeseeeeceseceteeeeees 3-146 3-18 Anchorage Municipality of Anchorage Racial Composition..............sseseessesseceeeeeee 3-147 3-19 Anchorage Municipality of Anchorage Income/Poverty Level 1990.0...ee eeeeeee 3-147 3-20 Anchorage Employment by Industry ...........cc eescesscescesseceeceesceeeesnecsceseeescesseeeeeseees 3-148 3-21 Annual Unemployment Rate -United States Alaska,Anchorage.............esses 3-148 3-22.Anchorage Average Monthly Wage by Industry 1990-1995 0.0...eeeeseeeneeeseeesees 3-149 3-23 Recreation Areas and Travelways Viewpoints and Viewing Areas ...........:csccseceeeees 3-164 3-24 Cultural Resources Inventory ..........cescceesesecceeeeseeeseeecerseesaceeeeeseeeeeseseseseeseeseceenseeeeees 3-218 4-1 Alternative Route Description SUMMA ..............::csscscssssessseeseesecseceseceeceneneeeseneeseees 4-3 4-2.Standard Practice Project Mitigation Measures..............csscssscssssscsesssssessesseeeeeeseseeees 4-13 4-3 Selective Mitigation Measures...........cccccssessssssssesssssessssssessensesensessccatessesasensessenaesnenss 4-15 4-4 Types of Selective Mitigation Applied ...........c.scescssssessesseesescessereesetecesenneseseeseeeees 4-17 4-5.Impacts on Upland Vegetation for Alternative Routes ............sesessesseeeseereeeeneeceeees 4-106 Southern Intertie Project EVAL Vii Table of Contents July 1999 \DM_PHXHSYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F ina\TABLEOFC.DOC 4-6 Impacts on Wetland Vegetation for Alternative Routes ...........scsssseesseeseeeesseseees 4-108 4-7 Impacts on Waterfowl for Alternative Routes on the Kenai Peninsula..................0 4-109 4-8 Impacts on Bald Eagle Nesting Areas for Alternative Routes..........ccssscsesssseseeees 4-110 4-9 Impacts on Wolf Abundance for Alternative Routes on the Kenai Peninsula...........4-111 4-10 Impacts on Lynx Abundance for Alternative Routes on the Kenai Peninsula...........4-111 4-11 Impacts on Black Bear Habitat for Alternative Routes on the Kenai Peninsula........4-112 4-12 Impacts on Brown Bear Habitat for Alternative Routes on the Kenai Peninsula......4-112 4-13 Impacts on Moose Abundance for Alternative Routes on the Kenai Peninsula........4-113 4-14 Impacts on Caribou Habitat for Alternative Routes on the Kenai Peninsula.............4-113 4-15 Estimated Cumulative Project Area of Impact on the KNWR ..........csscscssssessssseeens 4-130 4-16 RV and Campground Facilities in the Kenai Flats Area...ssesssssssssesscsenseeseeees 4-155 4-17 Alaska Surface Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP)for 1998-2000 ............4-165 4-18 Railbelt Population and Income Data,1996 00...eee eescsecseetecscesesesesesssesessessenseoes 4-175 4-19 Environmental Justice Data,Kenai Peninsula,1990 uu...ecssseccsssscceessrecesssnaceeees 4-183 4-20 Visual Contrast Levels ..........ccecsesessssscenccsssecescssecsecssctssesessaseossnerscesssoessansessesseseasesees 4-186 4-21 Levels of Visibility for Rural and Urban Areas...cessseseseecseseseseeesneseseeeseeeenens 4-187 4-22 Impact Levels for Residential and Recreation Viewers in Rural Landscapes............4-188 4-23 Impact Levels for Residential and Recreation Viewers in Urban Landscapes..........4-189 4-24 Impact Levels for Views along TravelWayS ..........:cscssssssseseeseeesessesessecsecseesenceeseess 4-190 4-25 Impact Levels for Rural Scenic Quality Classes...ese sescssseceeeeseeceseseeoescessceseees 4-191 4-26 Impact Levels for Urban Visual Image Types ...............csseseseseceseceeccesesecseeseeeeseseesees 4-191 4-27 Electric Field Values for Assumed Right-of-Way ...........eseessesssecesrsecssssessessessessaseeee 4-218 4-28 Magnetic Field Values for Assumed Right-of-Way ...........:ccssssescceseesececceeeeeeeeeeeeees 4-219 4-29 State Regulations that Limit Field Strengths on Transmission Line Rights-of-way.4-220 4-30 IRPA General Public Exposure Guidelines ............ccsessescsseeesceseeeeceeeeeeseceneeteseeseees 4-220 4-31 Cumulative Impact Summary .............ceccssscsssesceseccencseecsescssecesceseeseeseacensceeseeseeeenneens 4-224 Southern Intertie Project EVAL Vill Table of Contents July 1999 \WDM_PHX I\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\TABLEOFC DOC LIST OF FIGURES 1-1]Project Vicinity Map....ssssesccesssscssssssesscossssesensessssssseusscessnesessseessessessecesenseesens 1-2 1-2 -Railbelt Service Area oo...eeeeesessessseeessaceseceseeencccseccescseceuceseneeencesesensocsesseeeseses®1-3 1-3.Generation and Transmission System,Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Area..........1-6 1-4 Anchorage to Kenai Power Transfer Example...............sssssssesssseescsessesssssssosessessesenss 1-8 1-5 Hydro-Thermal Generation Coordination...eesseeseeseeessessessessesesessesssesesonesenes 1-8 2-1 Alternative Route Options and Applicant's Proposal ...........:.sscsssssssessssessssssessenseseees 2-11 2-2 Alternative Route Options and Applicant's Proposal -Anchorage Area..............000 2-12 2-3 Diagram of Alternative Routes and Substation Options............cscsssssssessssssessseseeseees 2-13 2-4 Schematic Diagrams of Route Options..........cc eccessesccsssecnssseessssscessssereceesesesseeceneees 2-14 2-5 =Typical Overhead Line Structures ........eee secssesesecessseesevesssssesssescsssseesesorssoasseseees 2-27 2-6 Typical Substation and Transition Station...eeseseceseeccecesecesecesescesseseseceseesennes 2-28 2-7 Representative Route Profiles.............essscsscsscceesesssesssscesccsescesencessceeaseeseescseseseceeass 2-29 2-8 ---Project Approach,............cesessssssescescessccesecescsceesescecesasenessceneessesssasesssesnasenesecenesoree 2-56 2-9 TA/MPP Process Flow Chart...ssssessessssscsseeeseseenseosecsescseceseeseseassscssscsssessesssceeaeee 2-59 2-10 Study Area and Alternative Route Progression ...........:cccscssccesccscesccesssenseecececeeceeenees 2-121 2-11 Alternative Routes Recommended for Elimination...esessscesseeeseeseseeeseeeeees 2-122 2-12 Anchorage Area Alternative Routes Recommended for Elimination................:c0 2-123 2-13 Avalanche Hazard Areas..........ecsssesescsececsscsccescesecerecsecseseeeseseececceesssecesesssesssssscsenaes 2-128 2-14 =Avalanche Photo...ee eeessssscssesecesecescseseeesceccecsesecceaesssenenseceetsnesseceseesecesneeeesenees 2-129 2-15 Pre-Outage Conditions Without Intertie 0.0...eecsccescesrecenccececsceseeescescennsenesenss 2-149 2-16 Quartz Creek Outage Without Intertie ee esscesecessesnsesesensceescsecessesscsenseeeeeaes 2-149 2-17 Pre-Outage Conditions With Intertie ............escsssessssssceseessessccescsessnseseseseserseeesenes 2-149 2-18 Quartz Creek Outage With Intertie ........ee esesseseeseceecessssceseceeceesseesseeseeseceeeeeneees 2-149 2-19 Outage on Parallel ROW ooo.ecessecesecesceeceesecseseeeeesseseceaceossecscesseeseeseneeseneeesenees 2-150 3-1 --_Bathymetry oo ececsscesccesscesccssccsecsscesseeeccesccessensceesesesessseesssesesacenasesseeseeeerseaees 3-17 3-2 Influence of Regional Landscapes ..............:cssssscesssceecsecessssceeccenccceersesesesseneessseceeeenes 3-162 3-3 |Viewpoints and Viewing Locations Along Alternative Routes.............sessesseeseseeeees 3-167 3-4 Viewpoints and Viewing Locations Along Alternative Routes............:cccsesceseseeees 3-170 3-5 Viewpoints and Viewing Locations Along Alternative Routes..........:.sscescssseeeeses 3-176 3-6 Viewpoints and Viewing Locations Along Alternative Routes...........ccsessseeeesenees 3-180 3-7 Photograph Reference Map............:cscsscssssscsssssescscssessenscssscsessessceesesesscsasessenseseesees 3-220 3-8 |Anchorage Area Photograph Reference Map ............:ccsssscsssssssessescesscescescsaeesssenseseeaes 3-221 4-1 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Comparison of Enstar vs.Tesoro Totals.......4-149 4-2 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Kenai Lowlands -Tesoro Route.............:000 4-152 4-3 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Kenai Lowlands -Enstar Route.............:000 4-154 4-4 Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau Visitors,1996,1997.0...eesescsssseseseeceeee 4-156 4-5.Kenai Peninsula Traffic,1997 (Placer River Station)..........c.cc:csscsssssscsssssssssscsssesseees 4-156 4-6 Kenai Municipal Airport Emplanements,1997 ...........ccssssssssssescscssesescscsessescseseseeseees 4-157 Southern Intertie Project EVAL ix Table of Contents July 1999 FADATA\PROJ\09203\009'F inal\TABLEOFC.DOC 4-7 Kenai Peninsula State Parks and Recreation Areas Visitation,1997 ...........ccsecccsesees 4-158 4-8 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Combined Anchorage Bowl Segments..........4-171 4-9 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Anchorage Area -Tesoro Route..............006 4-171 4-10 Southern Intertie Manpower Loading Anchorage Area -Enstar Route..............-00 4-172 4-11 Rate Impacts of Southern Intertie Project (in Cents/K Wh)............cescsceseceeseereeceerees 4-175 4-12 Census Designated Places in the Kenai Peninsula Borough................sscsscssssseseeseees 4-180 Southern Intertie Project EVAL Xx Table of Contents July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\009\Final\T ABLEOFC.DOC -IEE Ce OS en ne iS 2 OESTETRTEPEE FT IT .Saad tee ae alias PO So 7m ana taal "_+TTS Toe wees ISSUE TRACKING TABLE q ISSUE TRACKING INDEX An integral part of the environmental evaluation (EVAL)process has been a comprehensive effort to consult and coordinate with relevant agencies and the public.The intent throughout the process has been to communicate with the public and agencies,identify and refine their issues, interpret the issues into meaningful information to incorporate into planning and decision making,and address the issues in the EVAL.This comprehensive effort of consultation and coordination has been accomplished through three primary means:(1)agency and public scoping of issues early in the EVAL process,(2)contacting agencies during the process to obtain technical information,and (3)conducting community participation throughout the process. Overall,the goal of the scoping process was to determine the issues to be addressed in the EVAL and environmental impact statement.Scoping is a process,early in a project and open to federal, state,and local agencies and the public,intended to incorporate their views and concerns regarding the Project.Other objectives of scoping included evaluating issues,determining the range of alternatives to be evaluated,identifying environmental review and consultation requirements,and developing the environmental analysis process and technical studies to address scoping issues in the EVAL. Specifically,issues identified during scoping include the following: Purpose and Need for the Project Urban and Rural Land Use Aviation Safety Recreation and Tourism Management Plans Watershed Management and Soil Erosion Visual Resources Biology Cultural Resources Right-of-way Limitations Health and Safety Socioeconomics Alternatives to the Proposed Project National Environmental Policy Act The table on the following pages has been provided to assist the reader in tracking generally where these issues are addressed in the document.The index includes a list of specific comments received that fall into the 14 categories listed above,as well as a general guide to sections and/or pages in the document where the issues are addressed.For more specific information regarding the scoping process and issue identification,refer to Chapter 2,Section 2.3-Consultation, Coordination,and Issues. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 1 Issue Tracking Index July 1999 \DM_PHX INS YS\DATA\PROJ09203\W0*FinaNssue Tracking Intro.doc ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index 1 Purpose of and |Underlying Need Need for the @ Unable to determine the underlying need for the transmission line.Need Need-Chapter 1,Section 1.3-Need for the Project should be clearly defined and a reasonable range of alternatives for the Project project should be evaluated,such as energy conservation,local Alternatives-Chapter 2,Section 2.6.1- generation,system,and transmission alternatives.Alternatives to a Second Transmission Line,and Section 2.6.2-Altemative Transmission Systems =The need for the Project is not justified by the potential significant environmental impacts and questionable economic justification.Chapter I,Section 1.4-Project Benefits and Costs;Chapter 4,section 4.2.5-Mitigation, Reliability Section 4.7.3-Rate Impacts from the Project @ The purpose and need would not be met by constructing a transmission Chapter 2,page 2-127--Avalanche Hazards line parallel to the Quartz Creek line due to avalanche risks. w =Is reliability of power the main reason for the project?Chapter 1,Section 1.3-Need for the Project===What increase in reliability would construction of the new transmission Chapter 1,Section 1.3.1-Reliability-How the line provide?Project Corrects the Deficiency by Improving Reliability =Current reliability of service from the existing transmission line system is Chpater 1,Section 1.3.1-Reliability acceptable in the Anchorage and Kenai areas.Residents are willing to put up with occasional power outages instead of the potential!environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Project.Chapter I,Section 1.3.1-Reliability-Current==What is the difference between historical outages and present risk of System Deficiency with Reliability outages (especially related to avalanches)after modifications have been Chapter 2,Section 2.6.2-Alternative included to the existing transmission line?Transmission Systems,page 2-117,Upgrade of the Existing Quartz Creek Line;page 2-127- Avalanche Hazards;and page 2-134-Avalanche Mitigation Chapter 1,Section 1.3-Reliability-Current @ What is the cost and extent of current unreliability?System Deficiency with Reliability Chapter 2,pages 2-127 and 2-134--Avalanche =Reliability and efficiency would not be met by routing the transmission Hazards and Avalanche Mitigation line through avalanche areas. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2 Issue Tracking Index July 1999 WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROS\09203\000\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX doc ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index Energy Transfer #==What is the status of existing energy transfer between Kenai and =Chapter I,Section 1.2.1-How the ExistingAnchorage?System is Operated Benefits ®The proposed project would only benefit Anchorage (or only Kenai).=Chapter 1,Section |.4-Project Benefits and Costs m=The Kenai and Anchorage areas independently have enough generation ®Chapter 1,Section 1.3.3-Economic Generation, capacity page 1-25-Current System Deficiency with Economic Generation m™Would expanded power service from the route be available for local =Chapter 1,Section 1.3.1-Reliability residents to utilize?(Principally Moose Point,Gray Cliffs,and Fire Island.) 2 Urban and ™Quartz Creek would have the least amount of environmental impacts and |®Chapter 2,page 2-122-Quartz Creek Route Rural Land minimize impacts to residential neighborhoods. Use ==The possibility of lawsuits from diminished property values is associated |™Chapter 4,Section 4.5--Land Use Resources, with Enstar.page 4-114-Mitigation =The transmission line crossing residential lots would result in diminished |@ Chapter 4,Section 4.5---Land Use Resources, property value.page 4-114-Mitigation =Does Alaska Railroad and Chugach Electric have the right to route a line |@ Chapter 2,Section 2.5.2-Right-of-wayalongtherailroadright-of-way?Acquisition Process =Avoid highly developed residential areas.=Chapter 4,Section 4.5.1-Impact Assessment Methods;Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Uses and Land Management Plans =Do not construct overhead transmission lines in residential areas.=Chapter 4,Section 4.5.1-Impact Assessment Methods;Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Uses and Land Management Plans =How would the proposed Project affect property owners?=Chapter 4,Section 4.5.1-Impact Assessment Methods;Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Uses and Land Management Plans =Proposed Project routing should consider potential zoning conflicts and =Chapter 4,page 4-115-Municipality of land use changes as a result of the revision to the Anchorage Anchorage Comprehensive Plan. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3 Issue Tracking Index July 1999 WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\1EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX.doc ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index =Transmission lines should be planned in advance of residential and =Chapter 4,Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Use commercial development.and Land Management Plans =Right-of-way encroachment is a possibility with New Seward Highway =Chapter 2,Section 2.5.2-Right-of-way and North Kenai Road.Acquisition Process ®Route lines through industrial areas (more compatible land use). m=©The western coast of the Kenai Peninsula is desirable for development,_ the transmission line could be a conflict. ®North Kenai schools could be in close proximity;this would not be =Chapter 4,Section 4.5.1-Impacts on Land Use acceptable.and Land Management Plans 3 Aviation Safety |Compliance with Federal Aviation Administration Regulations =The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)would need to conduct a =Chapter 3,page 3-112-Wire Marking hazard determination,which would identify potential problems (flight Requirements;page 3-113--CEA's Policies hazards,electrical interference)and any necessary mitigation measures Regarding Aviation Demarcation Requirements (marker balls,lighting). ®Project must comply with FAA navigation facilities standards.=Chapter 3,page 3-110-Aviation Potential Conflicts with Aircraft Use @ The Tesoro Route presents a particular hazard for low flying aircraft that {™Chapter 4,Section 4.5.3-Assessment of frequent the area during inclement weather.Impacts by Alternative (Land Use}-Tesoro Route Alternatives @ Underground transmission lines would mitigate flight hazards near =Chapter 3,page 3-110-Aviation airports,float plane lakes,or beach strips,and avoid conflicts with planned expansion at Anchorage International Airport.=Chapter 3,page 3-110-Aviation;Chapter 4, Flying Crown Airstrip in Oceanview would be shut down;transmission page 4-131-Alaska Railroad Route Options line would create flying hazard. 4 Recreation and |®Potter Marsh and Quartz Creek are heavily used for recreation.=Chapter 3,Section 3.8-Recreation and Tourism Tourism =Project would alter the landscape and eliminate the wilderness values.Chapter 4,Section 4.6-Recreation and Tourism ®Potential conflict with proposed Tony Knowles Coastal Trail.Current Resources policy is to underground all transmission lines. ®Avoid impacts to Chugach State Park.=Chapter 4,page 4-136-Mitigation @ Sixmile Creek drainage is sensitive because of recreational use.=Chapter 4,page 4-136-Mitigation ®Avoid impacts to trails including Resurrection Trail.ws Chapter 4,page 4-136-Mitigation @ Would submarine routes affect sport fishing in Cook Inlet?=Chapter 4,page 4-166-Long-term Tourism and Recreation Impacts Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4 Issue Tracking Index July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\000%\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX .doc ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index 5 Management Conservation easement at mouth of Sixmile Creek.Chapter 4,Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans Project would require an amendment to the KNWR Comprehensive Chapter 4,page 4-120--KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.Conservation Plan How would Chugach National Forest administration incorporate this Chapter 4,Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Use Project into the updated Forest Plan?and Land Management Plans Right-of-way along Enstar route would be incompatible with the KNWR Chapter 4,page 4-120--KNWR ComprehensiveComprehensiveConservationPlan.Conservation Plan The 1992 recommendations in the Kenai Peninsula Borough Plan Chapter 4,page 4-116-Kenai Peninsulainclude:"Maintain scenic quality and unique and rural setting of Cooper BoroughLanding.” To what extent would implementation of the proposed Project require Chapter 4,section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Useadditionaleffortsbylandmanagementstaff(such as increased patrols for and Land Management Planstrespassers)? Land Water Conservation Funds have been used in Captain Cook State Chapter 4,pages 4-136 through 4-139-CoastalRecreationAreaandChugachStateParkprovidinglimitationstoManagementPlansadditionaldevelopmentwithintheparkboundaries. The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan is currently being revised and Chapter 4,page 4-115-Management Plansthemunicipalplanningdepartmentanticipatesthatchangesmaydirectly relate to siting the proposed Project.A cooperative effort with the plan update should be considered. State tidelands and other lands managed by the Alaska Department of Chapter 4,page 4-117-Coastal ManagementNaturalResourcesmustcomplywiththeAlaskaCoastalManagementPlans Plan.Chapter 4,page 4-115-Management Plans Chapter 4,page 117-Coastal Management PlansMunicipalityofAnchorageutilitycorridorplanisnotdesignedforthisChapter4,page 4-115-Municipality oftypeofproject.AnchorageProjectmustcomplywiththeKenaiRiverSpecialManagementPlan.Chapter 4,page 4-115-Management Plans 6 Watershed Potter's Marsh is vulnerable to silt input from any construction in the Chapter 4,Section 4.2.5-Mitigation,ImpactManagementvicinity.Assessment Methods (Geologic Resources,and Soil Water Resources,Marine Environment),page 4-Erosion 20-mitigation measuresMinimizechangetobluffsalongKenaiRiverandtheCookInletChapter4,Section 4.3.1-Impact Assessmentcoastline.Methods (Geologic Resources,Water Resources, Marine Environment),page 4-20-mitigation Southern Intertie Project EVAL 5 Issue Tracking Index July 1999 \DM_PHXi\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\000\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX doc ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index measures "Minimize right-of-way clearing requirements to the maximum extent Chapter 4,Section 4.2.5-Mitigation possible. 7 Visual Residential and Recreational Viewsheds Resources = =What would the proposed transmission line look like?Simulations and drawings included in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume =Overhead lines along roadways within the Anchorage Bowl would Chapter 4,Section 4.9.3--Assessment of adversely affect local neighborhoods.Impacts by Alternative;Impacts to Visual Resources in the Anchorage Bow!for the Tesoro and Enstar routes (beginning on page 4-194) =Visual impacts to residential areas need to be evaluated in terms of loss Chapter 4,Section 4.9.1-Visual Impact of property value and sense of place (specifically,Cooper Landing,Assessment Methods;Section 4.9.3-Assessment Kenai,south Anchorage,Moose Point,Gray Cliffs,and Pt.Possession).of Impacts by Route Option Cooper Landing recently completed a community planning effort that identified preservation of aesthetics as a desired attribute. = =The proposed Project should avoid the KNWR due to the high scenic value. Design Considerations Recommend the use of the existing route to minimize aesthetic impacts. Possibly construct a new line and remove the old facilities. Project alternatives should include design elements that would eliminate or minimize adverse effects to aesthetic qualities of the area.Suggest undergrounding the line when crossing visually sensitive areas. Viewsheds from Travelways Visual impacts may affect residents and tourists who travel the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway,Sterling Highway,and Turnagain Pass,or who visit Summit Lake,Stormy Lake,Cooper Landing,Swan Lake,and Sixmile River (Quartz Creek Route). Recommend undergrounding the lines through urban areas. Chapter 4,page 4-199-Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Route C) Chapter 2,Quartz Creek Route (reasons eliminated;begins on page 2-122) Chapter 2,Section 2.6-A lternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study Chapter 4,Section 4.2.5-Mitigation Chapter 4,pages 4-193 through 4-194-Impact Assessment for Travelways Chapter 4,Section 4.5.1-Impact Assessment Methods;Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Use and Land Management Plans Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\000°\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX.doc Issue Tracking Index ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index m Enstar seems to minimize disturbance and visual issues on the Peninsula.Chapter 4,Section 4.9.3-Assessment of Impacts by Route Option 8 Biology Wetlands =Draft EIS should identify wetland types,acreage,and location,and Chapter 3,Section 3.6.2-Terrestrial assess wetland functions and values.All construction activities should Environment,page 3-33-Wetlands avoid high resource wetlands A and B in Anchorage and wetlands in the Chapter 4,Section 4.4.3-General Analysis of Kenai NWR to the maximum extent practicable.Impacts,page 4-46-Wetland Vegetation; Section 4.4.4-Impacts and Mitigation by Alternative =If wetlands cannot be avoided,implementation of Best Management See above sections,plus Chapter 4,pages 4-73 Practices should be used to minimize effects.The DEIS should include a through 4-74--Mitigation and Residual Impacts discussion of the Best Management Practices. =Additional clearing would have impacts on wetlands that are already See above sections compromised. Management =Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)requires burial of Chapter 4,Section 4.4.3-General Analysis of transmission line through Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge.Impacts,Wetland Vegetation Chapter 4,Section 4.4.4-Impacts and Mitigation by Alternative =ADF&G recommends boring underneath the vegetated portions of the See above sections refuge. =Chickaloon Bay is a state critical habitat area.Chapter 4,Section 4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation by Alternative =Is there a possibility of spruce bark beetle increase?Chapter 4,Section 4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation by Alternative Sensitive Species =Avoid disturbance to sensitive wildlife species,including brown bear, lynx,wolf,Trumpeter Swan,and Bald Eagle.Chapter 4,Section 4.4.3-General Analysis of Impacts,starting on page 4-47 =There is a high density of brown bears on the Chickaloon River.Chapter 3,page 3-44-Brown Bears =Enstar route would disrupt critical brown bear habitat.Chapter 4,pages 4-169-Enstar Route Alternatives =Caribou wintering and calving grounds are along the Enstar route.Chapter 4,page 3-47--Caribou;Chapter 4,page 4-69-Enstar Route Alternatives Southern Intertie Project EVAL 7 Issue Tracking Index July 1999 \DM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PRON\09203\00%\E VAL2Z\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX.doc ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index Wildlife Habitat ®Project would irretrievably alter the landscape reducing wildlife habitat =Chapter 4,Section 4.4.3-General Analysis of (hydraulic alterations would impact wildlife and habitat).Impacts =Minimize adverse effects to fish and wildlife habitat.m=Chapter 4,Section 4.4.4-Impacts and Mitigation by Alternative =Cumulative impacts to wildlife and habitat need to be addressed.===Chapter 4,Section 4.4.4-Impacts and Mitigation by Alternative =Proposed Project may improve some types of wildlife habitat.=Chapter 4,Section 4.4.4-Impacts and Mitigation by Alternative Waterfowl =Effects to waterfowl from overhead lines should be mitigated.=Chapter 4,page 4-47-Birds =Chickaloon Bay is a migration staging area.=Chapter 3,pages 3-36-Waterfowl m==The EVAL and EIS should have a discussion on Potter Marsh waterfowl.|™See two sections mentioned above Fisheries =Would fish be impacted by damaged submarine cables?m=Chapter 4,Section 4.4.4-Impacts and Mitigation by Alternatives (mitigation measure 18);page 4-5S-Marine Mammals = Siltation as a result of construction would adversely impact fish.=Chapter 4,page 4-47-Anadromous Fish 9 Cultural Concerns Expressed by Kenai Native Association For all cultural issues: Resources =§©Archaeological resources need to be addressed in the EIS.=Chapter 3,Section 3.12--Cultural Resources =Areas surrounding Cooper Landing and Kenai River have high densities Chapter 4,Section 4.10-Cultural Resources of cultural sites. m=Increased access may result in damage to unknown archaeological and historical properties. =Native groups should be allowed to participate in survey work. =Proposed Project may hamper traditional usage. =Avoid disturbance to burial grounds at Pt.Possession. =Avoid use of Native lands for proposed project,specifically the Pt. Possession Native Group. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 8 Issue Tracking Index July 1999 \WDM_PHXiASYS\DATA\PRON\09203\000°\EVAL2USSUE TRACKING INDEX.doc ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index 10 Right-of-Way Use of Right-of-Way For all right-of-way issues: Limitations =Chapter 2,Section 2.4.2-Right-of-Way Acquisition Process;in addition,see the following sections to address individual issues: ==©ADOT/PF has restricted access along most of their rights-of-way.=Chapter 4,Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Use and Land Management Plans =Expansion of Enstar pipeline right-of-way conflicts with the KNWR =Chapter 4,page 4-120- Comprehensive Conservation Plan. ===Would public access be available along the right-of-way for the proposed |™Chapter 4,Section 4.2.5-Mitigation (mitigationproject?measure 4) =§=Would an easement or right-of-way be required on adjoining properties =Chapter 4,Section 4.2.5-Mitigation for maintenance access? ===The proposed Project would increase the chance of trespassers because =Chapter 4,Section 4.2.5-Mitigation (mitigation of the 150-foot right-of-way that would invite usage.measure 4) =Suggest consolidating right-of-way with other projects;comprehensive =Chapter 4,page 4-133-last paragraph planning should be considered instead of piece-by-piece planning. =Use existing right-of-way,even if it must be widened.=Chapter 2,page 2-122-Quartz Creek Route Right-of-Way Requirements ®Minimize right-of-way width.=Chapter 4,Section 4.5.2-Mitigation =Would the right-of-way be 150 feet wide in residential areas and how =Chapter 4,Section 4.5.2-Mitigation would that affect property owners? ==6The only mitigation that should be required by the utilities for this action |=Chapter 4,Section 4.5.2-MitigationshouldbefundsrequiredtoreclaimthelandattheendoftheProject. =Both New Seward Highway and Minnesota Drive are controlled access =Chapter 4,Section 4.5.3-Assessment of Impacts rights-of-way,which restrict the ability to construct or maintain the by Alternative Project from the road. 11 Health and m Effects of EMF need to be addressed in the DEIS.=Chapter 4,Section 4.11.2-Electric and Safety Magnetic Fields =Potential hazards of the transmission line include EMF negatively =See above section affecting nearby residents and systems in homes. =Transmission lines and schools are not compatible due to the potential m™See above section health effects (along North Kenai Road). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 9 Issue Tracking Index July 1999 WDM_PHXSYS\DATA\PRON\09203\000%\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX doc ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index Physical Hazards ws Can gas lines be located close to electrical transmission lines without @ Chapter 2,Section 2.7.3-Hazards danger of explosion or fire? =Transmission lines should be buried to protect human safety.@ Chapter 2,Section 2.7.3-Hazards @ Falling lines can be a hazard to people or property.=Chapter 2,Section 2.7.3-Hazards =Request information on the magnitude of the electrical hazard to humans |8 Chapter 4,Section 4.11.2-Electric andandwildlifeandtheeffectsofaspillfrominsulatingoil.Magnetic Fields Chapter 2,page 2-195-bottom paragraph Chapter 4,page 4-55-Marine Mammals 12 Socioecomics Utility Rates ®=What effect would construction costs have on utility rates?=Chapter 4,Section 4.7.3-Rate Impacts from the Project =Would the new line reduce the cost of power in the future?=See above section ®No individual should carry the burden for all rate payers.m See above section =Would utility rates increase?=See above section @ What is the current and projected cost of electricity?=See above section Quality of Life ™Quality of life will suffer if the proposed Project is introduced into an =Chapter 4,Section 4.7.2-Assessment of area not currently used as a utility corridor.Impacts by Region (Socioeconomics) =What impact would the Tesoro Route have on people and how many =Chapter 4,Section 4.7.2-Assessment of Impacts would be affected by the Quartz Creek Route?by Region (Socioeconomics) Chapter 2,page 2-138-Alternative Screening Relative Comparison of Routes =Impacts to local communities should be considered.=Chapter 4,Section 4.7-Assessment of Impacts by Region (Socioeconomics) Project Cost ™Concerned with cost comparisons of options.=Chapter 2,page 2-138-Alternative Screening - Relative Comparison of Routes =Is the main difference in route costs associated with the submarine =Chapter 2,page 2-144-Cost Estimates by Route cables?Option =How much (percentage-wise)would it cost to bury the route?=Chapter 2,page 2-144-Cost Estimates by Route Option Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 10 \DM_PHXI\S YS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX doc Issue Tracking Index ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index @ Are submarine alternatives economically feasible? Cost Benefit Analysis =Cost benefit analysis needs to be updated to reflect current market conditions. @ When would the benefits accrue? m=Where are the benefits coming from? =How much tax payer money is going into this Project? ™Where is the money coming from to fund this Project? Effect of the Proposed Project ===Would landowners directly affected by the right-of-way be compensated? =Economic savings versus losses to Peninsula communities should be considered. Development =What are the economic benefits to the communities in the Project area? == =What are the electrical benefits to the communities in the Project area and the Railbelt? Environmental Justice =Consider environmental justice for the residents of the trailer park at Minnesota Drive and Dimond Boulevard. Chapter 2,page 2-144-Cost Estimates by Route Option Chapter 1,Section 1.4-Project Benefits and Costs Chapter |,Section 1.4-Project Benefits and Costs Chapter 1,Section 1.4-Project Benefits and Costs Chapter 1,Section 1.4-Project Benefits and Costs Chapter 4,Section 4.7.3-Rate Impacts from the Project Chapter 2,page 2-144-Cost Estimates by Route Option Chapter 2,Section 2.5.2-Right-of-Way Acquisition Process Chapter 4,Section 4.7.2-Assessment of Impacts by Region (Socioeconomics) Chapter 1,Section 1.3.1-Reliability Chapter 4,Section 4.7.4-Environmental Justice 13 Alternatives to |Alternatives to a New Line the Proposed =Evaluate alternative means of constructing,operating,and maintaining Chapter 2,Section 2.6.3-Alternative Project transmission lines to minimize environmental impacts.Transmission Routes;Section 2.4.6- ==The full range of reasonable and feasible alternatives should be evaluated,including energy conservation,local generation,system,fuel cells,wind generation,and transmission alternatives. Applicant's Proposal Chapter 2,Section 2.6.1-Alternatives to a Second Transmission Line Southern Intertie Project EVAL 11 July 1999 \DM_PHX HSYS\DATA\PRON\09203\000°\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX doc Issue Tracking Index ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index System selected for final approval should be the most efficient,cost effective,and easiest to maintainand operate. More information needs to be presented in terms of why alternatives such as energy conservation are not feasible solutions to the proposed Project.The EVAL should also discuss which energy conservation measures were considered and why they were rejected,what could be done instead of building the intertie. Corridor should incorporate an access road along the coast (Tesoro Alternative),There is potential to incorporate a causeway across Turnagain Arm Avoid a submarine crossing from Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof by running a route along the north shore of the Kenai Peninsula to Chickaloon Bay,then cross Turnagain Arm to South Anchorage. Use existing transmission line corridor and tie into existing substations. Suggest removal of old 115kV and 69kV transmission lines,thus improving the aesthetic value of the area. Consider routing a submarine cable along Quartz Creek to Sixmile to Hope and across Turnagain Arm to Potter Marsh. Alternative Feasibility Route selection should be flexible to allow avoidance of sensitive areas. What options have been considered for various environmentally sensitive areas and avalanche zones? Rationale and criteria for the elimination of alternatives should be documented and presented clearly in the EVAL and EIS. Alternatives that do not increase reliable and efficient energy transfer (the purpose and need for the Project)should not be considered in the EVAL. Consider a range of alternative construction techniques to minimize environmental impacts (burying substantial portions of the route,using modified tower designs,etc.). Discourage use of existing Quartz Creek route because the same "natural menaces”would be doubled. Chapter 2,Section 2.4.6-Applicant's Proposal Chapter 2,Section 2.6.t-Alternatives to a Second Transmission Line Chapter 2,page 2-153-Other Alternatives Suggested to Cross Turnagain Arm Chapter 2,Section 2.6.3-Alternative Transmission Routes Chapter 2,page 2-117-Upgrade of the Existing Quartz Creek Line;page 2-122-Quartz Creek Route Chapter 2,Section 2.6.3-Alternative Transmission Routes Chapter 2,Section 2.4-Alternative Route Comparisons Chapter 4,Section 4.2-Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning Process;Chapter 2,page 2- 134-Avalanche Mitigation Chapter 2,Section 2.6-Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study See above section Chapter 2,Section 2.7.2-Applicant's Proposal, Including Alternative Routes and Route Facilities Chapter 2,page 2-122-Quartz Creek Route Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 12 \WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PRON\09203\000'\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX.doc Issue Tracking Index ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index m™Overhead and underground lines are more accessible and safer than Chapter 2,Section 2.7.2-Applicant's Proposal, submarine lines.Including Alternative Routes and Routee Facilities (see sections on overhead, underground,and submarine lines) =Submarine crossings are not practical due to cost and engineering See above sections feasibility. =If project follows railroad,it should be placed underground.Chapter 2,page 2-!122--Quartz Creek Route; pages 2-98 through 2-109-Substations =Resolutions have been passed by Bayshore,Klatt,and Oceanview Chapter 4,page 4-13 1-Alaska Railroad Options community councils against locating the project within their communities. ®Routing should be different than current line and should have substations Chapter 4,Section 4.5.2-Impacts on Land Use to provide local power.and Land Management Plans 14 NEPA Procedure m =When would the precise alignment be available?Chapter 2,Section 2.7.2-Applicant's Proposal, Including Alternative Routes and Route Facilities =Would an EIS be conducted on the proposed route only,or would the Chapter 2,Section 2.4.1-Environmental EIS consider a range of alternatives?Analysis Approach =Would U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.Forrest Service be See above section cooperating agencies? @ Would a public meeting be conducted pursuant to issuance of the draft Chapter 2,Section 2.3.4-Public and Agency EIS?Meetings =How,when,and under whose direction would lands needed for right-of-Chapter 2,Section 2.5.2-Right-of-Way way be acquired?How would private landowners be dealt with?Acquisition Process = =Proposed project should be planned comprehensively to incorporate Chapter 2,Section 2.4.1-Environmental other projects as applicable.Analysis Approach 8 The EIS should provide a discussion on the relationship of the Northern Chapter 1,Section 1.2-Project Background Intertie and Southern Intertie projects and the anticipated operation of the completed network,and any impacts associated with the operation of the electrical network. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 13 \DM_PHXISYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX doc Issue Tracking Index ISSUE TRACKING INDEX Issue Comments Received EVAL Index NEPA Compliance A Notice of Intent must be submitted to EPA for a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP)under the NPDES at least two days prior to the start of any construction. Each construction activity must comply with the SWPPP. ADF&G should be fully involved in the NEPA process.Their comments would be the primary factor in selecting an alternative that would affect the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. Utilize a proactive community outreach program to involve the general public in the decision process. The environmental and permitting process should be conducted concurrently.Coordination with the Section 404 permit should also be considered. NEPA process must consider cumulative impacts and associated conflicts with the proposed Project. EIS should identify what jurisdictional agencies would be affected by construction of the Project.The EIS also needs to discuss land use and who would be affected. Is the Community Working Group Program a requirement under NEPA? NEPA study must consider all alternatives equally. For all NEPA Compliance Issues: =Chapter 2,Section 2.4-Consultation and Coordination;Section 2.5-Applicable Laws, Authority,and Related Statutes and Orders Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 14 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\EVAL2\ISSUE TRACKING INDEX.doc Issue Tracking Index meatal 7 aa sien TT, Pr ere v e 2 r "vr qe athe hatel 7 Sa Te r5aleah alleeel 7 T aed . ie 1 TT ee Zam wr ee eTsaeoo CHAPTER1PURPOSEANDNEED De me RR To ET ee rope rer . .-mo, .: a . 7 . : Lo .; . ,; . whi i seni anaad et at PEN EEene oer er Parone)Pe oa See en eats a tat (Oo RR WATT TTT,TERT RET OE Ty ee roe Beiaet a enti a pomemesrat t ? i i 4 Cy "uae VonODaeY5 * aahnta ota Anee ads8 aoe 2 eS OeOOrTSOWeenLeATO Sas ane et ee aem le aa La srt LantamAnai Eh aN CHAPTER 1.0 -PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project (Project)is proposed as a system improvement project to increase the overall Railbelt electrical system reliability and transfer of energy capabilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.The Project would consist of constructing a second electrical transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage (Figure 1-1). The Project as proposed would correct existing system deficiencies by providing a second line to accomplish the following: ™increase reliability of the overall Railbelt electrical system and the power supply to consumers on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage by providing a second path for the power during an interruption of the existing Quartz Creek 115 kilovolt (kV)line,and reduce load shedding requirements in case of system disturbances ™increase electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage from 70 megawatts (MW)to 125 MW to allow the use of existing generation resources more economically and reduce operating costs,reduce overall system requirements for spinning reserves,and improve electrical system stability m™reduce transmission line losses and reduce the overall system operating cost due to required maintenance costs on the Quartz Creek line m™provide adequate access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake hydroelectric generating station for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula,allow the Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized to reduce system operating costs through increased hydro-thermal coordination,and provide additional spinning reserves to the system north of the Kenai Peninsula 12 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Railbelt system is a power grid that electrically connects south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks.The Railbelt service area is illustrated on Figure 1-2.There are three distinct regions-the interior area,centered around Fairbanks;Anchorage and Matanuska Valley area; and Kenai Peninsula.Electrical generation,transmission,and distribution within the Alaska Railbelt are currently provided by six utility companies,which compose the Intertie Participants Southern Intertie Project 1-1 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ09203\0090'\F inal\CHAPTER I doc PROJECT VICINITY MAP » "2FAIRBANKS Southern Intertie Study Area e Fairbanks Anchorage"ut Juneau Q FIGURE 1-1 Proposed IntertieBetweenHealyandFairbanks meeebetween aao,Kenai and Anchorage b! a a Kasilof (HEA), .ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL LIGHT &POWER tc CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION |©|GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ||HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SEWARD ELECTRIC SYSTEM SUBSTATION A aGENERATINGPLANT 115 KV 69 KV 230 KV 138 KV NOTE:LOCATION FOR ELECTRICAL IS APPROXIMATE 190 ie}10 20 RAILBELT UTILITIES SYSTEM SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 1-2 Group (IPG),also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities.Members of the IPG include Golden Valley Electric Association,Matanuska Electric Association,Chugach Electric Association (CEA),Anchorage Municipal Light and Power,Homer Electric Association (HEA),and Seward Electric Association. The Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area are connected by one transmission line,known as the Quartz Creek 115kV line.The Quartz Creek line was originally constructed in 1960 to transmit power from CEA's Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project to the Anchorage area.As Alaska has grown,so has the need for transmission line interconnections between load areas to efficiently utilize generating plants across the system,and to reliably distribute that power to the load centers.Thus over time,use of the Quartz Creek line has evolved beyond simply transmitting the Cooper Lake power to Anchorage. The Quartz Creek line currently provides the sole path for coordinating the operation of generation on the Kenai Peninsula with Anchorage area generation (Figure 1-3).The line also is used to provide backup power in the case of outages in the Anchorage area or on the Kenai Peninsula.The Quartz Creek line is limited in electrical transfer capability and its ability to provide reliable backup power during system outages.The line is subject to outages from ice, wind,and snow loading,and is routed across known and historically active avalanche areas. With the addition of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project in 1991,the limitations of the Quartz Creek line have not allowed the increased generating capacity from the Bradley Lake Project to be used to full potential.This has resulted in operation of the Railbelt electrical system in a less than optimum manner,and at higher costs than if a second line were to be constructed between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project is located east of Homer on the southern Kenai Peninsula,and has a generating capacity of 120 MW.The Bradley Lake Project is owned by the State of Alaska.Power from the project is used by the Railbelt Utilities,and the percentage shares in Bradley Lake are as shown in Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1 PURCHASERS'PERCENTAGE SHARES OF BRADLEY LAKE CAPACITY AND OF ANNUAL PROJECT COSTS Source:Power Sales Agreement for Bradley Lake Energy,December 8,1987 Percentage Share Purchaser (Percent) Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative,Inc.(representing Homer Electric Association and Matanuska Electric Association)25.8 Chugach Electric Association,Inc.30.4 Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.16.9 Municipality of Anchorage,d/b/a Municipal Light and Power 25.9 City of Seward,d/b/a Seward Electric System 1.0 Total 100 Southern Intertie Project 1-4 Chapter !-Purpose and Need July 1999 WDM_PHXISYS\DAT A\PRON\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1 doc At the time that the Power Sales Agreement!for the Bradley Lake energy was signed,it was recognized that to fully utilize Bradley Lake,additional transmission lines (interties)would need to be constructed between the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks to reinforce the transmission system to provide for the economical transfer of Bradley Lake power.The purchasers agreed to use their best efforts to obtain sufficient funding for the interties,as well as for the Bradley Lake Project. In addition to the Power Sales Agreement,a transmission wheeling agreement'with CEA to transfer power from Bradley Lake north of the Kenai Peninsula over the Quartz Creek line was executed as well.The wheeling agreement recognizes the limitations of the Quartz Creek line to accommodate the transfer of Bradley Lake power.It was not envisioned by the Bradley Lake participants that the Quartz Creek line would remain the sole method of delivering their Bradley Lake shares north of the Kenai Peninsula.The agreement contains the following specific points: m™the delivery of Bradley Lake Power to the Purchasers requires transmission facilities m™the construction of additional transmission facilities (northern and southern interties)was anticipated to reduce the effective cost to ratepayers for power from Bradley Lake m the additional transmission facilities had,at that time,not yet been funded ™under the circumstances,the Quartz Creek line was/is the only transmission path,and that the wheeling agreement would be superseded if and when additional transmission facilities were constructed The Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan also acknowledges that to fully utilize the Bradley Lake Project,additional transmission line upgrades are needed to carry power to Anchorage and Fairbanks.' 'Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project,Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Electric Power ("Power Sales Agreement”)by and among The Alaska Power Authority,an agency of the State of Alaska ("Seller”)and The Chugach Electric Association,Inc.,The Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.,The Municipality of Anchorage d/b/a Municipal Light and Power,The City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System,and The Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative,Inc.("Purchasers”)and The Homer Electric Association,Inc.,and The Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.(Additional Parties),December 8,1987. *Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project,Agreement for the Wheeling of Electric Power and for Related Services ("Services Agreement”)by and among The Chugach Electric Association,Inc.,The Homer Electric Association, Inc.,The Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.,The Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.,The Municipality of Anchorage d/b/a Municipal Light and Power,The City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System,and The Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative,Inc.,December 8,1987. >Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan,May 1992,page 3-39. Southern Intertie Project 1-5 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER |.doc e COMMUNITIES 4,@ willow A WASILLA e SUTTON =»GENERATION PLANTS PALMER TOTAL EXISTING GENERATION CAPACITY SHOWN IN MEGAWATTS (MW) BELUGA (CEA)387 MW s BERNICE LAKE (CEA)70 MW COOPER LAKE HYDRO (CEA)16 MW EKLUTNA HYDRO (APA)32 MW "he eye em SOLDOTNA (AEG&T)38 MW BRADLEY LAKE (AEA)120 MW PLANT 1(AML&P)92 MW INTERNATIONAL (CEA)46 MW PLANT 2(AML&P)249 MW TOTAL ANCHORAGE AREA GENERATION -806 MW TOTAL KENAI PENINSULA AREA GENERATION -244 MW a SUBSTATIONSOMONOMAWN=1.ANGHOR POINT (HEA} 2 DAVES CREEK (CEA} 3.DIAMOND RIDGE (HEAS (4 DOUGLAS (MEA) §PRITZ GREEK (HEAS 6 GIROWOOO (CEA) 7 HOPE ISEA) a 9 D SOLDOTNA 5 we eeeece INDIAN {OBA KASILOF (H TEAL10°LAWING (SES1¢PORTAGE=(CEA)12.QUARTZ EK IDEA)1 SCLDOTNA (HEA) 14.TEELAND (CEA) 15°O'NEILL (MEA) 16 Subba CEE 17 SEWARD (SES) 18 PT.WORGNZOF -TRANSMISSION LINES DESIGNED B45kV 230kV 136K 11SkV Sok Peninsula 17 isLith{ BRADLEY JUNCTION moOOoO>sere QUARTZ CREEK LINE N ral, srr CENTRAL ALASKA Source:Chugach ElectricAssociation,1995 Figure 1-3;anne unazaawruneenan 1.2.1 HOW THE EXISTING SYSTEM IS OPERATED The Alaska Intertie Agreement'provides the contractual umbrella under which the Railbelt Utilities and State of Alaska operate the interconnected electrical system.The Railbelt Utilities and State of Alaska constructed the initial intertie between Anchorage and Fairbanks to allow the participating utilities to improve system reliability and buy and sell power among themselves,in order to reduce the overall cost of operating the system.As noted above,the Quartz Creek line, operated by CEA,currently provides the transmission line path connecting the Kenai Peninsula with Anchorage,and in turn with the Fairbanks area. The existing Quartz Creek line is limited to transferring 70 MW of power for a secure transfer'. To allow full use of the Kenai Peninsula generation,the intertie secure transfer capacity needs to be increased to 125 MW.The Project would provide the increased transmission capacity to make these higher transfers possible in a secure manner. Currently the existing system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage is operated so as to maximize the transfers of economy energy,and coordinate the hydro and thermal generation resources on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage,within the limitations of the existing Quartz Creek line. Power flows to and from the Kenai Peninsula are monitored at the Dave's Creek Substation, which is located just north of the intersection of the Seward and Sterling highways.As depicted on Figure 1-4,power flows in both directions,to and from the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The average variation of the import/export of power to the Kenai Peninsula is plus or minus 40 MW ona daily basis. During the day,when loads in the Anchorage area are high,hydro power is dispatched from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage to "shape”the overall generation so that thermal generation units in the Anchorage area operate near full load for maximum efficiency,which results in overall lower generation costs.At night when electrical loads are lower,the generation is reduced to conserve the water in the reservoirs,while continuing to run the thermal generation units at the highest possible efficiency.Water is essentially the "fuel”that allows generation of electricity from a hydro project such as Bradley Lake. *Alaska Intertie Agreement,among The Alaska Power Authority,The Municipality of Anchorage d/b/a Municipal Light and Power,The Chugach Electric Association,Inc.,The City of Fairbanks,Municipal Utilities System,The Golden Valley Electric Association,Inc.,and The Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative,Inc.of which The Homer Electric Association,Inc.and The Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.are members.December 23,1985. °Secure transfer is defined as the maximum transfer permissible for the system to remain stable and operational with a sudden loss of the transferred power. Southern Intertie Project 1-7 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \\WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1.doc Anchorage to Kenai Power Transfer Example RE ee PowerTransfer(AboveLinetoAnchorageBelowLinetoKenai)12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6PM 12 AM Time of Day Figure 1-4 Hydroelectric resources are coordinated with thermal resources (hydro-thermal coordination)so that thermal resources such as gas fired turbines at the Beluga Power Station can be operated at the highest possible efficiency,while using the hydro resources to "shape”the instantaneous system load requirements.The hydro-thermal generation coordination process is illustrated on Figure 1-5°. Hydro-Thermal Generation Coordination ,'1Hydro3»jpeteg;-joen a occ2 occi 12AM 6 AM 42 PM 6PM 12 AM Time of Day Figure 1-5 With the Project in service as a second transmission line interconnection between the Anchorage area and Kenai Peninsula,increased economy energy transfers and hydro-thermal coordination, ®On Figure 1-5,CT means combustion turbine,and CC means combined cycle combustion turbine.Both are thermal generation resources. Souther Intertie Project July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 1 .doc 1-8 Chapter |-Purpose and Need currently limited by the existing single Quartz Creek line,would be possible,and full advantage could be taken of the Bradley Lake hydro resource. 1.2.2.PREVIOUS STUDIES The purpose of and need for the Southern Intertie Project have been studied extensively and confirmed repeatedly through numerous studies since 1987.A series of engineering,economic, and environmental studies have been conducted for the proposed Project to confirm its need and establish key cost and technical parameters,as shown in Table 1-2. TABLE 1-2 REFERENCE NUMBERS FOR STUDIES ADDRESSING KEY PROJECT ISSUES* Year Study Completed Project Issue 1987 1989 1990 1991 1996 1997 1998 System reliability 2 ]3 4.8 7,14 Increased transfer capacity 2 1,5,6 3 4 10 7,14 Economic utilization of available 1,5,6 3 4 7,14 generation System stability 2 1 3 4 10 12 14 Spinning reserves ]3 4 7,14 Project costs 2 1,5.6 4,11 10 13 Project benefits 1,5,6 4 7 Environmental siting analysis 2 10 Transmission line losses 2 1,5,6 4 10 7 Maintenance costs 1,5,6 7,13 *See list of references for specific studies referenced by number in this table. Initial Southern Intertie-related studies included a cost estimate and corridor feasibility study by Power Engineers and Hart-Crowser (1987),and the Alaska Power Authority (APA)Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study (1989).The 1989 APA study was very comprehensive and included 11 volumes (see references for a complete list). Two of the key volumes included in the 1989 reconnaissance study were a Benefit/Cost Analysis (Decision Focus,Inc.[DFI]1989a,and updated in December 1989),and a Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems (North American Electric Reliability Council [NERC]1990). The reconnaissance studies were summarized in the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study,Final Report,March 1991 (The APA became part of the AEA).The final report included updated cost estimates prepared by Dryden and LaRue (1991).This particular report was prepared to comply with the project review requirements contained in AS 44.83.181 for the northern and southern intertie projects identified in Ch.208,Sec.159,SLA 1990. Southern Intertie Project 1-9 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \DM_PHXKSYS\DATA\PROA09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 1.doc In 1995,Power Engineers and Dames &Moore prepared updated cost estimates and conducted an alternatives analysis and electrical system,environmental,and macro corridor studies (Power Engineers,Inc.1996,and Dames &Moore 1996).Completed in 1996,these latest studies took a fresh look at the electrical,cost,and environmental siting aspects of the Project.In 1997 and 1998,DFI reviewed and updated the value of the Project benefits and costs (DFI 1998).In 1997/98 the reliability assessment of the railbelt systems completed by NERC in 1990 also was updated by the NERC Reliability Assessment Subcommittee (August 1998).The balance of this chapter refers extensively to these detailed studies,and summarizes their pertinent conclusions. 1.2.3 SYSTEM PLANNING AND OPERATING CRITERIA As the high-voltage electrical network in the United States grew from isolated systems into the interconnected bulk power system that exists today,the need to establish planning and operating practices that would result in the economical and reliable operation of the bulk power interconnected systems grew as well.The ability to operate the interconnected systems reliably and economically continues to be an integral part of the social and economic fabric of the United States.As with most businesses,the establishment of realistic planning criteria for the electrical system came about as a result of lessons learned in operating the systems. NERC was formed in 1968 in the aftermath of the November 9,1965 blackout that affected the northeastern United States and Ontario,Canada.NERC's mission is to promote the reliability of the electrical supply for North America.It does this by reviewing the past for lessons learned; monitoring the present for compliance with policies,standards,principles,and guidelines;and assessing the future reliability of the bulk electric systems. The Alaska interconnected system has grown in much the same way as interconnected systems in the lower 48 states,first as isolated systems,and then as an interconnected system to take advantage of capabilities in adjoining systems to provide system support.The Railbelt interconnected system is a power grid that was set up by the State of Alaska and cooperating utilities to electrically connect south-central and interior Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks.This area,called the Railbelt,is home to the majority of Alaska's population.Development of the Railbelt high-voltage electrical network resulted from long-term planning studies conducted by the state,through the AEA.The Railbelt power grid allows the participating utilities to sell and buy power to and from each other,taking advantage of lower costs in other areas,and to provide backup power to each other.In this manner,lower cost generation resources in adjacent areas can be utilized more fully and the cost of operating the system and procuring electricity can be minimized.The IPG was formed by the Railbelt Utilities to improve electric reliability and coordination within the Railbelt by working together to improve the interconnected system through intertie improvements and cooperative energy projects.The Southern Intertie is one of these cooperative projects. Southern Intertie Project 1-10 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER |doc The Alaska Systems Coordinating Council (ASCC)is an association of Alaska's electric power utilities.The ASCC reviews the Alaska interconnected system on a continuing basis to promote reliable system operation,through coordination between utilities in the planning and operation of the interconnected system.In 1991,as a result of discussions with NERC,ASCC adopted coordinated interconnection planning and operating criteria.The 12 operating criteria adopted are based on NERC planning guides for bulk electric system planning and are adapted specifically to Alaska.The NERC and ASCC criteria are shown in Table 1-3. TABLE 1-3 ELECTRICAL UTILITY PLANNING CRITERIA NERC Planning Guides!ASCC Planning Criteria' To the extent practicable,a balanced relationship is maintained among bulk electric system elements in terms of size of load, size of generating units and plants,and strength of interconnections.Application of this guide includes the avoidance of the following: B excessive concentration of generating capacity in one unit, at one location,or in one area ®excessive dependence on any single transmission circuit, tower line.right-of-way,or transmission switching station =™excessive burdens on neighboring systems 1.Balance Among System Elements -A balanced relationship shall be maintained among bulk electric system elements so as to avoid excessive dependence on-any one element. The system is designed to withstand credible contingency situations. 2.Contingencies -Additions to the interconnected system shall be planned and designed to allow the interconnected system to withstand any credible contingency situation without excessive impact on the system voltages,frequency,load,power flows, equipment thermal loading.or stability. Dependence on emergency support from adjacent systems is restricted to acceptable limits. 3.Emergency Support -Reserves shall be provided such that emergency support from adjacent systems is restricted to acceptable limits as determined by studies of the interconnected system. Adequate transmission ties are provided to adjacent systems to accommodate planned and emergency power transfers. 4.Support From Adjacent Systems -Adequate transmission ties between adjacent systems shall be provided to accommodate planned and emergency power transfers. Reactive power resources are provided that are sufficient for system voltage contro]under normal and contingency conditions,including support for a reasonable level of planned transfers and a reasonable level of emergency power transfer. Reactive Power Resources -Each control area shali provide sufficient capacitive and inductive resources at proper levels to maintain system steady state and dynamic voltages within established limits,including support for reasonable levels of planned and emergency power transfers. Adequate margins are provided in both real and reactive power resources to provide acceptable dynamic response to system disturbances. 6.Real and Reactive Power Margins -Margins in both real and reactive power resources are provided for acceptable dynamic response to system disturbances. Recording of essential system parameters is provided for both steady state and dynamic system conditions. 7.Recording System Parameters -Essential system parameters shall be recorded. System design permits maintenance of equipment without undue risk to system reliability. 8.Reliability During Maintenance -System design shall allow for equipment maintenance without unduly degrading reliability. Planned flexibility in switching arrangements limits adverse effects and permits reconfiguration of the bulk power transmission system to facilitate system restoration. 9.Switching Flexibility -Switching arrangements shall be provided to limit adverse effects and permit reconfiguration of the bulk power transmission system to facilitate system restoration. Southern Intertie Project July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\000\FinaKCHAPTER1 doc Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need TABLE 1-3 ELECTRICAL UTILITY PLANNING CRITERIA NERC Planning Guides'ASCC Planning Criteria' Protective relaying equipment is provided to minimize the 10.Protective Relaying -Provide sufficient relaying severity and extent of system disturbances and to allow for equipment such that the severity and extent of the malfunctions in the protective relay system without undue risk to system disturbances is minimized and that system reliability.malfunctions in the protective relay system do not jeopardize system reliability. Black start-up capability is provided for individual systems.ll.Black Start-up -Black start-up capability is to be provided.for individual systems. Fuel supply diversity is provided to the extent practicable.12.Fuel Supply -Plans for generation additions shalt consider fuel supply diversity. 'NERC Planning Guides as approved by NERC Engineering Committee on February 18,1989 These planning guides describe the characteristics of a reliable bulk electric system.They are intended to provide guidance to the regional councils,subregions,pools,and/or individual systems in planning their bulk electric systems. 2 ASCC Planning Criteria adopted by the ASCC on April 4.1991 These criteria have been developed based on the "lessons learned”from the construction and operation of the interconnected bulk power systems of North America,and are the industry accepted practices for planning and measuring the performance of bulk power interconnected systems.Based on these criteria,binding operating agreements between the Railbelt Utilities have been negotiated,and contractually govern the operation of the Alaska Railbelt interconnected system. The Project has been planned and is proposed in accordance with these criteria.The Project would correct deficiencies in the existing interconnected system and is consistent with the ASCC criteria on system balance,contingencies,provision of emergency support,support from adjacent systems,reactive power resources,real and reactive power margins,reliability during maintenance,and switching flexibility. 1.3 NEED FOR THE PROJECT This Project is needed because the existing Railbelt Electrical System is deficient.The studies that were conducted on the system identified several objectives that,if met,would correct the deficiencies and make the system run more economically and effectively.This Project will meet those objectives,which were introduced in the first section and are described here in more detail. Specifically,the proposed Project would provide a second path for power to flow between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage and is needed to accomplish the following: ®increase the reliability of the interconnected Railbelt electrical system from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks,and reduce the requirement for load shedding during system disturbances Southern Intertie Project 1-12 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PRON09203\009\FinalhKCHAPTER 1 doc ™increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area ™provide the capability to utilize the most economic generation mix available to reduce costs to consumers and to allow generation capacity in one area to support the load in the other area m reduce area requirements for spinning reserve generation,thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the life-span of generation plants =improve Railbelt electrical system stability ™reduce transmission line losses for power transfers and reduce maintenance costs m provide adequate access to power entitlements.from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula,and allow Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized Table 1-4 shows how the Project,by meeting its objectives,would fulfill the ASCC criteria that currently are not fully being met.Following the table is a detailed discussion of each Project objective including its definition,the current system deficiency,how the Project would meet the deficiencies,and benefits from the Project. 1.3.1 RELIABILITY Increase the reliability of the interconnected Railbelt electrical system from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks,and reduce the requirement for load shedding during system disturbances., Reliability Definitions Reliability is the degree of performance of the elements of the bulk electric system that results in electricity being delivered to consumers within accepted standards and in the amount desired. Reliability may be measured by the frequency,duration,and magnitude of adverse effects on the electric supply.Electric system reliability can be addressed by considering the following two basic and functional aspects of the electric system: 1.Adequacy-The ability of the electric system to supply the aggregate electrical demand and energy requirements of the consumers at all times,taking into account scheduled and reasonably expected unscheduled outages of system elements. 2.Security-The ability of the electric system to withstand sudden disturbances such as electric short circuits or unanticipated loss of system elements. Southern Intertie Project 1-13 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 \WDM_PHX!\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1 doc Load shedding is the process of deliberately removing (either manually or automatically) preselected loads from a power system in response to a system disturbance to maintain the integrity of the system and minimize overall outages (NERC 1996).Load shedding results in power outages to the customers that are part of the "preselected loads”removed from the system during such an event. Current System Deficiency With Reliability System reliability depends on system components remaining in service.Typical system components that can fail and cause major outages are generation plants (generators,turbines,fuel sources,control systems,etc.),transmission lines,power circuit breakers,and power transformers.Adding transmission lines to a system improves system reliability by providing multiple paths for the power to flow;thus,an outage of a single component does not completely disrupt the system. The Quartz Creek line has a history of outages due to wind,ice,snow,and avalanches.The reason for this is that the route traversed by the line passes through known areas of high avalanche activity and areas known for high winds,ice,and snow.The line route along the Turnagain Arm is subject to periodic high winds,and the narrow mountain valleys south of Portage also can "funnel”high winds into the line.The Turnagain Pass and Summit Lake areas are well known for ice and snow loading.Avalanche activity along the Turnagain Arm, Turnagain Pass,and Summit Lake areas expose the line to additional risk.Because of the very steep side slopes along Turnagain Arm and avalanche paths through the mountains,structure locations and alignments for the line are very limited.The line route and structure locations that exist today are not always the most desirable,but they are the best available. A history of unscheduled outages for the Quartz Creek line from 1975 through 1997 is shown in Table 1-5.Outage data are not available prior to 1975.Unscheduled outages are those outages that occur unexpectedly.Scheduled,or planned,outages are those outages that occur in a time and manner planned for by utilities to conduct repair and maintenance activities on the line or other system components. Southern Intertie Project 1-14 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER |doc Project Objectives ASCC Criteria #1 System Balance ASCC Criteria #2 Contingencies ASCC Criteria #3 Emergency Support ASCC Criteria #4 Support from Adjacent Systems ASCC Criteria #5 Reactive Power Resources ASCC Criteria #6 Real &Reactive Power Margins ASCC Criteria #8 Reliability during Maintenance ASCC Criteria #9 Switching Flexibility Increase the reliability of the interconnected system A second line would reduce excessive dependence on the Quartz Creek Line. A second line would mitigate or eliminate the current impact of single contingency outages. A second line would provide added system support in the event of outages. A second line would allow planned and emergency power transfers to minimize outages. A second line would provide access to overall system reactive support to minimize outages. A second line would provide support to both areas improving dynamic response and system reliability. A second line would allow for continued power transfers during maintenance activities, thereby maintaining reliability. A second line would provide flexibility to maintain service reliability with switching on the Quartz Creek Line ora second line. Increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Increased power transfers lessen dependence on the Quartz Creek Line. Power transfers during outages of the Quartz Creek Line or a second line would not be interrupted,and increased support would be available for system-wide outages. Increased power transfer would relieve transmission constraints during emergencies. Two lines would provide increased ability to support adjoining areas. Increased power transfer capability would provide increased access to reactive resources. Increased power transfer capacity would improve system response to disturbances. Increased power transfer capacity would provide flexibility in maintenance scheduling. Increasing the power transfer capacities would make the timing and duration of switching more flexible. entitlements from the Bradley lake Project and allow its generation to be more fully utilized Provide the capability to Generation can be shared N/A N/A A second line would allow |A second line would A second line would allow |The Project would allow N/Autilizethemosteconomicinamorebalancedandgenerationinadjacentprovideincreasedaccessto|increased flexibility in economic dispatch of generation mix to reduce economical manner systems to be utilized the most economic reactive |assigning which generation |power to continue duringcostssystem-wide.economically for planned resources at existing provides spinning reserves,|system maintenance.and emergency conditions.|generation plants.which could reduce costs. Improve overall system Adding a second line A second line would A second line would A second line would A second line would A second line would A second line would allow |N/Astabilityduringwouldreducedependence|enable the system to increase the level of provide addition system-provide better system-wide |provide better access to continued support to disturbances on the Quartz Creek Line withstand Quartz Creek support that can be wide support during outage |access to available reactive |real and reactive resources |adjacent areas duringandwouldprovidealoopLineandotheroutagesprovidedduringconditions,enhancing resources to enhance during system disturbances |maintenance of the QuartzfeedtotheKenaiwithhigherpowertransfer,|emergencies.system stability.stability during to maintain stability.Creek Line and maintain Peninsula,thereby and would maintain system disturbances.stability duringenhancingsystemstability.|stability.disturbances. Reduce spinning reserve A second line would allow |A second line would A second line would allow |Increased transmission N/A A second line would allow |A second line would allow |N/Arequirementssharingofspinningreserve|provide enhanced system-|increased spinning reserves |capacity would allow an adequate real and reactive |flexibility in designatingresourcesbetweenareas,wide access to spinning to be provided from an increased level of support power resources to be spinning reserves during reducing overall spinning reserve resources during adjacent area during from adjacent areas for provided on a system-wide |}maintenance activities,reserve requirements.disturbances,thereby emergencies,thereby planned and emergency basis instead of for each thereby reducing overall reducing overall spinning reducing overall spinning conditions,thereby area,thereby reducing costs. reserve requirements.reserve requirements.lowering overall spinning overall spinning reserve reserve requirements.requirements. Reduce line losses and N/A N/A A second line would allow |A second line would N/A N/A A second line would N/A maintenance costs maintenance to be more provide support to adjacent maintain service reliability effectively scheduled systems through more and lower costs during during and as follow-up to |timely maintenance and maintenance of either line. emergencies.lowered line losses. Increase access to powér N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A A second line would result in a reduction of maintenance costs because of increased flexibility in the timing and duration of switching. TABLE 1-4 HOW THE SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT WOULD FULFILL APPLICABLE ASCC PLANNING AND OPERATING CRITERIA Southern Intertie Project July 1999 F\DATA\PROJ09203\009\Final\T ABLE 1-4 doc 1-15 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need TABLE 1-5 QUARTZ CREEK LINE --UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES Source:Chugach Electric Association Outages with known Durations Total Outages Number of Year Recorded Outages Hours |Minutes 1975 2 None -: 1976 3 None -- 1977 3 None - 1978 3 3 5 43 1979 2 None -- 1980 11 3 88 21 1981 7 2 5 56 1982 7 4 8 38 1983 7 2 9 15 1984 2 2 22 47 1985 5 2 10 35 1986 4 3 107 54 1987 3 ]10 27 1988 10 6 7 Il 1989 3 3 ]26 1990 4 4 16 55 1991 ]1 5 56 1992 2 l 2 56 1993 3 2 0 24 1994 2 2 0 32 1995 3 2 8 59 1996 6 2 0 6 1997 10 2 45 44 Totals 103 47 359 hours,45 minutes Summary Average Outages per Year -4.5 Average Duration of Outages with known Durations -7.7 Hours The average duration of an outage (for outages with known durations),is 7.7 hours.However, this average is based on only 47 of the total of 103 (46 percent)outages recorded.The actual average duration is therefore higher than 7.7 hours.During this same period of time,HEA recorded 87 total unscheduled Quartz Creek line outages for 19 of the 23 years'shown in the table,for an average of 4.6 outages per year,consistent with the 4.5 average recorded by CEA. 7 Source:Homer Electric Association.Homer did not specifically record Quartz Creek outages for the years 1989- 1992. Southern Intertie Project July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRO/A09203\009\FinalKCHAPTER 1 doc 1-16 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need Six of the outages included in the total of 103 outages during the period are listed as having been caused by avalanches.Durations for the outages caused by those six avalanches were not recorded in the available outage records.It is known from discussions with CEA staff that the Quartz Creek line was out of service for repairs due to these avalanches for approximately 10 days for each event.During these lengthy periods that the line is out of service,it is unavailable to function as an intertie between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.Detailed information on avalanches and damage to the Quartz Creek line is included in Chapter 2 as part of the discussion of routing alternatives. Avalanches,however,are not the only cause of extended outages to the Quartz Creek line. Because of the routing of the line through Power Line Pass,along the Turnagain Arm and through the mountainous regions between Portage and Cooper Landing,wind,ice,and snow have also caused damage to the line resulting in extended outages of the facility.A recent example occurred on November 9,1997 during high winds,when in an area with steep side slopes,a tree fell into the line south of Girdwood damaging a pole and resulting in a 36+houroutage.A portion of the line was removed from service for about 10+days in December 1997 to repair the damaged facilities.Other damage to the line occurred in a different location during a severe storm on December 11,1997 when a conductor broke due to snow loading between Hope and Portage.This second outage did not have an impact on power transfers between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,because a portion of the line was already scheduled out of service for repairs from the November 9 damage.However,the second outage did cause an interruption of electricity to consumers in Portage,Whittier,and Hope. The causes of the 103 outages,as recorded by CEA,are shown in Table 1-6. TABLE 1-6 QUARTZ CREEK LINE -CAUSES OF UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES Chugach Electric Association Outage Records Total Outages Percent of Total Cause of Outage Recorded Outages Unknown 34 33 Line Faults (various causes)26 25 Human Error 11 11 Equipment Failure if 11 Severe Storms 9 9 Avalanches 6 6 Winds 4 4 Trees 2 2 Total Outages 103 100 The highest number of outages are attributed to unknown causes.A review of the data indicates that the outage duration from an unknown cause varies from minutes,to 80+hours,to not recorded.Because outage durations are only available for 47 of the 103 outages,it is not possible to definitively determine which cause is responsible for the most outage time. Southern Intertie Project 1-17 _Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1}doc While the capability and reliability of the Quartz Creek line between the Anchorage and Kenai areas is limited,the line is still an important part of the interconnected system.As an intertie between the two generation areas,the line is a factor in providing electrical service to all of the Railbelt customers from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks.In addition to acting as an intertie between the two areas,the line also provides electrical service to consumers along the line route in Indian,Girdwood,Portage,Whittier,Hope,Summit Lake,Dave's Creek,and Cooper Landing. The City of Seward is also served from the Quartz Creek line.Table 1-7 provides a summary of the number of customers in the Railbelt by region,and those more directly affected by the performance of the line in Anchorage,along the line route,and on the Kenai Peninsula. TABLE 1-7 RAILBELT ELECTRICAL UTILITY CUSTOMERS (number of electric meters) Number of Total Customers Customers by Region Serving Utility (approx.)Region Fairbanks Golden Valley Electric 35,500 35,500 Association/Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System Anchorage Anchorage Municipal 29,500 127,500 Light and Power Chugach Electric 63,000 Association Matanuska Electric 35,000 Association Quartz Creek Line Route Chugach Electric 2,000 4.000 Association Seward Electric 2,000 Association Kenai Peninsula Lowlands Homer Electric 23,000 23,000 Association Total Railbelt Electrical Customers (meters)190.000 In the event of a total system blackout,190,000 customers would be without power.For outages affecting only the customers along the line route and on the Kenai Peninsula,27,000 customers would be without power.For those situations requiring load shedding®in the Anchorage area,a percentage of those customers would be affected as well,depending on the degree of load shed to maintain system stability during a disturbance.For an interruption of the Quartz Creek line where the system remains stable,the 4.000 customers along the line route would still experience a power outage.A discussion of the number of outages that would be avoided and the unserved energy that would be saved with construction of a new system is included below under the reliability benefits section. *Load shedding is discussed in more detail in the section on system stability. Southern Intertie Project 1-18 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER I doc NERC conducted reliability assessments of the Railbelt system in 1990,with an update in 1998 (August 1998).Both the 1990 reliability assessment and the 1998 update reached the same conclusion regarding the Southern Intertie Project-that it is needed to improve overall system reliability and reduce load shedding due to outages of the existing Quartz Creek line.In the 1990 NERC reliability assessment study (NERC 1990)of the Railbelt interconnected electrical system, NERC states that the transmission system in the Anchorage area is such that it can be considered a network and,as such,should be able to withstand loss of any given circuit.However,the Quartz Creek line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage is and historically has been subject to unscheduled outages from wind,ice,snow,and avalanches.These outages place the Kenai Peninsula in jeopardy from the effects of isolation from the Anchorage area.The addition of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project at the southern extremity of the Peninsula near Homer adds additional generation capacity to the Kenai system.The addition of this generation,without sufficient transmission capacity to the north,effectively prevents Bradley Lake from fully supporting the electrical system.Also,the loss of the existing Quartz Creek interconnection interrupts Bradley Lake capacity entitlements of the Anchorage and Fairbanks area utilities. NERC goes on to state that the existing Quartz Creek line has a poor reliability history and has a transmission transfer capacity limit of 70 MW.The chances of significantly improved performance are not great due to its physical/geographical location and system conditions that exist (NERC 1990 and 1998). The existing line is routed along the Turnagain Arm where avalanches are prevalent,and through the Turnagain Pass and south following the Seward Highway alignment where ice,wind,and snow outages,as well as avalanches,also have caused problems. NERC also concluded that the existing Quartz Creek line poses a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages.In terms of traditional reliability criteria (a system must be able to withstand an outage of any single component),the proposed Southern Intertie Project is needed to help improve the reliability of the electric supply to the Kenai Peninsula,and Anchorage and Fairbanks areas (NERC 1990). Power Technologies,Inc.,in their 1989 study on Kenai Peninsula power export limits,concludes that at 70 MW power transfer,"the Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage transmission line operation goes beyond the Railbelt practice of lean system design.Nowhere in the Railbelt is so much resource so critically dependent on stability aids and a single line....A new line from the Kenai Peninsula area to Anchorage would provide Kenai Peninsula-Anchorage interconnection reliability at least on a par with most of the remainder of the Railbelt electrical system”(AEA 1991). How The Project Corrects The Deficiency By Improving Reliability The construction of the Project between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula would not only provide a parallel path to the existing Quartz Creek interconnection,but also would make the Kenai Peninsula system more of a loop arrangement.Construction of the Project would provide Southern Intertie Project 1-19 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 \DM_PHXNSYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER |doc the second path needed to improve the reliability of the overall system.NERC offers the following observations (NERC 1990): =A second transmission line interconnection from the Kenai Peninsula to the Anchorage area would improve reliability by preventing the shedding of consumer load if the existing interconnection line trips (with the possible exception of those times when the Kenai Peninsula generation is operated in anticipation of loss of the existing tie). m NERC recognized that when Bradley Lake came into service,that reliability would suffer without a second interconnection line.That is,the second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area is necessary to support Bradley Lake and help reliably distribute the Bradley Lake capacity to the purchasing systems,minimize blackouts in the Kenai Peninsula,and minimize underfrequency load shedding in the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas.- Subsequent to gaining operating experience with the Bradley Lake Project as part of the available generation pool,adjustments to system operations have been necessary to maintain system reliability and minimize outages.The following two operational changes were implemented to mitigate load shedding and outages due to trips of the Quartz Creek line: m=The existing 115kV Quartz Creek line is operated at zero energy flow in anticipation of possible outages an average of 20 days per year in the winter due to storms,and 20 days during the summer due to construction along the line route.This is an inefficient way of operating the system because during the period the line is not transferring electrical power between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area,higher cost alternate generation sources must be used.The Project would allow power transfers to continue even during poor weather/construction conditions,since the Project provides a second line to continue the power transfers during an outage of the existing line. m™Because of the power transfer limitations of the existing Quartz Creek line,current practice is to maintain a minimum thermal generation of 25 MW on the Kenai Peninsula to support the Kenai Peninsula system in the event of a system disturbance and prevent a blackout of the Kenai Peninsula (CEA 1997). Neither of these two operational constraints would be necessary if the Project were constructed. The two operational policies of reducing the transfer over the Quartz Creek line to zero during poor weather/construction and operating a minimum of 25 MW of thermal generation at all times on the Kenai Peninsula were developed after Bradley Lake came on line.These practices mitigate the reliability problems associated with outages of the Quartz Creek line and attendant instability with Bradley Lake transferring power to the north (DFI 1989a).The costs of these two practices are discussed in Section 1.3.4,System Stability. Southern Intertie Project 1-20 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1.doc A detailed discussion of the relative performance improvements from the Project by alternative route,as well as a comparison of the relative performance between the alternatives,is included in Chapter 2 in the alternatives section. Benefits From The Project And Increased Reliability Reliability is important because the value of electric power exceeds the cost of producing the power.The cost to a utility of an outage in terms of lost sales:may be small,while the cost of that same outage to an industrial or commercial consumer may be very large.Depending on the type of customer,outage costs will vary.For example,expensive machinery or process functions may be damaged by an outage for large industrial customers,or a retailer may see his/her shop emptied when the lights go out,but residential customers might only have to defer recreational or household activities.- Reliability is determined by the number,magnitude,and duration of consumer outages. Reliability benefits occur if consumer outages are reduced as a direct consequence of constructing a new transmission line.The proposed Project is expected to reduce both the frequency and duration of generation and transmission related outages (i.e.,outages related to unexpected loss of generating units or the existing Quartz Creek line)(DFI 1998). As part of the DFI studies completed in 1989,a detailed evaluation of Railbelt customer outages attributable to causes associated with the Quartz Creek line was completed.The DFI studies evaluated the outages to determine the benefits derived from eliminating outages due to the Quartz Creek line,which are essentially the same as the cost of the outages to consumers in the Railbelt. The value associated with avoiding an outage can be measured by the value of the unserved energy resulting from an outage.Unserved energy is the electric energy that would have been demanded by the customer if the customer were not subjected to the outage.The value of unserved energy is different for residential customers than for commercial/industrial customers, and also varies with the duration of the outage.The duration,or how long an outage lasts,is important because as duration increases,the total cost of the outage to a customer increases. DFI's study included a detailed analysis of the Railbelt Utilities and a number of industry studies to determine the value of a kilowatt-hour (kWh)of unserved energy'.Based on the distribution *References cited in the DF]December 1989 study include: [1]"Value of Service Reliability to Customers,”Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)Report EA-4494, prepared for EPRI by Criterion,Incorporated,San Diego,CA,May 1986. [2]L.V.Scott,"Ontario Hydro Surveys on Power Systems Reliability:Summary of Customer Viewpoints,” compiled in The Value ofService Reliability to Customers,EPRI Report EA-4494,May 1986. [3]"Customer Demand for Service Reliability:Existing and Potential Sources of Information,”prepared for EPRI by Laurits Christensen Associates,Madison,Wisconsin,May 1989. Southern intertie Project 1-21 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 1|doc by customer class and duration,the average value of each kWh of unserved energy avoided as a result of the Project is about $21 in 1997 dollars (DFI 1998). The amount of unserved energy saved and outages avoided as a result of construction of the Project were also determined in the DFI studies.The DFI studies calculated that the Project would reduce unserved energy on the Kenai Peninsula by an average of 82.3 megawatt-hours (MWh)/year,an average of 45.0 MWh/year in Anchorage,and avoid one to two outages per year of 30 MW and one-hour duration (DFI 1989a). The value of the avoided outages and unserved energy is the value of the reliability to be gained from construction of the Project.Based on the detailed analysis documented in the studies,the value of the reliability benefits to be gained from construction of the Project as calculated by DFI in the 1998 update report is $49.4 million (1997 dollars). A review of some of the significant factors associated with the system and selected outage data since the DFI studies were completed indicates that the electrical load on the system has grown and system operational practices have changed,but are not substantially different than when the studies were conducted.For example,since that time,the electrical load growth on the system has exceeded the earlier forecasts.In the 1998 DFI update,the load forecasts for the system from the earlier studies were compared with current forecasts.The current load forecasts for the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks area exceed the forecasts from the earlier study,and the load forecast for Anchorage is at the high end of the projections forecast at that time (see Table 1-9,page 1-27). Also,the interconnected system is essentially unchanged from a transmission viewpoint.The proposed transmission system improvements,including the Northern and Southern intertie projects,have not been constructed.However,the two operational practices of zeroing the flow over the Quartz Creek line during bad weather/construction and maintaining a minimum of 25 MW generation on the Kenai Peninsula have helped to improve system reliability. In the DFI studies,HEA was recorded as having about two outage hours per year per customer from power supply outages.Homer tracks outages in accordance with Rural Utilities Service (RUS)guidelines.RUS Form 7 outage data supplied by HEA for the years 1988 to 1997 are shown in Table 1-8.RUS minimum goals for average annual service interruptions per customer are that interruptions should not exceed one hour per consumer per year for power supply and five hours per year from all causes. [4]A.P.Sanghvi,"Economic Costs of Electricity Supply Interruptions:U.S.and Foreign Experience,”The Value of Service Reliability to Customers,EPRI,EA-4494,May 1986. Southern Intertie Project 1-22 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 1 doc TABLE 1-8 HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANNUAL OUTAGE HOURS PER CONSUMER FIVE-YEAR AVERAGES Year Power Supply Storm Prearranged Other Total 1988 -1992 2.68 2.63 0.12 2.79 8.22 1989 -1993 1.80 2.81 0.094 2.59 7.29 1990 -1994 1.60 3.01 0.091 -2.33 7.03 1991 -1995 1.41 2.22 0.103 2.18 5.91 1992 -1996 1.01 2.04 0.082 1.73 4.86 1993 -1997 0.98 1.44 0.044 1.71 4.17 Power supply outages are those associated with outages of generation,transmission,or load shedding to maintain system stability.A review of the power supply outage rate for HEA shows improvement since 1988.Contributing to this improvement are the practices developed in the last few years of maintaining 25 MW of generation on line at all times on the Kenai Peninsula, and the preventative practice of zeroing the power flow over the Quartz Creek line in the winter during poor weather conditions,and in the summer during construction.These practices were not anticipated as being required when the 1989 studies were completed,before the Bradley Lake Project came into service in 1991,but have clearly been effective in helping to reduce the number of system outages.The costs associated with these practices are discussed in the section on stability. Another factor contributing to the reduction in power supply outages is the absence of damaging avalanches to the Quartz Creek line since 1988,and the upgrades to the line completed by CEA over the last few years.As noted in the more detailed discussion about avalanches in Chapter 2, the lack of damage to the Quartz Creek line during that period of time does not mean that outages due to avalanche will not continue to be a problem in the coming years. Also by way of comparison with the earlier DFI studies,in the 1989 DFI studies,Golden Valley Electric Association was recorded as having an outage rate in terms of outage hours per consumer per year of about 1.5,due to power supply outages.In 1997,Golden Valley Electric Association had an outage rate due to power supply of 1.72,and a five-year average (1993 to 1997)of 1.48'°.Current outage rates are similar to the data gathered in the earlier DFI studies. '°Source:Golden Valley Electric Association Southern Intertie Project 1-23 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 \DM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\000\F inal\CHAPTER |doc 1.3.2 POWER TRANSFER CAPABILITY |Increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area. Power Transfer Capacity Definitions Power transfer capacity (or capability)is the measure of the ability of interconnected electrical systems to move or transfer power in a reliable manner from one area to another over all transmission lines (or paths)between those areas under specified system conditions.The units of transfer capability are in terms of electric power,generally expressed in MW.Economy energy is energy produced and supplied from a more economical source in one system and substituted for that being produced or capable of being produced by a less economical source in another system (NERC 1996). Current System Deficiency With Power Transfer Capacity The secure power transfer between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area is currently limited to 70 MW over the existing Quartz Creek line (Power Engineers,Inc.1996a).This limitation prevents the Railbelt Utilities from taking full advantage of the available generation on the Kenai Peninsula to maximize potential benefits from economy energy transfers. How The Project Corrects The Deficiency And Increased Power Transfer Capacity The capability for increased secure power transfers between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area would allow the Railbelt generation to be provided at a lower cost to consumers. Construction of the Project would cause the secure power transfer between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to increase from 70 MW to 125 MW. Benefits From The Project And Increased Power Transfer Capacity The economy energy benefits accruing from the Project would be substantial,primarily due to disparities in marginal power production costs in the two areas,and because the optimal power flow across the existing Quartz Creek line exceeds its present capacity.The benefits resulting from construction of the Project in terms of economy energy would be primarily due to increased hydro-thermal coordination''between the Bradley Lake and Copper Lake hydroelectric generation on the Kenai Peninsula and the thermal generation in the Anchorage area. "'Hydro-thermal coordination is the operation of hydro and thermal generation resources in a way that results in overall lower system operating costs. Souther Intertie Project 1-24 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 \DM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER |doc The value of these benefits has been studied and evaluated in detail in the DFI studies (1989, 1998).With the second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,DFI calculated that on average,transfer levels from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage would increase by 113 gigawatt- hours (GWh)/year,and by 147 GWh/year from Anchorage to the Kenai Peninsula due to the availability of the second line.The value of these benefits,which can also be viewed as cost savings,were calculated to be $37.8 million (1997 dollars)(DFI 1989,1998). 13.3 ECONOMIC GENERATION Provide the capability to utilize the most economic generation mix available to reduce costs to consumers and allow generation capacity in one area to support the load in the other area. Economic Generation Definitions Capacity is the rated continuous load-carrying ability,expressed in MW or megavolt-amperes (MVA),of generation,transmission,or other electrical equipment (NERC 1996).Generation capacity sharing is the sharing of generation capacity between load areas,such that a deficiency or inefficiency in one area can be overcome through use of another area's generation resources. The degree of capacity sharing that can occur between areas is based to a large degree on the capacity of available transmission interconnections between areas.The process of allocating available generation resources is also sometimes referred to as economic dispatch-the allocation of demand to individual generating units on line to effect the most economical production of electricity (NERC 1996). Current System Deficiency With Economic Generation Standard utility practice is to determine generation requirements and operate individual generation plants in a mix so as to meet the instantaneous demand for power and produce the least cost power.The present limitation on power transfers between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area,due to the limitations of the existing Quartz Creek line,results in more a expensive mix of power being generated from the existing power plants to supply the load than if the Project were in service. NERC concluded in their reliability assessment study that the existing single line transmission interconnections between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area (the Quartz Creek line)and between the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas constrain the sharing of generation between and among load centers and pose a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages'?(NERC 1990).This is particularly the '?A single contingency outage occurs with the loss of any one system component.A double contingency outage Southern Intertie Project 1-25 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 . \WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER |doc case for generation at the Bradley Lake Project.Use of the generation at Bradley Lake in the north is limited by the 70 MW secure transfer level over the existing Quartz Creek line. How The Project Corrects The Deficiency By Improving Economic Generation The proposed Project would allow the Kenai Peninsula,Anchorage,and areas to the north to share the generation capacity more efficiently in each area and throughout the Railbelt.Increased transmission capacity allows one area to rely more heavily'on generation capacity in another area,for capacity as well as for energy.For the Railbelt,the Project would allow Anchorage and Fairbanks to rely on a greater portion of the Kenai Peninsula generation capacity surplus for meeting capacity requirements,thus deferring the need to build new generation capacity. Benefits From The Project And Increased Economic Generation The Project would produce the following three types of benefits from capacity sharing,resulting in reduced costs for the generation of power: =As load grows in a region,enough generation capacity must be available to meet the peak load in that region plus a required generation reserve margin,in case of system outages. Increased transmission line capacity and reliability increases access to generation capacity in regions with surplus generation capacity,thus making it possible to defer adding generation capacity to the system. =The more interconnected a system,the lower the reserve margin that is required to provide the same level of reliability.Increasing transmission capacity increases the level of interconnectedness for the Railbelt,allowing utilities to permanently avoid building some of the generation capacity that would have been constructed to maintain the desired generation reserve margin. =Construction of the Project would allow the Railbelt Utilities to take advantage of the increased interconnectedness of the system by allowing them to share generation capacity,lines,and facilities more readily between areas,and so reduce the overall costs of producing and delivering power throughout the system. The value of capacity sharing benefits were calculated by DFI in the 1989 study.As part of the update report (DFI 1998),DFI compared the load projections used in the 1989 study to current load projections for the same regions.as shown in Table 1-9. occurs with the loss of two system components during the same event. Southern Intertie Project 1-26 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER |doc TABLE 1-9 COMPARISON OF PEAK DEMAND FORECASTS FOR 2010 (MW) DFT 1989,1998 |Anchorage |Kenai |Fairbanks 1989 Study Low 403 75 143 Mid 474 96 15] High 51]106:17] 1998 Update Study Update |509 li 128 |256 DFI concludes in their 1998 update that the new forecasts for Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula are somewhat higher than the previous 1989 forecasts,but not substantially.While the new forecast for the Fairbanks area is substantially higher,this has little impact on the economics of the Southern Intertie Project,because of the transmission limitations between Anchorage and Fairbanks (DFI 1998). Demand growth,along with available capacity,determines the timing of any capacity sharing benefits.Demand tends to grow over time while,unless new generating units are installed, capacity holds steady or shrinks somewhat due to retirements.Therefore,capacity sharing benefits tend to first grow over time as surplus is eliminated in a relatively capacity-poor region, then fall as surplus also disappears in the relatively capacity-rich regions. The capacity sharing benefit in a year is the amount of capacity avoided or deferred in the year, measured in kilowatt-years,multiplied by the cost of a kilowatt-year of capacity.The cost of a kilowatt-year of capacity is composed of the annualized fixed cost of a new combustion turbine, including both the installed capital cost and fixed operation and maintenance cost.Costs for combustion turbines have declined since the 1989 study was completed,so these costs were reviewed and updated (DFI 1998).As a result,it was determined that a kilowatt-year of capacity is currently valued at $55 per kilowatt-year,in 1997 dollars.The 1989 study used a value of $51 per kilowatt-year,in 1990 dollars.When both are expressed in the same year dollars,the new value is about 15 percent lower than the 1989 value. The amount of capacity avoided or deferred and calculation of the resultant benefits (or cost savings)has been calculated by DFI.This was accomplished by determining the capacity avoidance and deferrals over time,accounting for the 30 percent of annual peak load reserve criterion stipulated in the Alaska Intertie Agreement (Addendum No.1,page 1-2),and then applying the value of the capacity to determine the value of the benefits (DFI 1989b,1998).In this manner a value for capacity sharing benefits for the Project was calculated to be $20.9 million (1997 dollars). Southern Intertie Project 1-27 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\CHAPTER1 .doc 1.3.4 SYSTEM STABILITY Improve overall system stability during disturbances. System Stability Definitions System stability is the ability of an electric system to maintain a state of equilibrium during normal and abnormal system conditions or disturbances,and comprises two aspects:(1)small- signal stability-the ability of the electric system to withstand small changes or disturbances without the loss of synchronism among the generators in the system;and (2)transient stability-the ability of an electric system to maintain synchronicity between its parts when subjected to a disturbance of specified severity and regain a state of equilibrium following that disturbance (NERC 1996). Operation of a utility power system requires matching generation to consumer loads and providing a system of interconnected lines to transmit the power from the generator to the load on a continuous basis.When a transmission line is carrying a power flow and that power flow is suddenly interrupted,the remaining lines and generators must quickly compensate for the lost component of the system.If the system can compensate for the interrupted power flow,without significant outage of consumer load or damage to equipment,then the system is said to remain stable.If the loss of a system component results in outages of other lines,generators,or consumer loads,then the system is referred to as being unstable.One of the primary reasons for creating an interconnected power grid is to provide system flexibility to allow for the outage of one of the many system components.A system composed of many generation sources with many transmission line paths to transmit the energy to the loads is much more likely to remain stable with the loss of a single component.. Current System Deficiency With System Stability The existing Quartz Creek line is limited to a 70 MW power transfer for secure or stable system operation.Under certain system configurations and power flows,when the existing Quartz Creek line experiences an interruption,it is necessary to implement automatic load shedding schemes to immediately reduce the overall system load,so that the loads on the remaining generators and transmission lines are reduced to a level where the system will remain stable,and a system-wide blackout is prevented. With the Bradley Lake Project on line,outages to the Kenai Peninsula due to instability from trips of the Quartz Creek Line during exports to the north were identified as potential problems (DFI 1989a).Subsequent to Bradley Lake coming on line,and based on operational experience Southern Intertie Project 1-28 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\CHAPTER |doc to minimize instability from Quartz Creek line trips,two operational changes were implemented to mitigate load shedding and outages due to trips of the Quartz Creek line. The operational policy of reducing the transfers over the Quartz Creek line to near zero during adverse weather conditions,which may cause an outage of the line,is a preventative measure to ensure that a sudden loss of the line does not result in a complete system collapse due to system instability.However,reducing the flow over the line to zero requires additional generation to be operated in the Anchorage area and on the Kenai Peninsula,resulting in inefficient operations and overall higher system operating costs.This practice occurs an average of 20 days per year as a result of poor weather during the winter season.Transfers over the line are reduced to zero for an average of 20 days in the summer as well,as a result of construction related activities along the route.While inefficient,this practice aids in minimizing the number of load shedding or instability events caused by outages on the Quartz Creek line.The present worth of the cost of this practice has been calculated to be $11.4 million in 1997 dollars (DFI 1998).The benefit of the Project would be of the same value,since this practice would be eliminated. The second operational practice that has been implemented has been to maintain 25 MW of combustion turbine generation on line on the Kenai Peninsula at all times.This generation is operated regardless of whether it is serving any load or not,but provides spinning reserves for the Kenai Peninsula during trips of the Quartz Creek line or other Kenai Peninsula system outages (CEA 1997).This practice has aided in minimizing outages on the Kenai Peninsula due to instability;however,the present worth of the cost of this practice has been calculated to be $10.7 million in 1997 dollars (DFI 1998).The benefit of this practice would be of the same value,since the need to maintain this minimum generation on line would be eliminated. The Railbelt Utilities have been collecting information on overall system "deviations”as noted by a frequency swing of more than 0.1 Hertz from the normal 60-Hertz operating frequency. These events are summarized in Table 1-10 for the years 1993 through 1997. TABLE 1-10 RAILBELT SYSTEMS FREQUENCY DEVIATION AND LOAD SHEDDING EVENTS Number of Events with Year Number of Events Load Shedding 1993 134 27 1994 128 9 1995 71 5 1996 121 4 1997 110 19 Southern Intertie Project 1-29 Chapter ]-Purpose and Need July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\CHAPTER I.doc How The Project Corrects The Deficiency By Improving System Stability The Project would enhance the stability performance of the Railbelt system by providing a second path for power to flow in the event of an interruption of the existing Quartz Creek line, and would reduce the need for the implementation of load shedding schemes during system disturbances by increasing the secure power transfer between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage from 70 MW to 125 MW.The Quartz Creek line is only one component of the integrated Railbelt electrical system.The addition of a second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage would support the system in Anchorage and areas to the north in the event of system disturbances in those areas (Power Engineers 1996a).Because there would be two lines between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,the system would be able to withstand a single contingency outage of the Quartz Creek line while remaining stable for a 125 MW power transfer,and load shedding schemes would not be needed for this contingency (also discussed in Chapter 2 under alternatives).a Benefits From The Project And Increased System Stability The benefits of this enhanced stability would be evidenced in the increased reliability of the overall system and in the reduction of load shedding and system outages.The Project also would eliminate the need to maintain a minimum of 25 MW of generation on the Kenai Peninsula,and to reduce the power transfer over the Quartz Creek line to zero during adverse weather conditions.As noted in the reliability discussion,the DFI studies estimated that the Project would reduce unserved energy on the Kenai Peninsula by an average of 82.3 MWh/year,an average of 45.0 MWh/year in Anchorage,and avoid one to two load shedding outages per year of 30 MW and one hour of duration.The value of the benefits due to increased system stability are accounted for in the reliability benefits of the Project. 1.3.5 SPINNING RESERVES Reduce area requirements for spinning reserve generation,thereby reducing operating costs and increasing the life-span of generation plants. Spinning Reserve Definitions Spinning reserve is a portion of the operating reserves maintained by utilities.Spinning reserve is unloaded generation,which is synchronized and ready to serve additional demand.It consists of regulating reserve,an amount of spinning reserve responsive to automatic generation control, which is sufficient to provide normal regulating margin;and contingency reserve,an additional amount of operating reserve sufficient to reduce area control error to zero in 10 minutes following loss of generating capacity,which would result from the most severe single Southern Intertie Project 1-30 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 P.\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 1!doc contingency.At least 50 percent of this operating reserve is typically spinning reserve,which will automatically respond to frequency deviation (NERC 1996). Current System Deficiency With Spinning Reserves Spinning reserves respond to changes in consumer demand and failures in the generation and transmission system.Spinning reserves improve reliability,but they are often expensive.In order to maintain adequate spinning reserve margins,some generation units must be operated partially loaded.The hydroelectric capacity at Bradley Lake on the Kenai Peninsula could provide a less expensive source for spinning reserves that otherwise would be provided by thermal generating units in the Anchorage area.Current operating practices and agreements among the Railbelt Utilities result in the provision of approximately 65 MW of operating reserve accessible in the Anchorage area (DFI 1989b).Limited amounts of this spinning reserve can be provided from outside the Anchorage area.Transmission capacity between Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage is a constraint on the transfer of spinning reserves between areas with only the single Quartz Creek line in service. How The Project Corrects The Deficiency By Sharing And Reducing The Overall Need For Spinning Reserves Construction of the Project to provide a second transmission line interconnection would allow increased access to spinning reserves,so that spinning reserves for the system could be provided from the most appropriate generation source,whether that source is in Anchorage or on the Kenai Peninsula.This would reduce overall spinning reserve requirements. DFI has estimated that approximately 30 MW of spinning reserve can be transferred from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage over the existing line.This transfer of spinning reserves results from the practice of distributing these reserves such that they are not all lost with a single event. With a second transmission line in service,it would be feasible to transfer more than 30 MW of spinning reserve from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage.The existence of two lines would provide a second path between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage in the event of a line outage so that spinning reserves are not all lost.With a second line in service,it is estimated that up to 50 MW of spinning reserves could be transferred from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage (DFI 1996). Benefits From The Project And Increased Spinning Reserve Sharing The benefits of increased spinning reserve sharing in the interconnected Railbelt system resulting from construction of the Project would be realized through lower generation costs.In addition, because existing generation resources can be shared more readily with a second line in service, Southern Intertie Project 1-31 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 P\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 1 doc system generation can be operated fewer hours overall,resulting in longer service life from existing power plants.These benefits accrue as a result of the additional 20 MW of spinning reserves that can be transferred to Anchorage from the Kenai Peninsula,and on this basis DF] calculated a $9.3 million (1997 dollars)benefit over the life of the Project. 1.3.6 LINE LOSSES AND MAINTENANCE Reduce transmission line losses for power transfers and reduce maintenance costs. Transmission Line Loss And Maintenance Cost Definitions Electric system losses are total electric energy losses in the electric system,and consist of transmission,transformation,and distribution losses between supply sources and delivery points. Electric energy is lost primarily due to heating of transmission and distribution elements (NERC 1996).Transmission loss plays an important role in the cost of power transfer between two areas, since energy lost in transmission can be considered to have the same value as delivered power. Maintenance costs are those system operating costs attributable to testing,replacement,or refurbishment of system components in the normal course of business. Current System Deficiency From Transmission Line Losses And Scheduling Of Maintenance Electrical system studies by Power Engineers (1996a)indicate that line losses for the existing Quartz Creek intertie are calculated to be 7 MW (10 percent)for a 70 MW power transfer.Line losses are completely dependent on the current flow and the resistance of the line conductors and increase by the square of the current (e.g.,if the current doubles,the losses increase by a factor of four). Maintenance costs on the existing Quartz Creek line are higher than they would be if the Project were constructed.Currently,because the existing line is the only path between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,it is difficult to schedule outages for maintenance.Also,regardless of whether or not the Project is constructed,the existing line is scheduled for incremental line reconstruction over a multi-year period to replace aging facilities.Removing the line from service for reconstruction and to conduct maintenance activities requires additional generation to be operated both on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage area to support the load and provide the necessary spinning reserves.This additional generation on line increases overall system operating costs.In addition,the scheduling of construction crews to conduct the Southern Intertie Project 1-32 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 \\DM_PHXISYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1 .doc maintenance and reconstruction activities is restricted in the timing and duration available to conduct the maintenance,also resulting in increased costs. How_The Project Corrects The Deficiency By Reducing Transmission Line Losses And Increasing Flexibility To Schedule Maintenance - Construction of the Project would reduce transmission system losses.With both the Project and the existing Quartz Creek line in service,the secure transfer limit would increase from 70 MW to 125 MW,while losses would decrease to 5 MW (4 percent)at the higher 125 MW transfer level. With two independent transmission lines between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,the addition of the Project would provide greater load transfer capability while reducing transmission line losses. With the Project in service as a second path between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, reconstruction of line segments and maintenance activities can be scheduled and conducted more cost-effectively.This is because with two lines in service,maintenance can be scheduled independently of generation resources,increasing flexibility in maintenance scheduling and reducing costs. Benefits From The Project And The Reduction Of Transmission Line Losses While these benefits compose a smaller portion of the overall benefits of the Project,cost savings due to reduced line losses and more efficient scheduling of outages for maintenance and reconstruction activities would be realized through construction of the Project.The value of the benefits realized through reduced transmission losses are included as part of the economy energy transfer benefits.The present value of the benefits realized from the greater flexibility in scheduling and carrying out maintenance and reconstruction activities was calculated by DFI (DFI 1989a,1998)to be $4.0 million in 1997 dollars. 13.7 BRADLEY LAKE Provide adequate access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake hydroelectric generating station for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula,and allow Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized. The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project came into service in 1991,and since that time has provided an additional generation resource to the Railbelt system.Previous discussions have highlighted the limitations of the existing Quartz Creek line to provide a sufficient transmission path interconnecting the Bradley Lake Project with the Railbelt system north of the Kenai Peninsula.Those discussions also described the system and operating cost benefits to be realized Southern Intertie Project 1-33 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\CHAPTER1 .doc by a second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area,and the value of the benefits to be gained through full utilization of the Bradley Lake resource.In summary,with respect to Bradley Lake,construction of the Project to provide a second transmission line path with an increased secure transfer capability from 70 MW to 125 MW between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage would accomplish the following: ®allow Bradley Lake to increase system reliability by providing additional spinning reserves to support the system north of the Kenai Peninsula during disturbances and maintain system stability , B@ allow Bradley Lake to be more fully utilized to provide additional hydro-thermal coordination benefits with the thermal generating units in the Anchorage area through increased economy energy transfers m allow the system increased access to Bradley Lake to share generation capacity with the areas north of the Kenai Peninsula,by adding flexibility to allocate the capacity of Bradley Lake to meet load,and making it possible to defer generation capacity additions to the system ®allow the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula full access to and the benefit of their shares of the power generated by Bradley Lake Construction of the Project would fulfill the need for additional transmission facilities that was recognized by the State of Alaska and Railbelt Utilities when the Bradley Lake Project was constructed,and would allow Bradley Lake to contribute its full potential to the system.The benefits resulting from utilizing Bradley Lake to its full potential are included in the overall benefits calculated for the Project (DFI 1998). 14 PROJECT BENEFITS AND COSTS The benefits from construction and operation of the Project have been studied and evaluated in detail by DFI (1989a)and AEA (1991).DFI (now DFI Aeronomics)also has completed a review and update of the benefits for the Project (DFI 1998).The previous sections discussed the benefits that would result from each Project objective.This section describes the overall benefits that would result from construction of the Project and also details estimated Project construction and life cycle costs. The Project is being proposed by the IPG,which is composed of the six Railbelt Utilities. Because the interconnected system operates in an integrated manner,benefits from the Project have been evaluated by reviewing the effect of the Project on the overall system.Determination of a meaningful allocation of Project benefits to each of the members of the IPG is not practical. Each of the utilities has different rate structures,power purchase agreements,and operating Southern Intertie Project 1-34 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1 doc agreements in effect.As the Railbelt Utilities transact business among themselves and their customers,agreements and rates can and do change.As a result,any allocation of.Project benefits would quickly become out of date.The benefits as presented therefore accrue to the overall system and the IPG as a whole. The December 1989 DFI report focused on the benefits of the Project,and evaluated benefits for the Project in several different categories.The 1998 update focused on the key data values underlying the estimates and determined how the data values have changed.An update of the Project benefits analysis was completed because several factors affecting the value of the benefits (or cost savings)have changed since the 1989 study.These factors include the following: 1.Projected fossil!fuel prices are substantially lower now,in real terms. 2.The price of new combustion turbine generating units has dropped,in real terms. 3.A number of existing Railbelt generating units that had been scheduled to be retired bytheturnofthecenturyorsoonafterhavehadtheirplannedoperatinglivesextended. 4.The Bradley Lake Project on the Kenai Peninsula started operating in 1991.Bradley Lake's size relative to other generating units on the Kenai Peninsula and relative to the existing Quartz Creek line,and the resulting implications for the stability of the electrical system,have required changes to operating policies for the existing line that were not anticipated in 1989.These changes to the operating policies include reducing the transfer level over the existing line to zero during bad weather or summer construction,and maintaining a minimum of 25 MW of generation on the Kenai Peninsula at all times. As part of the 1998 update study,the effect of each of these factors on the value of the Project benefits was evaluated and the benefit calculations updated.In addition,all of the values were converted to 1997 dollars for comparison with current cost estimates for the Project (DFI 1998). Table 1-11 summarizes the benefit categories and the updated present worth of the benefits resulting from the analysis. AEA also evaluated the benefits of the Project based on DFI's quantitative analysis,and from the point of view of accepted industry practice and compliance with NERC and ASCC criteria for planning and operation of the Alaska interconnected system.While AEA noted that there can be a wide range of benefit values associated with the Project,based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses conducted for the Project,the life cycle benefits of the Project will exceed the costs,and the Project is needed and should be constructed (AEA 1991). Southern Intertie Project 1-35 Chapter 1 -Purpose and Need July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1 doc TABLE 1-11 NET PRESENT WORTH OF BENEFITS FOR THE PROJECT Updated Value Category (millions of 1997 $) Capacity sharing $20.9 Economy energy transfer $37.8 Reliability $49.4 Spinning reserve sharing $9.3 Reduced line maintenance costs .$4.0 Avoid minimum CT generation on Kenai (*)$10.7 Avoid not loading line during bad weather/construction (*)$11.4 Total $143.5 Notes: 1.Present worth in 2004,the first year of operation for the Project. 2.All present values calculated using discount rate of 4.5 percent,as recommended by AEA. 3.Economy energy transfer includes transmission losses and gas royalties. 4.*Indicates benefits not considered in 1989 due to different assumptions for system operating parameters prior to completion of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. It is important to note that the value of the benefits from the Project can also be viewed as cost savings.If the Project is not constructed,the unrealized benefits would continue to be part of the overall cost of producing electricity,and those costs would be reflected in the rates for electricity paid by consumers. 1.4.1 CONSTRUCTION AND LIFE CYCLE COSTS The construction costs for the Project were estimated by Power Engineers,Inc.in 1996 and were updated in 1997 and 1998 (Power Engineers 1998)to reflect the potential facility requirements identified as part of the current siting studies being conducted for the environmental impact statement for the Project.The updated cost study also determined the present value of the operation and maintenance and submarine cable replacement costs over the 40-year Project life. Constructed Cost To determine the construction cost for the Project,conceptual designs were prepared for each aspect of the Project and are documented in the Power Engineers Cost Summary Report (Power Engineers 1998).Determination of the construction costs included specifying typical overhead line structure types by line segment depending on expected weather and terrain conditions,and preparing preliminary layouts for the substation and cable transition stations.For the underground and submarine cable installations,typical cable sizes and installation techniques, along with land and submarine ground or bottom conditions,were reviewed as well.Where appropriate,vendor quotations for materials were obtained,and combined with historical prices from actual projects,estimated costs for construction of the Project were determined.The Southern Intertie Project 1-36 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER |doc estimated costs included in the constructed cost in Table 1-12 for the submarine cable and installation were compared to the actual bids recently received by CEA (January 1998)for replacement of their Knik Arm cables,and found to be consistent with those actual bids.Those actual bids included both three-phase and single-phase cable types similar to those that are being considered for the Project. Major transmission line projects in Alaska typically involve some aspect of winter and summer construction,and air support for transportation of personnel and materials.During the preparation of the cost estimates,these types of factors were considered to arrive at the overall estimate of constructed cost shown in Table 1-12. TABLE 1-12 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS (millions of 1997 dollars) Tesoro Route Enstar Route Constructed cost $99.5 $90.2 PW'of operation and maintenance costs $4.3 $6.1 PW of cable replacement costs $10.7 $3.3 Total life cycle cost $114.5 $99.6 PW of project benefits $143.5 $143.5 Benefit/cost ratio 1.25 1.44 Adjusted”benefit/cost ratio range 2.12 2.72 *PW =present worth.A discount rate of 4.5 percent was used as recommended by the AEA based on the long- term real cost of money (AEA March 1991). The adjusted benefit/cost ratio is calculated by subtracting the $46.8 million state grant funding for the Project from the constructed cost and dividing into the benefit value. Operation and Maintenance Costs Annual operation and maintenance costs were determined based on a typical program of annual maintenance for each type of facility.As part of the determination of the overall life-cycle costs for the Project,the present worth of these annual maintenance costs over the life of the Project were calculated and are presented in Table 1-12. Submarine Cable Replacement Costs CEA has had submarine cables installed in the Knik Arm since 1967.Based on this experience and for financial planning purposes,CEA has arrived at typical replacement intervals for submarine cables in that environment.The replacement intervals depend on whether the submarine cable is installed in an embedded or non-embedded configuration.The non-embedded configuration is used in locations were it is not practical to embed the cable due to bottom conditions.In these locations,the double-armored submarine cable is simply laid on the bottom. Southern Intertie Project 1-37 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1 doc In the embedded configuration,the cable is physically buried in the bottom using special equipment during initial laying operations.For the Southern Intertie Project,detailed discussions were held with CEA personnel and cable laying contractors experienced with conditions in the Knik and Turnagain arms.Additionally,bottom and side scan sonar surveys were conducted along the proposed marine routes during the summer of 1996.As a result of these discussions, field surveys,and CEA's experience with their cables,appropriate replacement intervals for the Southern Intertie submarine cable were determined.The cable replacement schedule for the non- embedded cables on the Tesoro Route is to replace two single-phase cables or one three-phase cable twice during the Project life (years 17 and 34),deperiding on the type of cable initially installed.For the Enstar Route,the cable can be embedded for the entire distance and the cable replacement schedule for this route is one single-phase cable or one three-phase cable once during the Project life (year 30).As part of the determination of the total life-cycle costs of the Project for either the Tesoro or Enstar routes,the present worth of the cable replacement costs were calculated for each route based on the cable replacement schedule and are indicated in Table 1-12. Life-cycle costs are the sum of the constructed cost,plus the present worth over the Project life of the operation and maintenance and cable replacement costs.The present worth of the Project benefits is the total from Table 1-11.Benefit/cost ratios are calculated for the Tesoro and Enstar routes as shown in Table 1-12. Southern Intertie Project 1-38 Chapter |-Purpose and Need July 1999 WDM_PHX1I\SYS\DATA\PRONJ09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 1 doc GESRUNRTTSTeeeae a tt ae at ce li ce ae a le a alain Et eelA ce AOnePanaanit ee ae tk cautt sia te aa Te ee Te Sr RR STD Sr A FOOT On wg oe a re yg eee Te ee oe _CHAPTER2 >_ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE © |APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL te.eelsatelea |CHAPTER 2.0 -ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL | The Applicant's Proposal is for a second transmission line following the Enstar Route.The purpose of this chapter is to present the analysis of alternatives that have been considered for the Project in order to arrive at the Applicant's Proposal.The chapter is divided into the following sections: =2.1 -Overview of Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration (pages 2-2 to 2-7)-summarizes the alternatives that were studied for the Project but eliminated from further consideration due to their inability to meet the Project purpose and need.Section 2.6 discusses these alternatives in detail. @ 2.2 -Overview of Alternatives Studied in Detail (pages 2-7 to 2-30)}-summarizes the alternatives that were carried forward for further analysis.including the no-action alternative and the Applicant's Proposal.These alternatives are described in more detail in Section 2.7. m=2.3 -Consultation.Coordination.and Issues (pages 2-31 to 2-55}-documents project scoping and the comprehensive effort conducted to consult and coordinate with relevant agencies.This section describes the issues that were identified as a result of scoping that were used to guide the environmental studies for the Project. w 2.4 -Alternative Route Comparisons (pages 2-55 to 2-72)}describes the environmental analysis approach.issues.and the comparison of routes.The alternatives are compared in the context of three separate regions:Kenai Lowlands.Turnagain Arm.and Anchorage. w 2.5 -Applicable Laws.Authority.and Related Statutes and Orders (pages 2-73 to 2-80)}-describes the applicable laws.authority.and related statutes and orders applicable to the alternative routes. @ 2.6-Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study (pages 2-80 to 2-124)- provides complete analysis of alternatives to a second transmission line,alternative transmission systems.and alternative transmission line routes,including a detailed analysis of the elimination of the Quartz Creek alternative route.An overview of alternatives considered but eliminated from further study is provided in Section 2.1. B 2.7 -Alternatives Studied in Detail (pages 2-124 to 2-192}-provides complete analysis of the no-action alternative and the Applicant's Proposal.The analysis of the no-action alternative describes the implications of not constructing the Project.Describes the Applicant's Proposal including alternative transmission line routes and facilities, including overhead transmission lines.underground lines.submarine cables,transition Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-1 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHN!SYS DATA PROJ.09203:000-Final CHAPTER 2 doc stations,and substations and reactive compensation.An overview of alternatives studied in detail is provided in Section 2.2. 2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION Alternatives considered were established through a comprehensive review of previous Project documentation (see Chapter 1.Section 1.2.2)and emerging energy systems to determine the suitable alternatives to meet the Project purpose and need.Through a comprehensive screening process.each alternative was assessed for its ability to meet the stated purpose and need.and as a result.some alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.Alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet the seven Project objectives,as described in Chapter 1 and shown in Table 2-1.Alternatives that initially were considered but then eliminated include the following: =Alternatives to a Second Transmission Line -Batterv Energy Storage Systems -Demand-Side Management -New Generation -Wind Generation -Fuel Cells -Increasing Spinning Reserves -Restore or Remove Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Site m=Alternative Transmission Systems -Upgrade of the Existing Quartz Creek Line -Alternate Voltage Levels -Underground Transmission Lines @ Alternative Transmission Routes Each of these alternatives is briefly summarized on page 2-4.and described in detail in Section 2.6.tytJSouthern Intertie Project EVAL Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHNI SYS DATA PROJ.09203 009-Final CHAPTER =doc TABLE 2-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VERSUS PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Project *No Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Applicant's Alternatives Action Proposal Alternatives to a Second Transmission Line Alternative Second Transmission Line Transmission Systems Project Objective *No Battery |Demand Side Enerpy New Wind Fuel |Increased Upgrade the [Quartz Creek Enstar or (Purpose and Action Energy |Management|Efficiency/|Generation]Generation]Cells Spinning |Quartz Creck Route Tesoro Route Need)Storage Conservation Reserves Line System Alternative Screening Criteria Increase the NO PARTIAL NO NO NO NO NO YES NO PARTIAL YES reliability of the interconnected systent Increase the power NO PARTIAL.NO NO NO NO NO NO PARTIAL PARTIAL YES transfer capacity between the Kena Peninsula and Anchorage Utilize the most NO PARTIAL.NO NO NO NO NO NO PARTIAL PARTIAL YES economic generation mix to reduce costs ; linpreve overall NO PARTIAL NO NO NO NO NO YES NO ,PARTIAL YES system stability ° during disturbances Reduce spinning NO PARTIAL NO NO NO NO NO NO NO PARTIAL YES reserve requirements Reduce transmission NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO PARTIAL YES YES line losses Reduce maintenance NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES costs Notes: YES=meets alternative screening critcria NO=does not meet allernative screening criteria PARTIAL=partially meets alternative screening criteria *Retained for detailed analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act Southern Interlic Project 2-3 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal 2.1.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES TO A SECOND TRANSMISSION LINE ELIMINATED Battery Energy Storage Systems-A Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)consists of a very large bank of electric batteries and automatically controlled electronic equipment to convert the electric energy stored in the batteries from direct current (DC)to alternating current (AC)that can be supplied to the electrical transmission system.BESSs were examined in some detail for this Project (Power Engineers 1997).The results of these studies were that the BESS at best only partially would meet the purpose and need for the Project. Demand-Side Management And Energy Conservation-Demand-side management (DSM) consists of electric utilities planning.implementing,and monitoring activities designed to encourage consumers to modify their levels and patterns of electricity consumption.Energy efficiency and load management programs have been and continue to be implemented to varying degrees in the study area.However,these DSM programs focus on managing a very small part of the load on the system.whereas the Project need is for improvements to the entire interconnected system.Therefore,while DSM programs will continue to be used,they do not address the purpose and need for the Project and this alternative was not considered further as an alternative to the Applicant's Proposal. New Generation-Adding generation capacity on the Kenai Peninsula and/or in Anchorage was considered as an altemative to constructing a second line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage.Adding the generation capacity would increase the generation resources available to serve load on the svstem:however.the overall system currently has an excess of generating capacity over electrical load.While new generation resources could be used to enhance reliability and improve system stability during disturbances.generation resources that could be used for this purpose already exist.Additional generation resources are not needed-what is needed is an enhanced ability to use the existing generation resources in the most economical matter.This alternative.therefore.does not meet the Project purpose and need and was not carried forward for further consideration. Wind Generation-Harnessing the wind to provide electric generation resources has been successful in other areas of the country and would be another way of adding new generation resources to the system.In 1980.a study was completed for the Alaska Power Administration to evaluate the wind energy potential in the Cook Inlet area.Based on the results of this study. which is described in detail in Section 2.6.there was no conclusive evidence that large-scale generation of electric energy by wind turbines would be a significant viable energy option in the Cook Inlet area.Therefore.wind generation is not a viable option for this Project. Fuel Cells-As an emerging technology.fuel cells were considered as an alternative to a second transmission line.Widespread use of tuel cells for utility generation applications is still several Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-4 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal »DM_PHXESYS DATA PRON09203:009 Final CHAPTER =aoc years off.While fuel cell generation plants offer potential for the future.larger size units are not currently commercially available.Consequently,fuel cells are not a viable option for the Project. Additionally,fuel cells are simply another form of new generation.As noted earlier.additional generation is not needed,rather the Project is needed,in part,to utilize the existing generation resources more efficiently to lower overall operating costs. Increasing Spinning Reserves-Spinning reserve is a portion of the operating reserves maintained by utilities.Spinning reserve is unloaded generation,which is synchronized andreadytoserveadditionaldemand(NERC 1996).One of the reasons the Project is being proposed as a system improvement is to reduce spinning reserve requirements.The alternative of increasing spinning reserves to meet the purpose and need for the Project is in contradiction to the purpose of the Project.Consequently.increasing the amount of spinning reserves on the system was eliminated as an alternative. Restore or Remove Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Site-Public and agency comments questioned the relationship of the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility to the Project.Spillway improvements completed in 1998.as well as the planned 1999 major overhaul and upgrade of the power plant will have no discernable impact on the existing transmission system or this Project.Changes to the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility are not planned as a result of this Project.nor is the Project required for the changes at Cooper Lake. 2.1.22 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS ELIMINATED Upgrade of the Existing Quartz Creek Line-One alternative that initially was considered would be to upgrade the existing Quartz Creek line instead of constructing a second transmission line. The primary benefit to upgrading the existing line would be to increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.Several different upgrade scenarios were modeled as part of the electrical system study effort conducted by Power Engineers in 1996.The study concluded that conversion of the operating voltage from 115kV to 230kV would only increase the power transfer capacity of the existing line by about 20 percent.The system stability issues would continue to limit the secure power transfer over the line,the same as the current situation.The existing problems associated with system reliability and stability would become worse.The high cost of reconstructing all of the intermediate substations along the line, associated with little change in performance.as well as reliability and stability issues,resulted in elimination ofthis option from further consideration. Alternate Voltage Levels-Operating voltages of both 138kV and 230kV were studied for the second transmission line interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.Both of these voltage levels are used for transmission line and substation facilities that are part of the Alaska interconnected system.Both voltages exhibited similar performance,but the 230kV Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-5 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal 'SDM_PHXESYS DATA PROF-09203 009 Finai CHAPTER 2 doc alternative would require larger and more expensive equipment than the 138kV alternative: therefore,an operating voltage of 230kV was eliminated and 138kV is proposed for the Project. Underground Transmission Lines-Underground transmission has been proposed only where required by regulations and/or to avoid hazards that would be associated with an overhead line, such as through Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)or near an airport.The reason for this is that the cost of underground transmission typically is four to five times the cost of an overhead line.and the operational problems and outage durations are greater.When an outage to an underground line occurs.determining the cause and location of the damage,the replacement parts needed to repair the line,and actually repairing the line,takes much more time that for an overhead line.Repairs to an underground line are more expensive to fix as well;therefore, overhead lines are preferred to underground lines. 2.1.3 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION ROUTES ELIMINATED Quartz Creek Route-One alternative for the Project would be to parallel the existing Quartz Creek transmission line corridor between Soldotna and Anchorage.The analysis of the Quartz Creek alternative has included agency and public input,and environmental.engineering,and economic studies.There have been numerous comments on the Quartz Creek alternative from both agencies and the public.The general types of issues associated with this alternative are diverse.as summarized below: ®Conflicts with the Chugach National Forest and Chugach State Park:views from Seward Highway (National Scenic Byway).Cooper Landing.and several other environmentally sensitive areas have been noted by agencies and the public. ™Avalanche hazards along the route that have caused numerous outages to the existing Quartz Creek line have been noted. @ The opportunity to utilize an existing transmission line corridor has been identified. =Manv have questioned the relative differences between the risks to the Quartz Creek line due to the presence of avalanches.in comparison to the potential failures to the Tesoro Route due to adverse submarine conditions near Pt.Possession. As a result of these concerns and the ensuing studies.the Quartz Creek route was eliminated from further consideration for the following reasons: @ it would not meet the purpose and need for the Project ®it would increase costs such that the Project would befinancially infeasible Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-6 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHN!SYS DATA PROF 09203:009Final;CHAPTER 2 aac ®it would be exposed to the same avalanche,ice,snow,and wind conditions as the existing line Sixmile Creek to Anchorage -Submarine-This alternative was presented as an option to utilize the existing Quartz Creek transmission line corridor,reduce avalanche exposure,and avoid Chugach State Park by locating the line in the Tumagain Arm from Sixmile Creek to Anchorage. This alternative would be lengthy,and would increase costs of the Project substantially,so was eliminated from further consideration. Tesoro and Enstar Route Options Eliminated-The main two alternative routes for this Project carried forward for further consideration roughly follow the Tesoro and Enstar pipelines. respectively.Some local options along these routes were considered and have been eliminated.as listed below. ®Burv transmission line from Bernice Lake Substation to Moose Point =Tesoro route options eliminated-These alternatives were identified to avoid the Captain Cook SRA and Pt.Possession.They would result in significant impacts that could be mitigated by instead utilizing options that follow Kenai Road and the Tesoro Pipeline. These options include the following: -Tesoro Pipeline to north end of Captain Cook SRA -New Route around Captain Cook SRA -Tesoro Pipeline to Pt.Possession Village m Enstar underground option -Bury the line through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge m=Alternatives from Pt.Possession to Anchorage via Enstar Pipeline -Cross Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and/or Chickaloon Bav to Enstar Pipeline at Burnt Island =Moose Point to Fire Island via submarine cable m Use of a causeway that would connect Pt.Possession to Anchorage ®South Anchorage route options eliminated -New and Old Seward highways from Potter Marsh to Rabbit Creek Interchange -Alaska Railroad/Ocean View Bluff ¥ !Southem Intertie Proyect EVAL Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal wDM_PHXTSYS DATA:PROS.09203:009 Final CHAPTER 2 doc 2.2 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL After eliminating the numerous Project alternatives summarized above,two main alternatives were carried forward and studied in further detail,including the no-action alternative and the Applicant's Proposal for a second transmission line.Each of these alternatives is briefly summarized below and described in further detail in Section 2.7. 2.2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The Project is proposed as a system improvement to correct existing system deficiencies and lower operating costs.and the option of not constructing the Project was evaluated as part of the study process.The no-action alternative was evaluated as part of the electrical system studies to determine the limitations of the existing Quartz Creek intertie between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage (Power Engineers 1996,1997).It was determined that the no-action alternative does not address any of the existing system deficiencies related to the purpose and need for the Project.However.the no-action alternative was retained in order to comply with the National Policy Act (NEPA).which requires that the no-action alternative be used as a baseline upon which to compare other alternatives. 2.2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The Applicant's Proposal.construction of a second transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.is summarized below.Included are overviews of alternative routes and general facility types.all of which are described in more detail in Section 2.7. Alternative Routes A network of alternative routes for the Project was developed.based on the results of an alternative route selection process conducted by Dames &Moore in 1996.Alternative routes that were studied and eliminated from further consideration are described in detail in Section 2.6.The Tesoro and Enstar routes that were retained for detailed study were developed using the following steps: @ First.individual segments or "links”were established along the routes.Link codes were organized to reference the tvpes of facility and setting that the alternative routes would follow.Route options were organized by groups of links associated with the Tesoro and Enstar routes.fe[oo]Southern Intertie Project EVAL Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal "DM_PHX1 SYS DATA PROS 09263 O09 Final CHAPTER 2 doc =Next,links were assigned to three geographic regions-Kenai Lowlands,Turnagain Arm. and Anchorage area and assigned letters.These lettered link combinations.or route options,can be combined to form entire alternative routes. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate the alternative route options and the Applicant's proposed route, while Figure 2-3 is a schematic diagram that illustrates how alternative routes were developed out of the lettered link combinations,or route options.Figure 2-4 illustrates each route option. The Applicant's Proposal is the Enstar route,including route options B South,C,J.and Q. Finally,Table 2-2 is included to describe the individual links,'including length.types of facilities that would be used,and existing right-of-way conditions. Alternative Route Facilities The following five separate types of facilities and associated construction techniques are required for the Project: ™Overhead Transmission Lines-Overhead transmission lines with the conductors supported on steel or wood structures are proposed for portions of the Anchorage area and the Kenai Lowlands. #Underground Lines-Underground lines are high-voltage transmission line cables buried below ground surface in a duct bank.Underground lines are proposed for selected locations in the Anchorage area and in the Kenai Lowlands. m Submarine Cable-Submarine cables are specially constructed to operate in a marine environment and are more rugged than the cables used on land.Submarine cable is proposed for crossing the Turnagain Arm. ®Transition Stations-A transition station is equipped to change a transmission line from one type to another.Transitions trom overhead lines to underground or submarine cable. or from underground cable to submarine cable would be required for the Project. Terminal facilities for the submarine cables are included in the transition stations. Transition stations would be required near the landfalls for the submarine cable,and at selected locations in the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-9 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHXI SYS DATA PROJ 092031009 Final CHAPTER 2 doc =Substations and Reactive Compensation-Substations are located at the ends of transmission lines and at generation plants,and are the points at which the electrical system is joined together to form a network.Modifications to existing substations would be required either at International or Pt.Woronzof substations in the Anchorage area.and at either Bernice Lake or Soldotna substations on the Kenai Peninsula.For the Enstar route,a new substation would be required near Naptowne. Reactive compensation is required to provide system support to maintain transmission system voltage stability and facilitate power transfers'.Reactive compensation required for the Project would be provided by specific equipment,such as reactors or capacitors with associated controls.located within a substation or transition station.Reactive compensation would be added at the International or Pt.Woronzof substations in the Anchorage area.and at the Naptowne Substation or the Pt.Possession South Transition Station on the Kenai Peninsula.Reactive compensation also would be added at the Dave's Creek Substation. Figure 2-5 illustrates typical overhead transmission line structures,while Figure 2-6 illustrates a typical substation.Figure 2-7 illustrates the mix of facilities that would be used to respond to the technical.phvsical.and environmental constraints imposed by the Anchorage urban setting. Turnagain Arm submarine conditions.and Kenai Lowlands public and private land use and land management constraints. Construction Season It is intended that the majority of the construction activities would take place during the summer season (April to October).The exception to this is for the overhead transmission lines along the Tesoro Route north of the Captain Cook SRA.the Enstar route within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.and selected portions of the Soldotna B South route option along the Kenai River lowlands.where winter construction is proposed to minimize environmental impacts.i)Southern Intertie Project EVAL -10 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHN!SYS DATA PROJ 09203 .009-F inalCHAPTER 2 doc TIONTanTéNTanTUNNorth Forgland :esigi)CE CHICKALOON BAY Alternative Routes and Applicant's Proposal SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 2 Legend Applicant's Proposed Route "=Enstar Route Options Tesoro Route Options ==Anchorage Area Route Options Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Chugach National Forest L]Chugach State Park Contour Interval:15.24 meters (50 feet)'Contour Labeiing in feet General Reference Features Af Stody Area Boundary 7¢ Alemative Rome (ROW 150 Feet -not to Scale) "Nf Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Boundary 7*/Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Wildemess Boundary Anchorage Coastal WildlifeRefugeBoundaryLinkNumberCode a cc) Link Terminus Proposed Transition Facility Siting Area Proposed Substation Siting Area"/Pipeline "Transmission Line "we Quartz,Creek Transmission Line AV Railroad c,Ruesand Steams i"0 Recreation Trails ,oot 3 ova A Oil Plarfoem-Cook Inlet ee(7)tnterLakes .o4 3 5 10Kiees Base Map Sources:9 DAMES &MOORI'Municipality of Anchorage (1994),Reser &€ Chugach National Farest (1995).EE omeanmenveynenaKenaiPeninsulaBarough(1994).'USGS 1:63,360 and 125,000 Quads,falcon ?fsipfeval2/tLal7sfig3-1 A9203/00905/27/99 Pt,Woronzof 7!/ae fo OSE ee le===]||Anchorage Area Alternative Substation ete PEE SSeyo ir pce]|]Routes and Applicant's -|E ;ee ;Proposal Figure22MapLocation SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai ie ) Peninsula Transmission Line Peas International ae eee ae Te 7 NV Applicant's Proposed Route (Route Option Q) Anchorage Area Route Options Route Option Links M . N M3.2,13.1,13.2,[5.5 O M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4,15.5 P M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3 Q 12.5,12.6,15.8,15.9,16.3 R 12.5,12.6,14.3,14.4,I5.5 S 12.5,12.8,12.7,15.6,15.7,15.3 T 12.5,12.6,14.2,15.6,15.7,15.3 U 12.4,12.7,14.2,14.4,15.5 Vv 12.4,12.7,14.2,I5.8,15.9,16.3 WwW 12.4,12.7,15.6,16.1,15.9,16.3 xX 12.4,12.7,15.6,15.7,15.3 Y 12.4,12.8,12.6,15.8,I5.9,16.3 Z 12.4,12.8,12.6,14.3,14.4,15.5 General Reference Features Fave Alternative Route A/Study Area Boundary(ROW not to scale) Link Number Code /\/_Rivers and Streams " A Existing Substations L_]Lakes/Inlet w E (2)Proposed Transition Facility 1,Pipeline ;Siting Area ny Transmission Line s N Railroad Quartz Creek Transmission Line 0 1 2 Miles nase Map Sources SS Municipalicy of Anchorage (1994).Chugach NationalForest(1995).Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads.DAMES &MOOREFfaloon'fprojectsipfeval2/1 1x1 7s/fig?-2aml (52050 BEDS Alternative Kenai Peninsula Route Options Turnagain ArmRouteOptions sf D Pt.CampbellEFire!sland/Pt.Campbell AnchorageRouteOptions M_Kincaid Park Anchorage SubstationRouteOptions F Fire Island/Pt.WoronzofGSubmarinetoPt.Woronzof (Routes F &G terminateatPt.Woronzof Substation) >) Routes Tesoro (Bernice Lake Substation)7 Enstar (Soldtna Substation) Route B South Route C.Enstar Pipeline ->H Pt.Possession to Klatt Road imVO2ZPt.Woronzof Substation Minnesota Drive Minnesota Drive Alaska Railroad - >|Klatt Road Landing International Substation 'Minnesota Drive Minnesota Drive Alaska RailroadVoz ca J Alaska Railroad Landing Cc]Applicant's Proposed Altemative |oe Tesoro Route Options Cc]Enstar Route Options Q_Alaska RailroadinnesotaDriveSOldSeward T Old Seward > ->K Rabbit Creek U Minnesota Drive V.Alaska Railroad W_Old Seward/Alaska Railroad X Old Seward Y Alaska Railroad Z Minnesota Drive L Pt.Campbell Landing International Substation Jv4M_Kincaid Park Pt.Woronzof ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND SUBSTATION OPTIONS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 2-3 *SUBSTATIONS: Bernice Lake to Pt.Woronzof/International Kenai Peninsula @ °-LINKS:TL.1,T1.2,TL.3,T1.4,T2.1,T3.1,T3.2,T5.1,T5.2 Local Soldotna North Alternative Kenai Peninsula Local Soldotna South Alternative - Kenai Peninsula SOUTH LINKS:S1.1,$1.2,$1.3,El. Enstar Route LINKS:$2.1,$1.5,E1.2 Kenai Peninsula LINKS:E1.3,E2.1,M5.1 1 Bernice Lake 3 Pt.Woronzof 2 Soldotna 4 International KENAI LOWLANDS Figure 2-4 Kenai Peninsula Soldotna South Alternative Kenai Peninsula Enstar Route LINKS:$1.1,$1.2,$1.3,El.1,E1.3,E2.1,M5.1 LINKS:$2.1,$1.5,El.2,E1.3,E2.1,M5.1 Kenai Peninsula LINKS:E1.3,E2.1,MS5.1 *SUBSTATIONS:1 Bernice Lake 2 Soldotna 3 Pt.Woronzof 4 International KENAI LOWLANDS Figure 2-4 Bernice Lake to Pt.Woronzof Kenai Peninsula LINKS:M2.1,M2.2 Bernice Lake to Pt.Woronzof Bernice Lake to Pt.Woronzof Kenai Peninsula LINKS:M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3 Bernice Lake to International Kenai Peninsula .Kenai Peninsula LINKS:M2.4 Soldotna to International Kenai Peninsula + LINKS:M5.4 *SUBSTATIONS:1 Bernice Lake 2 Soldotna 3 Pt.Woronzof 4 International LINKS:M2.1,M3.1 Soldotna to International Kenai Peninsula LINKS:MS.3 Bernice Lake to Pt.Woronzof Kenai Peninsula LINKS:M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3 Soldotna to International Kenai Peninsula LINKS:M4.1 Soldotna to Pt.Woronzof Kenai Peninsula LINKS:M5.5 TURNAGAIN ARM Figure 2-4 (continued) oO Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof ,Anchorage LINKS:PW1.1 Alaska Railroad/ Oceanview to International LINKS:12.5,12.6,15.8,15.9,16.3 Oo *SUBSTATIONS:1 Bernice Lake 2 Soldotna 3 Pt.Woronzof 4 International Klatt to International Anchorage 4 LINKS:M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5 Alaska Railroad/ Oceanview to International * Anchorage 4 LINKS:12.5,12.6,14.3,14.4,15.5 Klatt to International x ,Anchorage | LINKS:M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4,15.5 Alaska Railroad/ Oceanview to International Anchorage '<-- LINKS:12.5,12.8,12.7,15.6,15.7,15.3 Klatt to International *--_oe Anchorage 4 LINKS:M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3 Alaska Railroad/ Oceanview to International Anchorage rm | LINKS:12.5,12.6,14.2,15.6,15.7,15.3 ANCHORAGE BOWL Figure 2-4 (continued) O Alaska Railroad/ Rabbit Creek to International /Anchorage LINKS:12.4,12.7,14.2,14.3,14.4,15.5 =)Alaska Railroad/ Rabbit Creek to International LINKS:12.4,12.8,12.6,15.8,15.9,16.3 Oo *SUBSTATIONS:1 Bemice Lake 2 Soldotna 3 Pt.Woronzof 4 International Alaska Railroad/ Rabbit Creek to International -,Anchorage LINKS:12.4,12.7,14.2,15.8,15.9,16.3 Alaska Railroad/ Rabbit Creek to International }Anchorage 4 LINKS:12.4,12.8,12.6,14.3,14.4,15.5 Alaska Railroad/ Rabbit Creek to International 3,: Anchorage am LINKS:12.4,12.7,15.6,16.1,15.9,16.3 Alaska Railroad/ Rabbit Creek to International Anchorage "I LINKS:12.4,12.7,15.6,15.7,15.3 ANCHORAGE BOWL (Continued) Figure 2-4 (continued) TABLE 2-2! OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route _:/ae -T Region/Option Alternative |Letter Description of Link Miles kim Route |Code [Links |Number |Crossed |erassed |Types of Facility | Existing Conditions Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -115kV and TH 0.2 0.3 -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole 69KV .. .a,;-Adjacent Jand uses -industrialsinglecircuit; - -Access -paved road -Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway 11.2 0.3 0.5 -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -industrial Bernice Laketo |||_Single circuit Access -paved road Captain Cook -Overhead line segment -Ripht-of-way use paralleled -roadway SRA -follows 6.6 10.6 -Structure type --singte-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -commercial,residential North Kenai single circuit -Access -paved road Roi 13 rs ne 7Right-of->roadwines|-Unkpon al SdCeconc rena0.9 1.5 -Rediske and Johnson Airports nae mercial,residential, .oe two airstrips-Four riser poles d Kenai ae -ee +Access -paved roa Peni is tla'-Overhead ine segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway1_A ee A7 7.6 -Structure type -sing!e-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -residential Alternative :_single circuit -Access -paved road .Through -Underground cable through Captain Cook |-Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway and Captain Cook 124 40 65 SRA two pipelines SRA -follows -Transitions occur at either end of the Park =|-Adjacent land uses -Captain Cook SRA park road -Two riser poles -Access -paved road and FWD road -Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -pipeline 73.1 3.6 5.8 -Structure type -guyed X steel,heavy -Adjacent land uses -residential . .-Winter construction -Access -FWD roadCaptainCook .-Right-of-way use paralleled -pipelineSRAtoPt.-Overhead line segment ;... ..-Adjacent land uses -residential and KenaiPossession-T3.2 22.4 36.1 -Structure type -guyed X steel,heavy a "'BoroughfollowsTesoro-Winter construction . Pipeline -Access -trail P TSA -Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -pipeline :0.4 0.6 -Structure type -guyed X steel,heavy -Adjacent land uses -private/state lands -Winter construction -Access-trail 1 Refer to Tables 2-21 and 2-24 for detailed description of Project facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 7-19 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal Route Region/Option Alternative |Letter Description of fink Mites km Route Code Links Number |Crossed |crossed Ty pes of Facility Existing Conditions ae -a =Right-of-way use paralleled -pipeline 15.2 1.0 1.6 -Submarine cable -Adjacent land uses -KNWR -Access-trail Pt.Possession - -Right-of-way use paralleled -pipeline D to Pt.Campbell M2.2 10.1 16.3 -Submarine cable -Adjacent land uses -Coastal Wildlife Refuge orto Pt.-Access -none Woronzol and / Vurnagain ArmDL|Fire Island to M2.1 3.8 6.1 |-Submarine cable -Richtof.wa lleled -pinel;Pt.Campbell 2 y use paralleled -pipeline Pt.Possession :Turnagain ArmDHtoKlattRoadMe.48 6.1 -Submarine cable -Right-of-way use paralleled -pipelinea"|Pt Possession-OO oo - to Pt.Campbell .or to PL .Turnagain Arm .. I Woronzol and M23 3.0 48 Submarine cable -Adjacent land uses -Coastal Wildlife RefugePurnagainFireIslandtoArmandPtCampbellraetslanal- -Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralicled -undeveloped Route T41 3.1 5.0 -Structure type -H-frame wood -Adjacent land uses -CIRI-VORTAC -Access -none File Island --Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -FWD road E/F generally T4.2 14 2.3 -Structure type -H-frame wood -Adjacent land uses -CIRI follows road -Access -FWD road -Underground cable -Right-of-way use paralleled -FWD road 74.3 0.4 0.6 -Adjacent land uses -CIRI -airstrip -Access -FWD road Pt.Possession -Submarine cable to Fire Island ... E/F and Fire Istand Mt.l 9.2 14.8 Turnagain Arm to Pt.Woronzof F M13 5.0 8.1 -Submarine cable 'Turnagain Arm FABLE 2-2! OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS |Refer to Tables 2-21 and 2-24 for detailed description of Project facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 2-20 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal FABLE 2-27 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route Repion/Option Alternative |Letter Description of Link Miles km Route Code Links Number |Crossed |crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions Pt.Possession ee a to Pt.Campbell G or to Pt.M2?.4 17.2 27.7 -Submarine cable Turnagain ArmWoronzofand Fire sland to Pt.Campbell Hl Pt.Possession M3.1 12.2 19.6 -Submarine cable Vurnagain Arm to Klatt Road -";-Adjacent land uses -Coastal Wildlife Refuge Follows Tesoro -Underground cable -Right-of-way use paralleled -future airport Pipeline and development future airport -Adjacent land uses -airport M development PW 2.3 3.7 -Access-none between PL Campbell and Anchorage Pt.Woronzot Route _-Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleted -no information Options/N 13.2 0.7 11 -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -future residential Tesoro single circuit -Access -none Klatt Road -Submarine cable -Right-of-way use paralleled -no information .M3.2 0.3 0.5 -Adjacent land uses -Victor RoadAlternatives.. NOP -Access -ho information-Submarine cable -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway 13.1 0.5 0.8 -Adjacent land uses -Klatt Road -Access -paved road -Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway O/P 13.3 0.7 11 -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -undeveloped single circuit -Access -paved road /none 1 Refer to Tables 2-21 and 2-24 for detailed description of Project facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 2-21 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal FABLE 2-2'- OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONSRoute_eee Region/Option Alternative |Letter Description of Link Miles km Route Code Links Number |Crossed |crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions Paralleisa |Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled -(2)11SkV and corridor with -Structure type |single pole wood,single 69kV multiple circuit Adjacent land uses -residential BN transmission St.1 04 0.6 Access -gravel road lines north from Soldotna Substation _ -Overhead fine segment Right-of-way use paralleled -(2)IISkV Parallels a S12 O04 0.6 -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole Adjacent land uses -residential HISkV ,ee _double circuit Access -gravel road BN transmission -Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled -(2)LISkKV, line north of -Structure type -If-frame wood 69kV,and distribution pipeline - Soldotna S13 194d 31.3 Adjacent land uses -residential,airstrip, Kenai undeveloped,native selected,KNWR Peninsula'Access -FWD road Enstar Parallels Fnstar : -Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled -(2)pipelines Alternative BN Pipeline across EL 0.7 11 -Structure type -guyed X steel Adjacent land uses -undeveloped Kenai NWR Access -FWD road -Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled -115kV BS S15 1.0 1.6 -Structure type -H-frame wood Adjacent land uses -residential Access -F WD road -Overhead line segment Right-of-way use paralleled -NAParallelsa> LESkV -Structure type -H-frame wood Adjacent land uses -Undeveloped os Access -none transmission line north ofBSSoldotna Ei.2 04 0.6 1 Refer to Tables 2-21 and 2-24 for detailed description of Project facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 2-22 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-2! OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS an "|-Route7]nee ee ce nn ee ee en cans Region/Option Alternative |Letter Description of Link Miles kim Route Code Links Number |Crossed |crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions _fT Replacementof fo”oe PTS Overhead fine segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -(2)H1SkV, 69kV -Structure types |single pole wood (16.1 69kV BS transmission $2.1 17.6 28.3 miles/25.9 kin),single circuit,with [2.5kV_5 -Adjacent land uses -residential and Bing's line south of underbuild (except for Kenai River Landing State Recreation Site Soldotna crossing on II-frame),Winter construction |-Access -gravel road and FWD roadOverheadlinesegment-Right-of-way use paralleled -(2)pipelines P13 33.1 $3.3 -Structure type -guyed X steel -Adjacent fand uses -undeveloped -Access -FWD road -fo |=Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -(2)pipelines -Structure type -single pole wood,single -Adjacent land uses -moderate management Paratlels Prstar E24 3.3 5.8 circuit (single wood pole modified for -Access -FWD road C Pipeline across shorter pole heights-spans to reduce Kenai NWR clearing and for bird/raptor protection) es =Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -(2)pipelines -Structure Type -Single Pole Wood,Single |-Adjacent land uses -moderate management M5.1 11 1.8 Circuit (Single Wood pole modified for -Access -FWD road shorter pole heights-spans to reduce clearing and for bird/raptor protection) Submarine --Submarine cable -Right-of-way use paralleled -no information |Chickaloon Bay MALI 11.9 19.2 -Adjacent land uses -Coastal Wildlife Refuge to Klatt Road -Access -no information Submarine --Submarine cable -Right-of-way use paralleled -no information Turnagain Chicaloon Bay -Adjacent land uses -Coastal Wildlife Refuge Arm Route to Alaska -Access -no information Options/Railroad Enstar J Oceanview M5.4 11.2 18.0 Park 1 Refer to Tables 2-21 and 2-24 for detailed description of Project facilities. Chapter 2 --Alternatives including the Applicant's ProposalSouthernIntertieProjectEVAL July 1999 2-23 VABLE 2-2! OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS|Route Region/Option ; Alternative |Letter Description of Link Miles km Route Code Links Number |Crossed |crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions "|Submarine -we Submarine cable >Right-of-way use paralleled -no information Chicaloon Bay -Adjacent land uses -Coastal Wildlife Refuge K to Alaska MS.3 97 15.6 -Access -no information Railroad /Rabbit Creck J Submarine --Submarine cable -Right-of-way use paralleled -no information L Chickaloon Bay MS5.5 16.2 26.1 -Adjacent land uses -Coastal Wildlife Refuge to Pt.Campbell -Access --no information 7 Follows P12 Overhead Tine segment Right-of-way use paralicled -roadway ;O'Malley and Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -commercialUV.14.2 0.2 0.3 ..Minnesota single circuit -Access -paved road Drive as nae Overhead line segments -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway, Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,138kV,and (3)distribution lines NOQ'.<single circuit (1.0 mile/t.6km)-Adjacent land uses -residential,open space, .Follows ISS 3.3 5.3 ...WZ O'Malley and Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,and industrial nen single circuit with 12.5kV underbuild (0.5 |-Access-gravel roadMinnesota. oe .mile/0.8 km)Anchorage OU/Drive Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadwayone,.s i44 0.3 0.5 Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,.-Adjacent land uses -undevelopedP_'single circuit -Access -paved roadEnstar|Follows Overhead line segment -Right-of:way use paralleled -roadway P/Q/U/|O'Malley and 143 10 16 Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -extraction Z Minnesota ,single circuit -Access -paved road Drive P/Q/S/V Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -railroad IY Structure type -single-shafi steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -industrial Follows Alaska 158 15 24 single circuit -Access -gravel railroad bed Railroad |Refer to Tables 2-21 and 2-24 for detailed description of Project facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 2-24 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including, the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-2' OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS__ Route _-_ne Region/Option Alternative |Letter Description of Link Miles km Route Code Links Number |Crossed |crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions -_I |=Overhead line segment =Right-of-way use paralleled -railroad iS.9 18 29 -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent fand uses -industrial P'Q/V/single circuit -Access -gravel railroad bed wiy 7 >Overhead line segment =Right-of-way use paralleled -railroad 16.3 0.3 0.5 -Structure type --single-shaft steet pole,-Adjacent Jand uses -industrial single circuit with 12.5KV underbuild -Access -gravel railroad bed :Submarine cable as mitigation =Right-ofway use paralleled -railroad Follows Alaska 04 06 -Adjacent land uses -residential/Flying Crown .airstripRailroad : QRS 12.5 - is =Access failroad :-Underground cable as mitigation -Right-of-way use paralleled -railroad 05 08 -Adjacent land uses -residential/Flying Crownairstrip -Access -railroad Oo QRY/ee es ae =Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -railroad 12.6 0.7 11 -Structure type -single-shafi steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -residential7singlecircuit-Access -gravel railroad bed Follows Old -Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway STUY Seward -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -residential ray Highway &12.7 0.7 1 single circuit with 34.5kV and 12.5 -Access -paved roadV/W/X -:.International underbuild Airport Road -Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -mixed use single circuit with 34.5kV and 12.5 -Access -paved road rw 15.6 15 24 underbuild |Refer to Tables 2-21 and 2-24 for detailed description of Project facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 Chapter 2 --Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal2-25 "FABLE 2-2! OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTIONSRoute Repion/Option Alternative |Letter |Description of Link Miles kn Route Code Links Number |Crossed |crossed Types of Facility Existing Conditions "7 TE TD Overhead dine segment =Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway 1S7 15 +4 -Structure type -single-shaft steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -mixed use .*single circuit with 34.5kV and 12.5 -Access -paved road underbuild -Overhead line segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway, -Structure type -single-shaft stect pole,138kV,and (2)distribution lines 2.3 3.7 single circuit with 12.5kV underbuild -Adjacent land uses -commercial and S!T/X residential -Access -paved road 15.3 | -Underground segment -Right-of-way use paralleled -railroad 0.3 0.5 -Adjacent land uses -Coastal Wildlife Refuge -Access -railroad right-of-way on "|=Undergound cable as mitigation |=Right-of-way use paralleled -railroad 0.7 1.1 -Adjacent land uses -shooting range -Access -railroad right-of-way a 7 -Overhead line segment =Right-of-way use paralleled -roadway VIZ.12.8 0.1 0.2 -Structure type -single-shafi steel pole,-Adjacent land uses -industrial single circuit with 12.5kV underbuild -Access -gravel road Notes: CIRI -Cook Inlet Regional,Inc.KNWR -Kenai National Wildlife Refuge FWD --four-wheel drive VORTAC -VIIF Omidirectional Range Tacan 1 Refer to Tables 2-21 and 2-24 for detailed description of Project facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 7-26 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal mg apres ate >me ON ge TYPICAL OVERHEAD LINE STRUCTURES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line eg el Figure 2-5 TYPICAL SUBSTATION SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 2-6 TESORO ROUTE KENATI PENINSULA TURNAGAIN ANCHORAGE ARM SS 1s TS Ts TS Ts TS ||PT Ss _,|POSSESSION PT.=5 [>CAMPBELL Ts ME ct von -_ a - OH Jal me neat"po /[XT|.--PT.WORONZOFBERNICEIAIRSTRIPS__\CAPTAIN TESORO ss "Shore-tail”QD Terr |SUBSTATIONLAKECOOKSRAPIPELINE/KINCAID PARK/SUBSTATION NORTH KENAI ROAD \SUBM /AIRPORT Non-embedded Embedded "Shore-tail” Cable Cable Embedded Cable ENSTAR ROUTE KENAI PENINSULA TURNAGAIN ANCHORAGE ARM SS TS SSSseeCROSS),TS |; BURNT ROAD};t i =ISLANDv |aes OH ja -OHSOLDOTNAOHNAPTOWNEUG INTERNATIONAL SUBSTATION SUBSTATION ENSTAR PIPELINE aa suBM |airstrip SUBSTATION Shore-tail |/Embedded //-ALASKA RAILROAD Cable Embedded "Shore-tail” Cable Embedded Cable LEGEND-FACILITY TYPES OH -OVERHEAD LINE REPRESENTATIVE ROUTE PROFILESUG-UNDERGROUND LINE SUBM .SUBMARINE CABLE SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT TS -TRANSITION STATION Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line SS -SUBSTATION NOT TO SCALE Figure 2-7 2.3 CONSULTATION,COORDINATION,AND ISSUES 2.3.1 INTRODUCTION An integral part of the environmental evaluation (EVAL)process has been a comprehensive effort to consult and coordinate with relevant agencies and the public.The intent throughout the process has been to communicate with the public and agencies.identify and refine their issues. interpret the issues into meaningful information to incorporate into planning and decision making.and address the issues in the EVAL.This comprehensive effort of consultation and coordination has been accomplished through three primary means:(1)agency and public scoping of issues early in the EVAL process.(2)contacting agencies during the process to obtain technical information.and (3)conducting community participation throughout the process.The sections that follow explain these efforts. 2.3.2.SCOPING In November 1995,prior to beginning the EVAL process.a Route Selection Study was initiated that included an analysis of alternative corridors.and environmental and macro corridor studies. To assist in determining issues and concerns during route selection.agency and interagency meetings as well as two public meetings (January and February 1996)were conducted.As a result of the study.three alternative corridors were identified.The results of the study. documented in the Southern Intertie Project Route Selection Study Phase 1-Environmental Section Report (June 1996).were carried torward into the EVAL process. The EVAL process for the Southern Intertie Project began with the publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS)in October 1996,announcing the anucipated preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS)for the Project.This EVAL was conducted in preparation for the EIS. Overall.the goal of the scoping process was to determine the issues to be addressed in the EVAL EIS.Scoping 1s a process.early in a project and open to federal.state.and local agencies and the public.intended to incorporate their views and concerns regarding the Project.Other objectives of scoping included evaluating issues.determining the range of alternatives to be evaluated.identifving environmental review and consultation requirements.and developing the environmental analysis process and technical studies to address scoping issues in the EVAL.The results of scoping are summarized below and in more detail in the Southern Intertie Project Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report (September 1997). Southern Intertie Proyect EVAL 2-30 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal Dst PHN SYS DATA PROJ 09203 006 Final CHAPTER 2 aor 2.3.3 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on October 9,1996 announcing the anticipated preparation of an EIS for the proposed Project and the opportunity for the public to comment at scoping meetings.Newsletters were mailed to individuals and organizations on the Project mailing list.In addition.approximately 66,500 utility bill inserts were mailed to all electric consumers within the Homer Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power service areas.Chugach Electric Association customers were notified twice through notifications placed in the Chugach Outlet included in-their monthly billing statements. Advertisements were placed in newspapers throughout the state,including the Anchorage Daily News,Alaska Journal of Commerce.Alaska Star,Frontiersman,Homer News,Homer Tribune, Peninsula Clarion.and Seward Phoenix Log.Poster-sized notices were placed in libraries.post offices.and community halls where public meetings were held. 2.3.4 PUBLIC AND AGENCY MEETINGS In November 1996.three public scoping meetings were conducted-in Anchorage on November 12.Cooper Landing on November 13.and Soldotna on November 14.A total of 81 people attended the meetings.The meetings were recorded and transcripts are retained in the Project files. In addition to the public scoping meetings held in various communities.an interagency scoping meeting was held on November 6.1996 in Anchorage.The purpose of the meeting was to (1) invite cu-lead and'or cooperating agencies.and (2)solicit comments and/or concems regarding issues that should be addressed in the EVAL/EIS.Sixteen agency personnel attended the meeting.representing the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).Alaska Energy Authority.Municipality of Anchorage,Kenai Peninsula Borough.Forest Service.Environmental Protection Agency.RUS.Bureau of Land Management. and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.tJ3.8 WRITTEN COMMENTSman Written comments on the Project were solicited.and as of January 1.1997,84 written comments were received containing approximately 400 individual comments.A summary of letters received from agencies.communities.and special-interest groups is presented in Table 2-3. Southem Intertie Project EVAL -3)Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM PHNI SYS DATA PROJ 08273 006 Finai CHAPTER 2 ao. Ee Environmental Issues FederalFs Ele 2 e |&|&gi,|«e Ez 2,218 eE;1B)&g [ce ry s ES e g 2 -gs €z{52|=2,;2;2/E 1]!2!£2 1fel_3s!Scie;2;2]¢g $1}j.2 ae ee r €2 ¥=x .jesSsaSs:e =&eo Pr s -<=sk _ x =-_=¢15elerieti/Bi 2tl{fle)&]-)€lgFAGENCY/&l==ff!:=g ==z =2 t2of€t::¢§<=z ==t ,ORGANIZATION 2 ze =S2|2 2 z 2 Es ==zis 5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS :i |Avuid Fi.RichardsonalongQuartz¥;!|Creek dune.US.Arms /|mA |Ari area sone ..Clearly defined purpuse and need essential inEnvironmental"S |ne &range of siternatium.Nirongly Protection Agency Fecommend the ue al exsting irensmasion hee Bad prpehae comdon. Federal Aviation Administration Fire Island =VORTAC faciay interterence cuacert. Coast Guard Ne formal or StateDepartment of Fish and Game Lose existing commdors =Pt.Campnetl/Pt. Worenzof pussies.(nher tandings would Rot he authorized across the Anchorage Coumstat Viidlife Refuge. DNR -Division of Parks Division of Parks would not support a conversion of use under Land Vater Conservation Fund Act.Incompatibte with purpuses of Une Chugach Suite Park. Department of Transportanon and Public Facilities N\Awaiting revsed commeat. DNR -Division of Land Concerned with scene aad recreation Cesourtes un state lands,DoctMunicipality of Anchorage (bverhead lines considered incompatible within Municipality isubyect to bacul ordenances:. Comptuncescampauhiiity with Anchorage Howl (omprenensive Plan is required, Kenai Peninsula Borough Data and coordination provided: and participated in meetings.itsSpecialInterestGroupAlasks Center for the Environment Consideration of other siternatives.economic, brological,recreation.scenic Impacts. Oceanview/Old Seward Community Council Nat consinced of purpme and nerd:concerned shoul safety.sesthetecs.airplane interterence. carthquskes,EME,and effects on tourism, Renai Watershed Forum Consideration of ather alternatives;construction tech myues.badogecal umpacts. Friends of Cooper Landing NPNENESNEffects to scenic resources,avalanche hazards. Ppurpise end need requirements,land we conflicts. Cooper Landing Game and Fish Adsisory Committee Effects of consieucton aad nght-f-way feyurrements on watersheds and bioiogcal inthe Kenwi Wildlife Refuge. Wilderness Society Impacts to wildlde,recreation,visual resources, purpene und reed justificulen. Pt.Possession.Inc.Jf totr use.visual.5 cultural resnurces:uppined te line acrins oF fear allotment and curporate iand. Flying Crown Homeowners Association Jv /1 ! i \ Questeon purpose sad eced.impact interference. Dames &Moore SUMMARY OF LETTERS RECEIVED FROM AGENCIES,COMMUNITIES,AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT EIS Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line 2-32 Table 2-3 2.3.6 ANALYSIS All issues and concerns raised during the scoping process were analyzed in the EVAL.Special technical studies were recommended where published information on a topic was considered inadequate or unavailable.Suggested mitigation measures were considered in the EVAL as well. As part of the scoping process,applicable laws,authorities and related statutes and orders were identified for the Project. Fourteen issues were identified from the Route Selection Study conducted from 1995 to 1996, public scoping meetings held in November 1996,letters concerning the Project,and EVAL studies conducted between 1997 and 1998.These efforts incorporated concerns raised by the public,the business community,and federal.state,and local agencies.These issues focus the environmental analyses that will form the basis for preparation of an EIS under the direction of the RUS.Following the discussions below is a summary of comments concerning each issue (Table 2-4).In addition.the issue tracking table accompanying this document lists each issue raised and where it is addressed in this analysis. Issue 1 -Purpose of and Need for the Project Over 10 years ago.the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)and the Railbelt Utilities authorized a series of studies to evaluate the engineering.environmental.and financial feasibility of constructing additional transmission line interties between the Kenai Peninsula,Anchorage,and Fairbanks.Additional transmission line capacity was needed to improve the reliability of the system and decrease the incidence of load shedding during system disturbances and to prevent system blackouts.With the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project scheduled to come into service.it was recognized that additional transmission line capacity would be needed between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage to fully utilize the power generated at Bradley Lake.The Southern Intertie and the Northern Intertie Projects were evaluated as to whether the existing system deficiencies could be improved by construction of those Projects.and to allow full utilization of the Bradley Lake. AEA also requested.and the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)completed.a reliability assessment of the interconnected Alaska system.As a result of the engineering. environmental,financial.and reliability studies commissioned by AEA,it was determined that the Northem and Southern Intertie Projects were necessary system improvements and should be constructed.and that the benefits from the Projects would exceed the costs of the Projects. Recently.additional studies were completed to verify the need for and the financial feasibility of the Southern Intertie Project.These recent studies confirmed the conclusions of the previous studies.The Southern Intertie Project is a needed system improvement,the benefits from the Project exceed the costs.and the Project should be constructed. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-33 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal *DM_PHNESYS DATA PROJ 69203.009 Final CHAPTER 2 aoc If the purpose and need for the Project were met.the reliability of power to Railbelt consumers would be increased.the interconnected electrical system could be operated more cost efficiently. and full utilization would be made of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project.The rate impacts analysis conducted for the Project indicates that the Project would have a positive financial impact on consumers in the Railbelt. Although the purpose and need has been established as necessary,the proposed Project has been questioned for a variety of reasons.Concerns focus on whether benefits of the Project warrant the impacts on the environment.how the Project will financially"impact customers,to what degree the reliability of the electrical system will improve,and what the energy transfer requirements will be. In addition to the proposed Project.rigorous analysis of alternatives has been suggested. including consideration of energy conservation.demand side management.battery energy storage systems.and other generation sources such as new generation.wind generation.and fuel cells. Issue 2 -Urban and Rural Land Use While the study corridors are dominated by federal and state managed lands.concentrations of private lands occur within the Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. including Nikiski.Soldotna.Sterling.Cooper Landing.and Sunrise.Land uses found throughout the study corridors include residential.commercial.industrial,public/quasi-public.air facilities. utilities.and transportation routes.Issues identified for land use impacts include possible displacement of homes and buildings.right-of-way restrictions and limitations.effects on the monetary value of private property as a result of visual impacts.and effects on the future development of vacant parcels ofland. Issue 3 -Aviation Safety Alaska leads the nation in private aircraft use per capita.Various types of aircraft are used extensively for both private and commercial interests including float planes and small single-and twin-engine planes.Aviation facilities include airstrips.lakes,beaches.airports,demarcation devices.and navigation aids.Low altitude air traffic occurs through mountain passes and along coastlines during inclement weather.raising a question about potential aviation hazards within navigable airspace.In addition.private individuals.organizations,and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)have indicated that the proximity of the transmission line to aviation facilities could be a hazard if not appropriately mitigated. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-34 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHX?SYS DATA PROJ 09203 009 Final CHAPTER 2 doc Two main topics of concern related to aviation were identified and include compliance with FAA regulations and possible conflicts with aircraft use. Issue 4 -Recreation and Tourism Recreation activities occur in the region year-round and range from passive activities,such as wildlife viewing and photography,to active recreation,such as fishing.hunting.rock/ice climbing.hiking.mountain biking.rafting,kayaking,dog mushing,skiing,boating.and more. Commercial recreation plays a large part in this area as well,with guides.outfitters,and air/water taxiing services catering to tourists and residents.These diverse opportunities attract visitors from around the world.The scenery of the region combined with easy access and proximity to Alaska's major population center makes the study area one of the most visited in the state. Issue 5 -Management Plans Federal.state.and local agencies and the public have expressed concerns regarding compliance with existing management plans.Several planning efforts are underway to update management plans within the project area.Specifically.the Municipality of Anchorage Comprehensive Plan, Chugach National Forest Plan.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR)Comprehensive Conservation Plan.and several site-specific plans are undergoing revisions.The proposed Project may conflict with certain planning and management areas. Issue 6 -Watershed Management and Soil Erosion A large portion of the study area lies within the Kenai River watershed.one of the most valuable resources in south-central Alaska.Given the proximity of the proposed Project.several agencies and special interest groups have indicated concerns related to water quality.fisheries,and degradation of important watershed resources.including vegetation clearing,potential soil erosion on slopes.and potential siltation of streams. Issue 7 -Visual Resources This region of Alaska is nationally and internationally known for its significant aesthetic values. All of the public lands in the study area are administered to maintain some level of aesthetic visual value.Various federal.state.and local agencies advocate protection and enhancement of visual resources as part of their management plans,and advocate maintenance of visual resources in the study area.Comments emphasize preservation of the landscape character and panoramic Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-35 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal "DM_PHXT'SYS DATA PROJ 69203.009 Finai CHAPTER 2 aoc viewsheds from residences.travel routes,vistas,recreation sites,trails,rivers,lakes.and use areas found throughout the study area.Other comments addressed design considerations to minimize negative effects and requests for visual simulations of the Project facilities. Issue 8 -Biology The region encompassing the Kenai Peninsula,Tumagain Arm,and Chugach Mountains is rich in diversitv and abundance of animal species.Public lands-in the study area are mandated to manage fish and wildlife populations.This issues center on effects of the Project on wildlife habitat.the presence of sensitive species.and vegetation clearing.Concern has been expressed by the public and agencies about construction of the transmission line through sensitive habitats and ground disturbing activities that could impact vegetation or habitat and disrupt wildlife behavior. In addition.increased access to remote areas and the resulting effect on wildlife populations (brown and grizzlv bears)has been questioned. Comments have been made concerning effects of Project construction and maintenance on wetland and aquatic habitats.Concern about additional vegetative clearing adjacent to or crossing through these areas has been expressed.along with maintaining compliance with coastal management plans for the region.Increased siltation of streams.especially anadromous fish streams.is also a concern identified by the agencies and public. Comments about migratory birds and raptors (trumpeter swans and bald eagles)focus on bird strikes.electrocution.impacts on nesting sites.impacts on shorebird and waterfowl habitats.and the proximity and effect of the Project on raptors. Other issues related to biological resources include cumulative effects on the KNWR.wetlands. sensitive species.habitat.waterfowl.fisheries.and management goals. Issue 9 -Cultural Resources The cultural resource inventory and analvsis of prehistoric sites.buildings,structures,districts. trails.and objects have been based on previous surveys conducted in the study region.Although cultural resources have been identified in the area.the potential exists for unidentified resources to be present.and this is confirmed by predictive modeling. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that the possible effects of federal undertakings on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places be considered.The Kenai Native Association has expressed concern that the Project may impact Native interests and resources. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-36 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including Juiv 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DME_PHXAI SYS DATA PROJ 09203 009 Finai CHAPTER 2 go. Issue 10 -Right-of-Way Limitations Engineering constraints,construction and maintenance activities.and transmission line siting criteria are elements of this issue.Comments have focused on siting feasibility in certain locations.and right-of-way requirements during construction and operation. Issue 11 -Health and Safety The concerns voiced by the public and agencies on this issue relate to electric and magnetic fields (EMF)and physical hazards of overhead transmission lines. Issue 12 -Socioeconomics The Project area encompasses a varied socioeconomic base ranging from largely undeveloped lands with small towns and cities to large metropolitan areas such as the Anchorage Bowl. Lifestyles range from remote,subsistence-based residents on urban residents who rely on employment to support their needs.The main topics identified through a review of all comments received include potential effects on utility rates.impacts to the quality of life.Projects costs.the result of the cost/benefit analysis.local effects of the proposed Project and development concerns.and compliance with Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice. Issue 13 -Alternatives to the Proposed Project During the route selection studies and scoping meetings.the public and agency personnel questioned whether alternative means of electrical generation were feasible and whether alternative routes could be considered.In addition.recommendations and questions regarding the economic and technical feasibility of the routes were raised.Rigorous analyses of alternatives were suggested.including consideration of energy conservation,demand side management. battery energy storage systems.and other generation sources such as new generation,wind generation.and fuel cells. Issue 14 -NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)was established to ensure that any federal decisions (actions)consider the potential environmental effects of a development project in context with public and agency input.The process allows for public input on the federal decision Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-37 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal 'DM _PHX1 SYS DATA PROJ 09203.009-Final CHAPTER 2 doc process and is intended to ensure decisions that affect public lands are publicly discussed.The proposed project falls under the guidelines of 40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508 and 7 CFR Part 1794. TABLE 2-4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED |Issue Comments Received Underlving Need #Unable to determine the underlying need for the transmission line.Need should be clearly defined and a reasonable range of alternatives for the project should be evaluated.such as energy conservation,local generation,system, and transmission alternatives. @ The need for the project is not justified by the potential significant environmental impacts and questionable economic justification. 'Reliability @ The purpose and need would not be met by constructing a transmission line parallel to the Quartz Creek line due to avalanche risks. @ Js reliability of power the main reason for the project? @ What increase in reliabiliry would construction of the new transmission line provide? ®Current reliability of service from the existing transmission line system is acceptable in the Anchorage and Kenai areas.Residents are willing to put up with occasional power outages instead of the potential environmental impacts! i Purpose and that could occur as a result of the proposed project. 1 Need for the m What is the difference between historical outages and present risk of outages Project (especially related to avalanches)after modifications have been included to the existing transmission line? ®What is the cost and extent of current unreliability? =Reliability and efficiency would not be met by routing the transmission line !through avalanche areas. Energy Transfer ®What is the status of existing energy transfer between Kenai and Anchorage? |Benefits @ The proposed Project would only benefit Anchorage (or only Kenai). @ The Kenai and Anchorage areas independently have enough generation capacity ®Would expanded power service from the route be available for local residents to utilize?(Principally Moose Point.Grav Cliffs.and Fire Isiand.) @®Quartz Creek would have the least amount of environmental impacts and minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods.|Urban and 2 |Rural Land ®The possibility of lawsuits from diminished property values is associated with Use Enstar.|®The transmission line crossing residential lots would result in diminished property value. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-38 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \.DM_PHNI SYS DATA PROJ 092031009:Final CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received Does Alaska Railroad and Chugach Electric have the right to route a line along the railroad right-of-way? Avoid highly developed residential areas. Do not construct overhead transmission lines in residential areas. How would the proposed Project affect property owners? Proposed Project routing should consider potential zoning conflicts and landusechangesasaresultoftherevisionto'the Anchorage Comprehensive Plan. Transmission lines should be planned in advance of residential and commercial developed. Right-of-way encroachment is a possibility with New Seward Highway and North Kenai Road. Route lines through industrial areas (more compatible land use). The western coast of the Kenai Peninsula is desirable for development:the transmission line could be a conflict. North Kenai schools could be in close proximity;this would not be acceptable. 3 Aviation Safety | Compliance with Federal!Aviation Administration Regulations The FAA would need to conduct a hazard determination,which would identify potential problems (flight hazards,electrical interference)and any necessary mitigation measures (marker balls,lighting). Project must comply with FAA navigation facilities standards. Potential Conflicts with Aircraft Use The Tesoro Route presents a particular hazard for low flying aircraft that frequent the area during inclement weather. Underground transmission lines would mitigate flight hazards near airports, float plane lakes.or beach strips,and avoid conflicts with planned expansion at Anchorage International Airport. Flying Crown Airstrip in Oceanview would be shut down:transmission line would create flving hazard. Recreation and Tourism Potter Marsh and Quartz Creek are heavily used for recreation. Project would alter the landscape and eliminate the wilderness values. Potential conflict with proposed Tony Knowles Coastal Trail.Current policy is to underground all transmission lines. Avoid impacts on Chugach State Park. Sixmile Creek drainage is sensitive because of recreational use. Avoid impacts on trails including Resurrection Trail. Can transmission line right-of-way be used for recreation trails? Would submarine routes affect sport fishing in Cook Inlet? Management Plans Conservation easement at mouth of Sixmile Creek. Project would require an amendment to the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. How would Chugach National Forest administration incorporate this Project into the updated Forest Plan? Right-of-way along Enstar route would be incompatible with the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Souther intertie Project EVAL 2-39 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHN1.SYS DATA PROJ 0923 009 Final CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue |Comments Received ®The 1992 recommendations in the Kenai Peninsula Borough Plan include: "Maintain scenic quality and unique and rural setting of Cooper Landing.” B To what extent would implementation of the proposed Project require additional efforts by land management staff (such as increased patrols for trespassers)? #Both New Seward Highway and Minnesota Drive are controlled access rights- of-way.which restrict the ability to construct or maintain the Project from the road. ®Land Water Conservation Funds have been used in Captain Cook State Recreation Area and Chugach State Park providing limitations to additional development within the park boundaries. 8 The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan is currently being revised and the municipal planning department anticipates that changes may directly relate to siting the proposed Project.A cooperative effort with the plan update should be considered. ™State tidelands and other lands managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources must comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Plan. @ The Municipality of Anchorage utility corridor plan is not designed for this type of project. Project must comply with the Kenai River Special Management Plan. i Watershed Management and Soil Erosion Potters Marsh is vulnerable to silt input from any construction in the vicinity. Minimize change to bluffs along Kenai River and the Cook Inlet coastline. Minimize right-of-way clearing requirements to the maximum extent possible. Visual Resources Residential and Recreational Viewsheds m=What would the proposed transmission line look like? @ Overhead lines along roadways within the Anchorage Bowl would adversely affect local neighborhoods. ®Visual impacts on residential areas need to be evaluated in terms of loss of property value and sense of place (specifically.Cooper Landing.Kenai,south Anchorage.Moose Point.Gray Cliffs.and Pt.Possession).Cooper Landing recently completed a community planning effort that identified preservation of aesthetics as a desired attribute. @ The proposed Project should avoid the KNWR due to the high scenic value. Design Considerations ®Recommend the use ofthe existing route to minimize aesthetic impacts. Possibly construct a new line and remove the old facilities. @ Project alternatives should include design elements that would eliminate or minimize adverse eftects on aesthetic qualities of the area.Suggest undergrounding the line when crossing visually sensitive areas. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-40 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHN1 SYS DATA:PROJ.09203.009 Final CHAPTER =dov TABLE 2-4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received Viewsheds from Travelways ®Visual impacts may affect residents and tourists who travel the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway,Sterling Highway.and Turnagain Pass,or who visit Summit Lake,Stormy Lake,Cooper Landing.Swan Lake,and Sixmile River (Quartz Creek route). ®Recommend undergrounding the lines through urban areas. ®Enstar seems to minimize disturbance and visual issues on the Peninsula. Wetlands ®Draft EIS should identify wetland types.acreage.and location,and assess wetland functions and values.All construction activities should avoid high resource wetlands A and B in Anchorage and wetlands in the KNWR to the maximum extent practicable. ®If wetlands cannot be avoided,implementation of Best Management Practices should be used to minimize effects.The draft EIS should include a discussion of the Best Management Practices. ®Additional clearing would have impacts on wetlands that are already compromised. Management ®Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)requires burial of transmission line through Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. @ ADF&G recommends boring underneath the vegetated portions of the refuge. ®Chickaloon Bay is a state critical habitat area. ®Is there a possibility of spruce bark beetle increase?| .Sensitive Species 8 |Biology =Avoid disturbance to sensitive wildlife species.including brown bear,lynx,| t wolf.trumpeter swan,and bald eagle. @ There is a high density of brown bears on the Chickaloon River. =Enstar route would disrupt critical brown bear habitat. ®Caribou wintering and calving grounds are along the Enstar route. @ Project would irretrievably alter the landscape reducing wildlife habitat (hydraulic alterations would impact wildlife and habitat). =Minimize adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat. ®Cumulative impacts on wildlife and habitat need to be addressed. =Proposed Project may improve some types of wildlife habitat Wildlife Habitat | t Waterfow! @ Effects on watertow!trom overhead lines should be mitigated. @ Chickaloon Bay ts a migration staging area. ®The EVAL and EIS should have a discussion on Potter Marsh waterfowl. | Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-41 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM _PHALESYS DATA PROJ 09203-0009 Final CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue |Comments Received Fisheries m Would fish be impacted by damaged submarine cables? ®Siltation as a result of construction would adversely impact fish Concerns Expressed bv Kenai Native Association ®Archaeological resources need to be addressed in the EIS. ®Areas surrounding Cooper Landing and Kenai River have high densities of cultural sites.. Cultural .Increased access may result in damage to unknown archaeological and9Resourceshistoricalproperties. =Native groups should be allowed to participate in survey work. |=Proposed Project may hamper traditional usage. ®Avoid disturbance to burial grounds at Pt.Possession. =Avoid use of Native lands for proposed project.specifically the Pt.Possession Native Group. i Use of Right-of-Way =The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has restricted access along most of their rights-of-way. w@ Expansion of Enstar Pipeline right-of-way conflicts with the KNWR |Comprehensive Conservation Plan. =Would public access be available along the right-of-way for the proposed |Project? |®Would an easement or right-of-way be required on adjoining properties for maintenance access? ®The proposed Project would increase the chance of trespassers because of the .150-foot right-of-way that would invite usage.10 |Right-of-W ay @ Can the right-of-way accommodate recreational trails?Limitations =yo.....@ Suggest consolidating right-of-way with other projects:comprehensive planning should be considered instead of piece-by-piece planning. i @ Use existing right-of-way,even if itmust be widened. Right-of-Wav Requirements @ Minimize right-of-way width. @ Would the right-of-way be 150 feet wide in residential areas and how would |that affect property owners? @ The only mitigation that should be required by the utilities for this action should be funds required to reclaim the land at the end of the Project. =Effects of EMF need to be addressed in the dratt EIS. ®Potential hazards ofthe transmission line include EMF negatively affecting nearby residents and systems in homes. ;|®Transmission lines and schools are not compatible due to the potential health tod Health and effects (along North Kenai Road). |Safety = i : 4 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-42 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal VDM_PHXESYS DATA PROJ .09203.009FinalCHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue |Comments Received Physical Hazards Can gas lines be located close to electrical transmission lines without danger of explosion or fire? Transmission lines should be buried to protect human safety. Falling lines can be a hazard to people or property. Request information on the magnitude of the electrical hazard to humans and wildlife and the effects of a spill from insulating oil. 12 ©Socioeconomics Utilitv Rates What effect would construction costs have on utility rates? Would the new line reduce the cost of power in the future? No individual should carry the burden for all rate payers. Would utility rates increase? What is the current and projected cost of electricity? Quality of Life Quality of life would suffer if the proposed Project is introduced into an area not currently used as a utility corridor. What impact would the Tesoro route have on people and how many would be affected by the Quartz Creek route? impacts on local communities should be considered. Project Cost Concerned with cost comparisons of options. Is the main difference in route costs associated with the submarine cables? How much (percentage-wise)would it cost to bury the route? Are submarine alternatives economically feasible? i Cost Benefit Analvsis Cost benefit analysis needs to be updated to reflect current market conditions. When would the benefits accrue? Where are the benefits coming from? How much tax paver money is going into this Project? Where ts the money coming from to fund this Project? Effect of the Proposed Project Would landowners directly affected by the right-of-way be compensated? Economic savings versus losses to Peninsula communities should be considered. Development What are the economic benefits to the communities in the Project area? What are the electrical benefits to the communities in the Project area and the Railbelt? Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-43 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal SDM_PHN!SYS\DATA PROS 09203 000 Final CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received Environmental Justice Consider environmental justice for the residents of the trailer park at Minnesota Drive and Dimond Boulevard. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 13 Alternatives to.a New Line Evaluate alternative means of constructing,operating.and maintaining transmission lines to minimize environmental impacts. The full range of reasonable and feasible alternatives should be evaluated, including energy conservation,local generation,system,fuel cells,wind generation.and transmission alternatives. System selected for final approval should be the most efficient.cost effective. and easiest to maintain and operate. More information needs to be presented in terms of why alternatives such as energy conservation are not feasible solutions to the proposed Project.The EVAL should also discuss which energy conservation measures were considered and why they were rejected,what could be done instead of building the intertie. Corridor should incorporate an access road along the coast (Tesoro alternative).There is potential to incorporate a causeway across Turnagain Arm. Avoid a submarine crossing from Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof by running a route along the north shore of the Kenai Peninsula to Chickaloon Bay,then cross Turnagain Arm to South Anchorage. Use existing transmission line corridor and tie into existing substations. Suggest removal of old 115kV and 69kV transmission lines,thus improving the aesthetic value of the area. Consider routing a submarine cable along Quartz Creek to Sixmile to Hope and across Turnagain Arm to Potter Marsh. Alternative Feasibility Route selection should be flexible to allow avoidance of sensitive areas. What options have been considered for various environmentally sensitive areas and avalanche zones? Rationale and criteria tor the elimination of alternatives should be documented and presented clearly in the EVAL and EIS. Altematives that do not increase reliable and efficient energy transfer (the purpose and need for the Project)should not be considered in the EVAL. Consider a range of alternative construction techniques to minimize environmental impacts (burying substantial portions of the route,using modified tower designs.etc.). Discourage use of existing Quartz Creek route because the same "natural menaces”would be doubled. Overhead and underground lines are more accessible and safer than submarine lines. Submarine crossings are not practical due to cost and engineering feasibility. If Project follows railroad.it should be placed underground. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-44 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM PHN!SYS DATA PROJ.09203.009Final CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-4 ISSUES IDENTIFIED Issue Comments Received ®Resolutions have been passed by Bayshore,Klatt,and Oceanview community councils against locating the Project within their communities. ®Routing should be different than current line and should have substations to provide local power. Procedure ®When would the precise alignment be available? B®Would an EIS be conducted on the proposed route only,or would the EIS consider a range of alternatives? @ Would USFWS and U.S.Forrest Service be cooperating agencies? ®Would a public meeting be conducted pursuant to issuance of the draft EIS? =How,when.and under whose direction would lands needed for right-of-way be acquired?How would private landowners be dealt with? #Proposed Project should be planned comprehensively to incorporate other project as applicable. @ The EIS should provide a discussion on the relationship of the Northern Intertie and Southern Intertie Projects and the anticipated operation of the completed network,and any impacts associated with the operation of the electrical network. NEPA Compliance ®A Notice of Intent must be submitted to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency for a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System at least two days prior to the start of any construction. @ Each construction activity must comply with the Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan. ®ADF&G should be fully involved in the NEPA process.Their comments would be the primary factor in selecting an alternative that would not affect the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. ®Utilize a proactive community outreach program to involve the general public |in the decision process. |B®The environmental and permitting process should be conducted concurrently. |Coordination with the Section 404 permit should also be considered. ®NEPA process must consider cumulative impacts and associated conflicts with the proposed Project. |®EIS should idenuty what jurisdictional agencies would be affected by | t | NEPA construction of the Project.The EIS also needs to discuss land use and who would be attected. @ Js the Community Working Group program a requirement under NEPA? @ NEPA study must consider all alternatives equally. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-45 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DS1_PHN1 SYS DATA PROS.09263 009 Final CHAPTER 2 aoc 2.3.7 GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT OF ISSUES The applicability and importance of the issues identified varies by region within the Project area. Issues related to purpose and need,and right-of-way limitations and restrictions are applicable to each project region. In Anchorage,the key issues reflect the urban setting and the Municipality of Anchorage's orientation towards recreation.tourism,and visual quality.Input from the Anchorage Community Working Group and Municipal Planning Departrnent emphasized the importance of visual quality to communities throughout the Municipality. The Chugach Mountains including Chugach State Park and Chugach National Forest present a wide range of issues.including rural land use.recreation,tourism,public land management. watershed management.visual resources.biology.cultural resources,and avalanche hazards.For example.views from the Seward Highway,a National Scenic Byway.forest recreation areas,and Cooper Landing have been identified as significant issues to the Project by the agencies and the Kenai Peninsula Community Working Group.Crossing Kenai Lake and the associated visual and possible watershed impacts also have been identified as key issues.The avalanche hazard associated with Chugach Mountains is a fundamental issue related to the purpose and need for the Project. Submarine cables crossing the Turnagain Arm encounter both environmental and engineering constraints within the marine environment.The environmental sensitivity of the coastal wetlands associated with the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge and Chickaloon Flats have been identified as a kev issue.Engineering issues include risk of failure and potential for embedment due to ocean currents and boulders.gravel.and trenches on the ocean floor. The key issues for the Kenai Lowlands are urban and rural land use.recreation and tourism, public land management.watershed management.visual resources.and biological resources.For example.existing and planned development in the Nikiski and Soldotna areas,recreation along the Kenai River.wildlife management in the KNWR.and views of the Aleutian and Alaskan ranges across Cook Inlet represent the broad range of public concerns.The geographic context of the issues provides a format for evaluating the effects of alternatives on a regional basis. 2.3.8 AGENCY AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP CONTACTS Agencies and organizations having jurisdiction and/or specific interest in the Project were contacted at the beginning of the process to intorm them about the Project.verify the status and availability of existing environmental data.request data and comments.and solicit their input about the Route Selection Study results.Additional contacts were made throughout the process Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-46 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM PHXI.SYS DATA PROJ 09263'009 Final CHAPTER 2 doc to clarify or update information.All conversations with agency personne]were documented. distributed to the appropriate project personnel.and are maintained in the Project files for reference.Specific concerns and recommendations were discussed and documented for further action.A list of the agencies and organizations contacted is provided in Table 2-5. TABLE 2-5 CONTACTS WITH AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Federal Agencies DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Chugach National Forest Seward Ranger District Glacier Ranger District Rural Utilities Service DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Marine Fisheries Service DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army-Fort Richardson Planning Department Environmental Resource Department U.S.Army Corps of Engineers - Alaska District U.S.Coast Guard DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Realty Kenai National Wildlife Refuge U.S.Geological Survey Water Resources ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region X FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Air Traffic Division State Agencies ALASKA Department of Commerce Alaska Railroad Corporation Department of Community and Regional Affairs Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Fish &Game Department of Labor Department of Natural Resources Land Resource Assessment &Development Section Parks &Outdoor Recreation Chugach Strate Park Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Anchorage International Airport Planning Department Planning Division Office of the Governor State Senate Local Agencies CITY OF KENAI Kenai Community Library CITY OF SOLDOTNA City Manager's Office Public Works Soldotna Public Library Local Agencies (continued) KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH Cooper Landing Public Library Kenai School District MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Anchorage School District Beautification Task Force Community Planning &Development Federation of Community Councils Abbott Loop Bavshore/Klatt Campbell Park Eagle River Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 DM_PHATSYS DATA PROJ 09203 009 Final-CHAPTER =doc J'BanChapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-5 CONTACTS WITH AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Planning Department Huffman/O'Malley Old Seward/Oceanview Rabbit Creek Sand Lake Taku/Campbell Tumagain University Area Girdwood Board of Supervisors Mayor's Office Office of Fiscal Budget Management Parks &Recreation Transportation Planning Department Turnagain Arm Board of Supervisors ZJ Loussac Public Library POSTMASTER Cooper Landing,Chugiak.Eagle River,Hope,Kenai, Nikiski.Soldotna.Sterling.Tvonek Nati ve Agencies Alexander Creek.Inc. Caswell Native Association Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Association.Inc. Chugachmiut Cook Inlet Region,Inc. Eklutna.Inc. Endi'ina Ya Ida'ina Committee Kenai Natives Association.Inc. Kenaitze Indian Tribe,IRA Knikatmu,Inc. Native Village of Tyonek Ninilchik Native Association,Inc. Pt.Possession Inc. Salamatof Native Association,Inc. Seldovia Native Association,Inc. Tvonek Native Corporation Organizations Alaska Airmen's Association Inc. Alaska TREES Inc. Alcan Electrical &Engineering Anchorage Economic Development Corporation ARCO Alaska Inc. Arktos Associates BP Exploration Capital Resource Associates Carr-Gotstein Properties Civil Air Patrol Cultural Resource Consultants D'Ewart Representatives Dvnamic Properties Empire North.Inc. ERA-North Kenai Era Aviation,Inc. First National Bank of Anchorage John P.Bagoy &Associates.Inc. Kenai Merit Inn Kenai Princess Lodge Kenai River Sportfishing.Inc. Kenai Visitors &Convention Bureau.Inc. Knik Canoers &Kavakers.Inc. Lang Consulting Legislative Research Agency Marathon Oil Company National Bank of Alaska Norcon,Inc. Peninsula Clarion Phillips Petroleum Company R.A.Kreig &Associates REMAXof the Peninsula Seward Animal Clinic Shell Western E&P Inc. Tesoro Alaska Refinery UNOCAL Oii &Gas Operations Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 "DM_PHXI SYS DATA PROJ 09203-0099 Final CHAPTER 2 doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-5 CONTACTS WITH AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Special Interest Groups Alaska Association of Realtors Alaska Center for the Environment Alaska Citizens for Responsible Energy Dev. Alaska Conservation Foundation Alaska Federal Credit Union Alaska Marine Pilots Association Alaska Rainforest Campaign Alaska Sportfishing Association Alaska Visitors Association Alaska Wildland Adventures Alaska Wildlife Alliance Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation American Legion Post 20 Amvets Post No.4 Anchorage Audubon Society Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Associated General Contractors of Alaska Chugach State Park Advisory Board Commercial Fisherman's Association Cook Iniet Keeper Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council Cooper Landing Fish &Game Advisory Committee Cooper Landing Land Advisory Committee David Rhode Photography Eastern Kenai Peninsula Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental Action Association Flying Crown Homeowners Association Fraternal Order of the Eagles Friends of Cooper Landing Greenpeace , HEREL.Local 878 Hillside Area Land Owners Homer Chamber of Commerce Institute tor Policy Research Kachemak Bay Conservation Society Kachemak Resource Institute Kenai Chamber of Commerce Kenai Elks Lodge No.2425 Kenai Peninsula Builders Association Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association Kenai Peninsula Outdoor Coalition Kenai Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council Kenai Senior Citizens Center King Salmon Fund Kenai River Watershed Forum League of Women Voters Moose Lodge Peninsula National Audubon Society National Electrical Contractors Association National Parks &Conservation Association National Wildlife Federation Nikiski Senior Center North Peninsula Chamber of Commerce North Peninsula Recreation Department Regional Citizens Advisory Council Ron's AK Lodge Seward Chamber of Commerce Sierra Club Soldomma Chamber of Commerce Soldoma Elks Lodge No.2706 Soldoma Senior Citizens Center Southpark Homeowners Association Southwest Pilots Association Sterling Senior Citizens Center The Nature Conservancy The Wildermess Society Trailside Discovery Camp Trout Unlimited Trustees for Alaska United Cook Inlet Drift Association VFW Post No.10046 Wildlife Federation of Alaska Utilities Alaska Rural Electric Co-Op Association Anchorage Municipal Light &Power Chuyach Electric Association City Electric.Inc. Homer Electric Association,Inc. Redi Electric.Inc. Souther Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal DM PHXISYS DATA PROJ 09203 009 Final CHAPTER 2 doc 2.3.9 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Community participation has been conducted throughout the Project in order to identify and respond to specific issues of concern expressed by the agencies,public,and communities in the Project area.As part of the community participation,two community working groups (CWGs) were assembled.one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage,to address the issues. The CWGs provide an opportunity to incorporate local and community concerns into the EVAL/EIS process. The CWGs consist of residents.property owners,realtors,municipal and borough government. special-interest groups.representatives from community councils,area school districts,and Native American groups (Table 2-6).Throughout the planning process the CWGs have reviewed information presented in group meetings.The CWGs'knowledge of localized issues and concerns were important in identifying alternatives to be evaluated for detailed environmental studies.The CWGs have met five times at key milestones during the process and received detailed presentations on the purpose and need for the Project,description of the Project,siting criteria.baseline inventory studies.the planning approach for the impact assessment process and mitigation measures.and the process for screening alternative routes.Each of the five meetings were held in both Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula. Topics at the first CWG meetings in January 1997 included introductions.EVAL approach and preparation tasks.federal agency roles and decision process.and purpose and need for the Project.Each CWG member was given a project notebook with background information and materials about the Project. TABLE 2-6 CWG REPRESENTATION Kenai CWG |Anchorage CWG Kenai Peninsula Borough Municipality of Anchorage.Community Planning &Development Kenai Natives Association Municipality of Anchorage.Division of Parks and Recreation Salamatof Native Association Anchorage area residents Kenaitze Indian Tribe Anchorage Schoo!District Kenai School District Abbott Loop Community Council Soldotna Chamber of Commerce BayshoreKlatt Community Council Friends of Cooper Landing Girdwood Supervisory Board Alaska Association of Realtors Hillside Area Land Owners Old Seward Oceanview Community Council Rabbit Creek Community Council Taku 'Campbell Community Council Turnagain Community Council Alaska Center tor the Environment Chugach State Park Advisory Board Alaska Association of Realtors Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-50 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHNESYS DATA PROJ.09203 009 FinalCHAPTER 2 gov Topics at the second meetings in March 1997 included additional descriptions of the purpose and need,Project facilities.and the impact assessment process.CWG members were asked for input on transmission line siting criteria and to identify any specific land use or visual concerns with the alternative corridors.Sensitivity criteria as it dealt with resource values,protective status. present/future uses,and hazards were all discussed as part of the siting criteria. Topics at the third meetings in April 1997 included an update on baseline studies and issues to be addressed in the EVAL and the impact assessment approach and findings.Types and significance of impacts were discussed and sensitivity criteria changes!based on CWG comments were reviewed for land use.visual.and biological resources.A list of alternative routes for analysis was provided along with the opportunity to record comments about each route segment.A slide show reviewed the alternative routes and resource personnel and CWG members discussed the land use.visual.and biological concerns of each route.The Kenai CWG identified the Tesoro route as preferred because of the opportunity to avoid the Kenai River,lake-front residential properties near Nikiski and Soldotna.Cooper Landing.and the Seward Highway.The Anchorage CWG reinforced the preference for Pt.Woronzof as the preferred alternative in the Anchorage area.and stressed the sensitivity of overhead lines in residential areas. The fourth CWG meetings in July 1997 provided an update on Project status and identified that RUS.USFWS.and Forest Service had signed the Memorandum of Understanding.It was noted that Dames &Moore and Power Engineers would be preparing the Applicant's EVAL and that a third-party contractor would assist RUS in preparing the EIS.The alternative route screening process and criteria were reviewed and a detailed description of routes to be eliminated from further analysis was covered.A presentation on the types of facilities for the Project was provided and included tower designs.necessary substation modifications.and transition station descriptions.The opportunity for commenting on routes to be eliminated was provided.Both the Kenai and Anchorage CWGs agreed with the recommendation to eliminate the Quartz Creek transmission route.alternative routes east of Nikiski.alternative routes along New Seward Highway.and Old Seward Highway south of the Rabbit Creek Interchange. The fifth CWG meetings held during September and October of 1997 focused on the confirmation of issues to be addressed in the EVAL.Impact maps for various resources under study were presented.and a general comparison of alternative routes was conducted.In addition to Dames &Moore and Power Engineers.representatives from RUS,USFWS,and Mangi Environmental (the third-party contractor)were present to answer questions and discuss the future process.The issues identified during the scoping period (discussed in Section 2.3.6)also were presented. A presentation of resource impact maps depicting levels of initial environmental impact for each resource studied was conducted to allow the CWG members to review the results and provide specific comments.The predicted impacts illustrated on the maps provided the basis for an initial Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-51 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHNI SYS DATA PROJ 09203 006 Final CHAPTER 2 aoc comparison of alternative routes.The opportunity for commenting on the comparison and subsequent ranking of alternatives was provided.The Kenai CWG discussed trade-offs between the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives,while the Anchorage CWG focused on ranking the alternatives in Anchorage.The Anchorage CWG agreed that the best location for the submarine cable landfall was at Pt.Woronzof,followed by Pt.Campbell,with the other three locations-Victor Road,Oceanview,and Rabbit Creek-being less desirable due to land use and visual resource conflicts. Table 2-7 lists the issues from each meeting. TABLE 2-7 ISSUES RAISED BY CWG MEMBERS Meeting Topics Kenai CWG Anchorage CWG Meeting #1 -Purpose and need.=effects on archaeological sites @ =purpose and need questions project description ®utilization of existing line @ influences on utility rates =needs in the future @ =reliability of lines m=reliability questions -@ generation options ws alternative technologies ®costs and efficiency available =costs and efficiency Meeting =2 -Purpose and need.=cost of power to Railbelt @ project description,facilities impact assessment process.consumers ®impacts on wetlands sensitivity criteria ®residential conflicts =impacts on waterfowl @ right-of-way requirements @ resource sensitivitv @ EMF effects Meeting =5 -Assessment process,=watershed impacts =right-of-way requirements types and significance of impacts.®=right-of-wav requirements S impacts on scenic views alternative routes =effects on fire management ®overhead versus underground plans lines =property values 8 erosion potential @ impacts on fisheries =compatibility with management ®impacts on future land uses plan ®@ engineering and reliability of ®cumulative impacts line through avalanche zones =identified Pt.Woronozof ®=impacts on scenic highwav Alternative as thé group's @ impacts on conveyed Native preference lands m identified the Tesoro Alternative as the group's preference Meeting #4 -Alternative route @ public input tor EIS @ qualifications of third-party screening process ®qualifications of third-party contractor contractor ®right-of-way requirements ®access and mitigation ®vegetation removal @ right-of-way requirements ®federal decision process Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 DM_PHXI'SYS DAT A PROFS 99203:009 Final CHAPTER 2 go: Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-7 ISSUES RAISED BY CWG MEMBERS Meeting Topics Kenai CWG Anchorage CWG Meeting #5 -Alternative route @ jand use impacts along Kenai @ status of cost benefit study comparison coastline m identification of preferred @ brown bear impacts on the landfall points in Anchorage KNWR @ federal decision process =impacts on views along north ®requested incorporation of Kenai Spur Highway CWG input to EIS =compliance with the National * Historic Preservation Act 2.3.10 ACCESS TO INFORMATION The project area encompasses a large geographic region within which are the private allotments and conveved lands of American Indian groups.Considering the magnitude of the Project.it is important that information reach and be understood by people residing throughout the Project area for the Applicant's Proposal to be accepted. In order to encourage public partnerships and communication with the low-income and minority populations in the Project area.the public involvement program was designed to be comprehensive.and to respect and incorporate the different socio-cultural perspectives into the environmental analysis criteria.Specifically.the program involved the following: ®holding numerous additional meetings to accommodate dispersed populations in remote areas ®involving appropriate Native Corporations in planning.implementing.and reviewing environmental studies ®working to ensure that graphic displays were understandable across different cultures ®distributing informational materials throughout the Project Throughout the Project.numerous presentations were made at CWG,Native Corporation,and cultural preservation group meetings.Visual displays prepared for meetings were specifically designed to consider the cultural differences of the audiences and issues previously expressed. Although the process was carefully planned at the beginning of the Project,each step of the process was preceded by critical assessment to increase the Project team's awareness and sensitivity.promote continued responsiveness.and improve methods and _techniques. Cooperating agencies provided regular input to the process and Project progress was reviewed at Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-53 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM_PHXAESYS DATA PROJ09203.009 Final CHAPTER 2 gov periodic interagency meetings.Generally,this interaction focused on developing criteria. identifying and eliminating alternatives,and reviewing technical and environmental data.as well as the preferred alternatives.This planning process provided opportunities for public participation in and access to information on health and the environment as it relates to the Project.Serious attention to all public comments enhanced the outcome of the process. 2.3.11 NATIVE AMERICAN,INDIGENOUS,AND TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT Each of the five American Indian groups that potentially would be traversed by the Project's alternative routes-Cook Inlet Regional Corporation.Pt.Possession Group,Salamatof Native Association.Tyonek Native Corporation,and Kenai Native Association-were invited to participate in these studies by communicating their concerns and knowledge of traditional cultural places.The Kenai Native Association,Salamatof Native Association,and Kenaitze Indian Tribe are all participating members of the Kenai CWG. 2.3.12 FORMAL CONSULTATION Consultation that has occurred for biological and cultural resources is described below. Biological Resources To comply with the Endangered Species Act.as amended.and the implementing regulations for Section 7 consultation.USFWS offices in Anchorage and Soldotna were contacted initially in the fall of 1995.For the Project area.each of these offices provided information on endangered and threatened species.species proposed for listing as endangered and threatened.and species that are candidates for listing.This information was incorporated into the biological resources study for the EVAL. Letters requesting a list of threatened.endangered.or proposed species under the Endangered Species Act and any concerns related to such species were sent to the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)on January 28.1999 and March 22,1999,respectively.The February 23,1999 reply from the USFWS indicated that the endangered American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)and the delisted Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus nindrius)occur in the project area.The April 8.1999 letter from the NMFS indicated that the beluga whale is presently listed as a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act,and provided information specific to the beluga whale population of Cook Inlet. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-54 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal -DM_PHX1-SYS DATA PROJ.09203.009 Final CHAPTER 2 doc Cultural Resources Numerous agencies and organizations were consulted about cultural resources during preparation of this EVAL.These contacts were made in compliance with the requirements of NEPA,and also to initiate formal consultations required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.The purpose of the consultations were to solicit expressions of concer,collect relevant data.and obtain reviews of the analysis of the collected information.The most intensive consultations were with cultural resource specialists of the agencies including the Forest Service. USFWS.and state agencies.: Members of the Cook Inlet Regional Cooperation were contacted through letters,telephone calls, and meetings.including the Pt.Possession.Salamatof,Tyonek,and Kenai Native Association groups. 2.4 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE COMPARISONS This section provides a comparison of impacts for the Project alternatives that are associated with the Applicant's Proposal.These alternatives include several routes for electric transmission line facilities between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage that have been retained for detailed study as discussed in the previous Applicant's Proposal section. Included in this section are the objectives of the environmental analysis (EVAL)approach,a description of alternative routes.and the environmental comparison of alternatives.Selected photographs of the alternative routes are provided in Chapter 3 as Figures 3-3 through 3-6,and supporting information for the approach and environmental comparison are provided in Chapter 4. 2.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH The purpose of the EVAL is to serve as the basis for the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).The tasks for the EVAL and EIS are illustrated on Figure 2-8,Project Approach. The EVAL approach for the Project follows the Department of Agriculture.Rural Electrification Administration (now Rural Utilities Service [RUS]).Environmental Policies and Procedures (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]Part 1794)of March 13,1984.These regulations were established to comply with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).A Memorandum of Understanding that identifies RUS as the lead federal agency; Southem Intertie Project EVAL 2-55 Chapter 2 -Alternatives including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM.PHNE SYS DATA PROS 09203 009 Final CHAPTER 2 dox SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (EVAL) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)PREPARATION SCOPING TASKS INVENTORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DRAFT EIS FINAL EIS MITIGATION PLANNING SELECTION ANALYSIS REPORT (EVAL) +Kick-off meeting (agencies)*Attend agency presentation,+Review and approve IA/MP +Review and approve »Review and comment *Respond to comments +Attend ID team meeting¢Review preparation plan criteria selection criteria¢Notice of Intent *Conduct agency scoping *Develop interdisciplinary agency (ID team)and CWG meetings ¢Conduct public scoping «Field review of alternatives *Agency meeting to finalize alternatives ¢Review and approve fact sheet/newsletter ¢Provide mailing list ID team,and CWG meetings ¢Provide data ¢Review and approve technical report «Review and approve mailing list ¢Review and approve preliminary results ¢Attend ID team and CWG meetings «Review and approve technical report ¢Select agency preferred route ¢Review and approve newsletter *Develop overall selection criteria Select environmentallypreferredalternative ¢Select preferred alternative *Attend ID team and CWG meetings ¢Review preliminary DEIS «Respond to comments *Attend ID team meetings ¢Review preliminary FEIS «Prepare DEIS ¢Prepare FEIS ¢Provide lead agency signature Provide lead agency signature *File with EPA File with EPA «Conduct public hearings ¢Review and approve newsletters «Prepare Record of Decision Notice «Review alternatives *Attend ID team and CWG «Finalize project description «Identify preliminary «Provide technical suppport +Attend ID team meetings «Respond to comments¢Determine system requirements meetings ¢Estimate project cost preferred route *Attend public hearings «Attend ID team meetings*Develop project description *Develop constraint data for +Determine construction/operation *Review criteria and results *Review PDEIS ¢Attend scoping meetings alternatives maintenance requirements ¢Attend public open houses,and «Review DEIS *Develop purpose and need ¢Review preliminary mitigation ID team and CWG meetingsstatementcriteria*File ANILCA Application*Review preliminary assessment and mitigation plan «Attend ID team and CWG meetings *Develop base map *Inventory of alternatives ¢Develop project *Develop environmental ¢Prepare Draft EVAL a *Prepare PDEIS «Respond to comments«Order photography «Conduct field review/description/ocation selection criteria *Finalize EVAL /\-Prepare DEIS ¢Prepare preliminary FEIS¢Attend public/agency agency contacts for verification ¢Develop methodology and criteria «Identify environmentally *Print DEIS *Print FEIS scoping meetings «Data management ¢Conduct preliminary assessment preferred alternative *Distribute DEIS _¢Distribute FEIS -prepare materials/develop ¢Documentation and mitigation planning ¢Documentation +Attend federal hearings mailing list *Finalize results -prepare issues report (documentation) ¢Prepare scoping report ¢Finalize alternatives field review (as required) -finalize alternatives and interagency meeting *Develop preparation plan «Prepare purpose and need statement «Documentation «Prepare ANILCA Application ¢Key informant interviews *Develop mailing list *Prepare fact sheet/newsletters *Establish ID team/meeting¢Coordinate public/ agency scoping meetings *Agency contacts *Establish CWG (Anchorage and Kenai) «Scoping meetings «Agency contacts «ID team meeting *CWG meeting «ID team meetings *CWG meeting «Agency contacts ¢Newsletter «ID team meetings *CWG meeting ¢Open houses ¢ID team meetings *Newsletter ¢Federal hearings *Agency review and comment on EVAL «ID team meetings «Newsletter «Public/agency review of FEIS «Public/agency review of DEIS PROJECT APPROACH SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 2-8 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),and U.S.Forest Service as cooperating agencies:and the Intertie Participants Group (IPG)as the Applicant was signed on July 25,1997.Chugach Electric Association is designated as the Construction Manager for the IPG. The study approach specifically follows Subpart F -Procedure for Proposals normally Requiring an EIS (1794.50-1794.55).Requirements for scoping (40 CFR 1501.7)were met by publishing a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on October 9,1996.Scoping meetings were held on November 12.13.and 14,1996 in Anchorage.Cooper Landing.and Soldotna.respectively.Prior to scoping.IPG's consultants Power Engineers.Inc.and Dames &Moore prepared an alternative evaluation and siting study for the Project (Southern Intertie Route Selection Study 1996). Inventory The objectives of the resource inventories are to develop a database of environmental resources within the alternative study corridors in sufficient detail to (1)prepare the affected environment section of the EVAL and the EIS,and (2)provide the basis to assess the potential impacts that may result from the construction.operation.maintenance,and abandonment of the proposed transmission line.Information gathered during the Southern Intertie Project Phase 1 Route Selection Environmental Study was incorporated into the inventory and refined through current (1996a)aerial photography,field verification (as appropriate),additional research.agency contacts.and public input. The environmental resources studied for this Project include the following: m=earth.water.and marine resources B socioeconomics B®biological resources m subsistence =land use ®visual resources ™recreation ®cultural resources Impact Assessment And Mitigation Planning The objectives of the impact assessment and mitigation planning process are to (1)conduct a systematic analysis to determine the potential impacts of the Project on the environment. (2)determine appropriate mitigation.(3)provide a basis to compare alternatives,and (4)develop information for the environmental consequences chapter of the EVAL and EIS.The process described in the following sections is illustrated on Figure 2-9. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-57 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal "DM _PHXESYS DATA PROJ09203-000-Final CHAPTER 2 doc Impact Assessment Impact assessment and mitigation planning requires a complete understanding of the Applicant's Proposal to determine the types of disturbance that could occur;that is.the design and typical specifications of the Project facilities,construction techniques and equipment used,extent of construction,requirements for operation of the transmission line,activities associated with routine maintenance,and activities associated with abandonment if or when the facilities are no longer needed. Given an understanding of the Project description (Chapter 2)and the inventoried information reflecting the existing environment (Chapter 3).each resource specialist determined the types and levels of impact that could occur in their respective area of resource investigation.Analysis developed (1)an estimate of the level of disturbance that could result from construction activities.and (2)the impacts of the Project on resources.Qualitative and quantitative variables of resource sensitivity.resource quantity.and impact duration were considered in predicting the magnitude of impacts.which are described generally as significant,potentially significant and not significant.The impact levels are defined as follows: Significant:assigned to those categories where the Applicant's Proposal is expected to result in substantial change to the resource.or where sensitivity is moderate and there are no existing linear features Potentially Significant:assigned to those categories where the Applicant's Proposal may cause some adverse substantial change or where resource sensitivity is minimum.but new access would be required and there are no existing linear features Not Significant:assigned to those categories where sensitivity is minimum (excluding the above) Impacts can be beneficial (positive)or adverse (negative),and may be directly or indirectly. Impacts can be permanent.long lasting (long term)or temporary (short term).Long-term impacts are defined as those that would substantially remain for the life of the Project or bevond.Short- term impacts are defined as those changes to the environment during construction that generally would revert to pre-construction condition at or within a few years of the end of construction. Impacts can vary in significance from no change or only slightly discernible change,to a full modification of the environment.Significance of impacts will be established based on the context and intensity of the anticipated change as defined in NEPA (40 CFR 1508.27). Definitions of significance are included in Chapter 4. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-58 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM PHA SYS DATA PROS.G9263'009FinalCHAPTER =ao. Hee eeesetescenemeepste- y[Proposed |r Affected ': 'PC ty :Environmental Consequences;Action {|_Environment RESOURCE SENSITIVITY PROJECT EXISTING CRITERIA DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL .an ;Determine the sensitivity¢Design .¢Natural Environment of environmental resources *Construction -Ai :to changes associated with MITIGATIONirqualityhdprojClimatetheproposedproject.ASSESSMENT ACCESS ROADS GENERICALLY COMMITTED MITIGATION + Marine environment Biological resources Geological hazards Avalanche hazards *Human Environment Land use Recreation resources Socioeconomics Visual resources Subsistence uses Cultural Environment History Archaeology Native American L IMPACT TYPES Determine how the proposed action would specifically affect the environment. Determine whether mitigation is warranted. Identify key areas where data refinement is needed to recommend mitigation. RE NO YES IMPACT LOCATIONS Determine where the proposed action would specifically affect the environment. L INITIAL IMPACTS Apply impact criteria and determine degree to which environment would be affected. 'r Alternative MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend selective mitigation measure(s)and describe effectiveness. L RESIDUAL IMPACTS -PRELIMINARY- Reassess impacts and determine impact level after recommended mitigation is applied. L SELECTIVELY COMMITTED MITIGATION Review and selectively commit to recommended mitigation. NE RESIDUAL IMPACT -FINAL - Assess final residual impact level and determine any unavoidable significant adverse impacts remaining after committed mitigation is applied. Comparison SCREEN AND COMPARE ALTERNATIVES ¢Impact types ¢Significance ¢Mitigation AS IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 2-9 An assessment of cumulative impacts on the environment in the vicinity of the alternative routes addresses the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.Cumulative impacts are presented for each individual environmental topic in Chapter 4.and summarized in Section 4.12. Impacts were assessed based on (1)estimate the level of disturbance that could result from construction activities and (2)assess the potential environmental impacts from construction. operation.and maintenance of the proposed Project.The results have been documented on maps and in text and tables that specifically illustrate the locations and magnitudes of potential resource impacts along alternative routes.The results of the impact assessment and mitigation planning is summarized by resource for each alternative. Mitigation Planning Two types of mitigation were considered-generic and selective.Generic mitigation includes those measures that the Project proponent commits to undertake on a "generic”or nonspecific basis as part of the Project plan.The effectiveness of these measures have been incorporated into the initial impact levels.Selective mitigation has been on a case-by-case or "selective”basis after initial impacts are identified.The impacts remaining after assigning mitigation are referred to as "residual”impacts. Alternatives Comparison And Ranking The objectives of the alternatives comparison process for the EVAL are to (1)present the environmental impacts of the alternatives in a format that defines the issues and provides a clear basis for choice among options.(2)identify preferences by resource category.and (3)provide the basis for the environmental ranking in the EIS. The comparison of alternatives is centered around (1)types.quantities,and significance of impacts and mitigation.and (2)route preferences by resource. The concept of characterizing impacts and their potential significance is central to the assessment of alternatives.The purpose is to assign general impact levels to segments or routes to distinguish the magnitude of potential impacts.The basis for characterizing impacts includes a combination of(1)baseline data:(2)residual impacts (after mitigation)assigned to each separate resource theme:and (3)key issues identified through scoping.agency comments,and the environmental studies.The combination of these data have been synthesized into general levels of potential impact significance. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-60 Chapter 2 -Alternatives including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DM.PHXI-SYS DATA PROJ.09263.009-FinalCHAPTER 2 doc The analysis process has been conducted with input from Community Working Groups on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage.and the agencies.As a result of the analysis of alternatives. an environmentally preferred alternative will be identified in the EIS.The Applicant's Proposal which incorporates considerations for environmental,feasibility/cost and public/agency factors also is included in the EVAL. 2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES For purposes of the comparative analysis of alternatives presented in the next section of this chapter.Enstar and Tesoro alternative routes have been organized into 26 segments (A-Z)within the three regions-Kenai Lowlands.Turnagain Arm.and Anchorage.Table 2-8 provides a list of each alternative route within the three regions as they are presented in Chapter 3 for purposes of describing the affected environment.In Chapter 4,the environmental consequences of each route option (A-Z)are described.Refer to Figure 2-4 for illustrations of each of the 26 route segment locations. TABLE 2-8 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS Tesoro Alternative 7 Kenai Lowlands Region Bernice Lake through Captain Cook SRA (Links T1.1.T}.2,T1.3.T1.4,T2.1/Route Option A) Captain Cook SRA to Pt.Possession (Links T3.1.T3.2.T5.1.T5.2/Route Option A) 5 Turnagain Arm Region Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2.T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzofvia Fire Island (Links M1.1.T4.1,T4.2.T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof submarine (Link M2.4'Route Option G) Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) 5 Anchorage Area .Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW'1.}Route Option M) Enstar Alternative 2 Kenai Lowlands Region Northern Soldotna Alternative (Links S1.1.$1.2.$1.3,E].1/Route Option B) Southerm Soldotna alternative (Links S2.1.$1.5,E1.2.'Route Option C) Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3.E2.1,M5.1/Route Options B.C) Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-61 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal ¥DM_PHX1 SYS DATA PROF 09203 006 Final CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-8 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS Enstar Alternative (continued) 7 Turnagain Arm Region Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I) Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J) Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K) Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) 7 Anchorage Area Alternatives .Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road Alternatives (Links 14.2,14.3,14.4,I15.5/Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V, Z); Alaska Railroad Alternatives (Links 12.5,12.8 12.6,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y, Z) Old Seward Highway/Intemational Road Alternatives (Links 12.4,12.8 12.7,15.6,16.1,I5.7,15.3/Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) Klatt Road Alternatives Klatt to Minnesota (Links M3.2,13.1,[3.2/Route Option N) Klatt to Minnesota #2 (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4/Route Option O) Klatt to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.3/Route Option P) 2.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Approach The comparison of alternative routes shown in Tables 2-9A,2-9B,and 2-9C (beginning on page 2-68)and illustrated on Figure 2-4 has been organized into the following sets of local comparisons: ™Kenai Lowlands -Local comparison of Route Option B North versus B South -Route Option A versus B versus C =Turnagain Arm -Route Option D versus E versus F versus G versus H -Route Option I versus J versus K versus L m™Anchorage Area -Route Option N versus O versus P -Route Option Q versus R versus S versus T Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-62 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal F \DATA\PROJ09203\009'\Final\CHAPTER 2.doc -Route Option U versus V versus W versus X versus Y versus Z =Final comparison of Anchorage Alternatives -Route Option F or G versus M versus P versus Q versus Y The process of comparing these sets of alternatives involved the following steps: ™organizing the Project description into each type of facility required for each route option (Table 4-1,Chapter 4) ™organizing the results of the inventory of resources described in the affected environment, Chapter 3 for each route option (Tables 2-9A,2-9B,and 2-9C) ™quantifying the acreages of right-of-way and construction-related disturbance for each route option (Table 2-10) ™summarizing mitigation measures (Tables 4-2,4-3,and 4-4,Chapter 4) =compiling an impact assessment summary of the environmental resources for the Project facilities associated with each route option,including an overall environmental impact and hazard characterization of each alternative,along with community and agency input (Table 4-5,Chapter 4) ™ranking alternatives for environmental resource preferences within the Kenai Lowlands, Turnagain Arm,and Anchorage areas,based on the impact assessment summaries, individual preferences by resource type,community working group preferences,and NEPA criteria defining significance (40 CFR 1508.27) DESCRIPTION OF TABLE 2-9A-C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON The following tables,2-9A through 2-9C,Alternative Route Option Comparison,provides a comparative summary of the resources and resource impacts discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 for each route option.The table is organized by geographic region,with the route options,lettered A through Z,beginning in the south and progressing northward.For each of the three regions covered by this report,two levels of information are presented.First are detailed summaries of the resources,impacts on those resources,and mitigation measures,as well as designations of the potential impact levels,and comparisons of routes by resource.The Applicant's proposed alternative (the Enstar route,including Route Options B South,C,J and Q)is highlighted within each region.These are followed by one-page summaries of the route preferences and impact level designations,so that the reader can see the comparisons for each region at one time.Also Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-63 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal F \DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2.doc provided on a separate page are the Anchorage community working group's route option preferences for the Anchorage area. It should be noted that two types of preferences are shown in this table.The principal resource investigators that were a part of this Project's interdisciplinary study team established the route option/resource preferences noted above.The second are the preferences of the community working groups on the "Land Use”and the "Anchorage Selected Route Preferences”sections of the table.These both are separate from the environmental preference to be determined by the lead and federal agencies in the environmental impact statement process. Three Geographic Regions The table contains a section for each of the following three geographic regions covered by this report: =Kenai Lowlands =TurnagainArm ®Anchorage Bowl The Kenai Lowlands is the southernmost region and so the route option lettering starts there and progresses northward. Resources,Impacts,and Mitigation For each of these regions.the table is further divided into five sections-four separately titled sections with individual resource columns (listed across the tops of the pages)as follows, followed by a one-page summary for that geographic region. 1.Geology and Vegetation m™Geologic.Water and Marine Resources m=Vegetation and Aquatic Resources -Wetland Vegetation -Upland Vegetation 2.Wildlife Selected Resources @ Anadromous Fish -Birds -Large Mammals -Predators Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-64 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal vDM_PHNESYS DATA PROJ.09203 .009.F inal CHAPTER 2 doc -Marine mammals -Threatened and Endangered Species 3.Land Use' =Linear Features (length crossed) @ Jurisdiction (length crossed) m Existing and Future Land Use m=Recreation =Summary of Community Working Group Issues and Agency Comments 4.Socioeconomic.Subsistence,Cultural and Visual =Socioeconomic @ Subsistence =Cultural Resources =Visual Resources -Landscape Scenery -Residential and Recreation Views -Travel Way Views -Summary of Visual Impacts and Mitigation Along the left hand side of the pages are found the route option (A through Z)with the links that make up that route.the route's path and whether it is along the Tesoro or Enstar route,and that option's length.The descriptions of the route options provided assume a southern starting point. The route options are divided into groups for comparison.The route options within a group generally have a common starting or ending point.or other reason they are grouped together. indicated below.These groups are indicated in the table by a double horizontal line and a dashed line separates each route option.These groups are explained further below. For each resource within a route option.the table may provide an inventory,impacts.mitigation. and a determination of the impact level once mitigated.The impact level may be significant. potentially significant.or non-significant.These levels are defined in Section 2.4.1 of this report. The impact level was determined by the Project team's principal resource investigator. A numerical ranking by preference is provided at the bottom of each cell.These also were provided by the Project team's principal resource investigator.This "preference”ranks the route options for that resource only.and compares only that group of route options.For example,in the Anchorage Bowl.Route Option N is compared only to Route Options O and P,while Route Options Q.R.S.and T are compared to each other.O is not compared to Q,R.S,or T.(If more than one route option has the same preference number.it indicates that those routes are tied for that resource comparison.)Conclusions regarding overall environmental preferences are not Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-65 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHX1 SYS DATA PROJ 09203:009-Final CHAPTER =doc reached.Rather,the purpose of this level of comparison is to provide the basis for the comparison to be completed in the environmental impact statement. Kenai Lowlands Route Options In the Kenai Lowlands,there are two groups of route options.The first contains Route Options A.B North/C,and B South/C.Route Options B North/C and B South/C both start at Soldotna in the southern part of the Kenai Peninsula and travel north along the Enstar route to Pt. Woronzof/International.while Route Option A starts at Bernice Lake and travels north to Pt. Possession along the Tesoro route.These.however,are compared because they are the two alternate paths from the Kenai Peninsula to the Turnagain Arm. The second group contains Route Options B North and B South.These are the two alternate southern Soldotna options. Information is provided for Route Option C.but it is not compared to any other options as it is not a stand-alone route.It is used only as a part of either Route Option B North/C or B South/C. Turnagain Arm Route Options In the Turnagain Arm.there are also two groups of route options.The first group contains five route options:D.F.G.and H.These options.following the Tesoro route.all link to Route Option A in the Kenai Lowlands,start at Pt.Possession.and travel north crossing the Turnagain Arm. The second group contains four route options:I.J.K.and L.These options,following the Tesoro route.all link to Route Option C in the Kenai Lowlands.start at Chickaloon Bay.and travel north crossing the Turnagain Arm. Anchorage Bow!Route Options In the Anchorage Bowl.there are three groups of route options and Route Option M.which stands alone. Route Option M ts the only overland route from Pt.Campbell north to Pt.Woronzof. The first group contains three route options:N.O.and P.which all begin at Klatt Road and travel north.N and O end at Minnesota Drive.while Route Option P ends at the Alaska Railroad.Each of these follows part of both the Enstar and Tesoro routes. Southern Interue Project EVAL 2-66 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal DSt PHXI SYS DATA PRO}.09203 009 Final CHAPTER 2 coc The second group contains four route options:Q,R,S,and T.These all begin at the Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Drive and proceed north to International Substation.All of these routes follow the Enstar route. The third group contains six route options:U,V,W,X,Y,and Z.These all begin at the Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek and proceed north to International Substation.All of these routes follow the Enstar route. Table Summaries Following the route comparisons for each geographic region is a summary that includes (1)the numerical indication of the route option preference for each resource.and (2)an indication of whether the impact for each resource for each route option would be significant (S),potentially significant (PS).or not significant (NS). Anchorage Route Options Last.on Table 2-11 is a comparison of the selected Anchorage route options.This compares the Anchorage community working group's first preference choice for each of the route options in Anchorage.For just those options.it reiterates the information of Tables 2-9A,2-9B,and 2-9C. It then presents the conclusions of this working group regarding the preference ranking among these preferred routes.The community working group ranked Route Options F and G first,Route Option M second.Route Option P third.and Route Options Q and Y tied for last. The Kenai Peninsula Borough has expressed concerns for residents in the portion of Route Option A that crosses the Grav Cliffs and Moose Point subdivisions north of Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)(Links T3.1.T3.2).This land.which was previously a part of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR).has been planned for residential use as well as for an extension of the North Kenai Road and an independent transportation corridor.By following the proposed transportation corridor.impacts on residential lots could be avoided,and available tree screening could reduce visual impacts on residences. Route Option A would cross a parcel of land at Pt.Possession that has been conveyed to the Pt. Possession Native Group from the KNWR and is now in private ownership.The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)has determined that Section 22(g)of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)would apply.requiring minimum disturbance to the land.The Project would be placed underground in this area.[oaSouthern Intertie Project EVAL Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal Dt PHN!SYS DATA PROJ-09203.009 Final CHAPTER 2 aoc TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS:GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION SoldotnatoChickaloonBay(EnstarRoute)RouteOptionBSouth/C*Links$2.1,$1.5,E1.2,E1.3,E2.1,M5.1Route Option B South crosses the Kenai River in two locations as well as the Funny River. Due to the concerns for the protection of the Kenai River,this option would be less preferable.Due to the proposal to replace an existing power line without additional RIGHT-OF-WAY clearing,set towers back from the riverbanks and construction during winter,however,any potential impacts will be mitigated. Preference:3 Preference:2 Route Route Length Geologic,Water and Marine Resources Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Option (km/miles)Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation | Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory InventoryPy1.0 km (0.6 mile)of 100-year floodplain crossed -mitigated by planned spanning,setting *30.4 hectares (74.6 acres)of bogs and meadows affected 179.6 hectares (443.8 acres)of closed mixed forest affectedhefoundationsandstructuresbackfromsensitivebanksandriparianareas,season-specific Impacts and Mitigation 0.6 hectares (1.4 acres)of closed tall shrub affected a scheduling,temporary man-made and ice bridging *-Winter construction Impacts and Mitigation5he6streamcrossings-mitigated by planned spanning,setting foundations and structures back }J®-Spanning low-growing vegetation Spruce bark beetle mitigationra=from sensitive banks and riparian areas,season-specific scheduling.temporary man-made *No significant impacts Spanning low growing vegetation 2 <gi and ice bridging Preferred Route Option No significant impactsa£fon 1.5 km (0.9 mile)with compressible materials -mitigated by existing road access.use of *-Minimizes potential impacts on wetlands in the Kenai Lowlands Preferred Route Optionz22.0 tracked and low ground pressure vehicles and special equipment.season-specitic Minimizes upland vegetation clearingfe6c-71.0 (44.1)construction 2 8 Zaw 0.2 km (0.1 mile)prone to slope instability -structural integrity impacts mitigated by casedségreboring2meImpactsonCapt.Cook SRA avoided by undergrounding transmission line =a No significant impacts 3 =Preferred Route Option &Minimizes stream crossings,potential watershed disruption,compressible material <compaction in the Kenai Lowlands,and avoids the Kenai and Chickaloon River watershedsae)Preference:1 . Preference:1 Preference:1nesSORennnnnnnsDennnSnnnG:|USS nse inventory,Impacts and Mitigation =ventory pce nsecessscscscscesecss"""inventory. 5 g -2.0 km (1.2 mile)100-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A =82.6 hectares (204.0 acres)of bogs and meadows affected 77.6 hectares (191.8 acres)of closed white spruce and 188.7 hectares2i=2 25 stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation (466.2 acres)of closed mixed forest affectedrf£Pa at 13.9 km (8.6 miles)compressible materials -mitigated by existing gravel road (Links S1.1,|]*|Winter construction 7.8 hectares (19.2 acres)needle leaf woodland affected =>Mad $1.3 and E1.1)and utility corridor (Link SI.1);access to tower locations via road with *®Spanning low-growing vegetation 5.8 hectares (14.3 acres)of moist grassland affectedYgs§"tl 95.1 (59.1)limited disturbance to riparian area;use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles and =Significant impacts on wetlands on KNWR -Route Option C Impacts and Mitigation2£e202 special equipment,season-specific construction *No significant impacts on Route Option B North Spruce bark beetle mitigation$og °%a No significant impacts Least Preferred Route Option Significant impacts on upland vegetation on KNWRsO”=}i =*Crosses greatest amount of wetland area Least Preferred Route Optionae274Resultsinthemostuplandvegetationclearing Preference:2 Preference:3 Preference:3 ;ns CS GS |00 inventory,impacts and Mitigation ==ventory pees ecsccescecscscececscccs-teventory0.8 km (0.5 mile)100-year floodplain mitigated:see Route Option A =25.1 hectares (62.3 acres)of bogs and meadows affected 77.6 hectares (191.8 acres)of closed white spruce and 136.5 hectares 22 stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation (337.3 acres)of closed mixed forest affected 9.1 km (5.6 miles)compressible materials -mitigated by existing road access (Links T1.4 *Winter construction 5.8 hectares (14.3 acres)of moist grassland affected and T2.1):use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles and special equipment «Spanning low-growing vegetation Impacts and Mitigation No significant impacts »Significant impacts on wetlands on KNWR -Route Option C Spruce bark beetle mitigation Least Preferred Route Option *No significant impacts on Route Option B South Significant impacts on upland vegetation on KNWR 90.9 (56.5)While this route crosses more 100-year floodplain,streams and compressible materials, Preference:2 *Applicant's Proposed Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 WDM PHX SY SADA TA\PROK0920NOOO'F inai\2-9 Tables\Table 2-9A Natural Envi Kenai Lowlands doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-68 TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS:GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION Route Route Length Geologic,Water and Marine Resources |Vegetation and Aquatic Resources | Option (km/miles)|Wetland Vegetation |Upland Vegetation | Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory=2 a *1.8 km (1.1 miles)of 100-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A *44.9 hectares (111.0 acres)of bogs and meadows affected 56.9 hectares (140.5 acres)of closed mixed forest affecteds2«=_*6 stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation 7.8 hectares (19.2 acres)of needleleaf woodland affected32Sm=b *12.4 km (7.7 miles)with compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option B North/C JJ *Winter construction Impacts and Mitigation2fuSc_34.8 (24.6)*No significant impacts *-Spanning low-growing vegetation Spruce bark bectle mitigation5<=2237 Preferred Route Option "No significant impacts No significant impacts=i 3 <”*Avoids Kenai River crossings Least Preferred Route Option Least Preferred Route OptionyO"A *-Crosses greatest amount of wetland area Upland Vegetation clearing required i e es ae |aaaPreference:|oo.eeeeeceeceeeeeceeceeceecceeetee [fececcc cceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeee Preferemees 2 bee cecceceececeeeeeeeeneeeePreferemees BoInventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory a =ba *0.6km (0.4 mile)100-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A *16.0 hectares (39.6 acres)of bogs and meadows affected 4.7 hectares (11.6 acres)of closed mixed forest avoided by use of&¢Zu *3 stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation existing right-of-way33a*7.6 km (4.7 miles)compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option B South/C *Winter construction Impacts and Mitigationage5%7 30.6 (19.0)«No significant impacts *-Spanning low-growing vegetation Spruce bark beetle mitigation for any tree removal requiredFagE75,,Less Preferred Route Option *No significant impacts No significant impactsz2o8*Crosses Kenai River;see Route Option B South /C Preferred Route Option Preferred Route Option3nod£2 =-Crosses the least amount of wetland area Minimizes right-of-way clearing by replacing existing transmission"A 805 linei Preference:2 Preference:1 Preference:1 Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory%n *0.2 km (0.1 mile)of 100-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A ®$2.2 hectares (129.1 acres)of bogs and meadows affected 77.6 hectares (191.8 acres)of closed white spruce forest and 131.8cyrs)=*19 stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation hectares (325.7 acres)of closed mixed forest affected 22 en =4.5 km (0.9 miles)with compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option B South /C *Winter construction 5.8 hectares (14.3 acres)of moist grassland affectedzmeu63.0 (37.8)®No significant impacts *®Spanning low-growing vegetation Impacts and Mitigation s on «-Significant impacts on wetlands on KNWR due to potential Spruce bark beetle mitigationrs20wetlandcompactionorremovalofblackspruceSignificantimpactsduetoclearing upland vegetation onaa2KNWR 4 *KA pplicant's Proposed Route Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-69 Southern Intertie Project July 1999 ADM.PEIN TS Y SIDA TA\PRO109203\000Final\2-9 Tables\Table 2-94 Natural Environment,Kenai Lowlands doc TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS:WILDLIFE RESOURCES Wildlife Selected Resources | Route Route Length Anadromous Fish Birds Large Mammals Predators Marine Mammals Threatened andOption(km/miles)Endangered Species Inventory Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory =4 anadromous fish stream crossings Very limited disturbance to nesting waterfowl!(Links Clearing of black bear habitat -no Potential for increased harvest of lynx *No beluga whale habitat *American peregrine a Impacts and Mitigation 15.1,75.2)-no significant impacts significant impacts and wolves (Links 13.2,15.1,75.2)in Impacts falcons occur as rare5DirectionalboringatSwansonRiverNodisturbancetonestingwaterfowl(Links [I t-Clearing of moose winter area of potential future development -*Nota factor in route migrants only o atia All other anadromous fish streams '1.4.13.1,13.2)asa result of winter construction range creation of new winter range -locally significant impacts,clearing in comparison Impactsos£emiw spanned Clearing within 0.25 mile ofa bald eagle nest -no significant impacts Iynx denning habitat (no significant No identifiable impacts4%2 &2 -Winter construction selective tree removal -locally significant impacts DL inited increase in disturbance and impacts)Potential impacts not a_Fd °6 wi 71.0 (44.1)Erosion control along right-of-way Collision hazard (esp.[1t-FE 4d.high density of hunian brown bear conflicts Creation of habitat for prey species -no factor in comparison3=$2°i to protect watershed following large lakes,wire marking at stream crossings and On petphers of brown bear use,in significant impactsfosPs&3 FE mn construction near water)-potential for locally significant wea of potential future development -Preferred Route OptionaeeneNosignificantimpactsimpactspotentialforlocallysignificantImpactswithinanareaoffuture3PreferredRouteOptionimpactsdevelopment cS Minimizes streams crossed Preferred Route OptionaPeripheryofbrownbearusein region Preference:I _.. Preference:2 Preference:|Preference:Po eeeeeeeInventory====---<' LsSt i sSSSsS*t* CS*sés S*séwpants and Mitigation=pacts and Mitigation"|"""""Tmpacts and Mitigation"|"Same as Route Option A.|Same as Route OptionA11anadromousfishstreamcrossingsVerylimiteddisturbancetonestingwaterfowlduringClearingofblackbearhabitat-Potential for increased harvest north ofunImpactsandMitigationconstruction(Link M5.1)-nationally significant nationally significant impacts on Mystery Creek on protected lands of|=All streams spanned impact on KNWR KNWR KNWR -nationally significant-Winter construction in KNWR No disturbance of nesting waterfowl (except link Clearing of moose winter range/impacts|z rs)Hy (Route Option C),late fall/winter MS5.1)-winter construction (E1.3,E2.1)or late creation of new winter range -Clearing in lynx denning habitat - e ac construction on Route Option B fall/winter construction ($1.3)nationally significant impacts on nationally significanton KNWR|sc E ra)North Collision hazard -Route Option B North,high KNWR Creation of habitat for prey -no33zErosioncontrolalongright-of-way density of lakes,Moose River -wire marking at Increased disturbance and significant impacts=[4 eu 95.1 (59.1)to protect watershed following stream crossings and near water -potential for human/brown bear conflicts duc to 1S)5 Sa .,construction locally significant impacts off KNWR-potential increased access north of Mystery£2 on No significant impacts for nationally significant impacts on KNWR Creek on protected lands of KNWR,ineaeaClearingwithin0.25 mile of2 bald eagle nests -the mountains/lowlands interface -s Bn sclective tree removal -locally significant impacts nationally significant impacts3me:off KNWR,nationally significant impacts on a KNWR 2 Least Preferred Route Option5Highercollisionpotentialduetoadjacent lakes and |Moose River Crossing Preference:2 Preference:2 veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Preference!Bde veep caggesupeseeeeeeeee[ees eee!Preference:2 seee fee ggeeeecengeeeaeepe ene eecg seep ot geese pp eeteapegeerepepeenenenesWeleeinenneesCineinenneinnans|OiRinsnnnannnaInventory=sSs-= «@YS Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A 10 anadromous fish stream crossings Very timited disturbance to nesting waterfowl during Clearing of black bear habitat -Increased harvest north of Mystery Impacts and Mitigation construction (Link M5.1)-nationally significant nationally significant impacts on Creek on protected lands of KNWR -All streams spanned impact on KNWR KNWR nationally significant impacts Winter construction No disturbance to nesting waterfowl (Links $2.1,Clearing of moose winter Clearing in lynx denning habitat - Erosion control along right-of-way $1.5,E.1.2,E1.3,E2.1 -winter construction)-no range/creation of new winter range -nationally significant on KNWRtoprotectwatershedfollowingimpactsnationallysignificantimpactsonCreationofhabitatforprey-noconstructionCollisionhazard,esp.route B South (fewer lakes KNWR significant impacts No significant impacts than B North)-wire marking at stream crossings Increased disturbance and Least Preferred Route Option and near water -potential for locally significant human/brown bear conflicts due to 90.9 (56.9)Crosses Kenai River,making this impacts off KNWR,potential for nationally increased access north of Mystery SoldotnatoChickaloonBay(EnstarRoute)ra--RouteOptionB-South/C*Links$2.1,S1.$,E1.2,E1.3,E2.1,M5.1| route more sensitive,although construction will not occur within the river corridor or river banks. Preference:3 significant impacts on KNWR Clearing within 0.25 mile of2 bald eagte nests,verylimitedatBSouthduetolimitedtreeremoval requirements on Route Option B South -no significant impacts on B South,potential for nationally significant impacts on KNWR,Route Option C Preferred Route Option Lower collision potential due to least number of lakes in proximity to the route Preference:1 Creek on protected lands of KNWR,in the mountains/lowlands interface - nationally significant impacts Preference:2 Preference:2 *A pplicant's Proposed Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 WISE PLINER SODA TAUPR ENFANTANDFina?O Tables!Table 7 OA Wildlife Selected Reanurres Kenai t owland dae Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-70 TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS:WILDLIFE RESOURCES Wildlife Selected Resources nest on KNWR-selective tree removal - potential for nationally significant impacts Route Route Length Anadromous Fish Birds Large Mammals Predators Marine Mammals Threatened andOption(km/miles)Endangered Species Inventory Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A «=*®4 anadromous fish stream crossings No disturbance to nesting waterfowl (fate Clearing of black bear habitat -no No increased harvest expectedgE=w Impacts and Mitigation fall/winter construction)-no significant significant impacts Clearing in lynx denning habitat -noact22*Streams will be spanned impacts Clearing of moose winter range/creation of significant impacts&3 an ®Seasonal construction Collision hazard (high density of lakes,new winter range -00 significant impacts Creation of habitat for prey species -no =e gc 34.8 (21.6)*Erosion control along right-of-way to Moose River)-wire marking at stream No inereased human access significant impactsOoFgun::protect watershed following construction crossings and near water -potential for ez On ®No significant impacts locally significant impactsgw2nvClearingwithin0.25 mile of bald eagle=Zz 2 Preferred Route Option nest -selective tree removal -no z 3 ®Avoids Kenai River crossings significant impacts Preference:1 Preference:2 ; Preference:{Preference:1 eoeeeeenees Deneenenenns eeneennenennnee|NOnnnenennnnananas inventory =s-<"<-s < iSImpacts and Mitigation J impacts and MitigationJ Impacts and Mitigation "|"Same as Route Option A.|Same as Route OptionA*3 anadromous fish stream crossings No disturbance to nesting waterfowl Very limited clearing in black bear and No increased harvest expectedImpactsandMitigation(winter construction)-no impact moose habitats -no significant impacts Very limited clearing in lynx denningry]*a s All streams spanned Collision hazard (fewer lakes than B Clearing of moose winter range/creation of habitat -no significant impacts <3 Pt ®Winter construction North)-wire marking at stream crossing new winter range -no significant impacts No creation ofadditional prey habitat&£Ou *-Erosion control along right-of-way to and near water -potential for locally No increase in human access 8 2 c-)a protect watershed following construction significant impacts St So:30.6 (19.0)e No significant impacts Very limited clearing within 0.25 mile of23SaiLessPreferredRoutebaldcaglenest-selective tree removal -5g O%®Kenai River crossings make this route no significant impacts=£<more sensitive than Route Option B Preferred Route Option a Pd oa North,although construction would not See Route Option B South/C occur within the river corridor or river |banks Preference:2 Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:1 Inventory Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Same as Route Option A Same as Route Option A*7 anadromous fish stream crossings Very limited disturbance to nesting water Clearing of black bear habitat on KNWR -Potential for increased harvest north of within KNWR fall -Link M5.1 -nationally significant nationally significant impacts Mystery Creck on protected lands of=-Impacts and Mitigation impacts on KNWR Clearing of moose winter range/creation of KNWR-nationally significant impacts*3 ©All'streams will be spanned No disturbance to nesting waterfowl new winter range on KNWR Clearing in lynx denning habitat ongoO-*Winter construction (Links Et.3 and E2.1,winter construction)Increased disturbance and human/bear KNWR -nationally significant impacts-4 2 s a ®Erosion control along right-of-way to -no impacts conflicts due to increased human access Creation of habitat for prey -nogau63.0 (37.8)protect watershed following construction Very limited collision hazard on KNWR north of Mystery Creek on protected lands significant impactss©-®No significant impacts (few lakes)-wire marking at stream of KNWR,in mountains/low lands interfacea3acrossingsandnearwater-potential for -nationally significant impacts"ae nationally significant impacts -Clearing within 0.25 mile of bald eagic iIL*Applicant's Proposed Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 WDA PHX BSYSDA FAPRONNIN NONE inah2-9 Tablec\T able 2-94 Wildlife Selected Resources,Kenai Lowlands doe Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-71 TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENA!LOWLANDS:LAND USE 2-72 Linear Features Jurisdiction a(km/miles)(km/miles)Land Use 2 3 »|e33==2 az s e |::2 1s g)oS]a)Fs s 3 F s |2 =|22]»2 B :E 3 ;,Route Ontion Pan 's :2 3 £2 g 5 s 2 &E $g Existing and Future Land Use Recreation SWorkins Group tesues.Agency Comments ==2 &a é sa &=Z.iS a =2 'a &&2 ==£.4oeeeeea142/2/22):2 é 2)2 4/2 |2]*|#a &=)s)77) aa bo Inventory Inventory Issues Issues nN ®Crosses 194 parcels of *®Captain Cook SRA:route ® -Preferred route for Kenai and Preferred route by USFWS hl residential,commercial,crosses through possible Anchorage CWG due to boundary adjustment |<industrial and vacant land future land additions to park =Near two focal schools for road/utility location fc ®Future development in Grey Impacts and Mitigation s Effects on local property KPB concerns about conflicts -A Cliffs and Moose Point ©Underground next to road values with subdivided lands 2 e Subdivisions through Captain Cook SRA.®Effects on known and Potential disruption to 3 --*=Parallels Tesoro Pipeline *-Parallel pipetine and unknown cultural sites Trumpeter Swan territories 2 <f ij Impacts and Mitigation transportation corridor to (archacological)LWCF undergrounding a g e-©Underground past airport Point Possession requirements through CaptainzP}2 a]710 44.1 08 69 64 546 84 16 16 runways =No significant impacts on Cook State Recreation Area Ze Os (44.1)(27.4)(0.5)-(16.7)(4.0)(33 9)--(5.2)(1.0)---(1.0)*Utilize North Kenai Road recreation uses ADOT/PF concerns over zg Z 2 c ..,:,,:,'right-of-way and Preferred Route Option location of overhead line 46 2 «.transportation corridor ©=Minimizes impacts on within right-of-way e -®No significant impacts on recreation resources 3 q |existing land uses *Avoids KNWR ™: . 3 _Preferred Route Option|an ®Use of North Kenai Road =right-of-way,and plannedvntransportationcorridorwithreKenaiBoroughwillavoid 4 parcels. a oe Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:1 a coo eeeneceeeneniWneiminesOnnnnenins|RORGGIIGE DOROIOE!DOROOOGs GOORUIEES NORROEON |MUNII:GUIS (0UIIGE (OURIIES GOREN!GUUS GOUIIIG SUGGS |O00Sn Inventory baventory iss issues ®Crosses 20 parcels of *Crosses Moose River at *Potential impacts on Compatibility with purposes residential and vacant land existing transmission line residences for which KNWR was - «tf airstrips along route crossing ®Increased access along Enstar established 3 ®Parallels existing 138kV lines |©Crosses KNWR pipeline route Potential impacts on brown -*Crosses Kenai Native Impacts and Mitigation s Negative effects on brown bears,trumpeter swans and >*si Association conveyed land *®Conflicts with KNWR bear populations ,waterfowl }Viet:*Crosses KNWR Comprehensive Conservation |*Impacts to Chickaloon Bay |Increased access and Ss .ae Impacts and Mitigation Plan ®Cumulative effects to subsequent management/law325*®No mitigation necessary for *KNWR Moderate and "wilderness values"of upper enforcement implications 3 8 -_airstrips;avoids conflicts with Minimal Management KNWR Aviation safety concerns&<¢a 3 ve soe -is 7 ee =03 as 4 ;re --3?airspace corridor along Enstar Pipeline |*Impacts Kenai Native Conflicts with existing 23 $2 69.1)(39-8)|(20.9)(15)|19)FD (0.2)|(83)|(7.3)(1.6)ON Te Disruption to KNWR Fire *Significant impacts on Association conveyed lands management practices (i.e.|aa S a I|Management Practices KNWR use of prescribed fire for 3 s-®Significant Impacts to Least Preferred Route Option habitat improvement) 3 3%KNWR *-Crosses more KNWR lands|a a=«No significant impacts on 2 existing land uses <Least Preferred Route Option 4 |*-Disruption to residential parcels and Kenai Native Association lands Preference:3 Preference:3 Preference:2 *Applicant's Proposed Route Southern Intertie Project Chaper 2 -Alternatives Including the July 1999 Applicant's Proposal AUG PEEVE OVC TAIPEI PAAINT OAT ANT 1 Tebtect Fobhe 208 Mimen Bai trinmant Hamel bn tends dan TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS:LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction Land U(km/miles)(km/miles)and use | =; =a] |ft |3 ar B/S}El]es]§ Ss}EB ]2]2 gs |2 2/2 ]¢2{6 1 4rrFaHad=)5.==a c 3 Route Length é &&=3 3 s 2 2 =s FS 3 " Fisti iF LandU R :Summary of Community CcRouteOption(km/miles)@ zg 3 3 é 2 5 2 F =Fi 3 é g "visting and Future Land Use ecreation Working Group Issues Agency Comments ==oo a ww -zle/2|é ele -/2/2/2|4aeeea2/3 #)/itef}:|:é 2/2 4|/32]2]*|#fg 2 Oo wn a = Inventory Inventory Issues issues *Crosses KNWR Crosses KNWR Adjacent to residences along =|©Compatibility with purposes®Crosses 129 parcels of Crosses Kenai River at Bings Landing State for which Kenai NWR was residential,agricultural and existing transmission line Recreation Site boundary established a vacant hind (within existing crossings Increased access along Enstar |®-Potential impacts on browni,=right-of-way)Crosses Funny River SRS,pipeline route bear,trumpeter swans andr}Un ®-Seven airstrips along route and Bings Landing SRS Effects on brown bear waterfowlc=u Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation populations *Increased access and 8c Bf *®Mark overhead lines near No direct physical impact to Impacts to Chickaloon Bay subsequent management/law'3 3 3 w airstrips.avoids conflicts with recreationists or SRSs Cumulative effect to enforcement implications oe en 90.9 63.0 30.6 . 2.4 14.2 5.0 . 0.6 62.4 6.0 2.7 _. airspace Conflicts wih KNWR "wilderness values"of *Aviation safety concerns 1S)5 £0 (56.5)(37.8)|(19.0)(1.5)(8.8)(3.1)(0.4)(38.8)(3.7)(1.7)®Replaces existing 69kV line Comprehensive Conservation KNWR ®Visual impacts along Kenai £3 a"and utilizes same right-of-Plan Visual impacts on River Special Management&fe 20a 1]way -avoids any addition KNWR Moderate and "wilderness qualities”of Area 3 3-residential parcel disruption Minimal-Management KNWR|3 ao ®-Pisruption to KNWR Fire corridor along Enstar Pipeline Crossings of Kenai River and 2 l Management Practices Significant impacts on impacts ont he Kenai River5©No significant impacts on KNWR Watershed existing land uses =Significant Impacts to KNWR Preference:2 Preference:2 Preference:.3 Inventory Inventory Issues Issues ®Crosses 120 parcels of Crosses Moose River at Potential impacts on ®Aviation safety concerns residential and vacant land existing transmission line residences *®11 airstrips along route crossing Negative effects on brown *Parallels existing 138kV lines Crosses KNWR bears _«Crosses Kenai native Impacts and Mitigation Impacts to Kenai Native $2-7 association conveyed land Conflicts with KNWR Association conveyed lands<-=a 'Impacts and Mitigation Comprehensive Conservation H 2 z z .Hi *No mitigation necessary for Plan 3a]sc 34.8 61 |336 ||24 |3a fl oe |-f 03 |13 |us |26 |-|92 sirepate avoids conflicts with impacts 2 venientaseo(21.6)(3.8)|(20.9)(1.5)(1.9)(4.1)(0.2)(0.8)(7.3)(1.6)67)i.Potentially significant Least Preferred Route Option oa em impacts on existing land Would cross additional E>3 a uses KNWR lands z mc Least Preferred Route Option4*Due to disruption of residential parcels and Kenai Native Association lands adjacent to existing transmission line |__Preference:2 Preference:2 Preference:1 Souther Intertie Project July 1999 WOM PHX RSY SDA EAPROF.0920 110094 snah2-9 Tables\T able 2-94 Human Environment.Kenai |owtands doc Chaper 2 -Altermatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-73 TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS:LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction(km/miles)(km/miles)Land Use 2 3 3 3 by}=s 2 zs =s 2 %2 crey|e >)&5 s e/Ele}ele |=|e s/iii:|::Route Route Length '°3 e §3 ¢s &2 =Z %z Existing and Future Land Us R ti Cc ty Werxin G A Cc tOption|(km/mites)¢zg 3 rf 2 2 a2 &2 Bo =é y 'visting ¢e Land Use ecreation ommunity Working Group gency Comments 5 =2 a a F sa c io 7.2 <Issues |a e&=be a a z md a 7.2 2 C oe Q 2 =s : -)/2],1]2%za fe |e]ey}2]& E a 3 &:3 ra 3 2 ou Z hd}6 eS A 5 QO wn|: Inventory Inventory Issues Issues Existing 69 kV right-of-way Crosses Kenai River at Direct impacts on residences Aviation safety concerns crosses 129 parcels of existing transmission line along Bings Landing State Visual impacts along Kenai residential,agricultural and crossings Recreation Site boundary River Special Management vacant land Crosses Funny River SRS,Crossing of Kenai River and Area Route Option B South and Bings Landing SRS impacts on the Kenai River £*N replaces existing 69KV line Impacts and Mitigation Watershed <n 3a and utilizes same right of way No direct physical impact to E 2 3 4 Seven airstrips along roule recreationists or SRS's 3 }a Fr 306 306 24 142 5.0 06 1 6.0 27 Impacts and Mitigation Preferred Route Option i]3 3 &a (19.0) --(19.0) -(1.5)(8.8)G.1) --(0.4)(13)(3.7)(17) ----Mark overhead lines near a Crosses less KNWR lands e@ ED airstrips,avoids conflicts withsa©2 airspace $3.56 Avoids any new conflicts with a en residential parcels No significant impacts on existing land uses Preferred Route Option Avoids disruption to |residential parcels Preference:3 Preference:1 Preference:2 Inventory Inventory Issues Issues Crosses moderate and Crosses KNWR moderate and Increased access along Enstar Compatibility with purposes minimal management arcas minimal management areas Pipeline route for which KNWR was Parallels existing Enstar Mystery Creek prescribed Negative effects on brown established i pipelines bum plan bear populations Potential impacts on brown x "a Mystery Creek Road Hunter,recreationist,Impacts to Chickafoon Bay bears,trumpeter swans and :(s)=Transportation corridor snowmobile use on Mystery =Cumulative effect to ,waterfowl we gS Two airstrips closed along Creek Road "wilderness values”of upper Increased access and i gw 63.0 63.0 .____.. 63.0 _.._ route ;Big Indian Creck Impacts and Mitigation KNWR :subsequent management/law s on (37.8).|](37.8)(37.8)Airstrip is open Conflicts with prescribed plan |©-Visual impacts on enforcement implications a £a Impacts and Mitigation and operations "wildemess qualitics”of Aviation safety concerns 2 2 2 Widens existing Conflicts with KNWR upper KNWR Conflicts with existing 3 transportation corridor Comprehensive Conservation management practices (i.e. Management control on Plan use of prescribed fire for Mystery Creek Road Management control on habitat improvement) Disruption to KNWR Fire Mystery Creck Road Management Practices Within KNWR *Applicant's Proposed Route Chaper 2 -Alternatives Inctuding the Applicant's Proposal 2-74 Southern [ntertie Project July 1999 ADM PHIX EASY SIDA TA PRON092021000¢4 inal.2-9 Tables\Table 2-94 Human Environment.Kenai Lowlands doc TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS:LAND USE [Visual Resources | Route Route Length Socioeconomic Subsistence Cultural Resources Land s r Residential and Recreation T 1 Way Vi Summary of Visual Impacts and MitigationOption|(km/miles)sanascape scenery Views (km/miles)rave!Way Views (km/mites) Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts Local Context Views Views Impacts=*-Rate reduction .16/KWIH ®-Residents of Ninilchik,*Low to moderate ¢-Primarily Scenic 6.8 (4.2)of immediate *Parallels portions *33.8 (21.1)significant visual impacts 7 Fa *®639 worker months labor average 45,peak Nanwalek.Port Graham.potential impact Quality B.foreground and 33.6 (20.9)of North Kenai Mitigationsa60workersandSeldoviacustomarilyarearesidentialandofforegroundviewsfromRoad*-Steel poles will reduce structural contrast=cn ®196 camp sites,143 with hook-ups _and traditionally hunted commercial residential areas *® Athighway and trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum£-®152 establishments registered to provide moose on the Kenai Regional Context 1.1.(0.7)immediate feasible distance from the crossing=is lodging can accommodate up to 4,500 Peninsula ®-Kenai Lowlands,foreground and 4.2 (2.6)*"Dulled”metal of corten finish on towers5<=visitors ®Federal subsistence Cook Inlet views foreground views from *Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized82«fi =*=July 2002 -25 workers;July 2003 -21 priorities for those toward Mt.recreation area (Captain *Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge ofthe right-of-S 2 2 ee workers communities are Susitna,Redoubt Cook SRA)way into adjacent vegetation patterns=e oz ra 71.0(44.1)[I]*|Noenvironmental justice issues identified established there Volcano Aleutian *-Portions ofthis route option will be underground due to proximity to=}2.®Winter construction and advanced planning =By using existing or Range the flight path of airstrips and Captain Cook State Recreation Area&&3c for construction worker housing will mitigate planned corridors,Preferred Route Option:me local impacts on tourism,housing and conflicts between sport e -Least amount of significant visual impactsSscommunityresourcesandsubsistencehunters4al©No significant impacts will be minimized3==No significant impacts€ é 2 a Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference: Poee"TimpactsandMitigation SameasRouteOptionA jf impacts|}©Sameas Rowe Views Views 0mpacts Oe=uc s Rate reduction .21/KWH s Low to moderate Option B North in 1.6(.0)immediate *-Crosses Sterling ©=49.9 (31.2)significant visual impacts8Su*637 worker months of labor -summer peak potential impact combination w/foreground and 12.2 (7.6)Highway Mitigation|©=?E a 90,fall-winter 30 area Route Option C foreground views *®Same as Route Option B North=£3 Zas =350 campsites,275 with utility hook-ups Least Preferred Route Recreation Views Least Preferred Route Option2gaacia95.1 (59.1)®-July competition with tourism for housing Option Moose River Canoe Route *Greatest amount of significant visual impacts|cor 5 Bo ag ,.2002 and 2003 «Greatest amount of (0.8 (0.5)immediate<2 ge]Go ®18 workers arca with potentially foreground and 1.6 (1.9)gra 4 "aD *No environmental justice issues identified moderate impacts foreground views}i!3 32 ©No significant impacts Trapper Joe LakeP4Z5*1.6 (1.0)middlegroundAne|ree errereen|aeee Preference:3 Woes ceeqceeceeeeee |oe VIEWS)occ ceeceeeeeceeed cceeeseeeggeeeetceceeees [eecececeeeessseeeeseneecee Preferemees JworeeeeeeporespeTmpactsandMitigationSameasRouteOptionA"impacts *Same as Route Views :Views oe Impacts"i =Rate reduction .21/KWH *Low to moderate Option B South in 2.6 (1.6 immediate ®Crosses Sterling ©44.2 (30.8)significant visual impacts i %=®637 worker months oflabor -summer peak potential impact combination w/foreground and 14.8 (9.25)Highway Mitigation7%Va 90,fall-winter 30 area.Route Option C foreground views from *Same as Route Option B South§>a]*350 campsites,275 with utility hook-ups residential areasitzit32*July competition with tourism for housing Recreation Views25sas]34 2002 +2003 -18 workers Golf course,campground,ac va m al 90.9 (56.5)|}*No environmental justice issues identified Bings Landing SRA$s $Sw =No significant impacts 2.4 (1.5)immediatez8Ssauforegroundviewsand 8.1a6°"a (5.0)foreground views>5 a Trapper Joe Lakeauil1.6 (1.0)middlegroundxviews 3 Preference:f Preference:2 Preference:2=--------e *Applicant's Proposed Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 ADS PHIXASYS:DATAWPROLN920 100%inah2-9 Tables\Table 2-94 Human Environment,Kensi fowlands doc Chaper 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-75 TABLE 2-9A:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON KENAI LOWLANDS:LAND USE Visual Resources | Route |Route Length Socioeconomic Subsistence Cultural Resources Residential and Recreation :Summary ofVisual Impacts and MitigationOption|(km/miles)Landscape Scenery Views (km/miles)Travel Way Views (km/miles) Impacts and Mitigation Same as Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation Local Context Views Views Impacts*Rate reduction .21/K WII *Low to moderate *-Primarily Scenic *1.6(1.0)immediate *-Crosses Sterling ®1.6(1.0)significant visual impacts |2 =®637 worker months of labor -summer peak potential impact Quality B.C.as foreground and 12.2 (7.6)Highway Mitigation3ftwi90,fall-winter 30 area well as Residential foreground views residential Wood H-frame structures will match spans of existing transmissionrye7*Soldotna,Sterling,Cooper Landing Least Preferred Route ®Class Be moderate areas At highway and trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum23anexperienceincreasedemandforhousingandOptiontodenselyforested®0.8 (0.5)immediate feasible distance from the crossing%EN community resources ®Greatest amount of low Lands foreground and 4.4 (2.7)*s Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized£s Sa 34.8 (21.6)|],350 campsites,275 with utility hook-ups area with potentially interspersed with foreground views from *Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge ofthe right-of-|<e o-*July competition with tourism for housing moderate impacts areas of open recreation area (Moose River way into adjacent vegetation patternsgu£n 2002 +2003 bottomland and canoe route)Less Preferred Route Option3zx*18 workers muskep bogs *Greatest amount of significant visual impactsPr5*No environmental justice issues identified Regional Context No significant impacts ©Kenai Lowlands Preference:I __. Preference:2 Preference:20eoenenespenenneeeseeneeneennnes|PenGnennnnasImpactsandMitigation "{J Same as Route Option A |]"Impacts.I]Local Gomtext 0 Views ie Preasencccssecrecessor ccc . s Rate reduction .21/KWI =Low to moderate *Primarily Scenic ®2.6(1.6)immediate ®Crosses Sterling *0.9 (0.57)significant visual impactsg*a ®637 worker months of labor -summer peak potential impact Quality A,B,C.as foreground and 14.8 (9.2)Highway MitigationZe3a90,fall-winter 30 area well as Residential foreground views residential =-Steel poles will be used to reduce structural contrast ;2 g as =®350 campsites,275 with utility hook-ups = Class A -Kenai areas =Athighway and trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximuma2maz*®July competition with tourism for housing River ®2.4 (1.5)immediate feasible distance from the crossingS$.§_:30.6 (19.0)2002 +2003 -18 workers Regional Context foreground and 8.1 (5.0)®="Pulled"metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce |<3 Sai *No environmental justice issues identified ®Kenai Lowlands foreground views from visual impacts40°%e =Nosignificant impacts reereation area (golf course.®-Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-|3 Ss.campgrounds,and Bings way into adjacent vegetation patterns327LandingSRA)Preferred Route OptionaPreference:f *Least amount of significant visual impacts Preference:1 Preference:1 Impacts and Mitigation Same as Route Option A Impacts Local Context Views Views impactseRatereduction.21/KWH =Low to moderate «©Primarily Scenic *'Trapper John Lake =*Parallels Mystery ®48.3 (30.2)significant visual impacts|>°®637 worker months of labor -summer peak potential impact Quality A,including 1.6 (1.0)middleground Creck /Enstar Mitigationaxa90,fall-winter 30 area the foothills of the views Pipeline Road Wood poles will reduce structural contrasts:o==350 campsites,275 with utility hook-ups Central Kenai "Dulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce 3 3 €a «*-July competition with tourism for housing Mountains,the visual impacts ;.ir}%gu 63.0 (37.8)2002 and 2003 -18 workers ;C hickaloon Bay Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized ;6 s on ..®Noenvironmental justice issues identified tidal estuary and Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge.of the right-of-_ee £o =No significant impacts major wetlands/way into adjacent vegetation patterns.2 eZ drainages|FY ™5 Regional ContextLs)*Kenai Ranges Bordering Flats, =_Turnagain Arm _- *Applicant's Proposed Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 WOM PRIX ISY SIDA TAWPROKN920 HOON inah2-9 Tables\Table 2-9A Human Favironment.Kenai Lowlands doc Chaper 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-76 TABLE 2-9B:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM:GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION Route Route Length Geologic,Water and Marine Resources |Vegetation and Aquatic Resources | Option (km/miles)|Wetland Vegetation |Upland Vegetation | Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory . Near-coast resources e 16 hectares (4 f acres)saltmarsh potentially affected *No upland vegetationa.ac!*-Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (PL Campbell)could Impacts and Mitigation Preferred Route Option£2.8 e g be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling *-Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh *No upland vegetation53s23=«No significant impacts =No significant impacts8E°on 22.4 (13.9)Marine hazards 2 a $LZ 2 °2.4km (1.5 mile)boulder/cobble areas --submarine cable embedment not feasibleavfoo)az ©11.4 km (7.1 miles)subject to ice scour or impact fiom ice Hoes and pressure ridges 9.3 hin (3 8 miles) z an mitigated by submarine cable embedment «©-0.2km (0.1 mile)prone to slope instability -submarine cable embedment not feasible boone eee ebb eee,Preference:$0 _Preference:2 Preference:1esDennnnnIE(REE ORIROIOIIIN |NNURNII III n ISS nS SS nnIGOS Inventory,impacts and Mitigation CT SS Anventory 00 Taventory£Terrestrial resources and hazards «©1.2 hectares (3.1 acres)saltmarsh potentially affected =32.9 hectares (81.3 acres)of closed mixed forest**0.2 km (0.1 mile)prone to slope instability (southwest end of Fire Island)-mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation potentially affected |>Py =No significant impacts *-Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh Impacts and Mitigation3=Near-coast resources *No significant impacts «-Spruce bark beetle mitigation2>i)a ®Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material back fill (Fire Island and PL.°No significant impactsE3seCampbell)-could be mitigated by horizontal directional drillingOtaac©No significant impactszx£2e °&27.5(17.1)Marine hazards se 2 sc ®3.9km (2.4 miles)boulder/cobble areas --submarine cable embedment not feasible Ee P-]Ss *9.3 .km (5.8 miles)subject to ice scour or impact from ice foes and pressure ridges -4.8 km (3 miles)mitigated38bysubmarinecableembedmentFf&®0.8 kin (0,5 mile)prone to slope instability -submarine cable embedment not feasible|Ke -Least Preferred Route Option z ®=Slope instability at Fires Island Preference:2 Preference:2 Preference:22ONnInennnDORRRRRenOnRnnnEnG!DOOROSORROROGROOOS |NRORGSEOSOSGIGSGISS=SSS SSSGGGOg inventory,Impacts and Mitigation ©inventory00 nnntentang'Terrestrial resources and hazards ©I.E hectares (2.7 acres)saltmarsh potentially affected *®32.8 hectares (81.1 acres)of closed mixed forest ®8.1km (5.0 miles)of 100-year floodplain --mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation potentially affectedi|*0.2 km (0.1 mile)prone to slope instability (southwest end of Fire Island)-mitigated:see Route Option A ®=Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh ;Impacts and Mitigation «No significant impacts *No significant impacts *Spruce bark beetle mitigation «Near-coast resources No significant impacts®Erosion from trenching oftidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backll (Fire Island and Pt. Woronzof)-could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling 30.7 (19.1)®No significant impacts Marine hazards *6.1 km (3.8 miles)boulder/cobble areas submarine cable embedment not feasible *$11.4 km (7.1 miles)subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges -1.6 km (1.0 miles) mitigated by submarine cable embedment *0.8km (0.5 mile)prone to slope instability -submarine cable embedment not feasible Least Preferred Route OptionIsland(TesoroRoute)RouteOptionF©-Slope instability at Fire Island|ee en Ce |See won.Preferemees eleccecececececeeeenteeeeeeIPocceceeeeteceeee Preference:2c eeeeccee [eeeeceeeeeceeccecceee-Preference?Bee|eennnne (eenenenenennnnnnnn:GORRGSnSSInnEnGS |SRGRSnROnE Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory InventoryZzNear-coast resources , *No wetland vegetation =0.2 hectares (0.6 acres)of closed mixed forest potentially o se oO ,®Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (Pt.Woronzof)-could Preferred Route Option affected . *3 3 s pe be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling *No wetland vegetation Impacts and Mitigation fee 3 S ®Neo significant impacts =Selective clearing and avoidance by cable location29027.7 (17.2).os .ge O x Marine hazards =No significant impacts|3 E4 2 g 5 *2.3 km (1.5 miles)boulder/cobble areas -submarine cable embedment not feasible Preferred Route Option&4 «15.8 km (9.8 miles)of submarine areas subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges -13.7 ©Small amount of vegetation with impacts possibly avoidedx*km (8.5 miles)mitigated by submarine cable embedm(8.5 miles)mitigated by submarine cable embedment Preference:t Preference:1 Preference:1 Souther Intertie Project Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the July 1999 'Applicant's Proposal 2-77 MAA PENT SS PUP OU PRETROO TON Fingt!?9 Tabled Table 7 OM Natural Facinoment Tumagain Arm doc TABLE 2-9B:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM:GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION mitigated by submarine cable embedment Preference:1 Preference:1 Route Route Length Geologic,Water and Marine Resources |Vegetation and Aquatic Resources | Option (km/miles)|Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation | Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory&Near-coast resources 0.7 hectares (1.8 acres)saltmarsh potentially affected No upland vegetation%¢=m *-Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material back fill (Klatt Road shore-tail)Impacts and Mitigation Preferred Route Option&3 =could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling Proposed directional boring will avoid impacts on No upland vegetationsuaa7”*No significant impacts saltmmarsh eee °$25.8 (16.0)Marine hazards No significant impacts2232.1.5 km (0.9 mile)boulder/cobble areas -submarine cable embedment not feasible ao &Po 5 «©13.5 km (8.4 miles)of submarine areas subject to ice scour or impact trom ice floes and pressure ridges TLzZkm(7.Umiles)mitigated by submarine cable embedment Preference:1 Preference:3 Preference:1 faventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory£.Near-coast resources 07 hectares (1.8 acres)saltmarsh potentially affected 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)of closed mixed forest affected72ce=-Erosion from trenching of tidat mud flats and saltmarsh with selective material back Gl (Chickatoon tidal tnpacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation°Zz 3 4 t mudflats)-could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling Proposed directional boring will avoid impacts on Selective clearing 8 ¢.Oo 2 19.5 (12.1).No significant impacts saltmarsh No significant impacts3wi£&Marine hazards ; No significant impacts2#6§2 =13.5 km (8.4 miles)of submarine areas subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges -Fa}mitigated by submarine cable embedment Preference:1 Preference:I Preference:1OREDORRRRnRRERnORnI:DRRIRIIERREROOIIOSS |(UII SiIin Ins sassngnGnaOElaventory,Impacts and Mitigation ©7777 nnnaeniaryrt possess sess sess sss cc ener6zNear-coast resources 3.7 hectares (9.3 acres)saltmarsh potentially affected 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)of closed mixed forest affected>2 s x ®-Erosion from trenching oftidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material back All (Chickaloon tidal Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigationa«§3 §x mudflats)-could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling Proposed directional boring will avoid impacts on Selective clearingEx8&%gs 18.3 (11.5)®No significant impacts saltmarsh ; No significant impacts2235OxMarinehazardsNosignificantimpacts=$2 £35 *18.5 km (11.5 miles)subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges -mitigated by Least Preferred Route Option=se a submarine cable embedment Greatest amount of saltmarsh potentially affected0¢g m *0.5 km (0.3 mile)prone to slope instability -submarine cable embedment not feasible .EE DCCC |CIN Preference:1 Preference:2 Preference:toSRnnnnns!DORRRIRORRRORORGEEE:(OURREGIROROOIRGOGS |(000EGROR=GRI===ROO RGSS SOSISSIIEGGGInventory,Impacts and Mitigation ©nn ave tggy mn pre rocc sons esc scs sesso es ia ory 3 x Near-coast resources 0.7 hectares (1.8 acres)saltmarsh potentially affected 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)of closed mixed forest affected+$y,s -Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material back fill (Chickaloon tidal Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation<bef s e mudflats)-could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling Proposed directional boring will avoid impacts on Sclective clearingI22827«No significant impacts saltmarsh No significant impactsa2raGx16.3 (10.1)Marine hazards No significant impactsés$g 5 *=16.3 km (10.1 miles)of submarine areas subject to ice scour or impact from ice Noes and pressure ridges -23¢3 mitigated by submarine cable embedment== a *0.5 km (0.3 mile)of submarine and coastal areas prone to slope instability -submarine cable embedment notsefeasiblevPreference:1 Preference:|Preference:FoSinnnnnn(ROnRReRnROGROGEE!SORSRSOROIROIIORIOS |(ROORIOOSIO=IIS=RISSS SS SSSSGGGIGInventory,Impacts and Mitigation,==ventory Ot pono nsscescscesse gayTerrestrialresourcesandhazards0.7 hectares (1.8 acres)sallmarsh potentially affected 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)of closed mixed forest affectedi2®0.8 km (0.5 mile)of 100-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation .impacts and Mitigation .-rTy a *®Ne significant impacts Proposed directional boring will avoid impacts on Selective clearing=2 s bf Near-coast resources saltmarsh No significant impacts .ma £2 a S 25.9161 ®Erosion from trenching of tidal mudflats and saltmarsh with selective material backfill (Chickaloon tidal No significant impacts8E5°x 9 (16.1)mudflats and Pt.Campbell)-could be mitigated by horizontal directional drilling 5 Of $35 ©No significant impacts ' 3 8 Po Marine hazards 6 *25.1.km (15.6 miles)of submarine areas subject to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges - Preference:1 *Applicant's Preferred Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 i a ee ey Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-78 TABLE 2-9B:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM:WILDLIFE RESOURES |Wildlife Selected Resources:| Route Route Length Anadromous Fish Birds Large Mammals Predators Marine Mammals Threatened and EndangeredOption(km/miles)Species Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation impacts and Mitigation o ec!©No anadromous fish streams *-Disturbance to nesting waterfowhat Ff *Temporary displacement of black e Wolfand lynx not present *Limited noise disturbance *-Stellar sea lion present only on veryez$e g ®Nota factor in route comparison edge of habitat (Pt.Campbell)-bears and brown bears at Pl ®Nota factor in route comparison ®No calving areas -no significant rare occasion2a82°locally significant impacts during Possession -no significant impacts impacts ®Nota factor in route comparison3E°Sci 22.4 (13.9)construction Preferred Route Option:é 1S)$2 <*No loss of habitat *No clearing of moose winter rangeweeas Preference:2 Preference:1 ee eee Same as Route Option fb |Impactsand Mitigation"7 "impacts and Mitigation ]"77""Same as Route Option D7]"7777"Same as Route Option D7"|777777"Same as Route Option D7|ge a ®=Disturbance to nesting waterfowl *Temporary displacement of black.iz ry tl (Pt.Campbell and Fire Estland)-bears and brown bears at Pt ea 3 5 -3 locally significant impacts during Possession -no significant impacts22aae=27.5 (17.1)construction ®Clearing in moose winter$3 Fc g S Ia ,®-Collision hazard (Fire Island)-wire range/creation of new winter rangeFe3ssmarkingnearhikes-locally on Fire Island -ao significantwai&fz 8 significant impacts impactsxY&*-No loss of habitat s -Preference:3 Preference:2 0eeSameasRouteOptionDb|Impactsand Mitigation. "{|""""SameasRoute OptionE |SameasRoute Option D "77777"Same as Route Option B77"|""7"Sameas Route Option D es -mom ®Disturbance to nesting waterfowlees£ef =(Fire Island)-locally significantgesg2%impacts during construction48Zeo-wy 30.7 (19.1)*-Collision hazard (Fire Island -wireS826g2emarkingnearlakes)-locallyaSFH2¢significant impactsFs«c ee *No loss of habitat Preference:300 eee eee.oe lee Same as Route OptionDs]Impactsand Mitigation 7]07 SameasRoute OptionD SameasRoute Option D |Same as Route Option DD Same as Route Option D:>3 :be *®No disturbance to nesting waterfowlSee3&a '®No loss of habitat 3 53 «=27.7 (17.2)Preferred Route OptionBoekva*No disturbance to nesting waterfowl!aS iTS 3.2 ze ©4 Preference:1 ee TA"Same as Route Option= «|Impactsand Mitigation SameasRoute OptionDfImpacts and Mitigation ==|Same as Route Option ==Same as Route Option D o =e *Disturbance to nesting waterfowl ©Very limited wolf habitat-e °vee .veevseniywithinconcentrationareaatACWR *Lynx not present2622=_locally significant impacts *®Nota factor in route comparison|gue G25 25.8 (16.0)*No loss of habitat .255 242 Least Preferred Route OptionF4RSére|*Waterfowl concentration area inae)ACWR Preference:4 =---- oute options D through H are preferred to route options |through L for wildlife in the Turnagain Arm area. Southern Intertie Project July 1999 WOM PHIXESY SV 40 fF AWPROED9207009 F inat2-9 Tables able 2-91 Wildlife Selected Resources,Turnagain Arm doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-79 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:WILDLIFE RESOURES Wildlife Selected Resources Route Route Length Anadromous Fish Birds 'Large Mammals Predators Marine Mammals Threatened and EndangeredOption(km/miles)Species *Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option M Same as Route Option Meo-t Figo . .e3 sonz23Saw-_-a - See |$23oOful8-65aay wn Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option M Same as Route Option M2saa)* Anadromous fish streams spanned e -Disturhance to nesting waterlow LatF3é3ode*-Submarine cable would be placed Potter Marsh and known bald eagle a ata under Rabbit Creek hesting area locally significant80a,Oc.13.5 (8.4)gs a anSuEd=e =Nota factor in route comparison impacts2S2%$22"ssa 3c= ee sO Same as Route Option UP Same as Route Option UO SameasRoute OptionN 0 J Same as Route OptionN 0 Same as Route Option M |”Same as Route Option MV£27 |25%N .B33 |oeS08,Sais 12.2 (7.6)az Ea 00$352 |ges£iw ga jf oae-=|#43|- "eo PE"Same as Route Option U0 Same as Route Option UP SameasRoute OptionN =|Same as Route OptionN 0 Sameas Route Option M |”Same as Route Option M|3 sz |2seess|soa3SoSRa)Sga%acc 12.4 (7.7)CEa olesU8%224asc.a on gu<2 "eee ponent"Same as Route Option UP Same as Route Option U0 Same as Route OptionN Sameas Route OptionN Sameas Route OptionM ==|«Same as Route Option M3<2 Aeness|2o5x<awnStes6aa 14.3 (8.9) oung¥s2 |giseg-8)garHo ee epTE"Same as Route Option Ud Same as Route Option GP SameasRoute OptionN Same as Route OptionN Same as Route OptionM===--S«(|«SameasRouteOptionMM232/78eeesae"se Saez«x anngts64943 12.1 (7.5)a 5 2a 2£Sai . a "ee soss"Sle &=<Q ST Same as Route Option VU |Same as Route Option U7 Same as Route OptionN ==[Same as Route OptionN=|Same as Route Option M =«(|S Same as Route Option M =fog |Nasxsta.Beis |282s9¢.|oan 13.4 (8.3)Ses ges<3 &Pe 3s eya723% *Applicant's Preferred Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 SOME PHN ESS SS DEAD PRED NOOO Final 20 Pabtes Pable >90 Wildlife Selected Rewurces Anchorage Rowl doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Inchiding the Applicant's Proposal 2-89 TABLE 2-9B:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM:WILDLIFE RESOURES Wildlife Selected Resources | Route Route Length Anadromous Fish Birds Large Mammals Predators Marine Mammals Threatened and EndangeredOption(km/miles)Species Same as Route Option D Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Miligation Same as Route Option D Impacts and Mitigation Same as Route Option D:Disturbance to nesting waterfowl Disturbance to black bear spring *limited noise disturbance o within concentration areas at feeding at Chickaloon Bay and ©Calving areas ; >so -Chickaloon Bay.KNWR and KNWR nationally significant *Calving season should be avoided -aes 3 3s 5 ACWR,especially high quatits impacts no significant impactsEazas19.512.)habitat at Chickaloon Bay foeatly Pomporars displicament ef brown Sees °"4 7 .significant impacts at ACWR,boars at Chic kaloon Bas and=3 Fa 3 3 nationally significant impacts on KNWR nationally significant se w&[4 KNWR during construction impacts1S)No loss of habitat Preference:2 Preference:1 ee ye ps Impacts and Mitigation Sameas Route Optionf |Same as Route Option |Same as Route Option DO Same as Route Option |.["Same as Route Option Db”Ey z =*®Horizontal drilling below Rabbitsag]£5 er nant compar33gara218.3 (11.5)ota factor in route comparison Seese]25ars)3i4 ee Same as Route Option BO impactsandMitigation "|"Sameas Route Option |Same as Route Option D7 Same as Route Optioni ""”|"""""""Same as Route Option BD"Disturbance to nesting waterfowl3a]within concentration areas ata£_¥Chickaloon Bay (KNWR)and<bd £c ACWR and known bald eagle3282anestingareaatACWR.Potter Marsha2%6=16.3 (10.1)higher quality than rest ofACWRss£2s No loss of habitat 236 3-Least Preferred Route Option3= a Potential disturbance to waterfowl inEethevicinityofPotterMarshareaoduringconstruction Preference:300 ee Pd.es nnn Snnnennennnnnns |nnn Same as Route OptionD |impactsandMitigation "|Same as Route Option ||©”Same'as Route Option D {Same as Route Option)"|"""""""Same as Route Option D7=Disturbance to nesting waterfow|£within concentration areas at E Chickaloon Bay (KNWR)and Us wl habitat edge at Pt.Campbellz3§”locally significant impacts at Pt. ae é s 25.9 (16.1)Campbell,nationally significantla]2 x impacts on KNWRms$3 No loss ofhabitat&a.$el Po]Preferred Route Optionrr]'Avoids potential impacts on3waterfowlconcentrationareas at Fa ACWR Preference:| *Applicant's Preferred Route Southern [ntertie Project July 1999 WDM PHN DSYS DURA PROPN207 000 Final?9 Pabies:able 2-98 Wildhfe Selected Resources,Turnagain Arm doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-80 TABLE 2-9B:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM:LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction Land Use(km/miles)(km/miles) 2 3 =z 2 |é e|2)2]FP]2 z2;2 ;,2]8 s |e Z s |5 |€c £c 3 2 =|se 3 -sd 5 3RouteLengtha&.a 2 s 3 3 2 >3 3 '3 «ete,.; .Summary of Community .Route ..o e 2 _>a e§$aq s on =4 v Existing and Future Land Use Recreation boas .Agency CommentsOption(km/miles)e £@ By =&"=nv 0 w a ¥2 Working Group Issues==£=o 5 3°5 fa z e 5 £1 3s ]s |a |2 -|3 s |&|Z@ela|2]|3 z |3 Z/2]2 |]3 5 é 2/2 4 |e]]*|#é 5 -” |&2 I Jnventory laventory ®-CIRT supports use of Lire «-Impacts to ACWR *Pt.Possession and PL ©-Kincaid Park at Anchorage Island route *Compliance with KPBCMP ee act Campbell!landings landing crosses Anchorage »-Potential for future ®Avoid interference with FAA ea?e $=Potential future development Coastal Wildlife Refuge development would be navigation sites located oni]2 48 s =24 55 02 at Pt.Possession Impacts and Mitigation improved with electricity Fire Island &E's 6a 22.4 (13.9). ----------3 1 ------01 --=Crosses open water =No recreation impacts ©Impacts to private lands along2re]S ve (13.9)(4)(8.1)Impacts and Mitigation coastline (PL PossessionLl#z RS 3 2 s No land use impacts Village)a5 m5 |©Compliance with KPB Coastal Management Plan Preference:1 Preference:1 Deen nnn enn I ETT EEE OS Oe Inventory Inventory =CART supports use of Fire 7 1 impacts to AG WR ®Pt Possession and PL *-Kincaid Park at Anchorage Island route *Compliance with KPBCMP ”Campbell landings landing crosses Anchorage =-Potential for future «-Avoid interference with FAA=$©-Potential future development Coastal Wildlife Refuge :development would be navigation sites located on2"at Pt.Possession Impacts and Mitigation improved with electricity Fire tsland E wit *-Crosses open water *.No recreation impacts =-Impacts to private lands alongUgzece.*Crosses Fire Island,uses coastline (PL Possession"e283 2 =34 79 existing roads Village)s r nm 6S 27.7(17.1)-------------(2.1)--(4.9)-----.Vortec facilities on island fc 8 2Q+.:Impacts and MitigationF#RS 3 e ©Compliance with FAA27|&E regulations to avoid impacts&£=with Vortec z 2 *Compliance with KPB 3 Coastal Management Plan *No land use impacts Preference:2 Preference:1 te pepeneeneenenensennensSeceneeneenees|ROIs nIInGnS GROOIOG EORIIEGS NOGGENGS |ROGGE!DORROEEG IRGROGRD IUDEGGOG GREGOR!DOGGREGOS MURREOGIG IREEGGGS |SIRREGGGEGE 'Inventory Inventory ="CIRT supports use of Fire |*impacts to ACWR -Fe 2 wlan ®-Similar to Route Option E «-Similar to Route Option E Island route :®Compliance with KPBCMPSelehal$except lands at Pt.Woronzof *Potential for future _|®Avoid interference with FAA$$te 3 -0.2 05 79 in Anchorage development would be 'navigation sites located on¥3 Sol Oze |30.7(19.1)-----(0.1)(0.3)-(49)---Impacts and Mitigation improved with electricity Fire Island3B2s|eee ,',©-Similar to Route Option E *-Impacts to private lands alongagé32aycoastline(Pt.Possession2=7 ee Preference:2 Preference:1 Village)IJ see nn ee eee eee ee ep "inventory OdInventorySY *"Preferred submarine route ©Requires compliance withz*=Similar to Route Option D *-Similar to Route Option E from Anchorage CWG KPBCMPF}7 3 Ps +except lands at Pt.Woronzof viewpoint *Impacts to ACWR A ...§&4 as 27.7(172)61 ___.. 0.3 63 ._. 02 . in Anchorage Avoids impacts to Anchoragegs&°eyes (3.8)(0.2)|(3.9)(0.1) Fs 342-[-4 Preference:t Preference:1 Southern Intertie Project Chapter 2 Alternatives Including theJuly1999.Applicant's Proposal 2-81 VOM PHN TSYS DN TAUPRODE 207-008 f nah?%Tables:Table 2 8 Human Environment.Curmagain Ann doc TABLE 2-9B:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM:LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction Land Use(km/miles)(km/miles)* =ic =%s c=>|,¢2 |55 £);2)ea]2)2z3s2aege=e PA 5 ir)i os e 3 v é a 2 an Ss 2 5 g«|#2]8 PY 2 S |Z]2 =f}25]¢2 4 no: iRouteOptionene'°5 a 2 z £FE Se &&c :=3 g 2 Existing and Future Land Use Recreation "Working Group Issues?Agency Comments 2/2°|€/][°°|2 |2 2°|7)2 |€|3a53a|et v $S F = =>s |5 S g é &Pas rs x =s + Inventory Inventory «=One of two longest Compliance with KPBCMP o =o Pt.Possession and Kkatt Road Crosses Anchorage Coastal submarine crossing may Impacts to ACWR e .3 c 3 landings Wildlife Reluge alfect reliability 2 z é 2 =61 5.0 02 Potential future development at Impacts and Mitigation *-Landing point on AnchorageGreoa25.8 (16.0)38 ------------Ga.1)------(0 1)--Pt.Possession No recreation impacts side is not desirable because $36 2 2 (G8).Crosses open water ofproximity to residencesa36RS32ImpactsandMitigationz="5 No land use impacts Preference:I Preference:1 Inventory Jnventory =-Concern over impacts to Compliance with KPBCMPgc:=Chickaloon Bay and Klatt Road Crosses Anchorage Coastal Chickaloon Bay Impacts to ACWR 2e%3 £25 landings Wildlife Refuge ® Fflects to ACWR sre >|---_<..- 68 13 _-_.--Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and MitigationfaeOf19.5 (12.1)(4.2)(0.8)'ems%$Ze ::No land use impacts No recreation impacts 22 &2-4 Preference:1!Preference:f Oo 4 eens DOUEIOIEES IORUUINROIIIIOIS |SOONG!SORUIIINID IUNOOIIOG GUNNING DOOOOIOOS |NINOS IGRIGS SOEOIIOG IURNOIGS OUGG00ON GG0RG0GI IRIGIOG]SURNGROS |SIGE inventory ========{-S--- - -”-sCUnentory <7"ImpactstoACWR and Compliance with KPBCMP 3 z Chickaloon Bay and Oceanview Oceanview Bluff Park planned expansion at Conflict with expansion of =65 x Park /Alaska Railroad Crosses ACWR Oceanview Bluff Park ADFandG shooting range<$g an I}Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation «-Visual impacts associated during construction>5 é s "i 55 13 No land use impacts Short term construction with transition station Impacts to ACWRa=%a2 18.3(11.5)|}--------aay |og)----impacts:mitigationwill£5 3 S&replace/repair facilities 2s i Potential short term conflict s=-|2 with Rabbit Creek ShootingSeRangeduringconstructionoPreference:1 Preference:1 USER (neeenOnn:URUREOEEEEEEN |DOUUEEON GOOOOOON IOOUROOED INRROOOOG INOGOOOG |ROUUEON GURNEE]IUIUIOON (UNNONNN DOURIIINS (NURINEON DUURIREG RURGREGE |DUUIIIIIIGEEE inventory=ss ventory CompliancewithKPBCMP33ust®Chickaloon Bay to Rabbit Creek Crosses Anchorage Coastal Impacts to ACWR gers Em /Alaska Railroad landing Wildlife Refuge=&o a).ge :egoae|£S i . 2.7 1.3 .. Crosses open water Impacts and Mitigation33aOo'16.3 (10.1)-------.(1.7)(0.8)°Impacts and Mitigation Potential short term conflict [$228]$3 No land use impacts with Rabbit Creek Shootingzs22i2.Range during constructionO<Preference:1 Preference:1 ROneneenees DORenOGnOe DRGROReGneGs |NOREEN ONRIGNE OUORIEG (ONRIEIOG (ORORGNG:|NORORII OUREONON DORGRNEGG (URUGEOI:ROURONORG IOURRNON G0RGGNI:GUNRGGEGL |GUSESRSREGIE inventory ventory nn ee e Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell Crosses Anchorage Coastal >=t =)landing Wildlife Refuge Kincaid Park as 3 s n ii Crosses open water at Anchorage landing sea as 25.9(16.1)..._.._ 9.5 13 ....Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation 24 s Ox 9 (16..(5.9)(0.8)No land use impacts No recreation impacts=Zz z 5 5 Preference:1 Preference:4 =-[4. *Applicant's Preferred Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 WAL PINE SYS DATA PRONO9207 0004 jnah?-9 Tables Table 2 91 ftuman £nvionment,Turnagain Arm doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-82 TABLE 2-9B:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM:SOCIOECONOMIC,SUBSISTENCE,CULTURAL,AND VISUAL Visual Resources Regional Context Kincade Park) Route Route Length Socioeconomic Subsistence Cultural Resources Residential and Recreation Views ;Summary of Visual impacts andOption(kin/miles)Landscape Scenery (km/miles)Travel Way Views Mitigation (km/miles) Impacts and Mitigation N/A Impacts Local Context Views N/A Impacts =*-Rate reduction .16/K WII .Low potential impact area .Scenie Quality Class B.tidal *0.3 (0.2)foreground views from ©No significant visual impacts -2 ®Peak workforce 90 workers,Preferred Route Option mudflats.coastal bluffs recreation area (Oceanview submarine cable=164 worker months ®-Least amount of area with * Park-lke image type along M2.2 Park)*®Nota factor in route comparison52Qaconstructionlaborplus261potentialimpactsRegionalContextizZ3§=worker months as submerged .Cook Inet.Lurnagain Arm.KnikersegmenAms2O$22.4(13.9)Hy 5 non-local workers$$2 ve2332=-$3.8 million in wages andgeassalariesforTurnagainArm and 3 Anchorage options ilm*No environmental justice issues -Es identified* Nosignificantimpacts -=-s so ff eee Preference:UP|eee Peeeeeeee(eeeesenes eeeeennnnnnes |nnnSameas Route OptionD ff}SONIA Impacts Local Context Views NIA"Save as Route OptionD*Low to moderate potential *Fire Island,Scenic Quatity Class ©0.2 (0.1)immediate foreground ”impact area A and B and 0.3 (0.2)foreground views=$Class Az:steep cliffs and tidal from recreation area (Pony2=mudflats making up the island Knowles Coastal Trail,KincadeESdcoastlinePark))vps a Class B:relatively flatazc3Letopography,mixed conifer226|S&S |asa forests. fis er *Pt Campbell:Class A denseFiaRS3Begrasslandsinterspersedwith3eS]at wetlands.| "==-Park-like image type along M2.3 z x Regional Context 3 ®=Cook Inlet,Turnagain Arm.Knik Arm Preference:3 0.enna:(eeeeennen eeneeennnnnen |MeNnEESame as Route OptionD [JNA epaets Local Context Views NTA"See as Route Option D :*-Low to moderate potential ®=Fire Island.Scenic Quality Class *0.3 (0.2)foreground views from'on 2 impact area A and B recreation arca (Oceanview8=Class A:steep cliffs and tidal Park)|©a mudflats making up the island=as]&&coastlineza3Ssa]Class B:relatively flat 2 a topography,mixed conifer£e rs 6 30.7 (19.1)farests§"z g =*Pt Campbell:Class A -denseo>fl g-grasslands interspersed with 2 S wetlands. a a =Park-like image type along M13z<Regional Context li4' ®Cook Inlet,Turnagain Arm,Knik Preference:3 sft i as CseeneenensNeneeeneeseeeeneneeeees|OneSame as Route Option DNA impacts "Local Context Views NIA "Same as Route Option D-II*Low to moderate potential *Pt.Woronzof:Scenic Quality *0.6 (0.4)immediate foreground 7 impact area Class A.views from recreation area $* Park-like image type along M2.4 (Tony Knowles Coastal Trail, x 27.7 (17.2) & _Pt.PossessiontoPt.Woronzof(TesoroRoute)RouteOptionGPreference:2 *Cook Inlet,Turnagain Arm,Knik Arm Southern Intertie Project July 1999 VPNE PEIN E SY SEDUCE AIDED N09 OH el9 9 Pabios Table 2 OR Piman Ens ironment Turagsin Arm doc Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-83 TABLE 2-9B:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON TURNAGAIN ARM:SOCIOECONOMIC,SUBSISTENCE,CULTURAL,AND VISUAL |Visual Resources Route Route Length Socioeconomic Subsistence Cultural Resources Residential and Recreation Views Summary of Visual Impacts andOption(km/miles)Landscape Scenery .Travel Way Views Mitigation(km/miles)(km/mites) Same as Route Option D N/A Impacts Local Context Views N/A Same as Route Option D&£s mm *Low potential impact zone Coastal Marshes south of Klatt ©0.3 (0.2)foreground views from§3 3 §2 Road Scenic Quality Class Ao -residential areas 3 ra a ea 25.8 (16.0)tlense prasstands interspersed withvale7swetlands Fa ¥2 32 Regional Context¢£ee Po]5 Cook Inlet Larmaeain Arm,Kak Preference:2 Arm Impacts and Mitigation N/A Impacts Local Context Views N/A Same as Route Option DRatereduction.2U/KWIE .Low potential impact area Mosth submarine:however,Scenic =»0.3 (0.2)foreground views fromPeakworkforce100workers,170 Quality Chass A landscape exists at residential areaspS}worker months construction labor Chickaloon Bay and the southern ¢plus 223 worker months in cdge of Anchorage -coastal3>_submerged segment marshes interspersed with small'o 2 s-75 non-local workers drainages,wetlands and tidal>Fe as 195 (12.1 $7 million in wages and salaries mudflats.a 5 °=312.1)for Turnagain Arm plus Regional Context e¢é 33 Anchorage options Cook Inlet.Fumagain Arm,KnikfuPoNoenvironmentaljusticeissues.Arm3identified a}No significant impacts (ooo Preference:1 enna Reneeenees neenGnnnenans |RORREESameas Route OptionE PNA imparts OO Same'as Route Option Fie rnsgasegaisagersneonces*®-Low potential impact area =0.2 (0.1)immediate foreground 3 Least Preferred Route Option and 0.5 (0.3)foreground views a3 Option from residential areas=3 >x .Greatest amount of an with .0.3 (0.2)immediate foreground&s 3 g 'potential impacts and 0.2 (0.1)foreground views zor 3 from recreation areasg5és18.3 (11.5)(Oceanview Bluff Park, - is ghey i De:-8 e és g 3 Oceanview Park) se)2Se= a) booneceeceeeee Preference:2 .eee Same as Route Optionr =ff NIA impacts Same as Route Option FPView nnnfoesSameasRouteD£5 .v)*Low potential impact area *0.6 (0.4)foreground views fromPaestel--n recreational area (Rabbit Creekgies2aRifleRange)Sa@eu|O=|163(101)ssad}28 |-2bag|37g<"5) eee |ie ASI |es a,SsSiaceeTESameasRouteOptiontJNIAPpimpactsSameasRouteOptionIViewsN/A Same as RouteDnn*Low potential impact area ©0.3 (0.2)immediate foregroundasz|§”and 0.8 (0.5)of foregrounde&¢s views recreation areas (Tony855°:25.9 (16.1)Knowles Coastal Trail,Kincade=Zz &3 3 Park) =[4o Preference:1 *Applicant's Preferred Route Southern Intertie Project July 1999 EWNE meres He ee Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-84 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION -vownace Route Route Length Geologic,Water and Marine Resources |__Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Option (km/miles)|Wetland Vegetation'|Upland Vegetation* inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory #8 *Cable underground over entire route option *0.3 hectares (0.2 acres)saltmarsh potentially affected «4.1 hectares (10.3 acres)closed mixed forest potentially affected -m %=_*One stream crossing -mitigated:boring drilled beneath Fish Creck with drilling activities Impacts and Mitigation Spruce Bark Beetle mitigation=3 tal &held back from waterway and sensitive riparian areas;vehicle crossings mitigated with man-Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh Impacts and MitigationSE=aZ 6.4 (4.0)made or ice bridging *No significant impacts Selective clearingE)os g °x *1.9 km (1.2 mile)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route A No significant impactsPe}35 355 =1.6 km (1.0 mile)of roadless area -mitigated by routing new access to reduce scarring of |z 4 2 landscapee©No significant impacts Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventorybha*0.2km (0.1 mile)100-year Noodplaii -mitigated:see Route Option A =5.04 hectares (12.6 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected |©No upland vegetationPas2Za«-One stream crossing -mitigated:see Route Option A ©0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected Impacts and MitigationpaAaes-*2.4km (1.5 miles)compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation ®No significant impacts332gga”17(48 *0.2 km (0.1 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A «-Spanning and not improving existing roadsFaz8Fy°a3 7 (48)*Access road construction over 0.06 km (0.04 mile)of Link 13.2 =Selective cleariny:|SES a 52 *No significant impacts *No significant impactsx=3 aa Least Preferred Route Optione5*Crosses Klatt Bog Preference:1 Preference:2 Preference:Po.eeenee ee ne ""Taventory,Impacts and Mitigation 97 pn inventory =SsS-S- CSsSsSY iss inventory if q Fi al]*0.2 km (0.1 mile)[00-year Noodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A =0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected |©0.16 hectares (0.4 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected22%°-=One stream crossing -mitigated:see Route Option A ®0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected ; Impacts and Mitigation35cs)z So 2 ®2.9km (1.8 miles)compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation .Selective clearing4gz:Sci _8.2(5.1)=*0.2 km (0.1 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A a Spanning and hot improving existing roads *No significant impactsrebyP]Praia)==Access road construction over 0.06 km (0.04 mile)of Link [3.2 ®-Selective clearing3e$3 2 -e No significant impacts =No significant impacts =-mw -sze5 Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:1 EE "Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation 9p inventory 900 ee inventory ===-s-<Cs ='CiCS™S3sauty©2.9 km (1.8 miles)compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected *0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected2=e_:Ne *0.2 km (0.1 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected ®0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)closed tall shrub potentially affected23am2esx*Access road construction over 0.06 km (0.04 mile)of Link 13.2 Impacts and Mitigation ; Impacts and MitigationtlBia3Orin10.1 (6.3)©No significant impacts *Spanning and not improving existing roads e Selective clearing2eee2$0 .Selective clearing =No significant impacts t 2 ae)n e -Limited clearing of right-of-waySoe<«No significant impactsasaPreference:1 Preference:|Preference:1 _ °Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory ;Inventory ;:+%*-Two stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected *0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected23soha)*0.2km (0.1 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A ©0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected Impacts and Mitigationaé=3 €Sm *No significant impacts *0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)closed tall shrub potentially affected Selective clearing i] Zyem 2s 2 8.7(5.4)Impacts and Mitigation No significant impacts|20 2 g OWN AO.*-Spanning and not improving existing roads<Bae 2s st 2 ©=Selective clearing£3 io)3 <4 *-Limited clearing of right-of-way3canes]*No significant impacts Preference:!Preference:1 Preference:1= *Applicant's Preferred Route 'Geology,water,and marine resources are not route comparison factors for options M through Z?Route Option N is the least preferred option for wetlands*Route Option M is the least preferred option for upland vegetation Southern Intertie Project July 1999 VOM PHIXISYSDATAWRON0920NOOWF inal\2-9 Tables\]able 2-90 Natural Eavironment,Anchorage Bowl duc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-85 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION Route Route Length Geologic,Water and Marine Resources |Vegetation and Aquatic Resources |Option (km/miles)I Wetland Vegetation |Upland Vegetation | =.Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory3=w a *0.2 km (0.1 mile)100-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A ®0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentiallysig£5 ie =One stream crossing -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected affected=z =2 ai wn =0.6 km (0.4 miles)compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigationa26&S Ow >10.0 (6.2)*0.2 km (0.1 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A «Spanning and not improving existing roads Selective clearingSisfas*No significant impacts «Selective clearing No significant impactsZofag32*Directional boring under Rabbit Creek<2°al 5 *No significant impacts we ee a _..................,.,Preference:1 oe._.Preference:1 Preference:1_me |wfpesssssss Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation CESS S"Inventory PTeensesessenesInventory ©.ze «a cy A og 10 =0.5 km (0.3 mile)100-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentiallyz£:=3 s ar =Three stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A =0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected affectedé25%aus 11.3 (7.0)=0.2 km (0.1 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigationaan*3 °S Ny "*No significant impacts «-Spanning and not improving existing roads Selective clearingSee¢€S47 *-Selective clearing No significant impacts3°£¢e 23 q «No significant impacts , m i Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:1mSTnventory,Impacts and Mitigation ©7777 perme nnnnnnnn eee pg cnn ncc cee scccc ens ccccsesse pases sccccsesescccseesccoceoeTaventory>x _7 a =0.5 km (0.3 mile)100-year floodplain mitigated:see Route Option A =0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentiallyso$2 2 =Three stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation affected=Fz 5 =4 =*No significant impacts *Spanning and not improving existing roads Impacts and Mitigation352e%eee 11.4(7.1 «-Selective clearing Selective clearingMesOw4(7.1)-.oe :Seee¢2a ©No significant impacts No significant impacts46es3gaPreference:1 Preference:1 Preference:1<2 M's54 Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory .a =One stream crossing -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.4 hectare (1.0 acre)saltmarsh potentially affected 0.32 hectares (0.8 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentiallyz&=3 Pry =0.6 km (0.4 miles)compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected affected cs ss 3 s -*)= 2.6km (1.6 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A =0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected Impacts and MitigationaeSeeelie13.5 (8.4 *No significant impacts Impacts and Mitigation Selective clearingmmZees°x 5 (8.4)*-Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh No significant impacts=4 2 el os S Cy «Spanning and not improving existing roads2a7aegzx*-Selective clearingas)*.No significant impacts Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:2 coe ee Tniventory,Impacts and Mitigation 77 ppdeitgrynanonceseccescesccsscscscccccsInventory =ir 2 *2.6 km (1.6 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.4 hectare (1.0 acre)saltmarsh potentially affected 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentially26>*"No significant impacts =0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected affected«3 2 c 3 *0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)closed tall shrub potentially affectedBE5o8P=eee Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and MitigationSES.oa 12.2 (7.6)«Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh Selective clearingPe]é ag 2 *Spanning and not improving existing roads No significant impactsSxaaq=Selective clearing Preferred Route Option4Fdmx*No significant impacts Old Seward Highway and Railroad right-of-ways<0 5 Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:1 Southern Intertie Project July 1999 WDM PHXUSYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\2-9 Tables\Table 2-9C Natural Environment,Anchorage Bow!doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-86 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:GEOLOGY AND VEGETATION Route Route Length Geologic,Water and Marine Resources a Vegetation and Aquatic Resources } Option (km/miles)|Wetland Vegetation |Upland Vegetation | .Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation Inventory Inventory3eg.>2 4 a =2.46 km (1.6 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A =0.4 hectare (1.0 acre)saltmarsh potentially affected #0.28 hectares (0.7 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected54s¢ES *No significant impacts =0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected #0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)closed tall shrub potentially affected=e 2 cS 2 2a x Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation mass ows 12.4 (7.7)*Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh Selective clearingSEsCR2a«Spanning and not improving existing roads «No significant impactse2e&246 *-Selective clearing<m%m 5 "No significant impacts nn nn ee |Preference:Eo Preference:1 Preference:2 _Inventory,Impacts and Mitigation ===«=||Inventory 900 trpesoen ssssesssssscsscsscsscsgecssInventory 62 Ne}*0.5 km (0.3 mile)100-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A «0.4 hectare (1.0 acre)saltmarsh potentially affected =0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected3cSsx"=«Five stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A «0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected Impacts and MitigationESL226ye=2.6 km (1.6 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A Impacts and Mitigation «Selective clearingFe5Sms65ol14.3 (8.9)*No significant impacts «Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh *No significant impactsS3332a"i .Spanning and not improving existing roads Preferred Route Option 32 E &3 2 =.Relective clearing ,*Old Seward Highway and Railroad right-of-ways zee x]«©significant impacts=a Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:I wn Se rs |a inventory,Impacts and Mitigation,=TentOpennesscscsssssssss5Inventory | ==2 =Five stream crossings -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.4 hectare (1.0 acre)saltmarsh potentially affected *0.32 hectares (0.8 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentially affectedas=>=2.6 km (1.6 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected =0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)closed tall shrub potentially affected.&€$s Ea.*No significant impacts =0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation sF&S 2 Sos Impacts and Mitigation =-Selective clearing==Ss ONS 12.1 (7.5)=Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarsh *No significant impactsPe332aeeSpanningandnotimprovingexistingroads ge a é a =Selective clearinga3BY*No significant impacts=<5 5 Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:2 aoe inventory,Impacts and Mitigation.======«1S entry pense sesesessssso""ventory.3 =*0.2 km (0.1 mile)00-year floodplain -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.4 hectare (1.0 acre)saltmarsh potentially affected *0.32 hectares (0.8 acres)closed mixed spruce forest potentially affected 5 S =*0.6km (0.4 miles)compressible materials -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.08 hectares (0.2 acres)black spruce bogs potentially affected Impacts and Mitigation =&8 2 =2.46 km (1.6 miles)prone to slope instability -mitigated:see Route Option A *0.04 hectare (0.1 acre)riverine habitats potentially affected =Selective clearing ay £=S ="No significant impacts Impacts and Mitigation =No significant impacts ae g Ba =Directional boring could mitigate impacts on saltmarshSouOog13.4 (8.3)«Spanning and not improving existing roads£é $2a *Selective clearing3£5 é <*No significant impacts Lan a ae 2 <4 Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:2 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-87 Southern Intertie Project July 1999 WDM _PHXINSYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\2-9 Tables\Table 2-9C Natural Environment,Anchorage Bowl doc TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:WILDLIFE RESOURES |Wildlife Selected Resources Route Route Length ..Option (ken/tailes)Anadromous Fish'Birds'Large Mammals?Predators?Marine Mammats'Threatened and Endangered Species! Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation impacts and Mitigation&sot =_*No anadromous fish streams ®Waterfowl habitat very limited ©Clearing within moose winter ©Limited habitat for wolf and tynx in *No beluga whale habitat =American peregrine falcons occur as2N&3s Ss _.Not a factor in route comparison .Clearing within 0.25 mile of known range/creation of new winter range Kincaid Park area -no significant .Not a factor in route comparison tare migrants onlyaf°Z az 6.4 (4.0)bald eagle nest -selective tree in Kincaid Park -no significant impacts *No identifiable impactsE=3 s °#' removal -locally significant impacts impacts .Not a factor in comparisonvo325,2ee 35g@ a |2 .Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation Same as Route Option M Same as Route Option Maufzae-Anadromous fish streams would be ®Waterfowl habitat very limited ©Cleary witht moose winter ©No wolfor lyax habitat2sa32oiilspanned*No known bald cagle nesting areas ranve 'creation of new winter ninge&Fs em 6s _7.7 (4.8)*Nota factor in route comparison inurban setling -a0 significant¥5 3 a g =a impacts eee 36faew5 oo|"ou.|!” """""SameasRouteOptionN |Same as Route OptionN”|Sameas Route OptionN |”Same as RouteGptionN77777"|"Same as Route Option M7""7"Same as Route Option M-a a=]3 e¢sa)ls°a S o™a#2865 Ba +go a.g2f@ |So2 |2260¥sis LaeeeFrasio]"2.37 rn i"pe ee"Same as Route OptionN |Same as Route OptionN [SameasRoute OptionN [SameasRouteOptionN”>”|"7"Same as Route Option M-|"Same as Route OptionMausenecsem4OmMfees|ENus-te adsegO83 10.1 (6.3)¥scs |Sanseegta ¥Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option N Same as Route Option M Same as Route Option M eze SC ey-a3 onszeeara-whS224aaa 8.7(5.4)gas 5 o77=$2e @ x 00<6 e&Sewfa)352<4 eee AE"Same as Route Option N Same as Route OptionN =J SameasRoute OptionNJ SameasRoute OptionN ==Sameas Route Option M-"|Same as Route Option M =2a :%Sy liesSawZee|25%-wnSze6ag=10.0 (6.2) ==esi /e295 ;"68a sfx-_[eel and - OT ee TE"Same as Route Option NP Same asRoute OptionN =[SameasRoute OptionN Same as Route OptionN ||Sameas Route Option M "|"Same as Route Option M-wn .eee |eSnS53|sosSee|avgStee|}6eS2 |]113070)ass53 a -zeta ae"Ose |gaa 'Anadromous Fish,Marine Mammals.and Threatened and Endangered Species are not route comparison factors for Route Options M-Z?Route options N-T are the most preferable for Birds,while options U-Z are the least preferable'Route option M is the least preferable for large mammals and predators,while options N through Z are most preferable Southern tntertie Project July 1999 VDSE PLINY SDA TAPRON09207.0004 inal.2-9 Tables1 able 2-9C Wildlife Selected Resources,Anchorage Bow!dot Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-88 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction i i Land Use(km/miles)(km/miles) s 2 $2 <=op 2 e F z |§2)2)2 |2]2 -_ea -om ==- z{/fz2|2]&B |a2 2};s]/2]6 |€=='S ra =e §=2 2 3 s |S2}/8/28]¢|ZE]2 |Se]Fs}¢|FY]2'a a Ss sa =Us Zz 2 a so gs .§ iRouteRouteLength'23 2 ==2 ow &ec om =4 v Existing and Future Land Use!Recreation?Summary of ommiunity Agency CommentsOption(km/mites)ec E2 e ¢c £28 Py Le rae)a 2 z Working Group Issuesz2/22/2]|"|2 |32 e)2}S|€|32esaG4of&¢-S 7.a ->[od z '3 =wH 8 =c 5s=n £ 2 a)3 oy z a o&#1 3 < Si .Inventory Inventory =*-Concerns over the loss of =®Compatibility with Kincaid 8 3 2 Pt Campbell to Pt.Woronzof =-Crosses Kincaid Park vegclation and disruption to Park so ©Parallels Lesoro Pipeline and ®Crosses ACWR the Tony Knowles Coastal *Impacts to ACWRi".a ',.re .og s future road cdge *-Crosses Tony Knowles Trail and Kincaid Park2%.em =Anchorage International Airport Coastal FrailAexz1xFs22456103ImpactsandMitigationImpactsandMitigation2uio%6.4 (4.0)(2.8) ----- (3.8)(0.2) --”-*-Line would be undergrounded *-Short term constructionit2£z thru park to mitigate airspace impacts3by35interferencewithairport,parallelESmtopipelineandroad|Oo Rs :zZ>{ Preference:2 wn Inventory Inventory «Impacts to residential areas ®Impacts to wetlands 5 w"©Crosses 47 parcels *-Crosses Campbell Creek adjacent to roule nominated as preservation "A”&FS zai «-Planned residential development Greenbelt ©-fmpact to Klatt Bog within the MOA ge em adjacent to route *Open space adjacent to ®Visual impacts to the *Limited access alongFad22£=05 $3 7 ©Parallels road right-of-way Minnesota Dr.Minnesota Dr.Corridor Minnesota Dr. 2 es 6s 7.7 (4.8)-(03)--(33)---(18)----------Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation ®Conflicts with ADOT plans 2:zl 2a _:.©-Line would be relocated within *No recreation impacts for improvement along pe 3 5 3 right-of-way but crosses 2 vacant Minnesota Dr. a fe a gZ parcels:underground and *Visual impacts-.¥=overhead line |es es SS |Preference:2 a Preference:2 __Preference:3 of L Inventory Inventory e -Impacts to residential areas ®Conflicts with ADOF plans 3 on ©Similar to Route Option N =-Similar to Route Option N adjacent to soute for improvement alongs&a)a Impacts and Mitigation Impacts and Mitigation *Visual impacts to Minnesota Minnesota Dr. £25%ea z 05 71 82 *Similar to Route Option N No recreation impacts Dr.Corridor *Limited access alongcas3ogs8.2 (5.1)-(0.3)-(44)_-6.1)------Minnesota Dr. ¥s exis:Bed «Visual impacts to travel£3 2 £2 .corridor E -Preference:1 Preference:3 Preference:2 seen ee enen ee nn ee een eee eee nee nnn eeee ene eee eee ene ge enn nn ee enn Taventory 7Inventory«|©impacts to residential'areas"|=”ConflictswithADOTright-of-sot ee os ®=Planned residential development *-Crosses Campbell Creek adjacent to route .,way requirements°e EB sis 2s.;adjacent to route Greenbelt *Visual impacts along railroad es eclean s 10.1 (6.3)3.1 10.1 *Crosses 14 parcels Impacts and Mitigation corridor and Klatt Road5ES.e Sto 1 (6.3)(1.9)(6.3)Impacts and Mitigation *No recreation impacts2R3sls2a2*Line would be relocated within = WS road and railroad right-of-way4Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:1 'Route Option M is the least disruptive to existing and future land uses,although it is the lest preferable for recreation due to Kincaid Park?Route Option M is the least disruptive to existing and future land uses,although it is the lest preferable for recreation due to Kincaid Park Southern Intertie Project Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the July 1999 Applicant's Proposal 2-90 FMYA EG PAREN MeaT ETE gl FO Pahl Pehle 2 O00 Eman Favinnment Anchorage Poul doc TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction Land Use(kim/miles)(km/miles) 23 4 =B] Fr]-2 bs}s &2 =e Ps ==s=Fe y |sé 5 a)3 =g-_=So -o Zz}2 |z a 5 |2 :6 |&a o o 7 a .=4 a 3e5=¢g «|2s]4 3 e Ms s 2a3g2>:2 ; sos::: i i .Route Route Length Py Ay oe]=$a &s 3 s 2 =a «Existing and Future Land Use Recreation Summary of Community Working Agency CommentsOption|(km/miles)e c a 3 =£ae Pe =a e 3 Z Group Issues==©3 oi €sa e -4 7.2 S a g 3 ba a.2 »z Ss a 7. on 'B 4 3 '3 =2 S €€'g2g&FA ie 2 E Ss €CT)a . = .Fy "|3 vi 2 |-{|*|#e S oO "a =2eb> Inventory Inventory ©-bnpacts to residential ®Oceanview Park -MOA 2 *”®Submarine landing at =Oceanview Bull Park neighborhoods z 2)Oceanview Blatf Park *Crosses Campbell Creck ©-Visual impacts along railroad 2 *a ©Parallels railroad right-of-way to Greenbelt corridor i-@s on substation Impacts and Mitigation ®Conflict with expansion of 82s a od ©Fling Crown Airport adjacent ®-Short term construction Oceanview Parko2s3siaracks:le:mitinatg3e=e7 8.7(5.4)._ 0.5 ._ 8.7 ..-.... to tracks impacts;mitigation would al a fo)be .:(0.3)(5.4)Impacts and Mitigation inchide replacement of =H 4 e7 ®Underground bine past airport picnic facilities and ona 3 qi within railroad right-of-way,no revegetation of disturbedzaimpactstoaviationareasm4a a &=- Se |es SUN CU (OS SO |Preference:{|=====|---siPreference:§|S siPrreference:f |.eeeeeenees eneeesees Geeenennaes |ae Inventory Inventory ®-Impacts to residential *Conflicts with ADOT plans 3 "*-Similar to Route Option Q fron |=Similar to Route Options O neighborhoods through for improvement along 2 =Submarine Landing to O'Malley and Q Oceanview Minnesota Dr. sac wt Road Impacts and Mitigation ®Visual impacts along railroad s Limited access along 6 $3 Eat ©Paratlels road right-of-way along |®-Similar to Route Options O corridor Minnesota Dr. 3ae ex 74 10.0 Minnesota Dr./O'Malley Road and Q ®Conflict with expansion of ®Visual impacts to travelseeOw10.0 (6.2)"*---i "i -™a ¢-Crosses 50 parcels Oceanview Park corridoreeseci(4.6)(6.2)p arRee£5 Impacts and MitigationF}2 te)ea ®=Similar to Route Option Q and O |a Preference:1 Preference:2 Preference:3 wn s <|<a Sees eee es ee ee Oe |ler es ee ee ee Ce |el Seee 2 ee ee es ee RR OOO SOS ee eS eT ae eee lel eeeInventoryInventory©Impacts to residential s Conflicts with ADOT plans -n ®Submarine Landing at ®Oceanview Bluff Park neighborhoods through for improvement along Old 2 "Oceanview Bluff Park ©Crosses Campbell Creek Oceanviow .Seward Highway z A ®Crosses 194 parcels of Greenbelt ®Visual impacts along railroad «Limited access along route 2 wi:residential and commercial uses impacts and Mitigation corridor os requires rebuilding existing e_s as *Parallel to Old Seward Highway |©Similar to Route OptionQ |©Conflict with expansion of line ¢E 3 ea and International Road Oceanview Park *Visual impacts to travelggaan113(7.0 68 98 11.3 Impacts and Mitigation *Impacts to residential areas corridorses°s 370)(4.2)|(6.1)(7.0)°*Potential significant land use adjacent to route |s22 =e |impacts ®Visual impacts along OldegeapactsP& on)wz "*Mitigation would be to rebuild Seward Highway 3 a existing distribution line within 3 2 the road right-of-way <5 Preference:2 Preference:!Preference:2 *Applicant's Preferred Route Southern Intertie Project Chapter 2 --Alternatives Including the Applicant's ProposalJuly1999 :2-91 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction Land U(km/miles)(km/miles)and Use g =ce 3 3 a |2-1/2 }]2le]s=a 3 L o 1S)S 3 =3|&z 5 ©|23 A)5 |83 2 |&={|4 3 &3 Zs 2 z 2 o gidca=]52 >=as c a Route Length é £=&S =3 'Es 2 =s Es 3 #isting and F Land U :Summary of CommunityRouteOption|(km/mites)g E FS 3 3 z 2 28 &2 g 5 g :F visting and Future Land Use Recreation Working Group Issues Agency Comments a/2 |2]&&|gs ete |sf]é |2a|&a 3 a |g 2 ===|35g|5 S|s |}€|&..4 |?478 |3 ' Inventory Inventory finpacts to residential Conflicts with ADOT plans z 6 Similar to Route Option Similar to Route Option S neighborhoods through for improvement along Old 2 <=Crosses 167 parcels Impacts and Mitigation Oceanview Seward Highway §--he id Impacts and Mitigation Similar to Route Option §Visual impacts along railroad Limited access along route gee,er Similar to Route Option S corridor |requires rebuilding existinggSé23a5689taPotentialconflictwithline SEL lOGu 11.4(7.1)--(3.5)(5.5)----7 in --------------expansion of Oceanview Park Visual impacts to travel zed isa”:Impacts to residential areas corridor Pe}=go |sa adjacent to route i-7 Sei Visual impacts along Old a 2 Seward Highway <5 Preference:2 Preference:2 Preference:1 Inventory Inventory Impacts to residential Conflicts with ADOF plans 33 o Submarine Landing at Alaska Rabbit Creck Rifle Range neighborhoods through for improvement along $s5- /37 Railroad/Rabbit Creck Similar to Route Option R Oceanview Minnesota Drive @ Se2ele 3 Parallels Old Seward Impacts and Mitigation Visual impacts along Old Limited access along Bes 2724 Ilighway right-of-way No recreation impacts Seward Corridor Minnesota Drive osm fare 2.4 119 13.5 a oa ..==.|o at 13.5 (8.4)-(5)(7.4)----(8.4) --------------Crosses 150 parcels Impacts to residential areas Visual impacts to traveleet|eer :Similar to Route Option R adjacent to route corridor 3 36139 Impacts and Mitigation Visual impacts along 4 £|S y Similar to Route Options R Minnesota Drive Corridor av 5 and S Preference:1 Preference:2 Preference:6 so]|a wets poresesespossccsccsccs [access possessesPcceecrepeceecere p essere Ppececc ess pec recess poses nes menses Pree ern Taveniory0 inventory|©impactstoresidential Visual impacts along Old ef Similar to Route Options U Similar to Route Options U and neighborhoods through Seward Highway 3 ed and Q Q Oceanview MOA é 3 2es/§we Crosses 100 parcels Impacts and Mitigation Visual impacts along railroadE5sPoaaa"12.2 (7.6).16 4.5 .. 12.2 .__....i Impacts and Mitigation No recreation impacts corridor in the vicinity ofzFa(/Oxus el (1.0)|(2.8)(7.6)Similar to Route Options U Campbell Creck322eisaodandQImpactstoresidential and ea78/227 commercial areas adjacent to a route , Preference:1 Preference:1 Preference:2 0 of eeeore:Piri [nie we fprrrs pronePomecnnapccecrecP ececcrs decsccecs poss scscs Poss scs es passer ses pocerscns oceescns pocececs presse peso"taventory.S|sCdnventory7 Y ©impactstoresidential"|*ConflictswithADOTpiansEs3SimilartoRouteOptionsV,Similar to Route Options V,T,neighborhoods through for improvement along Old 25.zs T.Q Q _Oceanview Seward Highway@S214PedCrosses140parcelsImpactsandMitigationVisualimpactsalongOldVisualimpactsto travel BES £-3 12.4 Impacts and Mitigation No recreation impacts Seward Highway and railroad corridor £2 «és |(12.4(7.7)" 4.0 oe --17 -------Similar to Route Options V.corridor 3 mar |g s va (2.5)(4.1)a7)T.Q Impacts to residential and axa |2is commercial areas adjacent to 3f-|@-e route<9 |&Preference:1 Preference:3 Preference:3 Southern Intertie Project July 1999 FDA TASPROTOO20TOUT nab?%Fables Table 3-90 Mumen Favirunment Anchoraee Rowt doc Chapter 2 --Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-92 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:LAND USE Linear Features Jurisdiction Land U(km/miles)(kni/miles)and vise 3 3 Z :2 |Z|sry]y og =E :&|s s/o)se)2]8z|3 3 Ss c |&3 3 g $ a rd 's pas 3 ==£3 S)gaSa82sseo2c ;S 2 Route Length re a Es 2 ®3 $s 2 5 Ss PS 3 «er .Summary of CommunityRoute..o o 7 -2 a 6;Ss >oe ="a e Existing and Future Land Use Recreation ..Agency CommentsOption|(km/miles)z £8 g £€ae a pal 2 =PA z Working Group Issues e/s]2{6&e |3°ei]zs |$|]«|é@=3 a 3 a «|=2 =FE == E 53 §&a %E s E ¥a 4 g vj $a < §5 °°° e 3 Inventory Inventory Impacts to residential Conflicts with ADOT plans Approximately 265 parcels *-Rabbit Creek Rifle Range neighborhoods through for improvements along Old 3 crossed of residential and ©Crosses Caimpbett Creek Oceanview Seward Highway and 6 a commercial use Greenbelt Visual impacts along Old International Airport Soe =Parallet to Old Seward Hyy Impacts and Mitigation Seward highway Road/Old Seward InterchangeSeecyeandInternationalRoad® Norecreation impacts Iinpacts to residential areas Visual impacts to travelaz=3 3 3 106 127 143 Submarine Landing at Alaska adjacent to route corridor peu os 14.3 (8.9)-(6 6)7 9)---(8 9)-------------Railroad:Rabbit Creek £2 3 gn ,,,Impacts and Mitigation 3 3 Ps 3a Potentially significant land ._x use impacts 3 Mitigation would be to rebuild =existing distribution line<within the road right-of-way Preference:2 Preference:{Preference:4 eeeenes DneONOnE (OUORORODOOES |UUNNIGINS IORURGRES IORGEOEOS DOUGRGOO]NOGROOOS |NORUROOG|OOURGGINS SOUINNNES IUURNNG (0UNINII:RURUGIN:NOUIINNOG IRIGGE |UUNIIIGEEE inventory fT aventory 0 Tipacts toresidential"|Visual impacts to travelSoSubmarineLandingatAlaskaJo*Similar to Route Options X neighborhoods through corridor Zeit,Railroad/Rabbit Creek and V Oceanview ae ee Crosses 73 parcels Impacts and Mitigation Visual impacts along OldE&g eae 21095 0.5 2.1 . 12.7 .._.__. Similar to Route Options X *No recreation impacts Seward Highway and railroad=f Ors V7.5)_(0.3)|(1.3)(7.5)and V corridor 2 £22¢ES od Impacts and Mitigation Impacts to residential areas 3 a =a s x 2 Similar to Route Options X adjacent to route 4 and V Preference:1 Preference:!Preference:1 see een ene ee ee ee ventory Inventory =====J ®|Impactstoresidential"ConflictswithADOTplans” "e «Submarine landing at Alaska *-Similar to Route Options X neighborhoods through for improvement along 2¢st Railroad/Rabbit Creek and R Oceanview Minnesota DriveHeZ3ryNoCrosses121parcelsImpactsandMitigationVisualimpactsalongOldVisualimpactsto travel seazilecdu Impacts and Mitigation ®No recreation impacts Seward Highway,railroad corridor S $s 4 ao ,13 10.6 13.4 Similar to Route Options X corridor,and Minnesota Drive,S58 °Ss 13.4 (8.3) "1 (0.8)|(6.6)(8.3)and R Conflict with expansion ofads2/522 Oceanview Park geile S Impacts to residential areas |4 5 €adjacent to route a Preference:1 Preference:3 Preference:5 Southern Intertie Project July 1999 POD AES PROP AON A nat 7.9 Lables Fable 2-90 Human Environment:Anchoraee Bowl doe Chapter 2 --Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-93 ANCHORAGE BOWL:SOCLIOECONOMIC,SUBSISTENCE,CULTURAL,AND VISUAL TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON |Visual Resources | Route Route Length Socioeconomic!Subsistence'Cultural Resources'Landscape Scener Residential and Recreation Travel Way Vi Summary of Visual Impacts and Mitigation'Option |(km/miles)'P y Views (kim/miles)y Views (kn/miles)O Impacts and Mitigation N/A Impacts Local Context Views ©Parallels Impacts ys *-Mostly focal construction ®Low potential impact area =Primarily park-like 47(2.9)of immediate portions of the «No significant visual impacts to views within Kincaid Park.3 =workers image type.as well as foreground and 0.8 (0.5)of Tony Knowles Mitigation:Ss Ps |s =®=10-15 non-local workers to be some industrial areas foreground views from Coastal Frail «®To minimize ground disturbance new access roads will follow theisc5gyaz6.4(40)hired Regional Conteat ieereation area (Vony landform contour=So |O24 ;*-Intlux of workers for submerged ©Cook Inlet burmagain Knowles Coastal Frail)e Clearing ofright-of-way will be minimizedaz5™g §segments not significant to Arm Knick Arm with *-Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-wayReRSPo]economy distant view to Me into adjacent vegetation pattems-©No significant impacts Susitia,Mt MeKintes *-This route option will be underground due to location within a park andrequirementswithintheflightpathoftheAnchorageAirport Same as Route Option M N/A Impacts Local Context Views *Parallels portion impacts®Low potential bnpact area 2 Primarily sestdentiat 11 (07)immediate of Klatt Rd and >®9.10.7)significant visual impacts .ry oe Inlerspersed wath foreground and 3.5 (2 2)Minnesota Dr.Mitigation.g a :undeveloped natural foreground view from *To minimize ground disturbance new access roads wil!follow theitsF]zei areas residential areas landform contours5s-Regional Context 11 (0.7)immediate *-To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safely at highway ands4on77(48)©Lurmaipain Arn,foreground and b6 (EO)trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance&bal °im oe Anchorage foreground views fram from the crossing within timits of standard tower design)2§&30 Desclopment recreation area (Campbell =-Pulled metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visualgePo2CreekGreenbelt.and Javier impacts|¥2 =De La Vega Park)®Clearing of right-of-way will be minimizedwala*Tress will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into adjacent vegetation pattems Preference:I Preference:FoeepeeTESameasRouteOptionMPN/A "Vmpacts 0 Boca Context 0 PO Views ©"Parallels 0000 Ps impacts 0 ”=*-Low potential inpact area ©Primary cesidential 11 (07)immediate portions of Klatt |®1.6 (6.0)significant visual impactsFrainterspersedwithforegroundand39(2 4)Rd,O'Malley Mitigationa3=undescloped natural foreground views from Rd and *To minimize ground disturbance new access roads will follow the2PoOoareasresidentialacasMinnesotaDr.landform contours§3 pa Regional Context 1107)iminediate *'To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway andes2a82(5.1)*Furnagain Arm,toreground and 2.3 (14)trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distanceEwOn' Anchorage foreground views from from the crossing within limits of standard tower design.£&£ui Development recreation areas (Pioneer © ™=Dulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visualeeenPark,Heritage Land impacts222Frust4futurepark,Campbell =Clearing of right-of-way will he minimized&*s Creek Greenbelt.and Javier *-Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-wayaDeLaVegaParkintoadjacentvegetationpattems Preference:{Preference:2OO|WE Same as Route Option MOYP NIA Impacts Local Context 0 P Views ©Parallels 000 Ps impacts *Low potential impact area ©Primarily industrial and 18 (0.8)immediate portions of Klatt 7]©1.6 (1.0)significant visual impacts 2 "residential inage ty pes foreground and 2.9 (f 8)Rd,OO Malley Mitigation3Ss=interspersed with foreground views from Road,and the ®To minimize ground disturbance new access roads will follow the HW2P)Be ry *undes cloped natural,residential areas Alaska Railroad landform contouri]FA -ss park-like.and 0.3 (0.2)immediate *'To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and33anx10.1 (6.3)commercial areas foreground and 23 (14)trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance=4 ni ="o_o Regional Context foreground views from from the crossing within limits of standard tower designe@&4 So od .Lurmayain Ann.recreation areas (Pioneer ©"Pulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual£¢@ e227 Anchorage Park,Heritage Land impactsl¥2 2 Development Trust future path.and ©Charing of right-of-way will be minimized 3 Campbell Creek Greenbelt =®Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into adjacent vegetation patiems Preference:|Preference:2 *Socioeconomic,Subsistence,and Cultural Resources are not route comparison factors for Anchorage route options. As an underground transmission tine,route M would minimize visual impacts to Anchorage.It would parallel an existing pipeline and minimize clearingO° 'July 1999 Southern Intertie Project PD ATAPRODE eri tee Fane >Pables Table 3 98 Truman Prnienments An hoave Rawk dee Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-94 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISONANCHORAGEBOWL:SOCIOECONOMIC,SUBSISTENCE,CULTURAL,AND VISUAL |Visual Resources | Route |Route Length Socioeconomic Subsistence Cultural Resources Land s Residential and Recreation T Way Vi Summary of Visual impacts and MitigationOption(km/miles)sandscape scenery Views (km/miles)Favel Way Views (km/miles) Same as Route Option M N/A impacts Local Context Views *-Parallels portions ImpactsLowpotentialimpactarea®Primarily an industrial 2.3.(1.4)immediate of the Alaska ©=1.6 (1.0)significant visual impacts °-image (ype interspersed foreground and 2.7 (1.7)Railroad Mitigation z 6 with residential.foreground views from *-Singte-shaft steel poles will be used in place of larger.more visually2xcommercial,and park-residential areas dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrastF<=oO a like areas 0 §(0.3)immediate ®To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and&&3 s ed Regional Contest foreground and 19 (1.2)trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distanceSE"}a7 8.7(5.4)«Anchorage foreground Views fram from the crossing within limits of standard tower designae5°be uke Deselopment recreation areas (Campbell *"Pulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual=2 2 3s Creck Greenbelt and Javier impactsenwPo)a De La Vega Park)®=Clearing ofright-of-way will be minimized|¥*Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-waya=into adjacent vegetation pattems .<4 *To minimize visual impacts transition facilities will be placed within aismallenclosedbuildingincontextwiththesurroundingarchitectureoeNePe!Preference:Po ee bebebeeeeeeeee .. Preference:¢pe Sameas Route Option M NA Impacts Local Context Views 00 ©Parallels portions.{077Impacts ee&Low potential impact area ©Primarily an industrial 18 (11)immediate of the Alaska ©=6.2 (3.9)significant visual impacts3imagetypeinterspersedforegroundand3.7 (2.3)Railroad,Mitigation £wn with residential,foreground views from O'Malley Road,*-Single-shafl steel poles will be used in place of larger,more visuallygsnalcommerchl,and park-residential areas and Minnesota dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrast=like areas 13 (0-8)immediate Drive *-Vo reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and2ryne=Regional Context foreground and 19 (12)trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distanceEH2so* Anchotage foreground views fram from the crossing within limits of standard tower designaé=10.0 (6.2)Development recreation area (Campbell *="Dulled™metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual 4 a" Creck Greenbelt and Jas ier impacts635-De la Vega Park)*Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized3osZe*Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge ofthe right-of-way&¥into adjacent vegetation pattems'a s *To minimize visual impacts transition facilities will be placed within aaol-small enclosed building in context with the surrounding architecture3Preference:4 <Preference:1 Lp te Same as Route OptionM {J NIA pacts 0 pecai Content 0 Views ©Parallels portions |Impacts eeg1owpotentialimpactarea=Primarily conmercial 18 Cb 1)immediate of the Alaska ==3.2 (2.0)significant visual impacts r=-and residential image loregcound and 5 5 (3 4)Railroad,Old MitigationEe"ty pes interspersed with foreground views from Seward Highway,[* Single-shaft steel poles will be used in place of larger,more visuallygswindustrialandpark-like residential arcas and International dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrast<Ra)areas 0.5 (03)immediate Airport Road =-Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing of:ry 2 Pd Regional Content foreground and 19 (1.2)existing transmission line structures a2 37 ®-Anchorage foreground views from *To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and |2%ar 11.3(7.0)Development recreation areas (Occanview trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance$5 °_a Bluff Park,Community Ball from the crossing within limits of standard tower designfe)5 3 a Vields on Old Seward ®"Pulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual ge a Highway,Campbell Creck impacts . £ci Greenbelt,and Javier De La =-Clearing ofright-of-way will be minimized3¥Vega Park *®Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge ofthe right-of-way 5 §into adjacent vegetation paltemms*=To minimize visual impacts transition facilities will be placed within aLi"nas ....=small enclosed building in context with the surrounding architecturePreference:1 Preference:3 Southern Intertie Project July 1999 PDATAPROL EAL crt inal Oo Dables Pabte 2 90 Taman fimienment:Anchors Bowl doc Chapter 2 --Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-95 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:SOCIOECONOMIC,SUBSISTENCE,CULTURAL,AND VISUAL |Visual Resources | Route Route Length Sociveconomic Subsistence Cultural Resources Landscape Scenery Residential and Recreation Travel Way Views Summary of Visual Impacts and MitigationOption|(km/miles)Views (km/miles)(km/miles)O Same as Route Option M N/A Impacts Local Context Views *Parallels Impacts -*Low potential impact area Primarily commercial J ©1.9 (1.2)immediate portions of the ®2.4(1.5)significant visual impacts 2 ya and residential image foreground and §.2 (3.2)Alaska Railroad,Mitigation z X types interspersed with foreground views from O'Malley Road,|®-Single-shaft steel poles will be used in place of larger.more visually2"i industrial and park-residential areas Old Seward dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrastEL_sl es like areas ©=05 (03)immediate Hlighway,and ©-Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing ofge3s2RegionalContertforegroundand£9 (12)International existing transmission line structures : g 8 4 ac W4(7A)Anchorage foreground views from Airport Road *lo reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and trailSes4--_e Desclopment recreation areas crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the=2 2 $s 4 (Oceanview Bluff Park.crossing within limits of standard tower design2-28]go Community Ball Licks on *®"Pulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual g c Old Seward Highway.impacts ;a 9 Campbell Creek Greenbelt,*Clearing of right-of-way will be minimized<&and Javier De ba Vega Path * 'Irces will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into4 adjacent vegetation patterns Preference:|Preference:2 Same as Route Option M N/A Impacts Local Context Views *Parallels impactsna]*-Low potential impact area Pranarily residential ®15 (09)immediate portions of the ©6.2 (3.9)significant visual impacts=and commercial image foreground and 6 9 (43)Old Seward MitigationEsbeUypesinterspersedwithforegroundviewsframhighway,*-Single-shaft steel poles will be used in place oflarger,more visually$s- |]37 park-like and residential areas O'Malley Road,dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrastaa)em industrial areas #2 £13)bomediate and Minnesota ©Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing ofZe32ciRegiona!Context foreground and 2 9 (1.8)Drive existing transmission line structures£3 .62 13.5 (8.4)Anchorage foreground views from *Yo reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and trailPo}og Zr Development recreation areas (Rabbit crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from therpom]sci Creek Rifle Range,crossing within limits of standard tower design3£ |]Heritage Land [rust/future *"Pulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual<V a park,Campbelt Creek 'impacts2Greenbelt.and Javier De La ©-Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into3VegaParkadjacentvegetationpatternsePreference:|Preference:4TOSameasRouteOptionM=[0 NYA pacts Local Context 0 [Views 0 Paratfeis OO gagonenesscceccssc:ta)®Sow potential impact area Primarily residential ©201 9)immediate portions of the ®4.0 (2.5)significant visual impacts=and comprercial image foreground and 6 0 (3.7)Old Seward MitigationEqyatypesinterspersedwithforegroundviewsfromHighway,®-Single-shaft steel poles will be used in place of larger,more visually | 125.>os patk-like and residential areas O'Malley Road,dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrast|@ g s eu industrial areas ©13 (0.8)immediate and the Alaska *-Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing of3E£2 £nN Regional Context foreground and 2.9 (1.8)Railroad existing transmission line structures+2 .ot 12.2 (7.6)Anchorage foreground views from *Yo reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and trail@23geDevelopmentrecreationareas(Rabbit crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the |re"Pe aa Creek Rifle Range,Crossing within limits of standard tower design3p ]Mey Heritage Land [rust/fiture =*"Pulled”metal or corten finish on towers wilt be used to reduce visual<V a park,Campbell Creek impacts|x |Greenbelt.and Javier De La =Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge ofthe right-of-way intoa|Vega Park adjacent vegetation patterns . Preference:1 ._...Preference:2 cece eeeeeneeoeeenenpeneeennesWeeeeeenenenees|Nl Same as Route OptionM PNA pacts 0 Local Context 0 f Views 0 Parattieds OT aa geesecece sce eesccscesccccsceccs 2 °®-Low potential impact area Primarily residential ©=21(1.3)immediate portions of the *-$.0(3.1)significant visual impactsot=and commercial image foreground and 7.9 (4.9)Old Seward Mitigation£a types interspersed with foreground views from Highway,*-Single-shaft steel poles will be used in place oflarger,more visuallybet=|3 :park-like and residential areas Diamond Blvd,dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrastsFe£es industrial areas ©=13(08)immediate and the Alaska °Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing ofé£8 2 -Regional Context foreground and 2.9 (18)Railroad existing transmission line structures ;see 68 12.4 (7.7)Anchorage foreground views from .Vo reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety al highway and trailes¢ee Development recreation areas (Rabbit crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the==Pr Za Creek Rifle Range.crossing within limits of standard tower designa |aa Community Ball Fields on *"Pulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual 3 pat Old Seward Highway,impactsa2CampbellCreekGreenbelt,.Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way into<a and Javier De La Vega Park adjacent vegetation patternsaPreference:1 Preference:3oOIntertieProject July 1999 PDA CDROM erst 0 Peat?oo Pablo Lable SOC Thimyn banniment:Ancherave Row!doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-96 TABLE 2-9C:ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON ANCHORAGE BOWL:SOCIOECONOMIC,SUBSISTENCE,CULTURAL,AND VISUAL Visual Resources Route Route Length Sociveconomic Subsistence Cultural Resources Landscape Scenery Residential and Recreation Travel Way Views Summary of Visual Impacts and MitigationOption-(km/miles)Views (km/miles)(km/mites)O Same as Route Option M N/A Impacts Local Context Views ®-Parallels portions impacts }]*®-Low potential inspact area ©Primarily commercial |&1.6 (10)immediate of the Old ©4.2 (2.6)significant visual impactsg a and residential image foreground and 8.2 (5.4)Seward Highway Mitigation%a)ty pes interspersed with foreground views from and International,|*-Single-shaft steel!poles will be used in place of larger,more visually5aindustrialandpark-residential areas Airport Road dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrast273a2bikeareas©$10.7)immediate ©-Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing ofgesre)Regional Context foreground and 2.9 (1.8)existing transmission line structures@5a=2 14.3 (8.9)*Anchorage foreground views fram ©-To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway andwe5°q Desclopment recreation areas (Rabbit trail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum [casible distance£2 2 37 Creek Rifle Range,from the crossing within limits of standard tower design|=H)2s Community Ball Fields on * "Dulled™metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual9OldSewardHighway,impacts .3 e Campbell Creck Greenbelt,*-Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-way34andJavierDeLaVegaParkintoadjacentvegetationpattems Preference:2 Preference:1 woe eT Sameas Route Option M [J NIA pe impacts 'Local Contest Views ©Parallels portions [000 'impacts :®Low potential impact arca ©Primarily commercial [©2 ECE yp immediate of the Old =3.7 (2.3)significant visual impacts 2 and residential image foreground and 6 0 (3.7)Seward Highway Mitigatione}a ty pes interspersed with foreground views from and International,|*-Single-shaft steel poles will be used in place of larger,more visually£=industrial and pack-residential arcas Airport Road dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrastY>3 like areas ©139 (08)inmediate ®-Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing ofs¢£e 3 Regional Context foreground and 2 oC 8)existing transmission line structures£2 4 ai ©Anchorage foreground views from «-To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway andae.O od 12.1 (7.5)Development recreation area trail crossings lowers will be placed at the maximum feasible distance$£3 ed from the crossing within limits of standard tower designcfe]3."<.;:eG ov bl Dulled™metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual2 |a impacts32*Trees will be removed selectively to blend the edge of the right-of-waya3intoadjacentvegelationpattems<Preference:1eASAS|a.ce cc|Soeeeenen Geneneeees ennenennanas --Same as Route Option MJPen impacts 0p Locat Contest OP Views «Parallels portions [OU Impacts*-Low potential impact area ©Primarily commercial |e 16 €L0)immediate of the Old *8.3 (5.2)significant visual impacts 2 2 and residential image foreground and 6.9 (4.3)Seward Highway,Mitigationat_ty pes interspersed with foreground views from the Alaska *-Single-shaft stecl poles will he used in place of larger,more visually|E =industrial and park-residential areas Railroad,dominant structures in order to reduce structural contrastvNnalikeareas©2100.3)inmediate O'Malley Road *Standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing of3F§ez Regional Context foreground and 29 (1.8)and Minnesota existing transmission line Structures ;£2 Bs i]©Anchorage foreground views from Drive *To reduce visual impacts on recreation areas and safety at highway and&ou oad 13.4 (8.3)Development recreation area tail crossings towers will be placed at the maximum feasible distanceacsLodfromthecrossingwithinlimitsofstandardtowerdesign=§Pa sq *"Pulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visualemeimpacts3S=Trees will he removed selectively to blend the edge ofthe right-of-waya=into adjacent vegetation patterns<a Preference:5 __Preference:|| 0...Intertie Project July 1999 BAD ATAPROPHOlO1M Linak 2 9 Dablev Dable 2-9 Hhiman Environment:Anchorage Bowl dot Chapter 2 --Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal 2-97 Oo ©O SUMMARY OF PREFERENCES FROM ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON (TABLE 2-9A) KENAI LOWLANDS Geology and Socioeconomic,Subsistence, Vegetation Wildlife Resources Land Use Cultural,and Visual a=]ij an eo be n S2/§|3 |%E e |-|8e\)Ee |8 SS BlE 12 73 [seS328ps|4 5 s fF lteises le PS szie |§3 gaFei/>|2 |2 ||S |||B les |8 ap-le |2 j2 |88se|s 3 9 =.)°2 »a %|of o ee eI ¢e g io ="&we |&=3 Bo Ew &ee |£4 ¥s2ec|e 3 &x Ast|E a be =Za |m%nAEGS|g n F4 3Route$S 3°=£3 =ee |3 =w S 2Optionsoc)S oad <bal]had 5 'S) A L/NS I/NS I/NS {I/NS [|2/PS I/PS(L)|1/S(L)|NA NI I/NS I/NS 1 I/NS |I/NS [|L-M |I/S(L)B North/C 2/NS_|3/SCN)|3/SC(N)|2/NS |3/S(N)|2/S(N)|2/SCN)|.NA NI 3/NS 3/S(N)2 L/NS |VNS |L-M |3/S(N)B South/C*3/NS_{2/S(N)|2/S(N)|3/NS |I/PSQN)|2/S(N)}2/SCN)|NA NI 2/NS 2/S(N)3 INS |INS [|L-M |2/S(N)B North I/NS {|2/NS {2/NS |INS |2/PS(L)I/NS INS |NA NI 2/PS(L)|2/PS(L)1 I/NS |INS |L-M |2/S(L)B South 2/NS NS UNS {|2/NS |1/PS(L)L/NS I/NS_|NA NI I/NS INS 2 I/NS |INS |L-M |I/S(L)Cc NS SCN)S(N)NS PS(N)S(N)S(N)|NA NI NA NA NA NS NS L-M SCN) SUMMARY OF PREFERENCES FROM ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON (TABLE 2-9B) TURNAGAIN ARM Geology and Socioeconomic,Subsistence, Vegetation Wildlife Resources Land Use Cultural,and Visual a=]g a (-?)oe egies 8 ie a 2 [23/5 3 g 3|ae Ss =om 5 i-inr")3 Comet Sa g 4 e i 222/3 =a E z Se ioe |§cOS/2 |8 3 iaa¢0 %3 n E 5 E =335 =PS els 5 EA oaz3|2 2 °3 a s es lez 8 Samm)§3 2 gE<--ne >==bs 3 =o eS fa ex al 8 2 4oe|v °ma 'o ®o =s%|ow §3 Bez 9 2 ==&oo 5 ==s 5D Pw &ofc S 2 5s =|2 3 |a Ffi)=&&in ins S Ed =me nm =ol §n =3 wnRoute$S s =&5 s ez |2 =a S EsOptionsic)S i |5 Q D I/NS 2/NS I/NS NA 2/S(L)V/NS NA I/NS NI I/NS I/NS NA NA NA L NS E 2/NS_|}2/NS |2/NS [|NA |3/S(L)2/NS NA |i/NS NI 2/NS I/NS NA NA NA L-M NS F 2/NS_}2/NS |2/NS {|NA |3/S(L)2/NS NA |INS NI 2/NS I/NS NA NA NA L-M NS G I/NS I/NS INS |NA I/NS I/NS NA |I/NS NI 2/NS I/NS NA NA NA L-M NS H I/NS 3/NS I/NS NA 4/S(L)I/NS NS I/NS NI I/NS I/NS NA NA NA L-M NS I NS L/NS INS |NA |2/S(N)|I/S(N)NA |I/NS NI 1/NS I/NS NA NA NA L NS J INS |2/NS INS {NS |2/S(N)|I/S(N)NA j;I/NS NI I/NS I/NS NA NA |NA L NS K 1/NS 1/NS I/NS NA 3/S(N)1/SCN)NA I/NS NI 1/NS L/NS NA NA NA L NS L INS I/NS 1/NS NA L/SCN)1/S(N)NA I/NS NI 1/NS I/NS NA |NA NA L NS SUMMARY OF PREFERENCES FROM ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON (TABLE 2-9C) ANCHORAGE BOWL Geology and Socioeconomic,Subsistence, Vegetation Wildlife Resources Land Use Cultural,and Visual a=]r-n »oo n2/2 E 4 4 2 i383 |2.)2 2 gss|S 3 cal E E aa2/2 o <S53)¢z y 5 2e323|8 3 g E Ej ye |ee ig 31/5 |}2 (3 |e "|>>E =>s =E Y 5 z 2 =fa $2 m Zé22]-)£me 2 2 2 So |Ws ¢£&s/§|=f =5mw.|§=s BD Ew 5 Se |,ie |Z sifle Ss 5 sa”Route 2k s S ce :=as |==Pr ES yg 1a”=PA :C)ou =77)SsOptions8=2 5 <==aa Elgg 8 5 > M NS NS NS NA 5 NS NS NA NA NS NS 2 NS NA L NS N I/NS |2/NS INS |I/NS 1/NS I/NS I/NS |NA NA 2/NS 2/NS 3 NS NA L 1/S(L) O 1/NS I/NS INS |Y/NS 1/NS 1/NS I/NS |NA NA I/NS 3/NS 2 NS NA L 2/S(L) P L/NS UNS VNS |I/NS V/NS 1/NS I/NS NA NA I/NS I/NS l NS NA L 2/S(L) Q*V/NS i/NS I/NS_|I/NS U/NS L/NS INS |NA NA 1/NS 1/NS |NS NA L 1/S(L) R L/NS I/NS L/NS_|I/NS L/NS 1/NS INS |NA NA 1/NS 2/NS 3 NS NA L 4/S(L) S L/NS L/NS I/NS |I/NS L/NS 1/NS I/NS |NA NA 2/NS I/NS 2 NS NA L 3/S(L) T I/NS 1/NS INS |I/NS L/NS INS INS |NA NA 2/NS INS 2 NS NA L 2/S(L) U I/NS INS |2/NS |I/NS V/S 1/NS I/NS |NA NA 1/NS 2/NS 6 NS NA L 4/S(L) Vv I/NS L/NS I/NS_|I/NS L/S I/NS I/NS |NA NA I/NS 1/NS 2 NS NA L 2/S(L) Ww I/NS I/NS |2/NS |I/NS V/S 1/NS I/NS |NA NA 1/NS I/NS 3 NS NA L 3/S(L) xX I/NS I/NS INS |1/NS V/S 1/NS I/NS |NA NA 2/NS I/NS 4 NS NA L 2/S(L) Y I/NS I/NS |2/NS |I/NS 1/S I/NS UNS |NA NA I/NS I/NS ]NS NA L 1/S(L) Z I/NS INS 2/NS_|1/NS V/S INS I/NS NA NA I/NS 3/NS 5 NS NA L 3/S(L) Legend: -NA:Not Applicable ws Cultural Resources NI:No Identifiable Impacts L:Low Impact NS:Not Significant L-M:Low to Moderate Impact PS:Potentially Significant S:Significant @ (L)locally significant @ (Nj nationally significant *Applicant's Proposed Route NOTE:Cultural Resource Impact Significance has not been determined. Souther Intertie Project Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the July 1999 2-98 Applicant's Proposal FADATA\PROJO9203\009\FinalTable 9sum.doc TABLE 2-10 CONSTRUCTION RELATED DISTURBANCE FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTIONS Short Term Long Term Overall Length Construction Vegetation Estimated Area (kilometers |Related Ground Clearing for Occupied by Vegetation Clearing for Alternative [miles])Disturbance Right-of-way |Project Facilities Right-of-way hectares|acres {hectares}acres hectares |acres |hectares acres Kenai Lowlands Route A 71.0 (44.1)13.7 34.4 207.6 518.9 0.9 2.2 207.6 $18.9 Route B North |95.1 (59.1)13.9 34.7 398.1 995.2 1.8 4.5 398.1 995.2 [Cc Route B South |90.9 (56.5)9.8 24.5 331.0 827.4 }18 4.6 331.0 827.4 /C Route B North |34.8 (21.6)5.7 14.2 123.6 308.9 1.2 3.0 123.6 308.9 Route B South |30.6 (19.0)1.6 4.0 53.2 133.1 1.2 3.0 53.3 133.2 Route C 63.0 (37.8)8.2 20.5 274.5 686.3 0.6 1.5 274.5 686.3 Turnagain Arm Route D*22.4 (13.9)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Route E 27.5 (17.1)1.0 2.5 32.4 81.1 0.2 0.6 32.4 81.1 Route F 30.7 (19.1)1.0 2.5 32.4 81.1 0.8 2.0 32.4 81.1 Route G*27.7 (17.2)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 Route H*25.8 (16.0)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Route [*19.5 (12.1)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Route J*18.5 (11.5)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Route K*16.3 (10.1)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Route L*25.9 (16.1)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Anchorage Bowl Route M 6.4 (4.0)5.8 14.5 4.6 11.5 0.7 1.7 4.6 11.5 Route N 7.7 (4.8)1.2 3.0 0.1 0.3 0.9 2.3 0.1 0.3 Route O 8.2 (5.1)1.2 3.0 0.3 0.7 0.9 2.3 0.3 0.7 Route P 10.1 (6.3)1.2 3.1 0.3 0.8 0.9 2.3 0.3 0.8 Route Q 8.7 (5.4)0.8 1.9 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 Route R 10.0 (6.2)0.8 2.0 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 Route S 11.3 (7.0)0.8 2.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 Route T 11.4 (7.1)0.8 2.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 Route U 13.5 (8.4)1.1 2.7 0.8 2.1 1.1 2.8 0.8 2.1 Route V 12.2 (7.6)1.1 2.7 0.8 2.1 1.1 2.8 0.8 2.1 Route W 12.4 (7.7)1.1 2.7 0.8 1.9 1.1 2.8 0.8 1.9 Route X 14.3 (8.9)1.1 2.8 0.6 1.6 1.1 2.8 0.6 1.6 Route Y 12.1 (7.5)1.1 2.7 0.8 2.4 1.1 2.8 0.8 2.1 Route Z 13.4 (8.3)1.1 2.7 0.8 2.1 Ll 2.8 0.8 2.1 '*Submarine cable only Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-99 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHN SY S\DATA\PRON09203\000\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Route Options B North/C and B South/C would be less preferable than Route Option A because of potentially significant cumulative impacts on brown bears within the KNWR;increased wildlife and vegetation impacts and potential disturbance to surface water through increased erosion;and greater impacts on land use,recreation,and scenic resources.Route Option B North/C is considered the least preferred due to impacts on rural residents and the Kenai Native Association's conveyed land south of the KNWR. Anchorage Area Options The comparisons of alternatives in Anchorage were accomplished in two stages.Initially, comparisons of the alternative routes to Pt.Woronzof and International substations within Anchorage were organized into separate sets,in order to organize the options from each of the following submarine cable landings to each substation. w Klatt Road @ Alaska Railroad/Oceanview m Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek The preferred alternative was identified for each set of these routes by the Anchorage CWG. Alternative routes to Pt.Woronzof are via submarine (F and G)and via Pt.Campbell (PW1.1). As such,the second stage involved comparing the preferred alternatives from the Klatt Road, Alaska Railroad/Oceanview,and Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek sets with Pt.Woronzof,and Pt. Campbell to Pt.Woronzof,to determine the preferred alternative. The principal issues between the alternatives to International Substation focused on visual impacts,and the differences between using Minnesota Avenue,the Alaskan Railroad,or Old Seward Highway/International Airport Road.Due to the generally industrial character of the railroad corridor,Alternatives P,Q,and Y where identified as the preferred alternatives by the CWG,as shown in Tables 2-9A,2-9B,and 2-9C.While both residential and recreation-related visual impacts were identified at the Campbell Creek crossing along the Alaska Railroad,the impacts on Minnesota Avenue and Old Seward/International Airport Road were considered to be greater. The final comparison of alternative routes for Anchorage as shown on Table 2-11,fall into three groups,as follows: ®Pt.Woronzof would be the preferred alternative because it would minimize impacts to the Municipality of Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-100 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-11 ANCHORAGE ROUTE OPTION COMPARISON COMPARISON OF SELECTED ROUTES FROM EACH ROUTE OPTION GROUP* Geology &Vegetation Wildlife Resources Land Use Cultural &Visual 3 =) s 5 §2 =$g Overall si ge 3 3 an £s ££2 5 Community Route Option Length <>2 ==S Ss $3 4 2 Working Group(km/miles)3 3 7 2 a Pi 2 am g rr =PreferenceSsa3zope|%3 332e4be== 2 <£5 > ba To Pt.Woronzofvia Submarine -F 30.7 (19.1)2/NS 2/NS 2/NS NA 3/8 2/NS NA 2/NS I/NS 3/PS NS l Routes F or G G 27.7 (47.2)I/NS I/NS I/NS NA 1/NS I/NS NA 2/NS INS +2/PS NS I Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof-Route M 6.4 (4.0)NA NA NA INS NA NA NA NA NA NA NS 2 Klatt Landings -Route P 10.1 (6.3)I/NS I/NS I/NS I/NS I/NS I/NS I/NS UNS 1/NS VPS |2/S(L)3 Alaska RR/Oceanview Landings -Route Q 8.7 (5.4)I/NS I/NS I/NS NA 1/NS I/NS NS 1/NS I/NS VPS |VSL)4 Alaska RR/Rabbit Creek -Route Y 12.1 (7.5)1/NS I/NS 2/NS NA I/NS I/NS I/NS I/NS 3/NS /PS |S/S(L)4 Legend: NA:Not ApplicableNS:Not Significant PS:Potentially Significant S:Significant L Locally Significant 'Cultural resource impact significance has not yet been determined *These are the preferred routes of the Anchorage Community Working Group Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-101 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal m Alternative M from Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof would be the second level of preference. m Alternatives P,Q,and Y from Klatt Road,Alaska Railroad/Oceanview,and Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek would be the third level of preference. 2.4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ANALYSIS Part of the comparison of alternatives within the three regions focused on the criteria defined in NEPA for significance (40 CFR 1508.27).The context and intensity of the impacts associated with the alternatives in the Kenai Peninsula,Turnagain Arm,and Anchorage area were analyzed to determine the potential significance of the impacts identified.This analysis contributed to the identification of the environmental preference for each region,along with the preferences identified through the environmental assessments and by the Kenai and Anchorage CWGs.The results of findings of impact significance are provided in Chapter 4 and summarized on Table 2-9A through C. 2.45 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ROUTE The environmental preference is to be determined by the lead and cooperating federal agencies. Federal regulation 40 CFR Section 1505.2(b)requires that the Record of Decision for an EIS must identify the alternative or alternatives that were considered environmentally preferable,in order to promote the objective of NEPA to minimize damage to the biological and physical environment;and protect,preserve,and enhance historic,cultural,and natural resources. 2.4.66 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The Applicant's Proposal is the Enstar Route,including route options B South,C,J,and Q (see Figures 2-1,2-2,and 2-3). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-102 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\00%Final\CHAPTER 2 doc 2.5 APPLICABLE LAWS,AUTHORITY,AND RELATED STATUTES AND ORDERS As part of the scoping process,applicable laws,authorities and related statutes and orders were identified for the Project.The anticipated permitting requirements and authorizations are similar for all of the alternatives under consideration as listed in Table 2-12.Application for a transportation/utility system permit under Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA)likely would be required for any of the alternatives currently identified,with the possible exception of the Tesoro route.* The applicable laws,orders,regulations,and standards (environmental permits and authorizations)necessary for the proposed Project are listed in Table 2-12 and are summarized below. =Tesoro -The Tesoro alternative corridor may require a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the Federal Aviation Administration because of the location of aviation navigation equipment on Fire Island.The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA)requires the approval of the National Park Service for construction of utilities within state park lands.This regulation also prohibits the construction of overhead transmission lines within state park lands funded through LWCFA appropriations.One route option has been identified that could avoid state park lands by routing through a small portion of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR).The Bureau of Indian Affairs would oversee any permitting issues on Native allotments potentially crossed near Pt.Possession.In addition,Title XI and Section 22(g)of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)permitting and regulatory requirements will also need to be considered for lands within the KNWR.Section 22(g)of ANCSA regulates uses on certain Native-owned lands within the KNWR.in that they remain subject to the laws and regulations governing use and development of the refuge. =Enstar -The majority of the Enstar alternative is within the KNWR and would require compliance with Titles XI and consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)for final approval.Title XI regulates transportation and utility systems within the conservation system units in Alaska,including the KNWR.In addition,local permits would be required within the Soldotna and Municipality of Anchorage areas.This corridor also potentially affects three wildlife habitat areas-Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge,Potter Marsh,and Chickaloon Bay-at the marine crossing.This crossing would require consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,USFWS,and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-103 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROK09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-12 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS,AUTHORITY,AND RELATED STATUTES AND ORDERS The DEIS and FEIS shall comply with all applicable environmental laws,authority,and related statutes and orders.The following list is not exhaustive. 42 U.S.C.4321 et seq.,National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 43 CFR Part 36,Transportation and Utility Systems in,Across,and Access into,Conservation System Units in Alaska (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]) 40 CFR 1500 et seq.,Council on Environmental Quality,Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA , 7 CFR Part 1794 RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures 40 CFR Part 6,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Regulations for Implementing NEPA 49 CFR 1.48(b),DOT Delegations of Authority to the Federal Highway Administration 23 U.S.C.138 and 49 U.S.C.,Section 4(f)of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 23 U.S.C.109(h),(i),and (j)standards 23 U.S.C.128,Public Hearings 23 U.S.C.315,Rules,Regulations,and Recommendations 23 CFR,Part 771,Environmental Impact and Related Procedures DOT Order 5610.1¢,Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 16 U.S.C.461 et seq.,Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act;and 23 U.S.C.305 16 U.S.C.470f,Sections 106,110(d),and 110(f)of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 16 U.S.C.662,Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act . 16 U.S.C.668 dd -668 ee et.seq.,National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 16 U.S.C.1241 et seq.,National Trails System Act 16 U.S.C.1452,1456,Sections 303 and 307 ofthe Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 16 U.S.C.1271 et seq.,Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 16 U.S.C.1131-1136 Wilderness Act 16 U.S.C.1536,Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 25 U.S.C.3002,Section 3(c)of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 33 U.S.C.1251 et seq.,Clean Water Act of 1977 33 U.S.C.1241 et seq.,Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 U.S.C.300(f)et seq..Safe Drinking Water Act 42 U.S.C.1996 et seq.,American Indian Religious Freedom Act 42 U.S.C.4371 et seq.,Environmental!Quality Improvement Act of 1970 42 U.S.C.4601 et seq.,Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 42 U.S.C.4901 et seq.,Noise Control Act of 1972 42 U.S.C.9601 et seq.,Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act of 1980 42 U.S.C.7401 et seq.,Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C.2000d-d4,Title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C.4332 ANILCA (Section 810)Subsistence Evaluation 43 U.S.C.Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 Executive Order 11514,Protection and Environment of Environmental Quality,as amended by Executive Order 1191,dated May 24,1977 Executive Order 11593,Protection and Environment of the Cultural Environment,dated May 13,197] Executive Order 11988,Floodplain Management.dated May 24,1977 Executive Order 11990,Protection of Wetlands,dated May 24,1977 Presidential EO 12898,Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-104 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHX IS YS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc 2.5.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The purpose of this section is to provide background information regarding the key federal regulatory factors that will apply to the decision process for the Project,as outlined in the Southern Intertie Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Memorandum of Understanding between the following entities: Rural Utilities Service -Lead Federal Agency U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service -Cooperating Agency ' U.S.Forest Service -Cooperating Agency Intertie Participants Group -Applicant Included are discussions on the following topics: Federal Lands Jurisdiction U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Jurisdiction Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Appeals Process Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act The following sections describe these regulatory guidelines and their interrelationships as they apply to the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives. Federal Lands Jurisdiction The EIS must be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),as implemented by Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508;Rural Utilities Service (RUS)environmental policies and procedures (7 CFR Part 1794);and the pertinent regulations of USFWS.Of the current alternative routes under study between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,the Enstar route crosses the KNWR,which is under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. Crossing the Chugach National Forest is not currently under consideration for the Project because the alternative of paralleling the existing Quartz Creek line does not meet the purpose and need for the Project and has been eliminated from consideration.Improvements to the Daves Creek Substation will occur in a parcel of state land that is located within the forest.As a result, the role of the Forest Service is primarily in a review capacity to track the Project and comment on any indirect impacts on the forest. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-105 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc USFWS Jurisdiction The KNWR is a designated conservation system unit that is managed by the USFWS under ANILCA (P.L.96-487).Therefore,regulations implementing Title XI of ANILCA apply to the entire Project (43 CFR Part 36).A Title XI Transportation/Utility Systems application would be required if the Enstar alternative route is selected by the Intertie Participants Group (IPG)as the proposed alternative for the Project.Following the planned transportation corridor along the Tesoro Pipeline would involve crossing a corner of a section of the KNWR.With an adjustment in the alignment the Project could avoid the KNWR.. ANILCA Application The regulations and decision process that would be applied to the Enstar alternative route by USFWS are defined in 43 CFR Part 36 -Transportation and Utility Systems In and Across,and Access Into,Conservation System Units in Alaska. In general,criteria applicable to the approval of the Enstar route under ANILCA Title XI require that this alternative must (1)be found "compatible with the purposes for which the Unit (KNWR)was established”and (2)there must be no "economically feasible and prudent alternative route for the system.”These two criteria imply separate factors that are described below. Compatibility Federal regulation 43 CFR 26.2 defines compatibility as "compatible with the purposes for which the unit was established.”It means that the system (Southern Intertie Project Transmission System -Enstar Alternative)"will not significantly interfere with or detract from the purpose for which the area (KNWR)was established.” The determination of "compatibility”is established through a separate formal process that is tied to ANILCA.In addition to NEPA and the ANILCA Title XI Process,the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C.668dd-668ee)requires a compatibility determination by the Refuge Manager.The USFWS Policy requires the Regional Director's approval of the manager's compatibility determination when the applicant's proposal,i.e., Southern Intertie Project,is being evaluated through the NEPA process. The term "compatible use”as defined in Section 5 (16 U.S.C.668ee)of the Act means a "wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that,in the sound professional Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-106 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXMSYS\DATA\PROK09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc judgment of the Director,will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.” "Wildlife-dependent recreational use”means "a use of a refuge involving hunting,fishing, wildlife observation and photography,or environmental education and interpretation.” "Sound professional judgment”means "a finding,determination,or decision that is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration,available science and resources,and adherence to the requirements of this Act and other applicable laws.” The analysis and comparison of impacts of alternatives that occur off the KNWR,i.e.,the Tesoro alternative,cannot be taken into account in the compatibility determination.The finding is based only on effects to KNWR lands and resources.The Tesoro Pipeline is located in a transportation corridor that was created by pulling the original boundary of the KNWR back from the edge of the Cook Inlet to allow for utility and transportation projects,such as the Southern Intertie,to traverse the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula without conflicting with the refuge. Economically Feasible and Prudent The definition of the term "economically feasible and prudent alternative route”(43 CFR part 36.2)has recently been revised to mean "a route either within or outside an area that is based on sound engineering practices and is economically practicable,but does not necessarily mean the least costly alternative route.”This is a final rule that was signed September 22,1997 (62 FR 52909).This rule will now apply to the USFWS decision-making process when reviewing applications under ANILCA Title XI. This recent ruling changing the definition drastically reduces the probability of a favorable decision for the Enstar route.Previously,an "economically feasible and prudent alternative route”was defined as one that would be considered feasible if it is "able to attract capital to finance its construction,”and prudent "only if the difference of its benefit minus its costs (Tesoro alternative)is equal to or greater than that of the benefits of the proposed Transportation Utility System (Enstar alternative)minus its costs.” In summary,if the IPG decides to propose the Enstar alternative,an ANILCA application to USFWS will be evaluated in conjunction with the NEPA process.The criteria regarding compatibility and economic feasibility and prudence will be applied to the proposed Enstar route. An independent compatibility review will be conducted by Robin West,Refuge Manager. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-107 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 |the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROS.09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Administrative Appeal Process Under ANILCA According to Section 1106 (a)of ANILCA,if the IPG should propose the Enstar route and file an ANILCA application,and if the application were to be disapproved,the IPG may appeal the denial. Under Section 1106 (a),if each Federal agency (RUS,USFWS)decides to approve the application within its jurisdiction,then the application is approved.RUS would need to decide to provide financing assistance,and USFWS would need to 'approve the ANILCA application. However,if either agency disapproves the application within its jurisdiction,then the entire application would be disapproved.If the application is disapproved the IPG may appeal the disapproval to the President of the United States. . Under Section 1106 (a)(2),if the IPG appeals,the President must decide within four months after receiving the appeal whether to approve or deny the application.To approve the application, the President would need to find that the Applicant's Proposal would be in the public interest, that it would be compatible,and that there is no economically feasible and prudent alternative. The President also considers the EIS,public and agency comments on the EIS,and findings and recommendations in RUS and USFWS Records of Decision.The President's decision to approve or deny is then published in the Federal Register. Under Section 1106 (a)(4),if the President were to deny the application,the IPG would have exhausted its administrative avenues,and could file suit in any appropriate federal court to challenge the decision. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act The Tesoro route crosses a 1,821-hectares (4,500-acre)property at Pt.Possession that was owned by the Pt.Possession,Inc.(a Native group).This property was transferred from the KNWR through the authorization of ANCSA.The process for such a conveyance of lands is discussed in 22 (f)of ANCSA.The property,located within the boundaries of the KNWR,was recently sold to a private developer.Section 22 (g)of ANCSA explains that lands such as the Pt.Possession property "remain subject to the laws and regulations governing the use and development of such Refuge.” With the restrictions carried through 22 (g),facility siting through this parcel must conform with minimum surface disturbance from facilities or construction impacts.The USFWS solicitor has determined that ANILCA does not apply to lands subject to 22 (g). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-108 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PROJ09203\009F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc 2.5.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION PROCESS In addition to Project authorizations and permits granted by state and federal natural resource management agencies,easement and permit rights must be acquired from a variety of private entities and other state agencies.Permits may be required from respective municipalities and boroughs,as well as from the Alaska Department of Transportation and the Alaska Railroad Corporation.Where the Project crosses other utility rights-of-way,such as pipelines or other utility lines,crossing or encroachment permits would be required.In general,these permits would be approved,as long as the utility adheres to commonly accepted design criteria and construction methods.In some cases,such as with the railroad and pipeline companies,the permits are conditional upon the installation of devices designed to mitigate the potential for electrical interference with communication systems,or to provide cathodic protection of pipeline systems. Easement acquisition would be required to secure utility transmission line rights across private properties.This process would proceed according to utility right-of-way acquisition policies and procedures.The basic premise of those policies is to communicate frequently and thoroughly with landowners about the need for the easement and the process of acquiring the easement.All negotiations would be conducted in good faith,and with empathy for the landowner's concerns. A preliminary land value study has been conducted to determine the apparent fair market value of private lands crossed by the alternative transmission line routes.These values represent current values as they relate to current land uses.and have been used for project cost estimates. These values may require updating prior to actual easement negotiations. Right-of-way acquisition would first require a validation of the property's fee interest owner(s). A centerline survey would be conducted.and easement descriptions written.As stated,the land value would be verified to determine the easement offer to be made to the landowner.All resident landowners would be personally contacted by a right-of-way agent.Every effort would be made in face-to-face meetings with landowners to amicably secure the easements.Unless otherwise directed by the utility,easement negotiations with absentee landowners would be conducted by telephone and certified mail.In general.absentee landowners are those residing outside Alaska,or in remote locations outside the Project area. During construction,right-of-way agents would monitor activities to ensure that any negotiated mitigation measures and other landowner concerns are honored.Any Project-related damage to private property would result in repair and/or compensation to the landowner. Proposed right-of-way and easement widths to be acquired are summarized for each link in Section 2.7,Tables 2-21 and 2-24. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-109 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX I\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F ina CHAPTER 2 doc In rural areas where the Project parallels existing transmission lines,a 30.5-meter (100-foot) right-of-way immediately adjacent to the existing line would be obtained.In rural areas where the Project would be the only transmission line,a 45.7-meter (150-foot)right-of-way would be obtained,for example,adjacent to the Tesoro and Enstar pipelines.For the portions of the Project that would be underground,but not parallel to existing roadways,a 15.2-meter (50-foot)-wide construction easement and a 9.1-meter (30-foot)-wide permanent easement would be obtained. For underground lines paralleling roadways,a 9.1-meter (30-foot)-wide easement immediately adjacent to the paved area of the roadway would be obtained. For the overhead portions of the Project paralleling public roadways,the single-shaft steel poles would be located at the edge of the right-of-way,either within the road right-of-way or on private land.A 9.1-meter (30-foot)-wide easement on private land adjacent to the line along the road right-of-way would be obtained.In some links,existing buildings are very close to or encroach on the existing road right-of-way.In these areas purchase or relocation of the buildings may be necessary.Alternatively,in these situations the poles could be located within the road right-of- way and an overhang easement could be obtained for the conductors overhanging private property;or the conductor could be installed with horizontal post insulators,all on the road side, thus negating the need for any easement on private property.Each of these situations would be addressed individually during the detailed design and right-of-way acquisition process. 2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY This section presents a comprehensive discussion of the alternatives considered but eliminated from further study that are summarized in the overview in Section 2.1. 2.6.1 ALTERNATIVES TO A SECOND TRANSMISSION LINE ELIMINATED Battery Energy Storage Systems A Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)consists of a very large bank of electric batteries and automatically controlled electronic equipment to convert the electric energy stored in the batteries from direct current (DC)to alternating current (AC)that can be supplied to the electrical transmission system.Similarly,energy can be absorbed from the electrical transmission system and stored in the batteries.Energy can be supplied to or absorbed from the electrical transmission system virtually instantaneously.This capability allows a BESS to compensate very quickly for imbalances between generation and load,such as might occur if the transmission intertie between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage area were to be severed.A BESS could be particularly applicable to address the need for increasing the reliability of the system and improving overall system stability during disturbances. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-110 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009'F inal'CHAPTER 2 doc BESSs were examined in some detail in the electrical system study effort (Power Engineers 1997).Several alternative locations for a BESS,including Bernice Lake,International,Soldotna, Bradley Lake,and Kasilof substations,were evaluated.Dynamic stability analyses were performed for incremental power transfers over the existing line of 70 megawatts (MW),90MW,100 MW,and 120 MW. The conclusion of the electrical studies is that the BESS mitigates power swings due to a sudden interruption of power over the existing line,but introduces instability in some cases and increases the likelihood of tripping other existing lines during a disturbance.Potential gains in system performance and increased power transfer are not achievable consistent with the need to increase the secure power transfer limit from 70MW to 125MW between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.For a Kenai BESS,transfers greater than 90 MW would result in violations of the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council criteria for system stability for a trip of the existing line. Also,it was noted that installation of a BESS on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage would result in three BESSs on the system (including Fairbanks),and that this may affect the interaction of the controls with the existing static var compensation system and generation controls.There is no comparable industry experience with the operation of an isolated system similar to the Alaska interconnected grid with three BESSs installed and in operation. Considering the results of the electrical studies,the BESS at best only partially meets the purpose and need for the Project.Consequently,the BESS was eliminated as an alternative to the Applicant's Proposal. Demand-Side Management And Energy Conservation Demand-Side Management (DSM)consists of electric utilities planning,implementing,and monitoring activities designed to encourage consumers to modify their levels and patterns of electricity consumption.While DSM effects only a small percentage of the system load,utilities implement DSM programs to achieve two basic objectives:energy efficiency and load management. Energy efficiency (or energy conservation)is primarily achieved through programs that reduce overall energy consumption of specific end use devices and systems by promoting high- efficiency equipment and building design.Energy efficiency programs typically reduce energy consumption over many hours during the year.Examples include energy saving appliances and lighting,high-efficiency heating,ventilating and air conditioning systems or control modification,efficient building design,advanced electric motors and drive systems,and heat recovery systems. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-111 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXHSYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Load management programs,on the other hand,are designed to achieve load reductions, primarily at the time of peak load.For example,by agreement with their customers utilities can have direct control over loads that can be interrupted by the utility system operator during periods of peak demand,by directly interrupting power supply to individual appliances or equipment.This method usually involves consumers who allow the utility to periodically interrupt service to water or space heating units during the hours of peak load. Another type of load management program makes use of interruptible loads.Interruptible load is load that can be separated from the system during periods of peak load or system disturbances, either by direct control of the utility system operator or by action of the consumer,at the direct request of the system operator.For example,large commercial and industrial consumers are candidates for interruptible load management,depending on the type of business. Other load management programs that limit peak loads,shift peak load from on-peak to off-peak hours,or encourage consumers to respond to changes in the utility's cost of providing power,also are used.Included are technologies that primarily shift all or part of a load from one time of day to another and also may affect overall energy consumption.Examples include space heating and water heating storage systems,cool storage systems,and load limiting devices in energy management systems. Members of the Intertie Participants Group have implemented energy efficiency and load management programs to varying degrees.Homer Electric Association,for example,encourages energy efficiency through their water heater rebate program.Matanuska Electric Association has implemented load management programs that allow direct control of customer water heaters, interruptible load,and off-peak space and water heating incentives.Golden Valley Electric Association has several Energy$ense programs that address both energy efficiency and load management.Anchorage Municipal Light and Power focuses their efforts on energy efficiency through betterment projects at their generating plants and is also developing other energy storage options.Chugach Electric Association (CEA).Seward,and Fairbanks Municipal Utility System work with their customers to encourage energy efficiency,but have no formal programs. Energy efficiency and load management programs are important tools that Alaska utilities are using,and will continue to use to manage the demand for and consumption of electricity. However,while valuable,these programs do not address any of the need categories of the Project.These DSM programs focus on managing a very small part of the load on the system, whereas the Project need is for improvements to allow better operational management of the existing interconnected system.For example,DSM will not increase system reliability or increase the power transfer capacity between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,nor will it improve system stability during disturbances or allow the utilities to use the most economic mix of generating plants to reduce costs.Since energy efficiency and load management programs do Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-112 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXIASYS\DATA'PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc not address the purpose and need for the Project,DSM was not considered further as an alternative to the Applicant's Proposal. New Generation The Railbelt system is a power grid that electrically connects south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks.There are three distinct regions-the interior area,centered around Fairbanks, Anchorage and Matanuska Valley area (Anchorage area),and the Kenai Peninsula.These areas are currently interconnected by the existing Anchorage to Fairbanks intertie and the Quartz Creek line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. As an alternative to constructing a second line from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage,adding generation capacity on the Kenai Peninsula and/or in Anchorage was considered.Adding generation capacity would increase the generation resources available to serve load on the system;however,the overall system currently has an excess of generating capacity over electrical load. Currently,the installed generation capacity of the Railbelt is about 1,470 MW,as opposed to a winter 1997 load of approximately 721 MW as shown on the following diagram.Generation capacity as well as electrical load is distributed throughout the Railbelt.As illustrated,Railbelt generation resources currently exceed electrical loads by a factor of two.While new generation resources could be used to enhance reliability and improve system stability during disturbances, generation resources that could be used for this purpose already exist.Additional generation resources are not needed.What is needed is an enhanced ability to use the existing generation resources in the most economical manner. As noted in Chapter 1,one of the primary purposes for the Project is to allow the existing system generation resources to be utilized more efficiently to reduce system operating costs while increasing reliability.In order to accomplish this,additional transmission line capacity is needed rather than new generating plants. | Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-113 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc 1470 MW Generation]Fairbanks 334 MW (Oil &Coal) 189 MW |138kV Healy 88 MW (Coal) Submarine 138kV 138kV 386 MW (Gas)230kV 32 MW (Hydro) .386 MW (Gas Bel --418 MW (Total)eluga Anchorage 120 MW (Hydro)447 MW 124 MW (Gas) 244 MW (Total)445kVKenai: 85 MW Railbelt Generation and Loads Wind Generation Harnessing the wind to provide electric generation resources has been successful in California and in other parts of the world.The addition of wind generation to the Railbelt system would be another way of adding new generation resources to the system. Power can be generated from the wind through the use of large wind turbines,or windmills,that are sited in areas that exhibit high average wind speeds.In 1980,a study was completed for the Alaska Power Administration to evaluate the wind energy potential in the Cook Inlet area.The study examined wind data from the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL)wind energy database for the area and from the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). The area studied was in proximity to the existing electrical transmission system including the eastern shores of Cook Inlet from Kenai Peninsula to Homer,east from Kenai Peninsula to Seward,north and west from Seward through Turnagain Arm past Anchorage and into the Matanuska to Susitna Valley regions around Palmer,and west to Beluga.In addition,the terrain up through Broad Pass,up the Matanuska Valley to Tahneta Pass,and down to the southern tip of the Kenai Peninsula also were studied in order to understand the behavior of winds in the region. The data were screened for likely sites for wind generation in and around the Cook Inlet area. Climatology in the area was studied by researching the literature on large scale weather patterns, Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-114 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ,09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2.doc examining wind speeds and direction at potential sites,and interpreting both the large-scale weather patterns and the local wind characteristics in terms of the interaction between the terrain features and the air flow.Potential sites identified were visited and observations made as to the suitability of a potential site for wind generation. Wind data from the PNL wind energy database and wind data obtained through the cooperation of the AEIDC were screened for wind energy potential.The stations included the following: PNL Database:* AEIDC Database: =Anchorage/Elmendorf =North Dutch Island =Palmer ®Anchorage/International =Skwenta =Seward m Anchorage/Merrill Field =Summit =Portage =Homer m Talkeetna =Tyonek =Kenai =Iliamna The annual average wind speed duration and frequency were analyzed and plotted from the data for each of these stations.For evaluating the viability of a resource,the study criteria considered an average annual wind speed of 5 meters (16.5 feet)/second or average power of 150 watts/square meter at a height above ground of 10 meters (32.8 feet)as a minimum threshold for consideration.The study considered a wind resource of 6.5 meters (21.3 feet)/second or average 'power of 325 watts/square meter at a height of 10 meters (32.8 feet)above ground to be a good resource. Based on an analysis of the information provided from the databases from these existing stations, the study concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that large-scale generation of electric energy by MW-scale wind turbines would be a significant viable energy option in the Cook Inlet area.While the Summit and North Dutch Island stations exhibited wind characteristics meeting the threshold for consideration,no stations exhibited wind regimes that qualified as a good resource. Therefore,wind generation is not a viable option for the Project.As noted earlier,additional generation is not needed in any case.rather the Project is needed.in part,to utilize the existing generation resources more efficiently to lower overall operating costs. While not appropriate as an alternative for the Project,there is continuing interest in wind power. In anticipation of future consumer demand for "green power,”CEA is currently completing a limited survey of potential wind resources in the area.Green power is power generated from renewable resources,which could be offered to interested customers as an option to normal delivery of electricity.The purpose of the wind resource assessment is to determine if there are any sites worthy of more detailed evaluation.Although this preliminary study is being Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-115 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXIASYS.DATA\PRON092031009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc completed,CEA has no specific plans for the inclusion of wind generation as part of its resource plan at this time. Fuel Cells As an emerging technology,fuel cells were considered as an alternative to a second transmission line.The addition of fuel cell generation to the Railbelt system would be another way of adding new generation resources to the system.. Fuel cells are power-generating systems that produce DC electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction.Fuel cells can be designed to use a variety of fuels,such as natural gas,landfill gas,liquid petroleum gas,propane,and coal gasification.Compared with traditional generating technologies that use combustion processes first to convert fuel to heat and mechanical energy,fuel cells convert the chemical energy of a fuel to electric energy directly, without intermediate conversion processes. Fuel cell power plants consist of three major subsystems-a fuel processing subsystem (the reformer),the fuel cell stack subsystem,and the power conditioning unit (static power converter).The reformer converts the fuel supply to a hydrogen-rich fuel gas.It can be designed to accept many different fuels,including natural gas,propane,methanol,and coal gas.The fuel cell stack subsystem is where the electrochemical process occurs and the DC electricity is produced.The static power converter subsystem converts DC power to AC power. A 2 MW fuel cell demonstration plant has been constructed in Santa Clara,California,and is the largest fuel cell plant ever tested in the United States.Fuel cell generating units of 200kW capacity are commercially available today for about $3,000/kW,as compared to combustion turbine plants that have been and are being constructed for between $450 and $600/kW depending on the size of the unit and other factors.Combustion turbine units are commercially available in sizes from several MWs to several hundred MWs and are currently in use by many utilities across the country and in Alaska for utility system power generation applications. Additional research and development efforts will likely result in lower costs for fuel cell generation plants,although widespread use of fuel cells for utility generation applications is still several years off.While fuel cell generation plants offer potential for the future,larger size units are not currently commercially available.Consequently,fuel cells are not a viable option for the Project. Additionally,fuel cells are simply another form of new generation.As noted earlier,additional generation is not needed,rather the Project is needed,in part,to utilize the existing generation resources more efficiently to lower overall operating costs. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-116 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc Increasing Spinning Reserves Spinning reserve is a portion of the operating reserves maintained by utilities.Spinning reserve is unloaded generation,which is synchronized and ready to serve additional demand (NERC 1996). Spinning reserves respond to changes in consumer demand and failures in the generation and transmission system.Spinning reserves improve reliability,but they are often expensive.In order to maintain adequate spinning reserve margins,generation units must be operated without serving any consumer load., Increasing reliability and improving system stability during disturbances by operating additional generation in a spinning reserve mode could be accomplished at higher system operating costs. These higher costs would be reflected through increased fuel and maintenance expenses,and shorter life for the generating plants.Spinning reserves would need to be increased over present levels in order to enhance the reliability of the system. One of the reasons the Project is being proposed as a system improvement is to reduce spinning reserve requirements.The alternative of increasing spinning reserves to meet the purpose and need for the Project is in contradiction to the purpose of the Project.Consequently,increasing the amount of spinning reserves on the system was eliminated as an alternative.The need for and the benefits of reducing the system spinning reserve requirements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 1.The Project would effectively reduce spinning reserve requirements by 20MW by increasing the amount of spinning reserves that can be transferred from the Kenai Peninsula from 30MW to 50MW. 2.6.2 ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS ELIMINATED Upgrade Of The Existing Quartz Creek Line The electrical system study effort conducted by Power Engineers (1996a)analyzed the performance of the system by modeling several different upgrade scenarios for the existing Quartz Creek line,as an alternative to constructing a second transmission line.The primary benefit to upgrading the existing line would be to increase the power transfer capability between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.Conversion of the operating voltage of the line from 115kV to 138kV or 230kV and the addition of reactive compensation to the line were analyzed. Conversion of the operating voltage from 115kV to 138kV could only increase the power transfer capacity of the existing line by about 20 percent,since the line voltage is only increased 23kV.In addition,most of the line would require reinsulation and the substation transformers at Indian,Girdwood,Portage,Hope,Summit Lake,Dave's Creek,and Quartz Creek substations Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-117 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHNI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2.doc would require replacement,along with modifications at University and Soldotna substations.The high cost of reconstructing all of the intermediate substations along the line,associated with little change in performance,eliminates this option. Increasing the operating voltage of the line from 115kV to 230kV would almost double the power transfer capability of the line.As with the 138kV conversion,converting the voltage to 230kV would require replacement of the transformers at the intermediate substations,and would also require upgrades to the substations at the endpoints of the line in Anchorage and at the Soldotna Substation.To be capable of carrying 230kV,the entire line would need to be reconstructed by replacing all of the structures.Even though the power transfer capability of the line would be increased,there still would be only one line,and at higher power transfer levels system stability problems would become worse for an outage of the line. The addition of either shunt or series compensation also would increase the power transfer capability of the line.Again,the higher power transfer levels would aggravate problems associated with system stability and operation of the system. While an upgrade of the existing line could increase the power transfer capability,none of the upgrade alternatives address the issues associated with having only one transmission line interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.The system stability issues would continue to limit the secure power transfer over the line to 70 MW,the same as the existing situation.The interconnection still would not meet Alaska Systems Coordinating Council criteria for single contingency outages.The existing problems associated with system reliability and stability would become worse.An upgrade to the line to achieve higher power transfer levels would aggravate the problems associated with these issues,and would make system-wide blackouts and load shedding more likely for an outage of the line.The reason that system-wide blackouts and load shedding are more likely,and that these problems become worse,is because for system disturbances at transfer levels higher than 70 MW,load shedding is necessary to maintain system stability,resulting in customer outages.If even higher levels of power are transferred across a single line,for example 125 MW,the transfer capacity achieved with the Project,the system will become unstable and it is likely that a system blackout would occur (Power Engineers 1997).As a result,the alternative of upgrading the existing line was eliminated. Alternate Voltage Levels The appropriate operating voltage for a second transmission line interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage has been studied on several occasions (AEA 1991;Power Engineers 1996).Operating voltages of 138kV and 230kV were studied,because both of these voltage levels are used for transmission line and substation facilities that are part of the Alaska Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-118 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRO]\09203\009\F inalt\CHAPTER 2 doc interconnected system.The advantage of 230kV rather than 138kV as an operating voltage would be higher power transfer capability with reduced transmission line losses. Each of the studies that considered the two voltage levels reached the same conclusions.Both the 138kV and 230kV alternatives exhibited similar performance for the expected steady state power transfers and system disturbance analyses.The additional power transfer capability offered by 230kV is not required for the power transfer levels projected during the life of the Project,based on the current projections of load growth and generation additions.The only advantage exhibited by the 230kV voltage level was slightly reduced transmission'line losses.The 230kV alternative has the disadvantage of requiring larger and more expensive equipment than the 138kV alternative.The substantially higher cost of the 230kV facilities (Power Engineers 1996)makes the 230kV operating voltage alternative uneconomical,when compared to the 138kV.Therefore, an operating voltage of 230kV was eliminated and 138kV is proposed for the Project. Underground Line Alternatives Underground transmission has been proposed only where required by regulations and/or to avoid hazards that would be associated with an overhead line,such as through Captain Cook SRA or near an airport.The reason for this is that the cost of underground transmission is four to five times the cost of an overhead line,and the operational problems and outage durations are greater. for example,when an outage to an overhead line occurs,the location of the problem can generally be determined by driving or flying along the line and visually determining where the damage is located.Once the damaged area is found,it is relatively easy to restore an overhead line to service,as all facilities are aboveground and accessible.However,when an outage to an underground line occurs,determining the cause and location of the damage,the replacement parts needed to repair the line,and actually repairing the line,takes much more time than for an overhead line.Repairs to an underground line are more expensive to fix as well.In addition,if an underground line is damaged during the winter,the presence of snow and frozen soil will increase the length of time required and degree of difficulty to repair the facility.Operationally, overhead lines are preferred.The remaining alternative routes studied in detail were located to avoid residential areas as much as possible. 2.6.3 ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION ROUTES ELIMINATED The previous sections describe why alternatives to a second transmission line and alternative transmission systems would not meet the purpose and need for the Project.This section addresses alternative transmission line routes that were studied and eliminated.A route selection process was conducted to ensure that the consideration of alternatives was comprehensive,and that the alternatives to be addressed in the environmental impact statement would be responsive Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-119 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX [SY S\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc to both the purpose of and need for the Project and the issues identified through scoping. Initially,alternative routes were identified through the Southern Intertie Project Route Selection Study -Phase 1 -Environmental Section Report (Power Engineers,Inc.June 1996a).During subsequent project scoping,public involvement,agency review,and environmental and engineering analysis,some routes were added and others eliminated from further study. The identification of alternative routes involved several stages,as summarized below and illustrated on Figure 2-10: Initially,the study area included the Beluga Power Plant as a possible termination point. This alternative was found to be infeasible for the Project because of extreme submarine conditions,the length of the Cook Inlet crossing (29.0 to 32.2 km [18 to 20 miles]),and the lack of a suitable landing location along the west side of the inlet.In addition,costs associated with crossing the Cook Inlet at this location with submarine cable would make the Project financially infeasible. The second stage resulted in three alternative routes: -The Tesoro Pipeline route between Bernice Lake Substation and Anchorage -The Enstar Pipeline route between the Soldotna Substation and Anchorage -The Quartz Creek transmission line alternatives between Soldotna and Anchorage -A network of local alternative routes were identified in Anchorage that extend from the Tesoro and Enstar pipeline routes that cross the Kenai Peninsula and the Quartz Creek line At the third stage of the route selection process,the Quartz Creek line and other local alternatives on the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage were eliminated from further study,as illustrated on Figures 2-11 and 2-12. Additional alternatives were suggested from the public and agencies during and after the scoping period. The following sections provide the rationale for the elimination of these alternative routes,and other project facility considerations for the Quartz Creek,Tesoro,and Enstar alternatives. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-120 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PROJ09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc Initial Regional Route Selection Study Area Regional Route Selection Study Area and Alternative Study Corridors EIS Study Area 7. Tyonek e Beluga Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Chugach , NationalForest§fg ee Pipeline£§wié/f ==es Existing K-47 Transmission Line A Substations Note:Not to Scale Substations:1 -Bernice Lake 2 -Soldotna 3 -Point Woronzof 4 -International 5 -University oF Ss gs Syren WainChicka,=Ns z loon =Girdwood ®Beluga Kenai National Wildlife Refuge S ©¢ Chugach National Forest .& a see Alternative Transmission Line Corridors itt!Submarine Lines A Substations Note:Not to Scale Substations:1 -Bernice Lake 2 -Soldotna 3 -Point Woronzof 4 -International 5 -University,APA,or Power Plant #2 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Chugach National Forest see Alternative Transmission Line Corridors mem Existing Transmission Line i111}Submarine Lines A Substations Note:Not to Scale Substations:1 -Bernice Lake 2 -Soldotna 3 -Point Woronzof 4 -International STUDY AREA AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PROGRESSION SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Figure 2-10 >.mal:O9,<©v2)ie)5@”NewtEliminated Sihieeieceritad ee i'ween ek. Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission LineeconeetA:NZLLegend State Park Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Chugach National Forest Private,Borough, or State Selected Lands " Route Eliminated Link Number of Route EliminatedNOE 7 neal 148 NBLGeneral Reference Features /V Inventory Corridor /V Alternative Route @2)Link Number Code de,Existing Substations /Pipeline /\/Transmission Line 7*¥Railroad A'Study Area Boundary "Rivers and Streams w F A Oil Platform []Ocean/Lakes/Inlet sifArdaneornSewtodeesNOLatseatenLi NelEKenai Peninsula Borough (1994).USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Figure 2-11 Pt.Woronzof Substation Internati Pt.Woronzof Substation University Substation onal realiew |one "3 : -=e me cae a ____-ibaer"|ees ee M4.1 Legend .#/| 7 : ===Route Eliminated Link Number £/|Ke iz-of Route ; |he ryt i.Eliminated "------5 -Z |ewA2oo-Generai Reference Features Z | AJ ..ae )ee __me _v Pipeline FA Oil Platform ||i //Transmission Line L_]Ocean/Lakes/inlet .| Af Railroad '\/Alternative Route |L--.-._. AN Study Area Boundeee)tink Number Anchorage AreaRiversandStreams ;db,_Existing Substations Alternative Routes Eliminated 0 1 2 3 Miles Figure 2-12a"us DAMES&MOORE <a SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT 9 sertancorcarene I Proposed Anchorage To Kenai Peninsula Transmission Project -Ts _...4 Hi ,'po |- Quartz Creek Route The Quartz Creek transmission line corridor between Soldotna and Anchorage was identified as a routing opportunity for the Project as a result of the Southern Intertie Project Route Selection Study -Phase 1 (Power Engineers and Dames &Moore 1996).The Quartz Creek alternative was presented in public scoping as a route that would parallel the existing 115kV transmission line right-of way,and would extend from the Soldotna substation on the Kenai Peninsula to one of three substations in Anchorage:University,Alaska Power Authority,or Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Plant No.2 substations.This route is referred to as the Portage option in subsequent discussions.An additional alternative route for the Quartz Creek option was identified which followed Sixmile Creek north to the Turnagain Arm crossing near Bird Point,as shown on Figure 2-11.This route is referred to as the Sixmile route in subsequent discussions. Photo simulations of the Quartz Creek and Sixmile routes are included in the map volume. There have been numerous comments on the Quartz Creek alternative from both agencies and the public.The general types of issues associated with this alternative are diverse,as summarized below: =Conflicts with the Chugach National Forest and Chugach State Park and views from Seward Highway (National Scenic Byway),Cooper Landing,and several other environmentally sensitive areas have been noted by agencies and the public. m Avalanche hazards along the route that have caused numerous outages to the existing Quartz Creek line have been noted. =The opportunity to utilize an existing transmission line corridor has been identified. =Many have questioned the relative differences between the risks to the Quartz Creek line due to the presence of avalanches,in comparison to the potential failures to the Tesoro route due to adverse submarine conditions near Pt.Possession. The analysis of the Quartz Creek alternative has included agency and public input,and environmental,engineering,and economic studies.The following sections highlight the key issues that led to eliminating the Quartz Creek route from further study including reliability/purpose and need,land right constraints,avalanche hazards,costs,and lack of effective/feasible mitigation that could improve the reliability of the line. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-124 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ09203\0091Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Reliability/Purpose and Need The primary reason for the elimination of the Quartz Creek alternative is related to the reliability criteria for the project,as presented in Section 1.3 of Purpose and Need.An analysis of the alternatives considered but eliminated based on purpose and need is summarized in Table 2-1. Because Quartz Creek is the only transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage area,the loss of the line during high levels of power transfer can have a severe impact on the electrical systems on both the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage area,causing outagesforelectricalconsumersinbothareas.A second parallel line would be subject to the same potential for outages as the existing line. In terms of increased power transfer capacity,a second line parallel to the existing line would increase the capacity of the system between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.However,the second parallel line could be subject to the same outage events as the existing line,including weather and avalanche risks.Consequently,the new parallel line would be subject to the same single contingency outage as the existing line,and would not provide increased energy transfers in a reliable manner during a significant outage event. By failing to meet the need criteria for increased reliability,the ability to transfer power would be adversely affected,even though the power transfer capacity could be improved by using the Quartz Creek route.As a result,other need criteria,including using the most economic generation mix to reduce costs,improving system stability during disturbances,and reducing the requirements for spinning reserves,would not be fully realized. In addition.the cost of the Quartz Creek route after incorporating necessary mitigation would make the alternative financially infeasible.as discussed in the following sections.The Intertie Participants Group has reviewed and confirmed the analysis of the Quartz Creek route and the conclusion to eliminate it as an alternative for the Project. Chugach State Park Land Right Constraints The existing 115kV transmission line crosses 42.3 km (26.3 miles)of Chugach State Park, traversing Powerline Pass to Indian.and then generally paralleling the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway to Girdwood.The Quartz Creek route alternative would parallel this existing line. In 1973,Chugach State Park applied for funding assistance from the National Park Service under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.The funds were to be used for certain acquisitions within the park to support outdoor recreation activities.Accompanying the federal funds assistance is legal protection which states that grant-assisted areas are to remain forever available Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-125 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXHSYS\DATA'PRON\09203\000\Fina\CHAPTER 2 doc for public outdoor recreation use or be replaced by lands of equal market value and recreation usefulness.Section 6(f)(3)protection states: No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall,without the approval of the Secretary [of the Interior],be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses.The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasoriably equivalent usefulness and location. The entire park was placed under this legal protection,and Alaska Department of Natural Resources-Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation staff have indicated that they perceive an additional overhead transmission line as a conversion of:use.The existing 115kV line predates the park and funds assistance. The Division of Parks will not request for conversion to the National Park Service for conveyance of additional right-of-way for a second overhead line.The cost of undergrounding the line through the park is presented as part of the cost evaluation of the Quartz Creek route options discussed below. A double-circuit configuration of the existing facilities would be another alternative,which would not require additional right-of-way,but is viewed by the Division of Parks as a significant change in the visual aesthetics of the property.The Division of Parks,therefore,would not support a request for conversion to the National Park Service for a double circuit line. Conversion of the existing line would require an amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license,under which this line was originally constructed.With the known opposition of the underlying landowner (Division of Parks),it is very unlikely that such an amendment would be approved. In addition to the points made above,it should be noted that any plans for double-circuit construction of existing lines have generally been avoided for the Project,because of the need for increased reliability of the Railbelt System.If both circuits occupy the same transmission structure,the resulting line would not enhance the single contingency performance of the electrical system for outages to both circuits on the same structure. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-126 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ09203\000\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Chugach National Forest Double-Circuit Option During the route selection studies,the Forest Service requested that rather than establishing a second transmission line in the Chugach National Forest parallel to the existing Quartz Creek line,that the existing and proposed lines be placed on the same structure,allowing for the removal of the existing structures.This mitigation would address both right-of-way and visual impacts on the Chugach National Forest.The result would be'a double-circuit transmission line, with the inherent reduction in reliability resulting from having both lines on the same structure. Avalanche Hazards Avalanche damage and outages to the Quartz Creek Line are well documented as an ongoing hazard.As such,the same hazard would apply to the new line as well if it were constructed along any of the Sixmile or Portage routing options.Avalanche hazard areas are shown on Figure 2-13. The Quartz Creek line has sustained significant avalanche damage numerous times throughout its life.Most recently in 1988,the line sustained significant damage,causing a power outage in the Girdwood area for about one week while repairs to the line were completed (Figure 2-14). Studies by the Alaska Mountain Safety Center (Alaska Mountain Safety Center 1991)show that 88 structures and 117 spans along the line are exposed to some degree of potential hazard from destructive avalanches.Extended outages to the existing line have occurred because of avalanches in the Bird Flats area.between Girdwood and Hope Junction,as well as in the Summit Lake area.Historic records indicate that during an 18-year period from 1971 to 1988 the line was hit and severely damaged by avalanches on 11 occasions in 6 different areas,for an average of at least once every 1.6 years.The longest period of time without interruption was eight years while the least was less than one year. The Alaska Mountain Safety Center assigned levels of risk to each span or structure located near the avalanche paths studied along the Quartz Creek route in 1991,as follows: ws High Risk-five or more large.potentially destructive avalanches may be capable of reaching a Structure or span location during a 50-year period ™Moderate Risk-one to four large,potentially destructive avalanches may have the capability of reaching a structure or span location during a 50-year period Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-127 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ.09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc T12NTIONTBNT6NT4Noy '| @&J!0G 2e Wildlife 8 iisCes)R :a NOLLNeilNZLN81NOLAvalanche Hazard Areas SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Legend Avalanche Hazard Areas NolGeneral Reference Features /Inventory Corridor /V'Alternative Route 2)Link Number Code A Bxisting Substations //Pipeline //Transmission Line '¥Railroad /\!Study Area Boundary Rivers and Streams w t A Oil Platform []Ocean/Lakes/Inlet s Source Data::Municipality of Anchorage (1994).ce DAMrs &MOORT fE'Chugach National Forest (1995).BELGE amie amcor crourcommey ES Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994).USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. Figure 2-13 Figure 2-14 Avalanche Damage -April 1988.Quartz Creek transmission line route parallel to Seward Highway along Turnagain Arm.Several structures were destroyed by the April 1988 avalanche.. =Low Risk-the structure or span is capable of being hit,either frequently or infrequently, but the dynamic forces generated by the avalanche are not likely to result in damage or destruction During the three-year period from 1989 to 1991,CEA reduced the overall frequency of risk exposure faced by the line by implementing mitigation in many of the areas of highest hazard (i.e..in paths that posed the greatest frequency of destructive threat).Mitigation measures included relocating structures to areas of less exposure,protecting structures with reinforced splitting wedges,increasing structure heights and thus conductor spans,installing double- deadends and breakaway insulators.and designing structures to minimize damage.As a result, most of the remaining hazard (frequency)is rated as moderate,as shown in Table 2-13.A summary of the results of the studies by risk category is presented in Table 2-18 (on page 2-148): Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-129 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal \CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-13 QUARTZ CREEK 115kV TRANSMISSION LINE AVALANCHE RISK EXPOSURE 1991 Risk Exposure -Number of Structures or Spans Component Low Moderate High Total Structures 31 56 1 88 Spans 65 49 3 117 Damaging avalanches affecting the Quartz Creek line between 1971 and 1988 are tabulated in Table 2-14. Destructive avalanches occurred in 6 of the 18 years covered by Table 2-14.Significant avalanche damage to the line has not occurred since 1988;however,destructive avalanches have damaged the line in 6 of the last 27 years (1971 to 1997),an average of every 4.5 years. The Alaska Mountain Safety Center studies of the existing Quartz Creek line produced recommendations that resulted in the construction of upgrades to the existing structures along the line to mitigate the potential damage to the lines from avalanches.The line was reconstructed in three of the highest hazard areas (paths which pose the greatest frequency of destructive threat) including Bird Flats (2.58 kilometers (km)[1.6 miles]-1988),Peterson Creek (1.93 km [1.2 miles]-1989),and Summit Lake (1.61 km [1.0 mile]-1991).Where possible,structures were relocated and structure height was increased to attempt to mitigate damage from avalanches.At Bird Flat,one angle structure remains directly in the avalanche path,because there is no alternative location for the structure.The line remains routed along the Seward Highway with virtually no alternative locations available.At Peterson Creek,structures were relocated away from known avalanche paths and breakaway links were installed at conductor attachment points, in locations where exposure to avalanches could not be avoided.At Summit Lake,structures were replaced with higher steel structures and wooden deflectors were installed at structures located in known avalanche paths.It is hoped that these reconstructed sections will reduce the damage to the line from avalanche blasts when they occur;however,the reconstructed sections are not capable of withstanding all avalanche blasts.While most of the remaining hazards along the line are rated as moderate,the only difference between high hazard and moderate hazard is one of frequency.Avalanches in areas rated as moderate can cause just as much damage to the line as those occurring in areas rated as a high hazard (Alaska Mountain Safety Center,Inc. 1991).. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-130 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \\DM_PHX\SYS\DATA\PRO]09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2.doc TABLE 2-14 AVALANCHE DAMAGE TO THE QUARTZ CREEK LINE Avalanche Year of General Location Path Damage Powerline Pass Path/Campbell-Indian Creek area A-3 March 1979 Powerline Pass Path/Campbeli-Indian Creek area A-3 December 1988 Five Fingers/Bird Creek-Girdwood area B-4 1980 (2 events) The Dump Path/Bird Creek-Girdwood area B-5 1980 Bird Flats No.6/Bird Creek-Girdwood area B-7 1976 Bird Flats No.6/Bird Creek-Girdwood area B-7 1988 Bird Flats No.7/Bird Creek-Girdwood area B-8 1979 Bird Flats No.7/Bird Creek-Girdwood area B-8 1988 Peterson Group/Girdwood to Portage area C-9 April 1988 Gold Pan/Turnagain East Group,Portage to Granite Creek area D-5 197] Gold Pan/Turnagain East Group,Portage to Granite Creek area D-5 1975 Davies Creek Path/Turnagain East Group,Portage to Granite Creek area D-6 197] Davies Creek Path/Turnagain East Group,Portage to Granite Creek area D-6 1975 Bertha/Turnagain East Group,Portage to Granite Creek area D-8 197} Bertha/Turagain East Group.Portage to Granite Creek area D-8 1975 Summit Lake S.P.No.7/Summit Group,Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-8 January 1980 Summit Lake S.P.No.6/Summit Group,Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-9 January 1980 Summit Lake S.P.No.6/Summit Group,Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-9 1988 Summit Lake S.P.No.5/Summit Group,Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-10 May 1988 Summit Lake S.P.No.5/Summit Group.Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-10 January 1980 Summit Lake S.P.No.4/Summit Group,Hope Cutoff to Quartz Creek area F-11 January 1980 Summit Lake S.P.Nos.2 and 3/Summit Group,Hope Cutoff to Quartz F-12 January 1980 Creek area "37-Mile'/Avalanche Acres Group.Daves Creek to Moose Pass G-4 January 1980 Source:Alaska Mountain Safety Center and Chugach Electric Association There have been no significant line damaging avalanche events since 1988,when major damage occurred in multiple locations.However.even though they have not been line damaging, avalanches continue to occur in the area.The Summit Lake Group of avalanche paths would be crossed by any new transmission line constructed along the existing Quartz Creek route (both the Sixmile or the Portage routes).A review of Summit Lake avalanche activity over the last few years illustrates that avalanche activity can be high,regardless of whether or not damage to the transmission line actually occurs.The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF)regularly closes the highway at Summit Lake and shoots potential avalanches to reduce the risk of a destructive avalanche.Avalanche magnitudes are estimated by ADOT/PF. Table 2-15 tabulates the number of avalanches that ran greater than 50 percent of the path,and represents the number of avalanches that had the potential to or did cause damage to the line. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 2-131 WDM_PHXISYS\DATA'PROJ.09203\009\Fnal:CHAPTER 2 doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-15 SUMMIT LAKE GROUP AVALANCHES INVOLVING 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE PATH Transmission Line Year Number of Avalanches Damaged 1986 4 1987 0 Transmission line hit and198812damagedthreetimes 1989 6 1990 16 Transmission line hit 1991 7 1992 3 1993 5 Transmission line avalanchedeflectorhit 1994 9 1995 4 1996 2 1997 3 Average per year 5.9 Source:Alaska Department Of Transportation Lack of Effective/Feasible Mitigation This section provides an analysis of the types mitigation that were considered for the Quartz Creek route,for improving reliability,and addressing agency comments and regulatory issues. Included are sections describing the mitigation options,avalanche mitigation,and comparison of routes. There were a number of comments from agencies and the public regarding use of the Quartz Creek route for the new line,as compared to the Tesoro and Enstar routes.These comments included the following: =What would be the relative exposure of the new line from outages for the Quartz Creek route,as compared to the Tesoro or Enstar routes? m™How does the Quartz Creek route compare to the Tesoro and Enstar routes with respect to the relative performance expected along a route given the various overhead,underground, and submarine transmission line segments that would be required for each route? ws What is the relative risk of outages due to avalanches along the Quartz Creek route,as compared to the submarine cables proposed for the Tesoro or Enstar routes? Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-132 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203:009'Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Can the line be placed underground across the avalanche paths to mitigate damage to the line from avalanches? Is the existing line still at risk from avalanche damage,considering the avalanche mitigation upgrades to the line that were constructed by CEA? What would it cost to combine the new line and the existing line on the same double circuit structures to minimize environmental impacts from the line? For the Quartz Creek route,what would it cost to underground or incorporate other appropriate design features into the Project to mitigate the potential for outages to the line from avalanche or ice/wind/snow causes?How do these costs compare with the costs associated with the Tesoro or Enstar routes? If the new line were constructed along the Quartz Creek route,what would be the impacts on the system as compared to the Tesoro or Enstar routes? Mitigation Options This section describes the types of mitigation measures that were considered to address the avalanche risk.Chugach State Park land conversion compliance,and the Forest Service double- circuit option. Four options were studied for the Portage and Sixmile alternatives.Common to each option studied were the following: parallel the existing overhead line from University Substation to Chugach State Park boundary underground line within the Chugach State Park boundaries rebuild existing 69kV line from Quartz Creek Substation to Soldotna Substation with wood H-frame structures The unique portions of each option are described below. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-133 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXISYS\DATA'PRON09203\009'F inal.CHAPTER 2 doc Sixmile Options Option 1-submarine cable crossing of Turnagain Arm from Indian to Sixmile Creek, and then construct a new line parallel to the existing line right-of-way from Sixmile to Quartz Creek Substation with wood H-Frame structures Option 2-same as Option 1,except install the new line underground across avalanche paths along the route 'Option 3-submarine cable crossing of Turnagain Arm from Indian to Sixmile Creek, then replace the existing structures with a new double-circuit steel pole line from Sixmile to Quartz Creek Substation;underground both circuits across avalanche paths Option 4-same as Option 3,except without undergrounding across avalanche paths Portage Options Option la-parallel existing line from Chugach State Park boundary near Girdwood to Quartz Creek Substation using wood H-Frame structures Option 2a-same as Option la,except install the line underground across avalanche paths along the route Option 3a-replace the existing line with a new double circuit steel pole line from the Chugach State Park boundary near Girdwood to the Quartz Creek Substation; underground both circuits across avalanche paths Option 4a-same as Option 3a,except without undergrounding across avalanche paths Avalanche Mitigation As part of the alternative screening process,several options for construction of a new line parallel to the existing Quartz Creek line were evaluated to address these issues.However,there are numerous avalanche paths along the existing line route that also would exist along any parallel route.An alternative to paralleling the existing route around the end of Turnagain Arm and through Turnagain Pass (Portage)would be to cross the Turnagain Arm from the Indian area to Sixmile Creek with submarine cable.and then follow the existing distribution line right-of- way south to Hope Junction (Sixmile).The Sixmile route avoids 11 avalanche paths located along the existing line route between Indian and Hope Junction. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-134 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXHSYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\;CHAPTER 2 doc The Summit Lake avalanche area crossed by the Quartz Creek route is about 12.9 km (8 miles) long.As noted above,upgrades to the structures over a 1.6 km (1 mile)section of this area were completed in 1991.As part of the design process for this upgrade,the velocity and density of the various layers of a typical avalanche (snow,snow debris,airborne snow,and air blast)were estimated to define the expected loading on the wire and at different heights along the structures. Steel pole structures were designed for the estimated loads.Because structures could not be located between avalanche paths,wooden deflectors were installed around the new steel poles to redirect the avalanche.The deflectors are built with traditional transmission line material consisting primarily of wooden poles and crossarms.Summit Lake avalanches can be very large and design of the deflectors was based on the "normal”avalanche'.The design of the deflectors is based on a "head-on”avalanche,so they face uphill.Some of the avalanche paths along Summit Lake are quite long and an avalanche can easily turn during its trip to the bottom.The effectiveness of the deflectors have not been truly tested,as no large avalanches have struck thelinesincetheywereinstalled. Other design approaches to mitigate avalanche damage have been constructed.For example, large avalanches at Peterson Creek can extend well into Turnagain Arm,and there are no reasonable structure locations that are not vulnerable.In 1989,new dead-end structures were installed at the edges of the "normal”avalanche runs.These deadends are intended to break away during an avalanche to limit the line damage to the avalanche path only.This is an unproven concept as the dynamic forces of avalanches even in their historical paths are difficult to estimate.The deadends may or may not contain the damage.Also,an avalanche that is larger than "normal”could overrun the deadends. Another design approach would be to build the line strong enough to withstand the forces generated by an avalanche.While not in the immediate Project area,in Thompson Pass north of Valdez this concept was tested with a large avalanche in 1988.The "School Bus Avalanche” swept away a 4.536-kilogram (10.000-pound)steel X-tower and carried it 152.4 meters (500 feet).The avalanche was estimated to be traveling 182 km/hour (113 mph)with a mass of 20 to 40 million kilograms (44 to 88 million pounds)when it hit the structure.A very strong,33,112- kilogram (73.000-pound)tensile strength conductor was used in this line segment over the avalanche area.Once the first tower was knocked down,the strong conductor proceeded to damage six additional structures.The attempt to build stronger than the avalanche did not work and is seldom appropriate for large avalanches (Mears and Fesler 1989) Another method to mitigate damage to the line and reduce the number of outages due to avalanches would be to underground the line across avalanche paths.The following are advantages and disadvantages to undergrounding the line across the avalanche paths: 'Design parameters were based on "Avalanche Stagnation -Pressure Calculations,Chugach Electric Association Summit Lake Transmission Line,”prepared for Dryden &LaRue,Inc.by Arthur I.Mears,PE,Inc.,July 1989. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-135 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA'PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2.doc Advantages: 1.Buried cable will normally not be affected by avalanches that run on the snow. Disadvantages: 1.The typical colluvial soils in avalanche runout areas may not be consolidated and can be subject to slope stability problems.' 2.Incised creeks will be very difficult,if not infeasible,to bury cable across due to the exposed bedrock and steep side slopes. 3.If damage does occur to a buried line it is much more'difficult to locate the problem than for an overhead line. 4.If damage does occur to a buried line it is much more difficult to repair than for an overhead line. 5.If the damage occurs early in the winter,the underground line could be out of service for up to six months,until the following spring,due to the difficulty and the saftey hazards associated with accessing a buried facility in an avalanche area covered with snow and frozen soul. 6.Inventory costs for maintenance materials are much higher for an underground line than an overhead line. 7.Late spring avalanches can excavate soils at lower elevations and possibly dig up the cable. This has occurred in the past with a pipeline in the Bird Flats area. 8.Long underground runs would require pull boxes,located partially above ground,which would be exposed to any ground surface events. 9.Spring snow melt would expose the conduit system to potential water infiltration.Water in the conduit system would expose the cable to freezing damage. The possibility of a damaging event to the underground facility increases with the length of exposure across avalanche paths,and the number of paths crossed.The Sixmile route would cross a total of seven avalanche paths with underground cable (Options 2 and 3),while the Portage route would cross a total of 18 avalanche paths with underground cable (Options 2a and 3a).Based on historical data,a destructive avalanche can be expected to occur an average of Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-136 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PRON09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2.doc about every five years.Placing the line underground should increase the interval between damaging events,but will not eliminate damaging events.For purposes of calculating the costs of avalanche repair to the underground facilities,it is assumed for the Sixmile route that damage will occur to one of the seven underground segments an average of every 15 years.The Portage route nearly triples the number of avalanche paths crossed,exposing the underground lines to some of the most destructive avalanche paths on the Quartz Creek route.The average frequency of a damaging event would increase to once every five to six years to one of the 18 underground segments.Each occurrence of damage to the underground cables due to avalanche could result in an outage of the line for up to six months.The long outage duration from avalanche is due to lack of site access,remote location,and the facility covered with snow and frozen soil.Repairs to pull boxes/buried cable in avalanche paths are impractical and dangerous during the winter and so the circuit would remain out of service until the spring or summer for repairs. A six-month outage duration to the line for repairs to the underground facility is unacceptable from a system operations viewpoint.While for comparison purposes costs have been estimated to install such a facility,it would be imprudent to do so.It would be preferable from an operating standpoint and less costly overall to construct an overhead line along the Quartz Creek route,and fix it when damage from avalanches occur. Comparison of Routes Tables 2-16 and 2-18 (on pages 2-139 and 2-148,respectively)summarize information about the Quartz Creek route in a comparative format with the Tesoro and Enstar routes,which are described below. For the Tesoro route,the link combination selected would begin at Bernice Lake Substation,and proceed north along the east side of the north Kenai Spur Road utilizing single-shaft steel poles. There are two airports that would require short distances of underground line where the route crosses the end of the runways.Through Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA),the line would be placed underground parallel to the road through the Captain Cook SRA to comply with Section 6(f)(3)of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.North of the Captain Cook SRA, the line would parallel the Tesoro Pipeline and would be composed of steel X-structures north to the Pt.Possession area,where the line would transition from overhead to submarine cable.The transition station at Pt.Possession would be located approximately 1.6 km (1 mile)south of where the cable would enter the water,so the line would be underground where it crosses the native conveyed lands,in compliance with Section 22(g)of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)regulations.The marine route would extend from Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell where a transition from submarine cable to solid dielectric land type cable would be constructed. The line then would be placed underground from Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof Substation, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-137 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ'09203\009\Final,CHAPTER 2 doc because of the proximity to Kincaid Park and the Anchorage International Airport,and would terminate at the Pt.Woronzof Substation. For the Enstar route,the link combination selected would begin at the Soldotna Substation and proceed south and east following the existing 69kV line route,which currently extends to the Quartz Creek Substation near Cooper Landing.The existing 69kV line would be rebuilt to operate at 230/138kV,up to a point about 6.4 km (4 miles)east of Naptowne,and a new substation would be constructed at that location with voltage transformation from 138kV to 69kV so that the 69kV connection to the Quartz Creek Substation could be maintained.From that location the line would proceed north through the KNWR paralleling the Enstar Pipeline to the north coast of the Kenai Peninsula near Burnt Island.At that point the line would transition from overhead to submarine cable,and would then extend across Turnagain Arm,coming ashore at the Oceanview Park area.Horizontal directional drilling techniques would be used to cross under the coastal wildlife refuge and the submarine cable would then parallel the Alaska Railroad right-of-way to a point north of Cross Road.At that point a gas insulated substation transition from submarine cable to solid dielectric cable would be installed within a small building,and due to the proximity of the Flying Crown airstrip,the underground cable would continue north within the railroad right of way north to 120"Avenue.At that point the line would transition to overhead single-shaft steel pole construction and would continue along the railroad right-of-way, terminating at the International Substation. Alternative Screening -Relative Comparison of Routes Table 2-16 serves as a tool to compare the relative merits of the Quartz Creek routing options studied to the Enstar or Tesoro routes with both qualitative and quantitative information to describe the differences between the routes. The table compares the Tesoro and Enstar routes with the Quartz Creek options in four areas: relative exposure to outages (distance of line) relative performance by facility type cost estimates by route option benefits by route option The following discussion highlights some of the important points illustrated by the information and data presented in Table 2-16. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-138 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXHSYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\0091Final\CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-16 ALTERNATIVE SCREENING -RELATIVE COMPARISON OF ROUTES Relative Submarine Embedded Cable None (except near shore)18.7 (11.6)7.1 (4.4)|||None Exposure to Cable Non Embedded Cable 22.4 (13.9)None None None Outages (km [Undergroun Avalanche Exposure None None 3.5 (2.2)10.9 (6.8)|18.4(11.4)]3.5 (2.2)14.3 (8.8)|28.7 (17.8)|43.1 (26.8)|14.3 (8.8)[miles]of line)|d Cable Other Underground 14.7 (9.1)0.8 (0.5)23.7 (14.7)|23.7 (14.7)|23.7 (14.7)[23.7 (14.7)|28.2 (17.5)|28.2 (17.5)|28.2 (17.5)|28.2 (17.5)Overhead Avalanche Exposure None None 11.3 (7.0)3.9 (2.4)3.9 (2.4)11.3 (7.0)|29.8 (18.5)|15.3 (9.5)|15.3 (9.5)[29.8 (18.5)Line Anchorage None 7.2 (4.5)7.2 (4.5)7.2 (4.5) (Low -Snow,Ice,Wind) Kenai Lowlands 61.5 (38.2)91.3 (56.7)65.7 (40.8)65.7 (40.8) (Low/Moderate -Snow,Ice and Wind) Mountainous Terrain None None 67.8 (42.1)|60.4 (37.5)|60.4 (37.5)|67.8 (42.1)|100.1 (62.2)|85.6 (53.2)|53.2 (85.6)[100.1 (62.2)(Severe -Snow,Ice and Wind) Relative Performance by Submarine Cable Redundant cables installed.In the event of a}Redundant cables installed.In the event of ajRedundant cables installed.In the event ofa None Facility Type submarine cable outage,the redundant cable will be switched into operation.System outage time would be in terms of hours.Based on CEA experience with the Pt.Woronzof to Pt. McKenzie cables,with two three-phase cables installed,approximately one unscheduled outage could be expected during the 40-year life of the Project.Cable replacement is accounted for twice during the Project life (years 17 &34). submarine cable outage,the redundant cable will be switched into operation.System outage time would be in terms of hours.Based on CEA experience with the Pt.Woronzof to Pt.McKenzie cables,with two three-phase cables installed. approximately 0.6 unscheduled outages could be expected during the 40-year life of the Project. Cable replacement is accounted for once during the Project life (year 30). submarine cable outage,the redundant cable will be switched into operation.System outage time would be in terms of hours.Based on CEA experience with the Pt.Woronzofto Pt.McKenzie cables,with two three-phase cables installed,approximately 0.2 unscheduled outages could be expected during the 40-year life of the Project.Cable replacement is accounted for once during the Project life (year 30). Underground Cable Based on industry data indicating an average unscheduled outage rate of 0.34/100km circuit/year*,two outages of about 100 hours duration could be expected during the life of] the Project. i Based on industry data indicating an average unscheduled outage rate of 0.34/100km circuit/year*,0.1 outages of about 100 hours duration could be expected during the life of the Project. Based on industry data indicating an average unscheduled outage rate of 0.34/100km circuit/year*, between 3.7 and 5.7 outages of about 100 hours duration could be expected during the life of the Project,not including the avalanche paths.There are seven total underground segments across avalanche paths.Avalanche damage to one of the underground segments could occur two to three times during the Project life,resulting in up to a six-month outage of| the UG circuit each time.The long outage duration from avalanche is due to lack of site access,remote location,and the facility covered with snow and frozen soil.Repairs to pull boxes/buried cable are impractical during the winter and so the circuit could remain out until the spring or summer for repairs. Based on industry data indicating an average unscheduled outage rate of 0.34/100km circuit/year*, between 5.8 and 9.7 outages of about 100 hours duration could be expected during the life of the Project,not including the avalanche paths.There are 18 total underground segments across avalanche paths.Avalanche damage to one of the underground segments could occur six to eight times during the Project life,resulting in up to a six-month outage of] the UG circuit each time.The long outage duration from avalanche is due to lack of site access,remote location,and the facility covered with snow and frozen soil.Repairs to pull boxes/buried cable are impractical during the winter and so the circuit could remain out until the spring or summer for repairs. Overhead Line Line is located in a Low/Moderate - snow/ice/wind area.Based on industry data indicating an average unscheduled outage rate of 1.8/100 miles/year**,typical performance could be 0.7 outages per year on the Kenai overhead line segment.Outage duration would be from minutes to hours.Outages involving failure of a structure would be rare. considering the loading area. Line is located in a Low/Moderate -snow/ice/wind area.Based on industry data indicating an average unscheduled outage rate of 1.8/100 miles/year**, typical performance could be 1.1 outages per year on the Kenai overhead line segment.Outage duration would be from minutes to hours.Outages involving failure of a structure would be rare, considering the loading area. Approximately half of the overhead line (64 to 79 km [40 -49 miles])is located in a severe - snow/ice/wind and avalanche area.The new line would be subjected to two to three unscheduled outages/year based on experience with the existing line.Outage durations would vary from minutes to hours,to days for a structure failure,to one to two weeks in the event of an avalanche.The other half of the line (72 km [45 miles])is located in a low/moderate -snow/ice/wind area and could typically be subject to approximately 0.8 outages per year (1.8/100 miles/year **)with outage durations of] minutes to hours. Approximately 60%of the overhead line (63 -81 miles)is located in a severe -snow/ice/wind and avalanche area.The new line would be subjected to about 3 unscheduled outages/year based on experience with the existing line.Outage durations would vary from minutes to hours,to days for a structure failure,to 1-2 weeks in the event of an avalanche.The other 40%of the line (45 miles)is located in a low/moderate -snow/ice/wind area and would be subject to approximately 0.8 outages per year (1.8/100 miles/year **)with outage durations of minutes to hours. Costs ($millions,rounded |Construction $100 $90 $121 $132 $162 $143 $138 $161 $222 $181 to nearest million)PW Operation and Maintenance $4 $6 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $6 $5 PW Submarine Cable Replacement $11 $3 $1 $i $1 $l None PW of Avalanche Damage Costs None None $3 $3 $3 $3 $7 $9 $9 $7 Life Cycle Cost $115 $100 $130 $141 $171 $153 $150 $175 $237 $194 Benefits ($millions,Life Cycle Benefits $144 $144 $102 $110 $93 $88 $100 $106 $90 $86 rounded to nearest million)|Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.3 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-139 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal Relative Exposure to Outages (distance of line) The exposure to outages for a specific transmission line segment depends on the type of construction (submarine,underground,or overhead),the environment the line is constructed in or across,and the length of the facility across a given feature or terrain type.The first category in Table 2-16 tabulates the distance of line for each of the routing options,tabulated by the type of construction. For the submarine cable line segments,the Tesoro route has the longest exposure,a total of 22.4 km (13.9 miles).The Enstar route has 18.7 km (11.6 miles)of submarine cable,Sixmile has 7.1 km (4.4 miles),and Portage has none.There is a difference in expected cable life depending on whether the cable is embedded or non-embedded during installation.As described in Chapter 1 in the cost section,Project cost estimates include cable replacement for embedded cable once during the Project life (year 30 for the Enstar and Sixmile routes)and twice during the Project life for non-embedded cable (years 17 and 34 for the Tesoro route). For the underground line segments,relative route exposure to outages can be compared based on the length of the line segment,although those segments across avalanche paths are exposed to a more severe hazard.The Tesoro route has 14.7 km (9.1 miles)of underground,composed of the segments near airports along North Kenai Road,through Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA),and near the Anchorage International Airport between Pt.Campbell and Pt.Woronzof Substation.The Enstar route has very little underground cable,consisting of 0.8 km (0.5 mile) near the Flying Crown Airstrip. In contrast,underground segments for the Quartz Creek route include the route length within the boundaries of Chugach State Park (Sixmile -27.2 km [16.9 miles].Portage -42.3 km [26.3 miles]).A portion of the underground through Chugach State Park is across known avalanche paths (Sixmile -3.5 km [2.2 miles].Portage -14.2 km [8.8 miles]).Additionally,for Options 2 and 3 (Sixmile)and Options 2a and 3a (Portage).five line segments through the Summit Lake area would be underground over 7.4 km (4.6 miles).Options 2a and 3a (Portage)add an additional nine segments over 7.1 km (4.4 miles)between Girdwood and Hope Junction.Overall, depending on the option,the Quartz Creek route could entail total underground segments of 27.2 to 41.8 km (16.9 to 26 miles)(Sixmile)or 42.3 to 71.3 km (26.3 to 44.3 miles)(Portage). For the overhead line segments.the relative exposure to avalanches and ice,wind,and snow loads are important points in comparing the different routing options.The environment and terrain traversed by the Enstar and Tesoro routes are much different than the Quartz Creek route, and are more favorable from a transmission line construction,operation,and maintenance viewpoint.Table 2-17 presents some of the significant differences between the Quartz Creek and Enstar/Tesoro routes. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-140 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX [SYS DATA\PROSJ.09203\009-Final';CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-17 COMPARISON OF EXTREME ROUTE FEATURES Quartz Creek Route - Mountainous Terrain Kenai Flats -Tesoro or Enstar Routes Avalanches:No avalanches Sixmile-7 avalanche paths Portage-18 avalanche paths 2 {Extreme winds due to terrain funneling No terrain features to modify winds =} - "a:.2 Slope stability No side slopes Trees falling down hill into the line No side slopes Elevation changes for icing conditions No major elevation changes Exposure to ice,wind,and snow loading varies with the location of the route,and can be generally categorized as a low,moderate,or severe hazard.During the line design process, reasonably expected ice,wind,and snow loads would be factored into the line design criteria. Line design criteria are specified by line segment,depending on the type of conditions expected for a particular area.In the low and moderate areas,the potential for ice,wind,and snow loads in excess of the line design criteria is low as compared to the potential in severe loading areas, where wider variations in weather related loads and severe storms can develop.The most severe areas for exposure to these weather related hazards are located in the mountainous terrain traversed by the existing Quartz Creek line.The Tesoro and Enstar routes are not located in mountainous terrain and so have no severe exposure to ice,wind,and snow loading,while the Quartz Creek route has exposures varying from 60.4 to 67.8 km (37.5 -42.1 miles)(Sixmile) and 85.6 to 100.1 km (53.2 to 62.2 miles)(Portage).All four options have similar exposures to moderate ice,wind,and snow loads (Tesoro -61.5 km [38.2 miles],Enstar -91.3 km [56.7 miles],Sixmile and Portage -65.7 km [40.8 miles]).All four routes have minimal exposure in the low hazard area. Overall,the Quartz Creek route has more distance of exposure for the overhead line segments,in the most severe loading area,than either the Tesoro or Enstar routes.The Quartz Creek route also has much more underground line than either the Tesoro or Enstar routes by a wide margin,with many miles of exposure to the more hazardous avalanche paths.The Sixmile alternative has less exposure to outages based on submarine cable length.However,each submarine cable installation would include a backup cable that can quickly be placed in service in the event of a cable failure.Consequently,submarine cable failures do not pose as great a risk for lengthy outages as does the exposure for overhead or underground outages for the Quartz Creek route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-141 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROA09203\0001Final\CHAPTER 2.doc Relative Performance by Facility Type The text included in Table 2-16 for each type of facility explains the relative frequency and duration of outages that could be expected for each type of facility,by route alternative.For the submarine cable,performance in terms of unscheduled outages are based on the history of CEA's 10 existing cable paths between Pt.Woronzof and Pt.McKenzie,the first of which was installed in 1967.For the underground cable segments,performance in terms of unscheduled outages is based on industry data (as noted in the table).For the underground cable segments on the Quartz Creek route (which cross up to 18 avalanche paths),outage frequency and duration were estimated based on the avalanche analysis previously described.For the overhead line segments in Anchorage and the Kenai Lowlands,performance in terms of unscheduled outages is based on industry data (as noted in the table).Outage frequency and duration for the overhead line alternative routes in mountainous terrain following the Quartz Creek route were estimated based on the available outage records for the existing line.The outage record for the existing line is presented and discussed in Chapter 1,Reliability. A review of the summary information presented in Table 2-16 indicates that the submarine cable unscheduled outage performance expected is very good.The unscheduled outage rates indicated are based on the outage history of CEA's existing cables installed in the Knik Arm.Overall, CEA has installed 17 separate cables between Pt.Woronzof and Pt.McKenzie between the years 1967 and 1990,for a total installed length of approximately 112.7 km (70 miles).The total number of years in service for all of the cables combined is about 200 cable-years.Damage to these cables has occurred due to several causes including ships anchors,other external factors (not related to the cable itself),internal factors (cable-related),and from CEA contractors working to repair or lay cables.Ship traffic in the Knik Arm where the existing cables are located is normal since that is the approach to the Anchorage harbor.However,there are no facilities for large ships in the Turnagain Arm.Consequently,cable damage due to ships anchors would not be expected for submarine cable crossings of the Turnagain Arm.From 1967 to date,the Prt. Woronzof to Pt.McKenzie cables have experienced a total of 13 unscheduled outages,excluding outages due to ship anchors and CEA contractors working to repair or lay cables.With the exception of the initial installation in 1967,these cables were laid in a non-embedded configuration.The marine conditions on this crossing are similar to the marine conditions expected for the Tesoro route (CEA 1996).Based on the historical outages experienced for the Pt.Woronzof to Pt.McKenzie cables,an outage rate for the Tesoro route was determined to be 0.000898 outages per year per mile of cable. CEA's 230kV cable crossing between the East and West terminals has been in service for 17 years,since 1981.with no unscheduled outages.During installation,these cables were embedded in the bottom.This submarine cable crossing is located farther up the Knik Arm from Pt. McKenzie beyond normal ship traffic,in an area of softer bottom conditions similar to the marine conditions expected for the Enstar or Sixmile routes.Based on the excellent experience Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-142 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXESYS DATA'PROJ\09203\009\F nal\CHAPTER 2 doc with the East to West terminal cables,and to determine an outage rate for the Enstar and Sixmile routes,the historical outage rate for the Pt.Woronzof to Pt.McKenzie cables was adjusted to exclude outages from external causes,since the cable would be embedded.This reduces the total unscheduled outages for the Pt.Woronzof to Pt.McKenzie cables from 13 to 9 outages since 1967.This results in an outage rate of 0.000622 outages per mile per year for the Enstar and Sixmile routes. On this basis,and assuming a submarine cable installation consisting of two three-phase cables, one outage would be expected on the Tesoro route during the 40-year Project life and 0.6 outages would be expected for the Enstar route.For the Sixmile route,0.2 unscheduled outages would be expected.If four single phase cables were installed,instead of two three-phase cables,the number of outages for each route would double,since the number of cables would increase from two to four. The average outage rate for high-voltage extruded cross-linked polyethylene underground cable for installations greater than 60kV and less than 220kV,based on industry data (as noted in the table)is recorded as 0.34 outages/100km circuit/year,with an average duration of 101 hours.The outage rates calculated based on this data for each route are shown in Table 2-16,except for the underground across the avalanche paths.The underground segments across avalanche paths introduce an additional hazard.While placing the line underground would mitigate damage from avalanches that run on top of the snow,when the line is damaged due to a major avalanche,the line is likely to be out for an extended period of up to six months.The long outage period is due lack of site access,remote location.and the buried facility covered with snow and frozen soil. Repairs to pull boxes and buried cable/duct bank are impractical and dangerous in an avalanche area during the winter,and so the circuit would remain out until the spring or summer when repairs could be completed.This makes underground across the avalanche paths an unattractive alternative. For the overhead line segments.the outage rate corresponds to the loading area (low,moderate, severe)and to the length of the line.There are currently no overhead transmission lines along the Enstar Route through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR)or along the Tesoro route north of Captain Cook SRA,so there are no historical records for those areas on which to base performance of those lines.For those low/moderate loading areas,outage rates as shown in Table 2-16 are based on industry data.Performance ofa line constructed along the Quartz Creek route can be estimated based on the historical outage records for the existing line.Reviewing the summary information in Table 2-16.it is clear that the performance of a new overhead line constructed along either the Tesoro or Enstar routes would exhibit much better performance than a line along the Quartz Creek route. Overall,the performance and reliability that could be expected from a new line constructed along either the Tesoro or Enstar routes would be much better than for the Quartz Creek route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-143 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203:009\F nal\CHAPTER 2 doc Considering the importance of the new line from a system and reliability improvement perspective,the Quartz Creek route would be a poor choice for locating the new line. Cost Estimates by Route Option Cost estimates for the Sixmile and Portage options were prepared by Power Engineers and Dryden &LaRue to assess the cost of constructing and operating each option,for comparison with the Tesoro and Enstar routes.The cost data are presented in Table 2-16. The cost to construct the Sixmile and Portage options is considerably higher than for the Enstar or Tesoro routes.Overall,the Sixmile and Portage routes are much longer than either the Enstar or Tesoro routes.Factors contributing to the higher costs include longer overhead line lengths through mountainous terrain with more severe ice,wind,'and snow loads and longer lengths of underground cable constructed along rocky terrain.The options that include replacement of the existing line with double-circuit structures are substantially more expensive,because a complete new double-circuit line must be constructed and then the old line removed.The cost of additional underground installation across the avalanche paths increases the cost of those options as well. Operation and maintenance costs are similar for all of the alternative routes. The present worth of avalanche damage costs for the Sixmile and Portage routes were calculated based on the cost and frequency of historical avalanche damage along the existing line (as discussed above),to compare those costs with the submarine cable replacement costs.An evaluation of the costs associated with repair of the existing overhead line for major avalanche damage events indicates that the average annual cost of repair is $300,000 (Dryden &LaRue).In addition to repair costs,it is more costly to operate additional generation on the Kenai and in Anchorage to make up for the loss of the interconnection.CEA has estimated these costs to average an additional $100.000 annually.Therefore the annual average cost for the existing overhead line due to avalanche damage is $400.000.To determine the avalanche damage costs for the Sixmile and Portage alternatives,the costs were adjusted based on the number of avalanche paths crossed by each route.The Sixmile route avoids many of the avalanche paths along the Portage route,and so the present worth of avalanche damage costs for the Sixmile route is lower than for the Portage route. ) Comparing the combined submarine cable and avalanche damage costs,the Enstar route has the lowest present worth cost of $3 million,Sixmile -combined avalanche and submarine,$4 million,Portage,$7 -$9 million.and Tesoro -$11 million.The Sixmile and Portage costs reflect the number of avalanche paths crossed.7 and 18,respectively.The Portage route traverses some of the more destructive avalanche paths along the Quartz Creek route,based on where damage has previously occurred to the existing line. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-144 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXIN\SYS\DAT A\PROJ\09203\009\Final.CHAPTER 2 doc Life cycle costs were calculated for comparison with Project benefits.The Enstar route has the lowest life cycle cost,followed by the Tesoro route,and then the Sixmile and Portage routes. While the ongoing cost of avalanche damage is significant,the overall life cycle costs and benefit/cost ratios are relatively insensitive to the frequency of avalanche damage.A review of the values of the costs and benefits as presented in Table 2-16 indicates that the present worth of the avalanche costs are small in relation to the overall life cycle costs of an alternative. Historically,avalanche damage has occurred to the line on an average of about every five years. If the frequency of damage were increased from 5 to 8 years,for example,the impact would be to reduce the life cycle costs by less than one percent (about $1.1 million out of a total life cycle cost of $130 million,Sixmile-Option 1).This changes the benefit/cost ratio by 0.0067 and would not change the 0.8 ratio shown on the table. Benefits bv Route Option The benefit values for a second transmission line,along the Enstar or Tesoro routes,are as presented and explained in Chapter 1.For the Sixmile and Portage routes,the Project benefits were reduced as compared to the Tesoro and Enstar routes for the following reasons: =Reliability benefitt-The combination of routing the new line parallel to the existing line on the same right-of-way.or placing both lines on the same double-circuit structures, increases the exposure and potential for outages of the combined facilities due to single contingency outages.Routing the new line along the Quartz Creek route would result in a lower reliability facility than would either the Tesoro or Enstar routes. =Economy energy transfer-Most of these benefits would remain.However.the practice of zeroing the flow over the interconnection in anticipation of outages due to severe storms/construction would continue because both lines would be subject to outages due to common events. =Capacity sharing-Most of these benefits would remain.However,the benefits would be reduced due the practice of zeroing the flow over the line,and because both lines could be on common double-circuit structures for some options. m Spinning reserve sharing-Most of these benefits would remain.There would be some -reduction in benefits for the same reasons as for capacity sharing. ®Reduced line maintenance costs-With the two circuits in parallel or on the same double- circuit structure,the benefits would be reduced because of the time and costs associated with implementing operational and safety procedures required as a result of induced Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-145 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHX ISYS\DAT A'PROJ09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc currents on the de-energized line from the parallel energized line.For a double-circuit line,the even closer proximity of the parallel line on the same structure further increases time and costs and thus reduces the benefits. =Avoid minimum combustion turbine generation on the Kenai Peninsula-Most of these benefits would remain.The rationale would be similar to the capacity and spinning reserve sharing options. m Avoid not loading line during bad weather/construction-These benefits would not be available,as both lines would be subject to single contingency outages due to common weather related factors such as snow,ice,wind,and avalanche.The practice of zeroing the flow over the interconnection in anticipation of outages due to severe storms/construction would continue. The effect of the increased costs for the Sixmile and Portage routes,combined with some reduction in the benefits,results in benefit/cost ratios for these two routes of between 0.8 and 0.4, whereas the benefit/cost ratios for the Tesoro and Enstar routes are 1.3 and 1.4,respectively. Considering all of the information presented in Table 2-16,either the Tesoro or Enstar routes would be lower in cost and exhibit better performance than either the Sixmile or Portage routes. Alternative Screening -Relative Comparison of the Risks/Benefits to the System by Alternative The purpose of Table 2-18 is to compare from an overall system perspective,the no-action alternative to the combination of the existing line plus the Tesoro or Enstar routes,and to the -existing line plus the Sixmile or Portage routes.The table is intended to aid the reader in an understanding of the system implications depending on which alternative is selected. A review of the information presented in Table 2-18 indicates that for the no-action alternative, there would be no system improvements and the outages and risks that the system is currently exposed to would remain.The benefits accruing from the Project would remain as costs in the system.For construction of the Project.the Tesoro or Enstar routes are a better choice than the Sixmile or Portage routes due in part to the geographical separation of the Tesoro or Enstar routes from the existing line.The ice,wind.and snow loading is much more severe along the Sixmile or Portage routes,as well.Avalanche exposure for the Enstar or Tesoro routes is zero, whereas exposure to avalanches for the Sixmile or Portage routes is high.Construction of the new line parallel to or on the same double-circuit structures as the existing line would subject both lines to common events that could cause a single contingency outage on the overall system from the loss of both lines. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-146 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009 Fina\CHAPTER 2 doc The frequency of outage occurrences affecting both lines can be estimated by reviewing the number and causes of outages recorded for the Quartz Creek line,as shown in Table 2-19. TABLE 2-19 QUARTZ CREEK ROUTING ALTERNATIVE COMMON OUTAGES AFFECTING BOTH LINES Chugach Electric Outage Records Estimated Common Outages with For the Years 1975 -1997 New Line Parallel Cause of Outage Total Outages Percent of Outages Number of Outages Recorded affecting Parallel Lines|effecting both lines Unknown 34 15 5.1 Line Faults (various causes)26 0 0.0 Human Error 11 10 1.1 Equipment Failure 11 10 1. Severe Storms 9 :50 4.5 Avalanches 6 80 48 Winds 4 25 1.0 Trees 2 25 0.5 Total Outages 103 18 18.1 Based on an average of 4.5 unscheduled outages per year,as recorded for the Quartz Creek line by CEA,it is reasonable to expect that about one outage per year on average could affect both lines. Additionally,if routed along the same route as the existing line,the new line would be exposed to the same wind,ice,snow,and avalanche risks as for the existing line.Incorporating appropriate design features into the new line can likely improve on the 4.5 per year outage rate of the existing line.However,because the new line would be routed in the same harsh environment as the existing line,it is reasonable to expect that the new line would be subjected to two to three unscheduled outages per year.The existing line would continue to be subjected to an average of 4.5 outages per year. In addition to the information presented in Table 2-18,Figures 2-15 through 2-19 illustrate from a system viewpoint the difference between constructing the Project along the Enstar or Tesoro routes,as opposed to utilizing the existing Quartz Creek route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-147 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHX IAS YS\DATA\PRON09203\009\1F inal.CHAPTER 2.doc ALTENRATIVE SCREENING -RELATIVE COMPARISON OF RISKS /BENEFITS TABLE 2-18 TO THE SYSTEM BY ALTERNATIVE Alternatives No Action -Only the Existing Line Existing Line plus Tesoro OR Existing Line plus Enstar Existing Line plus Quartz Creek (Sixmile)OR Existing Line plus Quartz Creek (Portage) Relative Outage Risk No change in outage risk.The entire interconnection remains at risk with the same avalanche,wind,ice,and snow outages along the existing route through the mountains. Because there would be two lines located in separate regions not subject to common outages,the outage risk to the system would be eliminated for credible single contingency outages of the Interties.The outage risk to the existing line would remain. Relative outage risk would improve because there would be two lines. However,because the two lines would be in the same right-of-way and subject to the same environmental factors,or for some options on the same structure, the risk to the system from single contingency outages would remain. The outage risk to the existing line would remain. Frequency of Outage No change in outage frequency.The entire interconnection is still subject to an average of 4.5 outages per year with periodic major outages due to avalanche every five to ten years Because there would be two lines, located in two separate geographical regions not subject to common outage events,outages to the interconnection from credible single contingency outages would be eliminated.The outage frequency for local customers on the existing line would be reduced somewhat,but would essentially remain. A review of the causes of outages on the existing line indicates that about 18percent of the historical outages between 1975 and 1997 would most likely affect both circuits,which would in turn effect the overall system.As a result,single contingency outages affecting the entire interconnection would be reduced from 4.5 per year with the existing line to about one per year for these alternatives.The outage frequency for local customers on the existing line would be reduced somewhat,but would essentially remain. Duration of Outage No change in outage duration.The entire interconnection is still subject to an average outage duration of 7.7+ hours with periodic major outage durations of one to two weeks due to avalanche every five to ten years,or major outages from structure damage due to wind,ice or snow loading. Because there would be two lines comprising the interconnection,located in two separate geographical regions not subject to common outages, outages to the system from credible single contingency events on the Interties would be eliminated.The outage durations for local customers on the existing line would be reduced somewhat,but would essentially remain. As noted above,common single contingency outages could interrupt both lines an average of about one occurrence per year.Durations for these outages could range from minutes for temporary faults to several days for structure or conductor damage.As with the existing line,both lines would be subject to periodic extended outages due to avalanche of one to two weeks every five to ten years.If the lines were undergrounded across avalanche paths, damage to one or both lines could result in outages of up to six months in duration to the affected line(s). Number of Consumers at Risk Systemwide outages due to single contingency interconnection outages - 190,000.Kenai Peninsula,Seward, Girdwood &Daves Creek only - 27,000.Girdwood and Daves Creek only -2,000. Systemwide outages due to credible single contingencies -None,because there would be two lines located in separate geographical regions.The 2,000 customers around Girdwood & Daves Creek remain at risk. -_ Systemwide outages from credible single contingency causing events would still be possible for one event per year on average.At the higher 125MW transfer,if both lines are interrupted due to a common event, systemwide outages are more likely than for the lower 70MW transfer with the existing line.This is because the system would have to make up the 125MW loss from system reserves and load shedding,a greater amount than is currently accomplished with the existing 70MW transfer limitation. Systemwide 190,000 consumers would be at risk,with only the Kenai Peninsula,Seward,Girdwood &Daves Creek -27,000.The local customers around Girdwood and Daves Creek - 2000. Corridorization Not Applicable Not applicable because the two lines are routed in separate geographical regions. The new second line and the existing line would be parallel in the same right-of-way for approximately 72.4 km (45 miles)(Sixmile,Option 1)or 136.8 km (85 miles)(Portage,Option la).For some options the lines would be on a common structure.This would subject both circuits to common credible single contingency outages. Benefits The $143.5 million in benefits from the Project would remain as costs within the system.Essentially a negative benefit. $143.5 million in benefits accrue from the Project. Benefits would be reduced from $143.5 million to between $110 million (separate lines with UG across avalanche paths)and $86 million (double circuit structures with no UG across avalanche paths)as a result of Corridorization and both lines being subject to common outages because they are parallel along the same right- of-way. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 2-148 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal Figures 2-15 and 2-16 depict the current situation with only one transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.A single contingency outage of the existing Quartz Creek line completely interrupts the transfer capability between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. To Fairbanks Anchorage 447 MW GenerationCT,CC and Hydro *70MW TransferKenai 244 MW Generation Hydro and CT Pre Outage Conditions Without intertie Quartz Creek Outage Without Intertie To Fairbanks Anchorage 447 MW Generation CT,CC and Hydro wy 7omw Kenai A Transter 244 MW Generation |interrupted Hydro and CT Figure 2-15 Figure 2-16 As illustrated on Figures 2-17 and 2-18,with the Project constructed on a separated geographical route such as the Enstar or Tesoro route,the interconnection remains intact for a single contingency outage of the Quartz Creek line,and power transfers between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage are not interrupted.In the event of a single contingency outage of the new line, the Project includes reactive compensation upgrades at Dave's Creek Substation to allow the system to remain stable for a post contingency 125 MW power transfer over the existing line. After an outage of either line,system operators would adjust generation levels at the power plants to reduce the power flow over the remaining line,until the line subject to the outage can be restored to service. To Fairbanks Anchorage 447 MW Generation oT,CO and Hydro 125 MW Transter Kenai 244 MW Generation Hydro and 27 Pre Outage Conditions With Intertie Quartz Creek Outage With Intertie To Fairbanks Anchorage 447 MW Generation CT,CC and Hydro 125 MW Transfer * Kenai 244 MW Generation Hydro and CT Figure 2-17 Figure 2-18 Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 \DM_PHNINSYS\DATA'PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal Figure 2-19 depicts the alternative of installing the new line along the Quartz Creek route, parallel to the existing line or on common double-circuit structures.With both lines in close proximity to one another,in the event of a single contingency outage that affects both lines,the entire interconnection between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula would be lost.Electrical To Fairbanks Anchorage 447 MW Generation CT,CC and Hydro 4125 MW i Transfer ¥interrupted Kenai 244 MW Generation Hydro and CT Outage on Parallel ROW Figure 2-19 system studies indicate that if both lines were interrupted while transferring 125 MW of power between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,the electrical system would become unstable, resulting in load shedding or a complete system blackout (Power Engineers 1997).Also,since a single contingency could interrupt both lines,the 125 MW power transfer could no longer be considered a "secure transfer”,based on a single contingency outage criteria.Increasing the secure power transfer from 70 MW to 125 MW is one of the needs being fulfilled by the Project. Construction of the Project along the Quartz Creek route would not fully meet the purpose of and need for the Project. In summary,a new line constructed along the Quartz Creek route was eliminated from further consideration for the following reasons: '|it would not meet the purpose of and need for the Project ™it would increase costs such that the Project would be financially infeasible ™it would be exposed the the same avalanche,ice,snow,and wind conditions as the existing line Restore or Remove Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Site Public and agency comments questioned the relationship of the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility to the Project.Spillway improvements are planned in 1998,and in 1999 a major overhaul and upgrade to the power plant is planned.There are no improvements planned for the Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-150 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SY S\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc transmission line between the power plant and the Quartz Creek Substation.The additional power output of about 2 MW will have no discernable impact on the existing transmission system or this Project.Changes to the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric facility are not planned as a result of this Project,nor is the Project required for the changes at Cooper Lake. Sixmile Creek To Anchorage-Submarine This alternative was presented as an option to utilize the existing Quartz Creek transmission line corridor,minimize avalanche exposure,and avoid Chugach State Park.The distance involved to reach the closest Anchorage submarine landing point from Sixmile Creek would be approximately 29.0 to 32.2 km (18 to 20 miles).This would increase costs of the project substantially,adding to the reasons for elimination of the Quartz Creek route. Tesoro Route Alternatives Eliminated The primary routing opportunity for the Tesoro Route between the Bernice Lake Substation and Captain Cook SRA is along the North Kenai Road.Other alternatives studied included a route parallel to the Tesoro Pipeline that would avoid a roadside route,and a new overland route that would be located within the KNWR that would avoid the Captain Cook SRA.As described below,these alternatives would result in significant impacts that could be mitigated by utilizing the Kenai Road route. Tesoro Pipeline to Captain Cook SRA -Links T1.5,T1.6,T1.7,T1.8,T1.9 This alternative route parallels the Tesoro Pipeline from Nikiski to Captain Cook SRA.This corridor contains approximately four underground pipelines;and telephone,buried cable,and overhead distribution lines,which would mean potential construction and right-of-way conflicts. Potentially significant impacts on viewers from concentrated residential development,land values issues,and aviation safety led to the recommendation that this alternative be dropped from further consideration. New Route Around Captain Cook SRA -Links T2.2,T2.3 This alternative did not parallel any existing linear features as it bypassed the Captain Cook SRA by crossing into the KNWR.The management policy of this part of the refuge is designated Moderate Management.This category manages areas easily accessible to the public and manipulates a significant amount of habitat to benefit populations of selected species.Although Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-151 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHN SY S\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc some natural processes are altered,habitat management is designed to maintain natural landscapes (KNWR 1985a).The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)expressed concern about establishing a new corridor in this area and the potentially significant visual impacts it could have on the Stormy Lake Beach area.The combined effect of management policy, potential visual impacts,potential biological impacts on trumpeter swan nesting sites,and right- of-way limitations throughout the KNWR,resulted in USF WS's recommendation for elimination of the alternative from further consideration. Tesoro Pipeline -Pt.Possession Village -Link T3.3 This alternative would diverge from paralleling the Tesoro Pipeline and transition to a submarine cable heading to Fire Island.This route would pass through an identified historical and cultural site of the Pt.Possession Group.As a result of potentially significant cultural resource impacts, this route was recommended to be eliminated from further study. Alternative Routes from Pt.Possession to Anchorage =Pt Possession to Enstar with overhead line through the KNWR m Pt.Possession to Enstar using submarine cable ®Pt.Possession to Enstar following the beach and coastline These three alternative routes were proposed to avoid the extreme marine environment located north of Pt.Possession by traversing east through the KNWR or Chickaloon Flats.However,the overhead line alternative through the KNWR would cross through approximately 8.1 km (5 miles)of the Kenai Lowland Wilderness Unit requiring an act of Congress to approve the route. It also would cross 19.3 km (12 miles)of lands designated Minimal Management,which are areas recommended for future wilderness designation and are currently managed to maintain pristine conditions according to the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan of 1985. Trenching the submarine cable across the mudflats would alter the hydrologic properties of stream channels in the Chickaloon Bay estuary,a major breeding ground for waterfowl and spawning habitat for anadromous fish.This same route would also cross 4.8 km (3 miles)of the Pt.Possession Group Native allotment and involve Section 22(g)of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.Overall it would increase the length of the Tesoro route by approximately 32.2 km (20 miles).As a result of no existing linear features to follow in this part of the refuge, additional regulatory approvals,increased cost,and degree of reasonableness,this alternative route was eliminated from further consideration. The two other route options suggest locating the submarine cable in the Chickaloon Flats tidal areas or adjacent to the coastline in order to reach the Enstar route,or at least avoid the extreme Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-152 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc marine environment north of Pt.Possession.The increased distance for submarine cable,38.6 to 45.1 km (24 to 28 miles),along with construction practicality in this area severely constrains this option.Increased exposure to ice scour,tidal fluctuations and boulder fields also constrain the feasibility of construction and operation.As a result of environmental and regulatory issues, increased distance,increased cost,and construction practicality,these two options were eliminated from consideration. Moose Point to Fire Island Following Slong the Moose Point Shoal This route was presented as an option to avoid the extreme marine environment north of Pt. Possession by following a shoal off the western coastline of the Peninsula from Moose Point to Fire Island.Increased distance 35.4 to 37.0 km (22 to 23 miles)of submarine cable,and associated costs,boulder fields,and strong tidal currents all contributed to this route being eliminated from consideration. Other Alternatives Suggested to Cross Turnagain Arm m=Use Causeway to Cross Turnagain Arm This alternative suggests that the transmission line be attached to a causeway that would connect Pt.Possession to Anchorage.This would avoid a submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm and minimize any problems associated with submarine cable.At this time,the proposed causeway is a conceptual plan that has been in existence since the mid-1970s.There is no funding associated with the proposed causeway and no alignments or designs delineated.Based on these factors this alternative route was eliminated from further consideration. South Enstar Route Alternatives Eliminated Bury the Line through the KNWR Undergrounding the transmission line for the entire length through the KNWR has been suggested as a way to minimize visual and environmental impacts.The relative cost of underground is about four to five times more expensive than the cost to construct an overhead line through the KNWR.Unlike an overhead transmission line,an underground transmission line requires reactive compensation at the ends of the underground line segment,and for very long runs at intermediate stations.At least three reactor stations would be required along the 60.8-km (37.8-mile)route length through the KNWR.Reactor stations would appear similar to a typical substation,with the equipment contained in an aboveground fenced and graveled area.Access to Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-153 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final.CHAPTER 2 doc the reactor station would be required for periodic equipment maintenance.Concrete vaults for splicing the cable would be required at about 610-meter (2,000-foot)intervals throughout the route,depending on the terrain.Placing the line underground through the KNWR would add about $70 million to the cost of the Project and would make the Project financially infeasible. Anchorage Route Alternatives Eliminated Routes that were eliminated in the Anchorage area are discussed below and detailed on Figure 2-12. Potter to Rabbit Creek Interchange -Links MS5.2,11.1,11.2,11.3,11.4,11.5 These alternatives would parallel the Old Seward Highway from the Potter Section House to Rabbit Creek Interchange or parallel the New Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad from the same endpoints.Potentially significant impacts on visual resources and biological resources were identified along this route in addition to right-of-way limitations.Potential visual impacts would result from extensive residential development in the Rabbit Creek/Hillside area.Biological concerns centered around Potter Marsh and its associated waterfowl nesting and staging areas. Right-of-way limitations are encountered when paralleling the roads or the railroad as a result of engineering constraints. . New Seward Highway -Links 12.1,12.2,14.1,14.2 This alternative would parallel the New Seward Highway from Rabbit Creek Interchange to International Airport Road.Siting constraints were identified by ADOT/PF,along with constraints for construction and maintenance activities.As a result of right-of-way limitations this alternative was recommended for elimination. Alaska Railroad/Ocean View Bluff-Link 12.3 This alternative would parallel the Alaska Railroad from Rabbit Creek Interchange to Ocean View Park.Representatives of the Alaska Railroad identified slope failure potential and erosion constraints of this area.In addition,right-of-way limitations as a result of adjacent residential development were identified.The combined effect of these constraints resulted in elimination of the alternative from further consideration. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-154 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXHSYS''DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc 2.7.ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN DETAIL This section presents a comprehensive discussion of the alternatives studied in detail that are summarized in the overview in Section 2.2. After eliminating the numerous Project alternatives that were just discussed,two main alternatives were carried forward and studied in further detail.First,the no-action alternative was studied,but it was determined that this alternative would not meet the Project objectives and the system would remain deficient.Next,the Applicant's Proposal-building a second transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage-was studied,including alternative routes and facility types.This section describes both the no-action and Applicant's Proposal alternatives. 2.7.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The Project is proposed as a system improvement to correct existing system deficiencies and lower operating costs,and the option of not constructing the Project was evaluated as part of the study process.The no-action alternative was evaluated as part of the electrical system studies to determine the limitations of the existing Quartz Creek intertie between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage (Power Engineers 1996,1997).It was determined that the no-action alternative does not address any of the existing system deficiencies related to the purpose of and need for the Project. The system currently does not meet industry accepted levels of performance as specified by the National Electric Reliability Council and as described by the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council (ASCC)planning and operating criteria (refer to Chapter 1 for additional detail).The no- action alternative would not improve the system performance and would not bring the system into conformance with the criteria.The ASCC criteria have evolved over many years to become the standard by which the performance of the system can be measured. If the Project is not constructed,the deficiencies would not be corrected and the system would continue to operate less reliably and at a higher cost than if the Project were constructed.Existing system deficiencies in the areas of reliability,power transfer,economical utilization of existing generation,capacity sharing,system stability,spinning reserves,line losses,and maintenance would remain,as discussed in the following paragraphs. Reliability Under current conditions,a single contingency outage of the Quartz Creek line can result in system-wide blackouts and load shedding during system disturbances.The potential for these Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-155 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc outages limits the way in which the system can be efficiently and cost-effectively operated.For example,because the existing Quartz Creek line route traverses areas of known avalanches and high wind,to maintain system reliability during poor weather conditions,the existing line is at times operated at zero electrical flow,in anticipation of possible storm outages.This is an inefficient way of operating the system because during the period the line is not transferring electric power between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area,higher cost alternate generation sources must be used. Also,to maintain reliable service on the Kenai Peninsula,a minimum of 25 MW of gas turbine generation is operated on the Kenai Peninsula at all times to help prevent blackouts in case of an outage of the Quartz Creek line.A minimum generation requirement would not be necessary to maintain reliability with a second line,and generation resources to maintain system integrity and reliability could be provided from the most cost effective source,whether on the Kenai Peninsula or in the Anchorage area. Power Transfer The existing line is limited to a 70 MW power transfer capability between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.Existing generation capacity on the Kenai Peninsula is currently about 244 MW, but the peak load on the Kenai Peninsula is only 85 MW.This 70 MW power transfer limitation effectively leaves stranded much of the existing generation on the Kenai Peninsula.With this limitation,cost-saving economy energy transfers to take advantage of lower cost energy in the Anchorage area or on the Kenai Peninsula are restricted,resulting in higher operating costs.This limitation also restricts access to Bradley Lake power entitlements for the utilities in Anchorage and areas to the north,and the ability to use the Bradley Lake Project for hydro-thermal coordination with Anchorage area generation to lower operating costs. Economic Utilization Of Existing Generation And Generation Capacity Sharing The 70 MW limitation of the Quartz Creek line substantially constrains the sharing of generation between the Kenai Peninsula.Anchorage,and areas to the north.This constraint does not currently allow the most cost-effective generation resources to be operated in a coordinated manner to serve the load at the lowest cost.A second line is needed to relieve this constraint and allow the system to be operated more efficiently,and at lower cost. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-156 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX IAS YS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Finali\CHAPTER 2 doc System Stability The current operating limitations imposed on the system by the Quartz Creek line require load shedding during certain system disturbances to maintain system stability and minimize system blackouts.With a second line,the ability of the system to maintain stable operation during disturbances would be substantially improved. Spinning Reserves The amount of spinning reserves that must be currently operated on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage area is greater than if a second line were in service,because of the limitations of the Quartz Creek line.Spinning reserves are generation resources that must be operated partially loaded,in anticipation of an outage of another generator,transmission line,or other system component.In the event of an outage,the spinning reserve can pick up the load immediately, helping to prevent a system-wide blackout.While a necessary part of system operations, operating generation without serving any load is expensive,and the overall system level of spinning reserves and costs can be reduced with the addition of a second line. Reduction Of Transmission System Losses Currently line losses are 10 percent or 7 MW with a power transfer of 70 MW over the Quartz Creek line.If the power transfer over the Quartz Creek line were to be increased to 125 MW, losses would increase to 25 MW,or 20 percent of the power transferred.These are high levels of line losses,and the power lost in this manner represents lost revenue and energy that could have been used to supply loads.High losses result in additional costs for the operation of the system. Adding a second line would reduce the line losses for a 125 MW transfer to 5 MW,or 4 percent of the power transfer,lowering operating costs and increasing system operating efficiency. Maintenance Costs For The Quartz Creek Line Outages of the line to conduct maintenance are difficult to schedule,since the line is the only tie between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.This is because with the line out of service, additional generation on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage must be operatedat increased cost to supply loads and spinning reserves in the absence of the interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.For the same reason,the durations of the scheduled outages also are limited,so maintenance activities must be extended over several days or weeks,whereas with a second line,scheduled outage durations could be increased allowing maintenance to be Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-157 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXISYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F nalS;CHAPTER 2 doc completed more quickly.With a second line,maintenance activities can be scheduled and conducted to result in lower overall costs. If the Project is not constructed,the benefits accruing from the Project,estimated at $143.5 million (DFI 1997),would be lost and would continue as costs embedded in the rates for electricity.The no-action alternative would not do anything to reduce operating costs and would perpetuate the present higher costs of operation,whereas a second line would allow cost savings to be realized and benefits to accrue to the consumers served by the system. The alternative of taking no action and not constructing the Project does not address the needs that the Project is being proposed to satisfy. 2.7.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL,INCLUDING:ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND ROUTE FACILITIES The Applicant's Proposal,construction of a second transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,is described in the following sections.Included are explanations of alternative routes and general facility types. A network of alternative routes for the Project was developed,based on the results of the alternative route selection process (Dames &Moore 1996).Alternative routes that were studied and eliminated from further consideration are summarized in Section 2.1 and described in detail _ in Section 2.6.The organization of the alternative Tesoro and Enstar routes retained for detailed study followed a sequence of steps,as follows: =First,individual segments or "links”were established along the routes (Figures 2-1 and 2-2)in order to address local issues and environmental impacts.Link codes were organized to reference the types of facility and setting that the alternative routes would follow.as listed in Table 2-2.Alternatives were organized by groups of links associated with the Tesoro and Enstar routes. m@ In the next step,links were assigned to three geographic regions:Kenai Lowlands, Turnagain Arm,and Anchorage area and assigned letters,as illustrated on Figure 2-3. Tables also are included with descriptions of Project facilities in the next section that describe overhead line design features (Tables 2-20 and 2-21),underground and submarine cables (Table 2-24).transition sites (Table 2-30),and substations (Table 2-31). Links are further discussed in the section presenting the alternative route comparisons,as well as in Chapters 3 and 4. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-158 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXISYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc =Seven Tesoro route options have been identified between the Bernice Lake Substation near Nikiski and Anchorage.Thirteen Enstar route options (with two sub-routes in the Soldotna area)have been identified between the Soldotna Substation and Anchorage.The majority of the Tesoro options would terminate at the Pt.Woronozof Substation in northwest Anchorage,while the majority of the Enstar options would terminate at the International Substation near Minnesota Drive in central Anchorage.Alternative routes are presented in detail in the Alternative Route Comparisons section. The Tesoro route between Pt.Woronzof and Bernice Lake 'substations would require several segments of underground lines because of airport restrictions and park lands.Transition facilities would be needed for each underground segment as well as for the submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm.The Enstar route between International and Soldotna substations would require similar facilities as the Tesoro route as well as a substation and reactive compensation equipment.: The following sections provide descriptions of each facility type including activities associated with construction,operation,maintenance,and abandonment. Overhead Transmission Lines In most areas.the proposed transmission line would be installed overhead.This section describes the proposed overhead transmission line facilities,construction activities and seasons,access, operation and maintenance,and abandonment. Overhead Facilities Description A route selection study (Power Engineers 1996)conducted in 1995 and 1996 produced preliminary designs that are incorporated into this facility description.This section provides a description of the overhead line portions of the Project including a discussion of proposed design characteristics.construction equipment.construction methods and activities,estimated work force size,and operation and maintenance requirements associated with the transmission line. The description is based on a preliminary design for the Project,and refinements to these preliminary designs to adapt to specific localized conditions would be part of the final design process.The overhead portion of the transmission line would be operated initially at 138kV,but would be designed with 230kV insulation and conductor spacing.In the event that operation of the line at 230kV becomes desirable,no changes would be required to the overhead structures, conductor,or insulators. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-159 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc Overhead Transmission Line Structures In order to optimize the cost of construction,operation,and maintenance over the life of the Project,it is appropriate to consider several types of structures for the overhead portion of the transmission line.Four basic structure types could be used for the overhead portions of the Project-steel X-towers,wood H-frames,single-shaft steel poles,and single wood poles. Two structure types have been selected for the rural areas of this line,either an X or H configuration.Both types are suitable for long spans and offer several advantages,such as fewer towers per mile than single pole construction,a horizontal conductor configuration,and infrequent ground disturbance.The X structure configuration is capable of longer spans than the wood pole H configuration because the X structure is made of steel. The horizontal conductor configuration of the X and'H towers was selected because this configuration has been used successfully for hundreds of miles of transmission lines in Alaska and is a logical choice for the proposed line.The basic X-tower design was first built as an aluminum lattice structure in the Anchorage area in 1967.The tubular steel version has been used for many lines in Alaska since 1977.Wood pole H-frame structures have been commonly used since the first transmission lines were erected. For urban areas,one of two structure types is proposed-a single-shaft steel pole that is self- supported from the foundation or a direct embedded wood pole.Conductors would be supported in a delta or vertical configuration with either post or suspension insulators.The single-shaft steel or wood pole also can be designed to provide for lower voltage lines to be attached to the structure beneath the higher voltage transmission line. Several different structure types and designs could be used for the Project depending on location. Table 2-20 tabulates the various parameters associated with each line design type and anticipated design criteria.Table 2-21 summarizes various design and structure parameters by link with respect to the overhead line portion of the Project,including design type,construction method, facilities paralleled,location,access,and right-of-way or easement width.Typical structure drawings are included in a separate volume titled Project Description Graphics and Simulations. Overhead Steel X-Towers Steel X-towers on the Kenai Lowlands are proposed to be used along the Tesoro route north of the Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)and on the Enstar Route within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR)paralleling the Enstar Pipeline.The use of X-towers in these areas where right-of-way width is less constrained (as opposed to along roads)allows for fewer structures per mile with longer spans and overall lower construction costs. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-160 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PRON09203\009\F inaliCHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-20 SUMMARY OF OVERHEAD LINE DESIGN INFORMATION Line Design *1 3 8 9 10 8 13 14 15 Project Region Kenai Lowlands |Kenai Lowlands Kenai Lowlands |Kenai Kenai Kenai Lowlands Anchorage Anchorage Bowl Anchorage Bowl Lowlands Lowlands Bowl,Kenai Lowlands Structure Type Guyed X Steel |Guyed X Steel,H-frame Wood |Single-shaft Single Pole Single Pole Wood,|Single-shaft Single-shafi Steel Single-shaft Steel Pole, Ileavy Sicel Pole,Wood,Single |Single Circuit,Steel Pole,Pole,Single Circuit,|Single Circuit,with Double Circuit |Circuit with 12.5kV UB Single Circuit with 12.5kV UB 34.5kV and 12.5kV UB Drawing Number TANGENT X LONG SPAN X TANGENT Hi SPOLE-D SWOOD-1 SWOOD-2 SPOLE-1 SPOLE-2 SPOLE-3 (See Map Volume) Conductor 795 KCM 795 KCM ACSR-|795 KCM 795 KCM 795 KCM 795 KCM ACSR_|795 KCM 795 KCM ACSR 795 KCM ACSR ACSR ACSR ACSR ACSR ACSR Typical Span Length 228.6 meters 274.3 meters 228.6 meters 121.9 meters |121.9 meters 91.4 meters 121.9 meters 91.4 meters 91.4 meters (750 feet)(900 feet)(750 fect)(400 feet)(400 feet)(300 feet)(400 fect)(300 feet)(300 feet) Lypical Structure 27.4 meters 29.0 meters (95 27.4 meters 22.9 meters 21.3 meters 21.3 meters 22.9 meters 22.9 meters 22.9 meters Height(above ground)(90 feet)feet)Long Span (90 feet)(75 feet)(70 fect)(70 feet)(75 feet)(75 feet)(75 feet) Ground Clearance 9.1 meters 9.1 meters 9.1 meters 9.1 meters 9.1 meters 7.6 meters 9.1 meters 7.6 meters 7.6 meters (30 feet)(30 feet)(30 feet)(30 feet)(30 fect)(25 feet).(30 feet)(25 feet)(25 feet) Area of Ground 22.9 meters 27.4 meters (90 21.3 meters 3.1 meters 3.1 meters (10 |3.1 meters (10 3.1 meters 3.1 meters 3.1 meters ; Disturbance (75 feet)circle |feet)circle (70 feet)circle |(10 feet)circle |feet)circle feet)circle (10 feet)circle |(10 feet)circle (10 feet)circle diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter diameter NESC Load Zone Heavy Heavy 'Hleavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Extreme Wind -128.8 km/h 177 km/h 128.8 km/h 128.8 km/h 128.8 km/h 128.8 km/h 128.8 km/h 128.8 km/h 128.8 km/h Conductor (80 mph)(90 mph)(80 mph)(80 mph)(80 mph)(80 mph)"|(80 mph)(80 mph)(80 mph) Extreme Wind -160.9 km/h 144.8 km/h 160.9 km/h 160.9 km/h 160.9 km/h 160.9 km/h 160.9 km/h 160.9 km/h 160.9 km/h Structure (100 mph)(110 mph)(100 mph)(100 mph)(100 mph)(100 mph)(100 mph)(100 mph)(100 mph) Extreme Snow 15.2 cm (6 15.2 cm (6 inches)|15.2 cm (6 15.2 cm (6 15.2 cm (6 15.2 cm (6 inches)|15.2 cm (6 15.2 cm (6 inches)|15.2 cm (6 inches) (112 kg/cu m {7 Ib./cu inches)snow,snow,inches)snow,inches)snow,|inches)snow,|snow,32.2 km/h inches)snow,snow,32.2 km/h snow,32.2 km/h (20 feet])32.2 km/h (20 |32.2 km/h 32.2 knVv/h (20 =|32.2 km/h (20 |32.2 km/h (20 |(20 mph)wind 32.2 km/h (20 |(20 mph)wind mph)wind mph)wind (20 mph)wind mph)wind mph)wind mph)wind mph)wind Extreme Ice 3.8 cm (1.5 5.1cm 3.8 cm 3.8 cm 3.8 cm 3.8 cm 3.8m 3.8 cm 3.8 cm (913 kg/cu m [57 Ib./cu_|inches)(2 inches);64.4 (1.5 inches)(1.5 inches)(1.5 inches)(1.5 inches)(1.5 inches)(1.5 inches)(1.5 inches) feet])km/h (40 mph) wind Predominant Foundation |Driven Pile Driven Pile Direct Concrete Pier |Direct Direct Embedment |Concrete Pier Concrete Pier Concrete Pier Types Embedment Embedment *See Map Volume for line design types and Table 2-21 for application by link. mph =miles per hour Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-161 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal This guyed tubular-steel tower is an Alaskan creation intended to simulate the flexibility of wood poles while minimizing assembly and allowing significant foundation movement tolerances.This structure has normally been constructed of weathering steel to reduce maintenance costs and provide a nonreflective finish that blends reasonably with the environment.It carries a single three-phase circuit with the conductors suspended by insulators from a crossarm in a horizontal configuration.At points where the line would angle or deadend,a single-guyed tubular-steel tower for each conductor would be used. X-towers can be constructed of tubular-steel members or lattice aluminum or steel angles.The X- tower has two legs and two sets of guy wires.The legs would be supported on pile foundations. The foundations usually would consist of one driven pile approximately 30.5 centimeters [cm] (12 inches)by 30.5 cm (12 inches)or a drilled pile approximately 30.5 cm (12 inches)in diameter per leg.The anchors may be piles of the same size as the foundations,or they may be screw anchors or grouted anchors.The shafts of screw and grouted anchors are typically 1.9 to 3.8 cm (0.75 to 1.5 inches)in diameter.In very soft soils,the tangent X-towers may require two piles for each foundation and anchor.Two piles for angle and deadend structure foundations is typical.When soil conditions require drilling to install the pile,the soil removed would be scattered at the site.A 30.5-cm (12-inch)-diameter pile 9.1 meters (30 feet)deep would result in about 15.2 cm (6 inches)of soil deposited for a 1.2-meter (4-foot)radius around the pile. Overhead Wood H-Frames Wood H-frame structures on the Kenai Lowlands would be used when paralleling existing H-frame lines north of Soldotna Substation to match existing line construction and for rebuilding existing lines. H-frames are constructed of two vertical wood poles with two horizontal wood crossarms and braces.The poles are normally placed in augured holes with either native or imported backfill.A cone of backfill approximately 0.6 meter (2 feet)high with a 0.9 meter (3-foot)radius around the pole is mounded and compacted against the pole.This additional fill is used to naturally compensate for subsidence and protect the pole from water runoff.In normal soils,pole holes average 61 to 76.2 cm (24 to 30 inches)in diameter and 3.4 meters (11 feet)deep for a typical structure 25.9 meters (85 feet)tall.Two are required for each H-frame.Round piling or metal culvert can be used in soft soils to support the poles.In this situation,a 76.2-cm (30-inch)- diameter piling augured or driven to a depth of 7.6 to 9.1 meters (25 to 30 feet)is typical.If piling is used,the wood poles are placed in the piling and backfilled with imported gravel. Tangent H-frames are self-supporting and do not need guys.On angles and deadends,anchors can be either screw anchors or grouted anchors.The shafts of screw and grouted anchors are typically 1.9 to 3.8 cm (0.75 to 1.5 inches)diameter. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-162 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS DATA\PROJ\09203\009'\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-21 Southern Intertie Project Project Description/Overhead Line Segments cy Access to Area FS ><bY==)3 So 2 s ==£r=$3 =.2 E =a3 a 2 =a 3ees¥oe e = Separation Between wed 3 w s 3S 3 on se <¥°]SExistingandZoBo3Fs223KilometersExistingRight-of-Location of Proposed Facilities 5 2 $=z g 2 5 Links From MP To MP Miles Crossed Crossed Way Use Paralleled |Proposed Line (meters [feet])Adjacent Uses a5 &rs)z 5 5 RS S Kenai Lowlands EL.1 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 (2)pipelines parallel -east side 30.5 (100)..undeveloped 45.7 (150)FWD road no 1 Summer 1,3 E1.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 ------N/A undeveloped 45.7 (150)none yes 8 Summer 1,3 E1.3 0.0 33.1 33.1 53.3 (2)pipelines parallel -east side 30.5 (100)undeveloped 45.7 (150)FWD road no 1 Winter/Summer 1,2,3,4 E2.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 (2)pipelines parallel -east side 30.5 (100)moderate mgmt.45.7 (150)FWD road no 1 Winter 1,2,3,4 E2.1 1.0 3.6 2.6 4.2 (2)pipelines parallel -east side 22.9 (75)moderate mgmt.30.5 (100)FWD road no 10%Winter 1,2,3,4 MS5.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.8 (2)pipelines parallel -east side 22.9 (75)moderate mgmt.30.5 (100)FWD road no 10%Winter 1,2,3,4 SL.1 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 (2)115 kV,69kV__|parallel -west side 22.9 (75)residential 30.5 (100)gravel road no 10 Summer 1,3 S11 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.6 (2)115kV parallel -west side 22.9 (75)residential 30.5 (100)gravel road no 10 Summer 1,3 $1.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 (2)115kV rebuild double rebuild residential rebuild gravel road no 9 Summer 1 circuit $1.3 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.8 (2)115kV parallel -south side 30.5 (100)residential 30.5 (100)FWD road no 8 Summer 1,2,3 $1.3 1.1 1.9 0.1.3 (2)11SKV &69kV |parallel -south side 30.5 (100)residential /airstrip 30.5 (100)FWD road no 8 Summer 1,2,3 $1.3 1.9 3.4 1.5 2.4 (2)115kV,69kV &|parallel -west side 30.5 (100)undeveloped 30.5 (100)FWD road no 8 Summer 3 distrib. $1.3 3.4 6.5 3.1 5.0 J15kV,pipeline |parallel -north side 30.5 (100)native selected /30.5 (100)FWD road no 8 Summer 3 KNWR $1.3 6.5 19.4 12.9 20.8 115kV parallel -north side 30.5 (100)native selected /30.5 (100)FWD road no 8 Summer 1,3 KNWR S1.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 115kV parallel -east side 30.5 (100)residential 30.5 (100)FWD road no 8 Summer 1,3 82.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 (2)LISKV &69kV replace 69kV rebuild residential rebuild gravel road no Existing Summer 1 $2.1 0.3 2.0 1.7 2.7 115kV &69kV replace 69kV rebuild residential rebuild FWD road no 8 Winter/Summer 3 $2.1 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.4 69kV replace 69kV rebuild residential rebuild FWD road no 8 Winter/Summer 3 82.1 6.0 12.0 6.0 9.7 69kV replace 69kV rebuild residential rebuild FWD road no 8 Summer 1,3 82.1 12.0 13.2 1.2 1.9 69kV &(1)distrib.replace 69kV rebuild Bing's Landing SRS rebuild FWD road no 1i*Summer 1,3 82.1 13.2 17.6 4.4 7.1 69kV replace 69kV rebuild residential rebuild FWD road no 8 -Summer 1,3 TL.l 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 115kV &69kV parallel 30.5 (100)industrial 30.5 (100)paved road no 13 Summer 1 T1.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 roadway parallel -east side N/A industrial 9.1 (30)paved road no 13 Summer ] ** T13 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.9 roadway parallel -east side N/A commercial /9.1 (30)paved road no 13 Summer 1 residential T13 2.1 7.5 5.4 8.7 roadway parallel -east side N/A commercial /9.1 (30)paved road no 13 Summer ] residential /two airstrips T1.4 0.0 4.7 4.7 7.6 roadway parallel -east side N/A residential 9.1 (30)paved road no 13 Summer 1 T3.1 0.0 3.6 3.6 5.8 (2)pipelines parallel -east side 30.5 (100)residential 45.7 (150)FWD road no 3 Winter/Summer 1,3 73.2 0.0 9.3 9.3 15.0 (2)pipelines parallel -east side 30.5 (100)residential 45.7 (150)FWD road no 3 Winter 2,3,4 73.2 9.3 22.4 13.1 21.1 pipeline parallel -east side 30.5 (100)Kenai Borough 45.7 (150)trail no 3 Winter 3,4 Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 2-163 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-21 Southern Intertie Project Project Description/Overhead Line Segments eo Access to Area = ><pS=3 3 So 2 ts ==£=es 2 2 == eo 3 ms 5 == Separation Between med 3 2 3S Ss a Existing and 2o¢bo g FS 22 sKilometersExistingRight-of-Location of Proposed Facilities as 2 3 =z 2 a 3 Links From MP To MP Miles Crossed Crossed Way Use Paralleled|Proposed Line (meters [feet])Adjacent Uses a5 =s)Zz si}6 2 S T5.1 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 pipeline parallel -east side 30.5 (100)private /state lands 45.7 (150)trail no 3 Winter/Summer 2,3,4 Turnagain Arm T4.1 0.0 3.1 3.1 5.0 ---new N/A CIRI -Vortac 45.7 (150)none yes 8 Summer 1,2,4 T4.2 0.0 1.4 1.4 2.3 FWD road parallel -west side N/A CIRI 45.7 (150)FWD road no 8 Summer 1,2,4 Anchorage Bowl 12.4 1.0 2.9 1.9 3.1 roadway parallel -east side rebuild residential 9.1 (30)paved road no 14 Summer 1 12.6 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 railroad parallel -east side within RR ROW residential 9.1 (30)gravel RR bed no 13 Summer 1 12.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 roadway parallel -east side rebuild residential 9.1 (30)paved road no 15 Summer | 12.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 roadway parallel -south side adjacent industrial 9.1 (30)gravel road no 14 Summer 1 13.2 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 ------N/A future residential 30.5 (100)none yes 13 Summer 2,3 13.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 roadway parallel -north side adjacent undeveloped 9.1 (30)paved road/none yes 13 Summer 1,2 14.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 roadway parallel -south side adjacent commercial 9.1 (30)paved road -no 13 Summer l 14.3 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 roadway parallel -south side adjacent extraction 9.1 (30)paved road no 13 Summer | 14.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 roadway parallel -south side adjacent undeveloped 9.1 (30)paved road no 13 Summer 1,2,3 15.3 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.2 roadway parallel -north side adjacent commercial 9.1 G0)paved road no 13 Summer 1 15.3 2.0 2.3 0.3 0.5 138kV &north side rebuild Arctic to residential 9.1 (30)paved road no 14 Summer 1 (2)distribution lines CEA 15.5 0.0 2.8 3.3 4.5 roadway parallel -west side adjacent residential /open space 9.1 (30)paved road***no 13 Summer 1,2,3*** 15.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 0.3 (2)distribution lines |parallel -west side adjacent industrial 9.1 (30)paved road***no 14 Summer 1,2,3*** 15.5 3.0 3.3 3.3 0.5 138kV &(3)parallel -west side rebuild industrial 9.1 (30)gravel road no 14 Summer 1 distribution lines 15.6 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.4 roadway parallel -east side rebuild mixed use 9.1 (30)paved road no 15 Summer 1 15.7 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.4 roadway parallel -east side rebuild mixed use 9.1 (G0)paved road no 15 Summer 1 15.8 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.4 railroad parallel -east side |within railroad right-industrial 9.1 G0)gravel railroad bed no 13 Summer 1 of-way . 15.9 0.0 1.8 1.8 2.9 railroad parallel-east side |within railroad right-industrial 9.1 (30)gravel railroad bed no 13 Summer 1 of-way 16.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 roadway south of shopping adjacent commercial 9.1 (30)paved road no 14 Summer 1 center 16.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.8 railroad paraliel-east side |within railroad right-industrial 9.1 (30)gravel railroad bed no 15 Summer 1 of-way Notes: *Single-pole wood,except for Kenai River crossing on H-Frame.Construction Timing Construction Methods -Operation and Maintenance **Southern Intertie line along east side of road existing lines along west side of North Kenai Spur Road.Winter Season -Frozen:November to March 1 -Rubber-tired vehicle ***Access along Minnesota Drive would be from outside the highway right-of-way and along the transmission right-of-way at the highway right-of-way edge.Summer Season -Thawed:April to October 2 -Tracked vehicle Access would not be from the paved highway.Break-up:April to May 3 -Special Equipment *Single Wood pole modified for shorter pole heights/spans to reduce clearing and for bird/raptor protection.4 -Aerial *See Construction Seasons Map MV-34 in the Map Volume. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-164 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal Overhead Single-Shaft Steel Poles Single-shaft steel pole structure types on the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area would be used along North Kenai Road north of Bernice Lake Substation and in South Anchorage,where right- of-way width is constrained and shorter span length is more appropriate. The self-supported tubular-steel pole has been used extensively throughout the world.This type of structure is normally constructed of weathering,galvanized,or corten steel to reduce maintenance costs and is used in areas of restricted right-of-way and within existing road rights- of-way.This type of structure can be designed to carry either a single three-phase transmission circuit,or a transmission circuit with lower voltage circuits attached beneath the transmission circuit (underbuilding).The conductors would be supported by either post or suspension insulators.At points where the line would angle or deadend,the single-shaft pole would be similar to the tangents except with larger pole diameters.: Single-shaft steel poles are normally designed specifically for each line location.Mechanical loads and required clearances dictate pole heights and diameters.Typical structure heights would be approximately 21.3 meters (70 feet).Foundations for single steel poles are dependent on the soil type and could be either concrete pier,piling,or the pole could be directly embedded in the soil.Concrete piers would be approximately 1.5 to 2.1 meters (5 to 7 feet)in diameter and 4.6 to 7.6 meters (15 to 25 feet)deep.Piling pipes would be driven into soft soils to a depth of approximately 10.7 meters (35 feet).Directly embedding the steel poles is an option in competent soils.Steel poles are self-supporting structures and would not require guys and anchors. Overhead Single Wood Pole Single wood poles on the Kenai Lowlands are proposed to be used north of the Soldotna Substation to match the existing wood pole transmission lines,south of Bings Landing,and in Link E2.1 on the Enstar Route near Chickaloon Bay. The single wood pole is the most common structure type used by utilities throughout the country. The single wood pole is appropriate in areas of minimum right-of-way and shorter spans.This type of structure blends with the environment and has a history of long service life.This type of structure can be designed to accommodate both transmission level and lower voltage distribution circuits on the same pole.The conductors can be supported by either post insulators or suspension insulators on crossarms.Angles and deadends would be guyed.Single wood poles are normally directly embedded in the native soils.Mechanical loads and clearances determine the height and pole class required for each location.Typical structure heights would be 21.3 meters (70 feet). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-165 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRONJ09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2.doc In the area near Chickaloon Bay,a modified design using short span lengths would be employed to minimize structure heights to approximately the height of the surrounding taller trees.This modified design is required to mitigate concerns with right-of-way clearing (right-of-way width can be reduced to 30.5 meters [100 feet]from 45.7 meters [150 feet])and with bird/raptor considerations. Overhead Conductor and Fiber Optic Overhead Ground Wire Selecting the appropriate conductor for a transmission line requires consideration,including availability of spare parts for repairs,mechanical loading,electrical loading,and losses.Based on these factors,"Drake”conductor is proposed for the Project.This conductor fulfills the electrical requirements for the Project and is commonly used on the system.Drake is an aluminum covered steel reinforced conductor with 2.814-cm (1.108-inch)-diameter,26 strands of aluminum and 7 strands of steel,an aluminum area of 795,000 circular mills,1.626 kilograms/meter (1.094 pound/foot)and a breaking strength of 14,288 kilograms (31,500 pounds).The aluminum outside surface would weather with time and tend to become nonreflective. A fiber optic overhead ground wire (OPGW)is being considered to provide a communications path for system protection functions,as an option to expansion of the existing microwave communications system.If installed.the OPGW would be attached to the overhead line structures as illustrated in the Map Volume.An OPGW consists of aluminum clad steel strands surrounding an aluminum tube or a notched aluminum rod.The glass fibers fill the tube or are inserted in the notches of the rod.The diameter of the OPGW would be about one-half inch,with a rated strength of about 23,000 pounds.Installation methods and techniques would be similar to those used for installing the conductor. Overhead Transmission Line Construction Activities Typical activities during the construction of an overhead transmission line include soil boring, surveying,clearing.foundation installation.structure assembly and erection,conductor installation,and cleanup.These tasks,described below,generally occur in sequence and may be separated in time by several days to several months.Although construction activities would be similar in both the Kenai Lowlands and the Anchorage area regions,situations in either region may vary and require site-specific consideration.All of these activities would be coordinated, according to the permit stipulations.between the Intertie Participants Group's construction manager,the construction contractor,and the agency having jurisdiction in a particular area.The sequences of activities are illustrated in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume,on Figures ROW-3 and ROW-S. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-166 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXISYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Soil Boring for Overhead Facilities Soil is bored and analyzed along the transmission line alignment to determine the engineering properties of the soil for purposes of designing the line.Borings would be made at approximately 1.6-km (1-mile)intervals using track-mounted equipment.Where steel poles are used,the intervals between soil borings may be less than 1.6 km (1 mile),depending on variations in soil types along the route.The borings would be approximately 10.2 cm (4 inches)in diameter,range from 6.1 to15.2 meters (20 to 50 feet)deep,and be backfilled with the excavated material upon completion of soil sampling.To minimize ground disturbancé,borings would be made adjacent to existing access roads whenever possible. Surveving for Overhead Facilities Surveying would be accomplished by a combination of aerial and ground survey methods. Ground surveying would be required in areas of heavy vegetation and when aerial methods are more expensive.Surveying on the right-of-way would be required for locating structures and soil borings.Survey work on the right-of-way would involve limited cutting of trees and vegetation for line-of-sight staking and distance measuring.No new access would be needed during surveying,since only survey crews and their equipment would be involved.Section and quarter-section corners would be located.The edges of the right-of-way would be staked in areas where clearing for construction is required.Some structure locations may have to be re-staked by the surveyors if the survey markers are destroyed by clearing. Clearing for Overhead Facilities To allow continued reliable operation of the line.clearing of trees from the right-of-way would be required to prevent potential outages caused by trees contacting the energized conductors.The amount of clearing is dependent on several variables.In general,it is advantageous to remove as many trees as possible initially to minimize maintenance costs (future clearing of maturing trees). However.complete removal of trees has to be compared with potential impacts in the particular area (e.g.,wider clearings in rural locations may be more justifiable than in urban areas where land uses restrict the amount of clearing).Right-of-way clearing would be done mechanically, except in sensitive areas where hand clearing may be appropriate.Herbicides would not be used for vegetation control along the right-of-way. In rural areas,the entire 45.7-meter (150-foot)-wide right-of-way would be cleared of trees except for areas exhibiting special conditions (see Typical Right-of-way Clearing for Rural Areas figures in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume).In areas where special conditions exist,the area cleared could be reduced.At a minimum,any trees that would directly Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-167 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX1\SYS,\DATA'PROJ\09203\009\FinalCHAPTER 2 doc contact the conductor,with consideration for the next five years of growth,would be removed. Fast growing trees under and between the conductors as well as those within approximately 6.1 meters (20 feet)(NESC 234Cla requires 5.3 meters [17.4 feet]for major objects near a 230kV line)of the conductor movement envelope would be removed. In urban areas,right-of-way normally would be restricted by existing facilities such as roadways, private property,and homes.Tree clearing in these areas is more difficult and the line is typically located in a reduced right-of-way.Single pole structures would minimize conductor spacing and thereby require less clearing (see Typical Right-of-way Clearing for Urban Areas figure in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume).A minimum 12.19-meter (40-foot)-wide right-of-way is expected (NESC 234Cla requires 12.13 meters (39.8 feet)based on preliminary 230kV line designs and typical span lengths).Wherever possible,the full width of the right-of- way would be cleared of trees.Cost of private property and screening to reduce the visual effects of the line are normal compromises.At a minimum,any tree limbs within the right-of-way that could contact the conductors would be removed.Some tree pruning and higher annual maintenance clearing costs are expected. In both rural and urban areas,it is standard practice to remove trees outside the right-of-way that appear to endanger the line should the trees fall over (danger trees).Typically these trees are tall and exhibit some defect that indicates future problems.Danger trees outside the right-of-way and trees on the right-of-way would be cut as close to the ground as possible,with stump height not exceeding 15.2 cm (6 inches)above surrounding ground level. Special conditions would be considered individually.Typical examples include leaving existing vegetation screens at road and river crossings,spanning over special vegetation where possible, and hand clearing in areas sensitive to equipment. To mitigate concerns for spruce bark beetle infestation,options for removing trees,at the direction of the landowner,will be clipping.scattering,or burning.Cleared debris would be disposed of in compliance with local ordinances and in accordance with the landowner's request. Gates would be installed,as required.in existing fences located on the right-of-way to facilitate construction access.Existing fences and gates would be grounded. Overhead Facility Foundation Installation There are two types of foundations for the X-towers or H-frame structures-driven piling or augured holes.Driven piling generally would be made with truck-or track-mounted pile driving equipment.This type of foundation was commonly used for many of the more recent transmission lines in Alaska.In some instances,an augured hole may be required to place a piling instead of driving it.This type of foundation generally would be made with a truck-or Southem Intertie Project EVAL 2-168 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc track-mounted auger.The same or similar equipment would be required for all wood pole installations.An alternative to using truck or track-mounted auger equipment would be to use smaller auger equipment,flown to each site by helicopter.Helicopters are sometimes used in areas without existing access.However,since there are existing access trails or roads along the routes,helicopter transport of augering equipment is not proposed for the Project.Table 2-21 tabulates the construction methods proposed by link,for each route. Single-shaft steel poles located along roadways generally would be bolted to concrete piers, piling,or directly embedded in the soil.Concrete piers would be placed in augured holes.Steel reinforcing for the concrete foundations would be transported by truck to the structure site,either as a prefabricated cage or as loose bars,which would be fabricated into cages on the site.The reinforcing bar cage then would be placed in the excavation with a crane.Portions of the concrete foundation extending above the ground would be formed.After the foundation has been poured, the forms would be removed,and the surface of the foundation dressed.Concrete would be hauled to the site in concrete trucks.Excavated material normally would be spread at the structure site to match existing ground contours,unless otherwise requested by the landowner,or due to special environmental conditions. The concrete foundations would have threaded anchor bolts embedded in the concrete.The tubular sections of the poles would be attached to the foundation by means of a baseplate welded to the tubular section and placed on the anchor bolts. If pipe piling is used to support a single-shaft steel pole,the piling would be transported to the site with equipment similar to that used for handling poles.Installation of the pipe piling would be completed using a pile driver to drive the pile to the required depth.The single-shaft steel pole then would be bolted to a plate attached to the top of the piling.A cluster of H-type piling also could be used to provide a foundation for a steel pole.Installation would be much the same as the installation of the pipe pile.The H-piling would be driven to the required depth and the single- shaft steel pole would be bolted to a plate attached to the top of the piling. In competent soils,a single-shaft steel pole could be directly embedded into the soil.In this case, installation techniques would be similar as the installation of a wood pole.The steel pole would be placed into an augured hole and then backfill would be tamped into place. Overhead Structure Assembly and Erection Towers would be assembled at staging yards along the road or railroad system and flown by helicopter to the sites,or assembled and erected by crane at each site.Where tower assembly fly yards are used,they would be placed as conveniently to the line as possible,and spaced for the appropriate flying distance.The optimum distance between assembly yards when using a Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-169 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PROK09203\009\1Final\CHAPTER 2 doc helicopter to set structures is 5 to 8 miles.However,this distance can be varied somewhat to coincide with existing clearings,such as the air strips located along the Enstar route within the KNWR.The size of the assembly yards for helicopter structure staging would be between 2 and 5 acres.It is likely that helicopters would be used to set structures on the Kenai Peninsula,except along existing roadways,where cranes would be used.Helicopter setting of structures is also an alternative to mitigate ground disturbance,in the event a structure must be placed in a sensitive area.If cranes are used,there would be some leveling of the immediate tower site required for tower assembly and erection.The area of disturbance for each structure and type of design is as shown in Table 2-20.This area of disturbance represents the final tower footprint plus room for maintenance.It does not include a lay down area for tower assembly. Overhead Conductor Installation Stringing the conductors would begin after the structures have been erected for several miles to allow for a separation of job duties.The first step would be to place the pulling lines in the previously hung stringing blocks (normally part of tower assembly).The pulling line would be used to pull the conductor off the reels and through the stringing blocks.The puller and tensioner would be located at either end of the stringing operation.A typical pulling section would be about 3,658 meters (12.000 feet).The puller would pull the wire off the reels and through both the tensioner and stringing blocks,taking up the pulling lines on reels as the wire is installed.The tensioner would control the tension being applied to the wire as it is pulled off the reels by the puller (tension stringing).Temporary guard structures generally of wood pole construction would be erected to prevent the wires from coming in contact with main roads,telephone lines,power lines.and other similar objects,in case of loss of tension in the wire during stringing. Temporary guying of X-towers or H-frames may be required,and temporary anchors may be installed to hold the stringing equipment and conductors.These temporary guys,anchors,and guard structures would be removed after stringing is completed. Cleanup of Overhead Facility Construction Affected areas would be cleaned up as the construction activities progress and are completed.All waste and scrap materials would be removed from the right-of-way and deposited in local permitted landfills in conformance with local ordinance or in accordance with landowner's requests.Ruts and holes resulting from construction activities around structures and along the right-of-way would be repaired.Revegetation and restoration would be conducted as stipulated. Existing roads,bridges,field roads,and trails would be used for access to the night-of-way and tower sites.Where this is not possible,cross-country travel would be conducted using equipment Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-170 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA'PRON09203\0001Final\;CHAPTER 2 doc and methods designed to minimize impacts on vegetation and soils.For example,soft soils may require additional support such as mats or temporary bridges.In rare cases,a temporary culvert may be installed where streams are crossed.Construction trails would be graded and revegetated as necessary to return the land to as close to original condition as practical.Existing roads and trails would be maintained and repaired as required during use by the construction contractor. Storage and Staging Yards for Overhead Facility Construction Construction material storage yards would be located along or near highways,trails,or pipelines in the vicinity of the Project area.The locations of these storage yards are determined by the construction contractor and typically are located approximately every 32.2 to 48.3 km (20 to 30 miles).They are up to 4 hectares (10 acres)in size,and probably would be leased property.After construction is completed,all debris and unused materials would be removed and the staging/storage yards would be returned to pre-construction conditions by the construction contractor. Work Force Size for Overhead Facility Construction It is expected that the proposed transmission line would be constructed under contract by a company specializing in construction of electric transmission lines.As mentioned previously, construction activities are sequential tasks and the number of personnel working at a location depends on the task being performed.Table 2-22 lists typical crew sizes and equipment needed for various construction activities. TABLE 2-22 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION CREWS AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Construction Activity |Crews |Crew Size Equipment Needed Soil Boring 1-2 3-4 Rubber-tired or tracked vehicle,or pickup truck Surveying 2-3 3-4 Pickup truck,all-terrain vehicle (ATV) Clearing 1-3 3-4 Hydroaxe,chainsaw,pickup truck Foundation Installation 1-3 3-5 Pile driver,auger,bulldozer,4-wheel drive,tracked vehicle (NODWELL),air compressor,pickup truck Structure Assembly 1-3 3-5 Cranes,NODWELL,pickup truck Structure Erection 1-3 5-6 Cranes,NODWELL,bulldozer,pickup truck Conductor Installation 3-4 6-8 Reel trailer,tensioner,puller,NODWELL,bucket truck,bulldozer Cleanup 1-3 2-3 NODWELL,pickup truck Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-171 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WOM_PHXISYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc Construction Seasons for Overhead Facilities Construction would take place during both summer and winter seasons.The cost of construction and sometimes the quality of construction can be affected by the construction season.During the winter season,temperatures are very cold,which cause problems with the operation of equipment;the amount of daylight is minimal;fewer workers are available;and the efficiency of the work force is significantly reduced.During the summer season,temperatures are warmer, sunlight is almost continual,and more workers are available. While construction during the summer season may be preferred,there are issues that may require construction during the winter.Project timing,financing,design,and/or material delivery cannot always fit within the short summer season.Environmental issues may dictate construction of certain portions of the line during winter.Soft,wet soils,common in Alaska during summer, often cannot support heavy construction equipment and construction activities in areas of such soils would result in long-term damage (e.g.,Tesoro route north of Captain Cook SRA and other locations).Within the KNWR,construction timing restrictions likely would be required during sensitive periods (e.g.,brown bear feeding,salmon spawning).Winter construction is proposed for the Tesoro Route north of Captain Cook SRA,the Enstar route within the KNWR,and along selected portions of the Soldotna B South route option near lowlands along the Kenai River. Access to Overhead Facilities Access to the right-of-way for construction generally would be along existing roadways or trails. On the Kenai Peninsula,roadways or trails exist from Bernice Lake Substation,through Captain Cook SRA.and north along the Tesoro Pipeline to Pt.Possession.The same is true for the Enstar Route where the proposed routes parallel existing transmission lines or the Enstar Pipeline.Links in which new access would be required include Link E1.2 north of Naptowne (0.48 km [0.3 mile]),Link 4.1 on Fire Island (4.99 km [3.1 miles]),and in south Anchorage Link I3.2 crossing the Klatt Bog (1.13 km [0.7 mile]).and Link I3.3 north of the radio station (1.13 km [0.7 mile]). Along Minnesota Drive along Link 15.5 (4.8 km [3 miles]),Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT)has specified that the paved roadway cannot be used for access for construction;rather, access for construction must be outside the highway right-of-way or along the edge of the highway right-of-way. All other links have existing access.Requirements for new access are summarized by link in Table 2-21.Travel between structures would be overland along the right-of-way or via existing roadways or trails. For the portions of the Project where overhead lines would be constructed,typical equipment types for the various access conditions have been divided into four categories as listed in Table Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-172 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXINSYS DATA\PROJ09203\009\F inal.CHAPTER 2 doc 2-23,and are designated by link in Table 2-21.Construction methods and operation and maintenance activities require similar types of equipment. TABLE 2-23 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND ACCESS CONDITIONS Access Access Conditions Type Typical Construction Equipment Existing roadways |Rubber-tired vehicles Existing trails summer or winter 2 NODWELL,bulldozer Soft soils,difficult trails,bogs,stream 3 Specialized equipment;low ground pressure vehicles, crossings,winter conditions tracked vehicles,swamp mats or temporary bridges, snow machine,snow cat Stipulated access or winter conditions 4 Helicopter construction with ground access Operation and Maintenance of Overhead Facilities Operation The day-to-day operation of the line would be directed by system dispatchers in power control centers.These dispatchers use supervisory equipment to operate circuit breakers at each end of the line.The circuit breakers also operate automatically to isolate the transmission line from the rest of the system during a disturbance. Maintenance Typical preventive maintenance programs for transmission lines would include routine aerial and ground inspections.Aerial inspections also would be conducted after a system disturbance causes a circuit breaker to operate. Ground inspections would be conducted usually to detect equipment needing repair or replacement.Whenever possible,ground inspections and subsequent repair activities would be scheduled during the summer months.Trees that have grown to endanger operation of the line are normally removed during the summer. Transmission lines could be damaged by ice and/or snow storms,high winds,or accidents requiring immediate repair.Emergency maintenance would involve prompt movement of crews to repair damage or replace equipment. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-173 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA'PROJ\09203\009\F inali\CHAPTER 2 doc Abandonment of Overhead Facilities At the end of the useful life of the proposed Project,if the facility were no longer required,the transmission line structures,conductors,insulators,and hardware would be dismantled and removed from the right-of-way. Underground Transmission Lines z In certain areas,the proposed transmission line would be installed underground,for relatively short distances,as mitigation to avoid potential impacts in sensitive areas (e.g.,airspace, sensitive visual resources,area stipulated for underground utilities).This section provides a description of the proposed design characteristics,facilities,construction activities,access, operation and maintenance,and abandonment of underground transmission lines. Underground Facilities Description The preliminary design that is incorporated into this description was developed through the route selection study conducted in 1995 and 1996 (Power Engineers 1996).Locations of proposed undergrounding are shown in Table 2-24. Placing a 138kV transmission line underground is more expensive and complex than constructing the same line overhead.An overhead line requires tower structures to be placed in the ground every several hundred feet;whereas an underground transmission line requires a continuous trench along the entire length of the facility.Consequently,installation of an underground transmission line is similar to the installation of a pipeline. An overhead line uses bare uninsulated aluminum and steel conductors (cables)strung through the air between poles or structures,with attachments for the conductors at each structure. Overhead line conductors are insulated by the surroundingair and by insulators at each structure to prevent the conductors from coming into contact with the ground or structures. An underground transmission line must be insulated along its entire length since it is buried and in contact with the ground.The insulation for the underground transmission conductors must be specially designed to withstand the high voltage on the conductors contained within the high voltage cable.Special materials and manufacturing techniques must be used to provide for several layers of insulating and protective materials to surround the conductors.The high voltage cable insulation also must be designed to dissipate the heat resulting from the flow of electricity through the conductors,unlike an overhead line which has the advantage of being cooled by Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-174 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX I\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\0091F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION -UNDERGROUND SUBMARINE CABLE LINKS Access To Area Km Existing Right-of-Right-of-Way or (Miles)Way Use Easement Width Construction Construction Operation andLinkCrossedParalleledAdjacentUses(meters |feet])Existing Proposed Construction Activities Timing (season)Method Maintenance Anchorage Bowl 12.4 0.5 (0.3)Railroad Coastal Wildlife Refuge 9.1 (30)Railroad right-of-way Underground***Trenching***Submarine 3,5 and7 3 and $ 12.4 1.1 (0.7)Railroad Shooting Range 9.1 (30)Railroad right-of-way Underground cable*|Duct Bank Type 1,Cable Installation Summer 1 | 12.5 0.6 (0.4)Railroad Residential /Flying Crown airstrip 9.1 (30)Railroad right-of-way Submarine cable*Trenching***Submarine 1 | 12.5 0.8 (0.5)Railroad Residential /Flying Crown airstrip 9.1 (30)Railroad right-of-way Underground cable*|Duct Bank Type 2,Cable Installation Summer 1 1 13.1 0.8 (0.5)Roadway Klatt Road 9.1 (30)Paved road Submarine cable*Trenching***Submarine 1 1 PWI.1 1.0 (0.6)Pipeline Kincaid Park 9.1 (30)None Underground cable*|Duct Bank Type 1,Cable Installation Summer 3 3 PWH.1 2.7 (1.7)Pipeline Kincaid Park/airport 9.1 (30)None Underground cable*|Duct Bank Type 1,Cable Installation Summer 3 3 PWI.1 3.1 (1.9)Future airport Airport 9.1 (30)None Underground cable*|Duct Bank Type 1,Cable Installation Summer 3 3 development Turnagain Arm M1.1 14.8 (9.2)on ---45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Direct Lay Submarine 3,5 and7 3 and 5 M1.3 8.1 (5.0)------45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Embed &Trenching Submarine 3,5 and7 3 and 5 M2.1 6.1 (3.8)Pipeline ---45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Direct Lay Submarine 3,5 and 7 3 and 5 M2.2 16.3 (10.1)Pipeline Coastal Wildlife Refuge 45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Direct Lay,Embed and Trenching Submarine 3,5 and 7 3 and 5 M2.3 4.8 (3.0)--Coastal Wildlife Refuge 45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Embed and Trenching Submarine 3,5 and7 3 and 5 M2.4 27.7 (17.2)-----V'45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Direct Lay,Embed and Trenching Submarine 3,5 and 7 3 and 5 M3.1 19.6 (12.2)---Coastal Wildlife Refuge 45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Direct Lay,Embed,Trenching &Submarine 3,5,6 and7 3 and 5 HDD M3.2 0.5 (0.3)---Victor Road 9.1 (30)---Submarine cable Trenching***Submarine 1 | M4.1 19.2 (11.9)---Coastal Wildlife Refuge 45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Embed,Trenching and HDD Submarine 3,5,6and7 3 and 5 M5.3 15.6 (9.7)--Coastal Wildlife Refuge 45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Embed,Trenching and HDD Submarine 3,5,6 and 7 3 and 5 MS5.4 18.0 (11.2)---Coastal Wildlife Refuge 45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Embed,Trenching and HDD Submarine 3,5,6 and 7 3 and 5 MS.5 26.1 (16.2)---Coastal Wildlife Refuge 45.72 (150)---Submarine cable Embed and Trenching Submarine 3,5 and 7 3 and 5 Kenai Lowland Tl.1.5 (0.9)Roadway Commercial/residential/two airstrips 9.1 (30)Paved road Underground Cable**|Duct Bank Type 1,Cable Installation Summer 1 | T2.1 5.5 (3.4)Roadway Captain Cook SRA 9.1 (30)Paved road Underground cable {Duct Bank Type 1,Cable Installation Summer lor2 1 or 2 72.1 1.0 (0.6)Two pipelines Captain Cook SRA 9.1 (30)FWD road Underground cable {Duct Bank Type 1,Cable Installation Summer lor2 lor2 74.3 0.6 (0.4)FWD road CIRI -airstrip 9.1 (0)FWD road Underground***Trenching***Submarine 1,2,3,5 1,2 and 5 75.2 1.6 (1.0)Pipeline Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 9.1 (30)Trail Submarine cable*Trenching***Submarine 2 or 3 2 or 3 CIRI -Cook Inlet Region,Inc.FWD -four-wheel drive HDD -horizontal directional drill SRA -State Recreation Area Construction Timing:Construction and Operation and Maintenance Methods:Duct Bank Types:*Mitigation Winter Season -Frozen:November to March 1 -Rubber-tired vehicle Pickup trucks,bucket trucks,loaders,backhoe,trenchers Type |-See Figure UG-07 **Two airstrips in this link.Underground across the end of runwaysSummerSeason-Thawed:April to October 2 -Tracked Vehicle NODWELL,bulldozers,backhoe Type 2 -See Figure UG-08 assumed as mitigation.To be discussed with airstrip owners forSubmarineCable-May to June is preferred 3 -Special Equipment Swamp Buggy,low ground pressure vehicles final configuration.Balance of link is overhead. 4 -Aerial Helicopter,fixed-wing aircraft ***Underground construction techniques would be used to direct bury5-Submarine Cable barge and special equipment submarine cable on land without the armor normally used for6-Horizontal Directional Drilling Casing HDD drill rig marine conditions. 7 -Specialized Submarine Embedment Special submarine water-jet type or marine floor trenching Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-175 July 1999 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal wind blowing through the air across the conductors.For heat dissipation,the backfill materials used to fill the trench after placing the cables also must be designed to effectively draw the heat away from the high-voltage cables and keep them cool.The design and construction of an underground transmission line is more complex than for an overhead line,and careful attention to many details is necessary to provide for an economical and reliable underground transmission line. Underground Land Cable System Design Table 2-25 lists the components of a typical cable design developed for the cross linked polyethylene (XLPE)high-voltage extruded dielectric (HVED)cables that are proposed for installation underground.The cable is sized for conduit installation.A typical cross-section of the proposed XLPE cable can be found with other high-voltage underground (HVUG)cable type figures (Figure UG-04 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume). Underground Duct Bank and Types The duct bank is a horizontal configuration with four 15.2 cm (6-inch)conduits lying flat and encased in concrete.Figure UGDB-01 (in the map Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume)shows the proposed arrangement. Some sites may not be suitable for the construction of concrete-encased duct banks.For those sites where a concrete-encased duct bank would be impractical because of the summer or winter environmental conditions,for such activities as pouring concrete or maintaining an open trench, a duct bank casing pipe trench would be installed.A duct bank casing pipe trench,shown on Figure UGDB-02 (in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume),would allow a pipe casing to be installed with a narrower trench.The trench also would be open for a shorter duration compared to a concrete-encased duct bank. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-176 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX1iSYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final:CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-25 HIGH-VOLTAGE EXTRUDED DIELECTRIC LAND CABLE DESIGN AND SYSTEM COMPONENTS -138kV Item Description Conductor size mm?500 -Cu -stranded Conductor shield Extruded S/C material Insulation 18 mm XLPE Insulation shield Extruded S/C material Metallic sheath Lead alloy Jacket Polyethylene Approximate cable weight -kg/m 16 Transition joints or transition structures, submarine cable to land cable or overhead line Varies,depending on design details.Single-phase joints are needed to connect submarine cable to land cable,or an overhead structure is needed to connect submarine cable to overhead line. Terminations 3 required if transition joints are used 6 required if transition joints are not used High voltage surge protectors 1 for each termination Manholes 1 for every 3 splices (if X-bonded) Hand hole boxes 1 for every 3 splices (if solid bonded) Splices -solid bonded 3 for approximately every 914.4 meters (3.000 feet) Splices -X-bonded 3 for approximately every 914.4 meters (3.000 feet) Grounding box -if solid bonded |at each splice location Link box -if X-bonded 1 at each splice location Jacket surge protection -if X-bonding 1 on each phase at open sheath connected termination Underground Facility Construction Activities Construction time for the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area underground portion of this Project would vary depending on the route selected.The construction of the underground portion of this Project can be divided into construction phases to shorten construction time and maximize the use of local contractors on a phase-to-phase basis if desired.The underground construction of a circuit mile is typically more time-and cost-demanding than a mile of an equivalent overhead construction line.Specific construction activities would take place prior to and during the underground cable installation.The activities include the following: soil borings and thermal resistivity testing of the soil surveying clearing site preparation foundation installation structure erection duct bank system installation 2-177 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 WDM_PHXNSYS\DATA\PRON09203\000"\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc ®cable installation m cable testing ™termination and splicing of underground cables These activities occur in a specific order described below along with the materials and equipment required.: Soil Borings and Thermal Resistivity Testing for Underground Facilities Soil borings would be taken and tested to determine thermal resistivity of the soils.The boring holes resulting from the tests would be immediately backfilled with the spoil from drilling the holes.As a result of the soil tests,backfill material for the trench following installation would be specified as either trench spoil (the material excavated from the trench),an appropriate selected backfill,or a combination of both select backfill and trench spoil material. Surveving for Underground Facilities Surveying would be accomplished by a combination of aerial and ground survey methods. Required aerial ground control would be limited to roads and trails.Ground surveying would be required in areas of heavy vegetation.Surveying on the right-of-way would be required for locating facilities and soil borings.This survey work on the right-of-way may involve limited trimming of trees and vegetation for line-of-sight staking and distance measuring.Section and quarter-section corners would be located to register survey to pre-established coordinates and boundaries.The edge of the right-of-way would be staked in areas where construction clearing is required. Clearing for Underground Facilities Clearing would be performed as required to allow for access and construction of the underground line and to maintain access for operation and maintenance of the underground system.Trees on the right-of-way would be cut as close to the ground as possible to allow equipment access. Clearing material would be disposed in compliance with local ordinances and in accordance with landowner requests and agreements. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-178 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Finali;CHAPTER 2 doc Site Preparation for Underground Facilities During construction,manhole locations require room to access the site for cable pulling and splicing activities.Transition station locations have these same requirements.The operation and maintenance access for the underground cable requires site access roads to the transition sites, riser poles,and manholes.There would be some clearing of access roads and trails,and the leveling of work sites for these activities,which would be accessed by existing public roads to the extent possible.The Anchorage area allows the majority of the underground transition locations to be accessed by public roads.. Underground Duct Bank System Installation Trenching Trenching operations for installation of an underground duct bank raceway system would involve similar procedures for the two types of underground duct bank proposed.Either a conventional concrete-encased duct bank or a duct bank casing pipe raceway system could be used,depending on location. Trenching operations would be staged in intervals,with a typical construction sequence having a duration of three to five days per 91.4 to 152.4 meters (300 to 500 feet)for concrete encased duct bank,and a duration of three to five days per 243.8 to 304.8 meters (800 to 1,000 feet)of casing pipe duct bank installation.A typical trench would be 1.07 to 1.2 meters (3.5 to 4 feet)wide with a depth of 1.5 meters (5 feet).The amount of trench open at any one time would be limited to the length required to facilitate the duct bank installation process. In general,underground crossings of roads and railroads would be bored as described below. However,some locations along the proposed routes may require pavement cutting.These locations may include some roadways,driveways,parking lots,and access roads.At these locations,installation work would require ground breaking of the surface layer materials.In the event the route is in line with paved areas,pavement and subsurface material would be removed from the site and disposed of at an appropriate location according to local regulations and guidelines. Trench spoil would be stockpiled alongside the open trench.Topsoil will be segregated from other soil and replaced separately to promote revegetation.Trench sheeting and shoring would be installed to maintain trench walls in trench segments that are deeper than 1.5 meters (5 feet)and in segments that exhibit unstable soils.Where necessary,temporary fence and traffic control barriers would be used to restrict public access.Traffic would be maintained in areas requiring vehicular traffic crossing of the open trench with steel plating and trench bridging as required. Southem Intertie Project EVAL 2-179 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 ,the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX ASYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc After installation of the duct bank,the ground surface would be restored.Cleared areas would be revegetated in a manner consistent with the surrounding area.Areas involving pavement cutting would be restored by compacting the soil and repaving in conformance with applicable specifications. Underground Concrete-Encased Duct Bank The 138kV HVED XLPE underground transmission system would be installed with 10.2-to 15.2-cm (4-inch to 6-inch)polyvinyl chloride (PVC)conduits in a flat horizontal configuration duct bank encased in concrete (refer to Figure UGDB-01 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume).The conduits would be assembled into place in the trench using "chairs” or "spacers”to keep them off the trench bottom and away from the trench sides.Concrete then would be poured to completely encase the conduits with a minimum of 7.6 cm (3 inches)of concrete around the conduits.After the concrete sets up for a 24-hour period,backfilling and compaction may be completed above the duct bank.The equipment required for this installation is listed later in this section. The concrete-encased duct bank installation would prove useful in areas close to public access roads such as North Kenai Road and in Captain Cook SRA in the Kenai Lowlands region.The concrete-encased duct bank installation would be the proposed method of installation in the Anchorage area regions. Underground Duct Bank Casing Pipe Areas involving installation challenges due to limited access,environmental conditions,and limited construction season would involve the use of a duct bank casing pipe (refer to Figure UGDB-02 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume).The installation of this duct bank raceway type would be very similar to the installation of a single pipeline.The high- voltage cable conduit would be installed in a 60.1-to 76.2-cm (24-to 30-inch)polyethylene or steel pipe.The pipe section would be laid along the ground next to an open trench before installation and the pipe would be laid out along the right-of-way and installed and backfilled simultaneously.After placement in the trench,a concrete slurry would be pumped in the casing pipe at the fill tube locations to fill the casing annulus.Fill tubes would be cut off below grade and sealed.The same duct bank casing arrangement would be used for road and railroad crossings that are not conducive to open cut trenching.However,in those crossings a steel casing would be used.The casing would be installed by a jack and bore method.This technique involves pushing a casing under a road or railroad for crossing distances from 30.5 to 121.9 meters (100 to 400 feet)in length. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-180 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI'SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\FnahCHAPTER 2 doc In these instances,a launching pit would be installed on one side of the crossing and a receiving pit would be located in line on the other side of the crossing.A jack and bore machine would be anchored in the launching pit.An auger would be installed inside the casing pipe to return the tailings.The ram of the jack and bore machine would push the casing pipe horizontally under the crossing while the auger simultaneously excavates the leading end spoil materials.Each section of pipe would be subsequently welded to the end of the last pipe section pushed into the bore hole until the crossing is completed,with the first pipe section daylighting into the receiving pit. Cleanup of Underground Facility Construction Affected areas would be cleaned up as the construction activities progress and are completed.All waste and scrap materials would be removed from the right-of-way and deposited in local permitted landfills in conformance with local ordinance or in accordance with landowners agreements.Ruts and holes resulting from construction activities around structures and along the right-of-way would be repaired.Revegetation and restoration would be conducted as required. Storage and Staging Yards for Underground Facility Construction Construction material storage yards may be located along or near highways,trails,or pipelines in the vicinity of the Project area.The locations of these storage yards are determined by the construction contractor and typically are located as often as required for efficient operation.They are up to two acres in size.and probably would be leased property.After construction is completed.all debris and unused materials would be removed and the staging/storage yards would be returned to pre-construction conditions by the construction contractor.Trench spoil would be stockpiled alongside the open trench in all areas where trenching is required for duct bank installation. Expected Underground Facility Construction Equipment Construction of the underground portion of a transmission line project requires much of the same equipment required for overhead line construction.During the duct bank,transition site,and riser pole installations,right-of-way access is required.As with other construction projects the contractor methods of approaching the construction may vary.Tables 2-26 and 2-27 list equipment that would most probably be used for construction,operation,and maintenance access. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-181 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WOM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\1FinalCHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-26 UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION Construction Types Access Construction Equipment ]Existing roadways Rubber-tired vehicles 1,2 Existing trails NODWELL 3 Soft,difficult trails Special sized equipment,low bearing pressure 1,5 Stream crossing Rubber-tired vehicles special equipment-bridge TABLE 2-27 EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS Construction Crew Types Access Crews |Size Equipment Needed 1,2,3 Soil boring/1-2 3-4 Rubber-tire-tracked vehicle,pickup truck geotechnical 1,2 Survey 2-3 3-4 Pickup truck,ATV 1,2,3 Clearing 3-4 2-3 Hydroaxe,chain saws,brush hog,bulldozer,pickup truck 1,2,3,4 Riser pole 1-3 3-4 Auger,bulldozer,NODWELL,air compressor, installation generator,pickup truck.crane or helicopter 1,2,3 Duct bank 1-3 6-8 D-7 CAT,200 Hitachi or 100 Komatsu excavators installation (long carriage/wide track,if required) 1,2,3,Cable pulling 3 1-2 man,|Reel strands,cable,arbors,bullwheel,pulling 1-3 man,|winch,arnco or mousing winch,crane 100-ton, 1-7 man |tractor with low boy trailer,or helicopter dynamometer,generator compressor,water pump 1,2.3 Splicing of 2 2-3 Rubber-tired vehicles,pickup trucks,generators, underground splice container,25-ton crane,tractor with lowboy cable 1,2.3 Termination of 3 2-3 Bucket trucks or scaffold,15-ton crane,tarping, underground generators,pickup trucks cable 1,2,5 Cleanup and 1-3 2-3 Pickup trucks,dump tricks,NODWELL,loader demobilize Expected Underground Facility Construction Methods by Link Contractors use similar methods for underground transmission line construction,but each contractor may approach each project in a different manner.However,each contractor would be required to work within the requirements of the Project agreement between the owner and landowners.The types of construction activities that would take place on each link are listed in Table 2-24. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-182 July 1999 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc Work Force Size for Underground Facility Construction The underground portions of the proposed transmission line would be constructed under contract by a qualified company with experience in the installation of high-voltage underground systems. Time and other factors such as season and terrain would affect the number and sizes of crews. The contractor selected for construction would determine the size of the work force.It is anticipated that personnel for the work force would be hired locally and others imported from other areas.. Construction Seasons for Underground Facilities In the Kenai Lowlands,the underground transmission line construction along north Kenai Road and in the Captain Cook SRA would take place during the summer season as would the underground construction in the Anchorage area.Underground construction may be required in other areas.For these areas,the construction season,summer or winter,and specific requirements for construction would be determined as the plan of development is prepared and in conjunction with obtaining applicable permits. Access to Underground Facilities Existing roads,bridges,field roads,and trails would be used for access to the right-of-way and tower sites.Where this is not possible,equipment would be required to move over land with minimal impact.Soft soils may require additional support such as mats or temporary bridges.In some cases,a temporary culvert may be installed where a stream is crossed.Construction trails would be graded and revegetated in accordance with the approved mitigation plan.Existing roads and trails would be maintained and repaired as required during use by the construction contractor. Clearing would be performed as required to allow for access and construction of the underground line and to maintain access for operation and maintenance of the underground system.Gates would be installed,as required.in existing fences located on the right-of-way to facilitate construction access. Survey work on the right-of-way may involve limited trimming of trees and vegetation for line- of-sight staking and distance measuring.No new roads would be established during surveying, since only survey crews and their equipment would be involved. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-183 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Operation and Maintenance of Underground Facilities Operation As described for the overhead segments of the proposed transmission line,the day-to-day operation of the transmission line (the connected overhead,underground,and submarine segments)would be directed by system dispatchers in power control centers.These dispatchers use supervisory equipment to operate circuit breakers at each end of the line.The circuit breakers also operate automatically to further ensure safe operation of the transmission line. Maintenance The following would be maintenance requirements on the:underground cable: _-™periodic visual inspection of cable terminators,link boxes,and splices S integrity testing of cable jacket Abandonment of Underground Facilities At the end of the useful life of the proposed Project,if the facilities were no longer required,the underground cable would be abandoned in place.The transition poles and stations,terminations, arresters,and hardware could be dismantled and removed from the right-of-way.Cable vaults (manholes)could be filled with sand or sealed,and the surface area restored to pre-Project conditions. Submarine Cable Turnagain Arm,between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage,would be crossed using a transmission cable specially designed for the marine environment.This section provides a description of the proposed design characteristics,facilities,construction activities,access, operation and maintenance,and abandonment of submarine transmission lines. Submarine Facilities Description Submarine cable is specially designed to accommodate a wide range of marine floor conditions _ and varying seabed materials.Submarine cables are typically subject to much more onerous Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-184 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\0091Final\CHAPTER 2 doc installation and service conditions than an equivalent underground land cable and it is necessary to design each cable to withstand the environmental conditions prevailing along the specific route.Each submarine transmission line route crossing the Turnagain Arm on this Project involves a wide range of unique conditions resulting from significant tidal flow,marine bed material movement,strong currents,and ice scour.The selection of submarine cable systems as well as the installation techniques proposed are designed to address these unique and adverse conditions.Submarine cables will be double-armored to minimize or prevent damage to the cable from natural hazards in submarine and terrestrial environments. t Submarine Cable Systems Submarine cables can be manufactured in various configurations depending on the voltage level and conductor size required for the application,and submarine cable systems consisting of three- core (three conductors)and single-core (one conductor)cables are common depending on restrictions of ampacity and losses,and cable lengths.For the security and reliability of power supply,a three-core cable system requires a second cable to be installed,and a single-core cable system typically requires four cables for a three-phase circuit scheme,with the fourth cable being an on-line spare in the event of one of the operating phases being damaged. Two different types of submarine cable systems are being considered for this Project: 1.single-core (one conductor)self-contained fluid-filled (SCFF)with four individual submarine cables The SCFF submarine cable design consists of a hollow core conductor insulated with dielectric fluid impregnated craft paper,an electrically shielding lead sheath moisture barrier,and an armoring system designed for the site-specific environment.Figure UG-01 (in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume)represents a cross-section of a single-core SCFF cable. 2.three-core SCFF (three conductors)with an on-line spare consisting of a second three- core submarine cable The three-core SCFF cable consists of three conductors with each conductor insulated with dielectric impregnated craft paper and electrically shielded with a metallic binder tape.A lead sheath moisture barrier is applied that encompasses all three insulated and shielded cables.The three insulated and shielded conductors are arranged in a round trefoil or a flat oval configuration.Figures UG-02 and UG-03 (in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume)represent cross-sections of three-core SCFF submarine and a flat-type three-core submarine cable,respectively. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-185 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \\WDM_PHX \SYS\DATA\PROJ09203\009\F ina\CHAPTER 2 doc Typical submarine cable designs considered for this Project include three different types of SCFF cables.Table 2-28 identifies the components of each type of cable design. Either single-core SCFF submarine cable or three-core SCFF submarine cable would be selected for this Project.The final selection would depend on the final submarine corridor survey results and offers from qualified suppliers of these types of systems.The suppliers bids would be evaluated based on the best technical,environmental and cost advantages offered.Discussion of these cables and technology,advantages,reliability,and selection are provided in the Project Route Selection Study,Phase 1 Final Design Section Report (Power Engineers 1996). Submarine Cable Construction Activities Although the submarine cables for this Project are specially designed to accommodate a wide range of marine floor conditions,the installation of each submarine cable is an important part of the cable system operating life span.The installation of the submarine cables on this Project would include various construction techniques to accommodate each different in-situ environmental condition along a specific shore/marine route.The three conditions of installation involve (1)shore-tail installation,(2)tidal mud flats,and (3)deep channel crossings. The submarine cable installation techniques proposed would be designed to address each of the three conditions and selected appropriately for the specific location.Table 2-24 identifies construction activities by project region. There are a number of installation techniques available for each of the three conditions identified above.All the appropriate installation techniques determined to be applicable to this Project are presented in this section.Final selection of each installation technique would depend on final pre-installation surveys,equipment availability,and contractor preference. Table 2-29 identifies equipment that would be required to complete the installation activities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-186 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX SY S\DATA\PRON09203\009'\Fmal\CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-28 TYPICAL SUBMARINE CABLE DESIGNS SUBMARINE CABLE CONSTRUCTIONS --138KV Cable Item Single Conductor SCFF Three Conductor Flat SCFF Three Conductor SCFF Conductor size mm-300-400-Cu-hollow core 300-400-Cu-stranded 300-400-Cu-stranded Conductor shield Carbon black paper Carbon black paper *Carbon black paper Insulation 1 ]-millimeter (0.433- inch)impregnated paper 11-millimeter (0.433- inch)impregnated paper 11-millimeter (0.433-inch) impregnated paper Insulation shield Carbon black paper and |Carbon black paper Carbon black paper metallized paper Metallic sheath Lead alloy Carbon black paper and }Carbon black paper and copper aluminum foil fabric Overall metallic Lead alloy Lead alloy sheath Reinforcement Stainless steel tape and |Copper tapes,Copper tape fabric tape corrugated bronze tapes on each flat side wrapped with copper wires Binder Fabric tape Fabric tape Anticorrosion jacket'Polyethylene jacket Included in the armor bedding Stainless steel tape Armor bedding Polyethylene yarn Asphalt,polypropylene yarn,asphalt, impregnated crepe paper,self adhesive PE tape.asphalt, polypropylene yarn and asphalt Fabric tape Polyethylene jacket Copper tape Armor Galvanized steel wires or galvanized steel wires and zinc wires Galvanized steel wires Galvanized steel wires 2nd Armor bedding Polyethylene varn N/A Polyethylene yarn Armor Galvanized steel wire and zinc wires N/A Galvanized steel wire and zinc wire Outer serving Polypropylene yarn Asphalt,polypro- pylene yarn,asphalt, polypropylene yarn asphalt and chalk Asphalt and polypropylene yarn Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PRON09203\009F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc 2-187 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal TABLE 2-29 SUBMARINE CABLE INSTALLATION EQUIPMENT Const.#Installation Crew Types*Access Technique Crews |Size Equipment Needed ]Final survey Navigation 1 3-4 Marine survey equipment Site Barge Small barge for setting marker buoys, preparation Land clearing setting anchors and trial mooring Front loaders for clearing of cable landingareas 7 Deep channel |Anchor pull line |1-2 5-6 Cable barge+ Direct laying Free boat tow Tug boat Submarine Cable guide boats 1,2,3,5,|Tidal mud flats |Conventional 1-2 3-4 D-7 CAT 6&7*Shore trail trenching '|200 Hitachi or 100 Komatsu excavators installation Horizontal 1-2 5-6 HDD Drill Rig # directional drill (HDD) Embedment 1-2 5-6 Simultaneous & )After Laying A.Hydraulic 1-2 5-6 A.Cable barge+ jetting Special submarine water jet type burying machine B.Marine floor |1-2 5-6 B.Cable barge+ trenching Special submarine marine floor trenching machine +Typical cable barge equipment:#Typical HDD rig and support equipment: m=cable coiling equipment ®HDD hydraulic-powered drill rig =cable brake equipment m hydraulic crane @ cable skid and rollers ®fresh water tank ™generators ==bentonite and water mix tank =winches @ generator =radio communication system =mud motor and pumping facilities =™navigation equipment @ =drill head control cab trailer ®cable floats ®computerized guidance system ®crane @ ==drillers mud and re-circulating and screening equipment =radio communication system utility trailer *Construction types are defined in Table 2-24. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-188 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 \WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc the Applicant's Proposal Final Survey and Site Preparation for Submarine Cable Installation Final Survey A final survey would be based on a preliminary survey taken during the detailed design phase of the Project,that would identify certain objectives such as local conditions and confirm the survey areas in detail.The following are features to be identified: landing locations for cable contour and profile of sea bed support facilities cable routes obstruction and hazards in the vicinity access to landing points from land station site selection for the navigation system used in the survey and installation The perimeter of the final survey would include an area wide enough to accommodate a cable spacing adequate to allow the repair of a cable without the risk of damaging adjacent cables.A sub-bottom seismic investigation and core sampling would be undertaken at frequent locations to allow for an accurate interpretation of the seismic recordings.A side scan and bottom scan sonar survey also may be required to locate sea-bed features that may influence the trench cutting and cable burying machinery. A water current survey would be performed where the cable would be laid directly on the bottom.An accurate bathymetric survey to identify exposed rock,wrecks,and other hazards would help in the final location and placement of the cable. A substantial amount of the basic data required could be obtained from official sources.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)normally provides assistance with more detailed information concerning the area than that shown on other published charts. Available information may include adequate figures concerning tidal conditions,shipping activities,location of existing pipeline.weather statistics,and water temperature.If so,only a limited number of current and tidal measurements may be needed to verify that the data apply to the precise location of the selected route.It is normal for power cables to link island to island or islands to a mainland by as short a route as is practical.Consequently,the crossing of a narrow channel can involve working in an area of relatively high tidal currents.These currents could cause movement of the cable and consequential damage.It is therefore essential to know the maximum velocity close to the sea bed. When the prospective routes have been selected it is necessary to prepare profiles of the sea bed. If possible,it is advantageous to record an echo sounding run along each of the specific routes to Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-189 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PROJ\09203\009'F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc confirm the correct interpretation of the survey data.A survey of the landing points to determine the conditions and distance between the underwater section of the route and the actual cable terminal on land would complete the overall picture required. From the full survey data it would be possible to determine the exact length of each route and other features to make an accurate estimate of the cable requirements and allowances for contouring and navigational deviations.The method of cable installation could be determined together with the requirements for the cable laying vessel and other equipment needed to install the cable.. Site Preparation for Submarine Cable Installation Bow and stern moorings are normally required close to:the shore at each end of the route to secure the vessel while the ends of the cable are pulled ashore.The distance of the moorings offshore should be the minimum to ensure the safety of the vessel;their spacing must be adequate to enable all the cables of the system to be handled without repositioning the anchors between each laying operation.Because the handling of the shore ends is a difficult and challenging part of a cable laying operation,it is desirable to minimize the length of cable involved and the time taken during this step at each end of the route. To prevent the cable from being damaged by tidal action or impacts from floating logs,small boats,or other hazards,it is normal to bury the cable from some distance below the low water mark across the beach to the terminal position. If the cable is routed through a rocky area where it is difficult to cut a trench of adequate depth, protection may be provided by fitting cast iron cable protectors,pre-cast concrete troughs or concrete bags. After the cable transport vessel arrives on site,the cable would be relocated to a cable installation barge using cable coiling equipment.The normal procedure is for the cable barge and guide ships to practice the process they will use to lay the cable.This includes entering moorings at the starting end.leaving the moorings,navigating along the cable route at cable laying speed,and entering moorings at the finishing end.During this practice,useful records of the sea-bed profile can be obtained,and the manager of the installation operation and captain of the vessel can become familiar with the special requirements for handling his vessel during cabling operations. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-190 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA''PROJ\09203\009\Final\;CHAPTER 2 doc Shore-Tail Submarine Cable Installation Shore-tail installation involves the landing of the submarine cable at the departure receiving end of the crossing.Installation of the submarine cable at the Turnagain Arm shores would be accomplished by various methods,depending on the specific route selected and the existing conditions at each shore.The supplier of the submarine cable system would be responsible for final selection of installation methods. The following methods would be expected to be used for landing the submarine cable at the water crossing shore-tail: . ™conventional trenching m direct embedment -hydraulic pressure jetting equipment -marine floor trenching equipment =horizontal directional drill installation Conventional Submarine Trenching Conventional trenching would occur on the Turnagain Arm,Kenai Lowlands,and Anchorage area,and would involve the use of typical excavating equipment to open a trench in the tidal mud flat just before the shore line and in the shore landing area along the submarine cable route.The submarine cable then would be paid-off the cable-laying barge onto cable floats and pulled to shore in line with the open cable trench. Figure SUBM-04 (in the map volume)shows a typical shore-tail submarine cable landing.The trench would be backfilled and compacted with the spoil from the trench to maintain the same _type of fill as found at that location on the beach,and the surface graded to the same slope as existed prior to the installation.Figure SUBM-01 (in the map volume)shows the final condition of a installed submarine cable at each shore end. Direct Embedment Submarine Cable Installation Direct embedment of submarine cable may involve the simultaneous excavation,cable laying, and backfilling as a continuous installation operation.This type of operation involves equipment designed specifically for submarine cable installation.Typically,this type of equipment may be operated on the marine floor,in soft tidal flats above the water level and in soft shore-landing areas.The method of excavation depends on the specific equipment,but this type of installation Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-191 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009'Final\CHAPTER 2.doc is generally performed by hydraulic pressure water-jet cutting or belt-mounted cutting teeth on a trench machine arm. Figure SUBM-02 (in the map volume)shows a typical simultaneous direct embedment profile. Another method of direct embedment involves the pre-installation of a guide line to help guide specialized embedment equipment,as shown on Figure SUBM-05 (in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume).This method requires an initial crossing for each embedment laying of submarine cable but helps ensure that the submariné cable stays on course and proves each course before the cable laying operation begins.Typically,the shore end installation is completed with conventional trenching. Horizontal Directional Drill Submarine Cable Installation The Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)shore-tail installation across the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR)involves more expensive equipment than traditionally used for submarine cable landing activities and more procedures than the previous traditional methods. The HDD method is typically used when conventional excavating equipment can not be used or if surface obstructions or environmental conditions do not allow surface construction activity. The four-step process is shown on Figures SUBM-06,SUBM-07,SUBM-08,and SUBM-09 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume.The major steps for installation are as follows: m Step 1:Installation of Drill String-The HDD equipment drills a catenary-shaped pilot hole from shore to an area up to 914.4 to 1,219.2 meters (3,000 to 4,000 feet)into the waterway or tidal flat area (see Figure SUBM-06 in the map volume). m Step 2:Pull Back Installation of Product Pipe Casing--The installation of casing pipe involves preparing the casing by welding the appropriate number of pipes into a long continuous segment.The pipe end is then attached to the drill string along with a back reaming head.The HDD rig pulls the drill string and casing back through the pilot hole while back-reaming the hole so it is large enough to accommodate the casing pipe.The casing ends are then positioned horizontally and the submarine cable feed end is fitted with a bell end to accept the pull through of the cable.A plan and profile of this step is shown on Figure SUBM-07 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume. =Step 3:Submarine Cable Payoff and Installation in the HDD Casing-This step involves the payoff of the submarine cable from the cable barge and pulling the cable through the HDD casing via pulling line and winch.A plan and profile of this step is shown on Figure SUBM-08 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-192 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ09203\009Final\CHAPTER 2 doc m=Step 4:Embedment of Submarine Cable at HDD Casing Ends -The submarine cable is buried at each end of the casing.The casing is then filled by pump with a sand slurry and the ends are plugged and the access pits are backfilled.A plan and profile of this step is shown on Figure SUBM-09 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume. Tidal Mud Flats Submarine Cable Installation Equipment The tidal mud flat areas of the Turnagain Arm have characteristics similar to a soft shore, consisting of sands,clays,and cobbles.The direct embedment equipment used for the marine floor sediment installation would have the ability to embed the submarine cable in the mud flats during high or low tides.A submarine water jet type excavation machine would be capable of operating in soft soils and relatively loose sediment,although it would be limited by the availability of water supply.A submarine marine floor:trenching machine would have better excavation performance in more dense soils.The production rate for embedment would be slower in the mud flats due to the density of the material being excavated.In some cases conventional trenching may be required to properly embed the submarine cable in these areas. This installation procedure for embedment in the mud flats by direct embedment equipment or conventional trenching would be similar to the shore-tail installation procedures,except for the following differences involving the mud flat installations: 1.The cable barge would pre-lay the submarine cable before embedment/backfill. 2.The trenching installation operation may be interrupted by the tidal flows.The conventional trenching and back hoe would operate from a barge,or drive off a barge on to the mud flat during low tide to perform trenching and the return to the barge and remain idle during high tide. 3.The direct embedment installation operation may be interrupted by the tidal flows.The direct embedment type equipment may need to be anchored or removed and idle during the incoming and ebb tide. Deep Channel Direct Submarine Cable Laying Equipment The Turnagain Arm waterway has tidal flows in excess of 9.1 meters (30 feet).Low tide stages expose approximately 20 percent of the waterway,leaving extensive mud flats.The deep channels of the waterway have currents up to eight knots that do not allow practical submarine cable embedment.Direct lay submarine cable installation is proposed for the deep channels of Turnagain Arm.The direct laying methods of free-boat direct laying and anchor-pull direct Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-193 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc laying provides a pictorial representation of each method (Figure SUBM-03 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume).Due to strong currents and frequency of the ebb and flood tides,the anchor-pull direct laying method would be expected to be the predominant method of installation in the deep channel areas on this Project. Construction Seasons for Submarine Cables Installation of the submarine cables must occur when the Turnagain Arm is free of ice and ideally when wind speeds are lowest.Experience indicates that the months of May through August are suitable,with May and June being preferred,as wind speeds are generally lower during these months. Access to Submarine Cables Access to the submarine cable right-of-way would be primarily by watercraft (e.g.,boat or work barge).Excavation equipment could access the shore-tail landing areas by land where there are roads or trails leading to the work area.For the shore-tail landing areas without road or trail access,the installation equipment would be transported to the work sites by barges.Most installation equipment for the laying of the cable would be moved to the work sites by barges or boats. Operation and Maintenance of Submarine Cables Operation As described above for the overhead and underground segments of the proposed transmission line,the day-to-day operation of the line (i.e..the connected overhead,underground,and submarine segments)would be directed by system dispatchers in power control centers.The dispatchers use supervisory equipment to operate circuit breakers at each end of the line.The circuit breakers also operate automatically to further ensure safe operation of the transmission line. Maintenance Maintenance of the submarine cable transmission line would involve a periodic marine survey to inspect the condition of the marine floor along the cable route and to evaluate the possibility of any external mechanical damage. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-194 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Periodic Survey and Testing of Submarine Cables The frequency of the surveys would be once every five years.This would be accomplished with a small boat and hydrographic survey equipment. Cathodic protection testing equipment would be temporarily located at the terminal ends of the submarine cable approximately once every two years to determine the integrity of the submarine cable armor wire. ' Submarine Cable Repair and Replacement Since 1967,Chugach Electric Association (CEA)has been installing,operating,and replacing submarine cables in the Knik Arm and has experience with catastrophic and non-catastrophic outages of their submarine cables.During the summer of 1999,four new cables,similar to those proposed for the Southern Intertie Project,will be installed from Pt.Woronzof to Pt.McKenzie to replace existing failed cables that are now inactive. The outage performance of CEA's existing submarine cables has been analyzed and the projected outage rates for the proposed submarine cables crossing the Turnagain Arm are summarized in Section 2.6 and Table 2-16.For example,with two three phase cables directly embedded in the sea floor along the Enstar route,and based on the performance history of the existing cables,0.6 unscheduled outages are projected during the 40-year Project life. Submarine cables are filled with biodegradable alkylbenzene oil (Butterworth Laboratories,Ltd. 1989).The fluid in cables currently crossing Knik Arm of Upper Cook Inlet is a synthetic extra fluid alkynate,a benzene derivative with a C-10 hydrocarbon chain.Leak rates of previously damaged cables in Knik Arm have been between 2.5 and 9 gallons per day.There,it was estimated that with a leak rate of 2.5 gallons per day,the concentration of the fluid in the initial mixing zone would be 0.25 parts per billion.Toxic effects were not reported.Were a cable to be damaged in the Turnagain Arm,the situation would also likely cause no toxic effects.Because of the large dimension of the receiving water.and a large degree of mixing achieved by tidal turbulence,the water has a very large assimilative capacity and so the effective concentration of the fluid in the water would be negligible.No hazardous constituents have been identified in the insulating fluid.Further,toxicity to marine organisms has not been found in either laboratory tests or in actual occasions of leaks of the insulating fluid.Two studies by Italian laboratories to assess the toxicity of the fluid to marine and freshwater organisms provided evidence of low toxicity at concentrations greater than would be expected in the event of an actual leak.Several discharges of cable fluid have occurred around the world,including an incident in Connecticut, and no reports of toxic effects have occurred (CEA 1989,1990). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-195 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Fnal\CHAPTER 2 doc Based on CEA experience with the Knik Arm cables,catastrophic failure of a submarine cable results in an initial fluid loss of about 16 gal/hour due to the operating pressure.Within 1 to 2 hours of the failure,the fluid pressure is reduced and the fluid loss drops too less than 1 gal/hour. This flow would be maintained to prevent seawater penetration into the cable until it is determined whether the cable is to be repaired or deactivated and abandoned.If a cable is determined to be unrepairable,then the fluid supply is cut off and the cable abandoned.Once the fluid supply has been cut off,fluid will continue to flow out of the damaged end of the cable until equilibrium is established between the fluid pressure in the cable and surrounding water.An additional 4 to 8 gallons of fluid are lost during this equalization process.Once stabilized,no additional fluid escapes from the cable unless further damage is sustained. A non-catastrophic cable failure is usually first noticed by a loss of fluid pressure.If a spare cable is available,the damaged cable will be taken out of service and the rate of fluid loss determined.The fluid pressure in the damaged cable is then reduced to a level to prevent penetration of seawater.Depending on the severity of the damage,a determination to repair or deactivate and abandon the cable is made.If repair is determined to be feasible,the cable will be maintained with a fluid pressure sufficient to prevent the intrusion of seawater,and the attendant fluid loss (usually about 1 to 2 gallons per day)would continue until repairs can be completed. When a failure has occurred in the past,CEA has notified the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and would do so if cable damage and fluid loss is detected for the proposed Project submarine cables. A decision to repair or abandon a submarine cable involves an assessment of the performance history of the cable and the degree and location of the cable damage.The constant movement of silt and other material in the Turnagain Arm due to tidal action may make recovery.of the submarine cable for repair difficult or infeasible,as the amount of material deposited in a given - area may vary from year to year.The effective burial depth of the cable due to tidal action may be so deep as to effectively prevent exposure of the cable for repair. In the event a submarine cable is not repairable,a complete new cable would be installed using the same procedures used for original installation. Abandonment of Submarine Cables If a submarine cable is determined to be inoperable,the cable would be abandoned in place. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-196 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXINSYS\DATA\PRON09203\009.\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Transition Stations Since three different types of transmission facilities are proposed for this Project-overhead, underground,and submarine-a series of transition stations would be necessary to convert the transmission line from one form to another.This section describes transition stations that convert underground to overhead lines and underground to submarine cables,respectively. Transition Facilities Description A transition station is equipped to change a transmission line from one form to another (e.g., from overhead to underground or to submarine cable). There are two different transition types from underground cable to overhead lines.There are three different transition types proposed for transitions from underground cable to submarine cable,as outlined below. Underground to Overhead Transitions For the transition from underground to overhead lines the first method is the use of a single riser pole termination structure that is fitted with arms to support underground cable terminations and arresters (refer to Drawing TS-05 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume). The riser pole configuration is designed to be accommodated on a single shaft steel pole, typically sited along a roadway as one of the structures in a steel pole transmission line. The second method from underground to overhead is in a transition station that uses a single three-phase termination take off tower structure,H-frame,for the terminal components of both the underground and overhead lines (refer to Drawing TS-06 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume). Underground to Submarine Transitions The first method of transitioning from underground cable to submarine cable is single underground cable circuit entering a transition station where it is terminated on a structure.Four submarine cables also enter the transition station,with three submarine cables going to one termination structure and the fourth submarine cable going to a separate termination structure as a spare.The spare cable termination is on-line and ready to be connected to the station bus through single phase switches in the open position this allows the selection of the spare to be applied to whichever phase that may become inoperable.The underground and submarine cables Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-197 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHX IAS YS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc are tied together by the use of overhead bus (refer to Drawing TS-02 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume). The second method of transitioning from underground cable to submarine cable uses the same underground cables and underground and submarine termination structures as the first method. However,instead of four single-core submarine cables,two sets of three-core submarine cables enter the transition stations and each three-core cable is terminated on a separate structure.This allows an entire on-line spare submarine cable circuit at the station (refer to Drawing TS-04 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume).The spare circuit is connected with three-phase group-operated switches in the open position. The third method of transitioning from underground cable to submarine cable uses one underground cable circuit and two three-core submarine cables or four single-core submarine cables entering and terminating in an SF6 gas insulated substation'(refer to Drawing TS-07 in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume).The gas insulated substation equipment includes the appropriate switches to allow a spare cable or a complete spare circuit to replace the cable or circuit that may become inoperable.Table 2-30 identifies transition site locations and the type of transition for each region of the Project. Riser Pole Termination Structures Riser pole structures are single shaft steel poles,and the methods of construction are much the same as for an overhead transmission line structure.The riser poles for underground cable terminations would be assembled and erected in accordance with the final design project specifications. Access would dictate whether poles would be assembled at existing staging areas along the road or railroad system.Riser poles would be assembled by crane at each site.There would be some leveling of the immediate riser pole site required for pole assembly.The structures and *Gas insulated substations are used when the land available is insufficient to fit a normal air insulated substation on the parcel of land.Basically,the energized substation parts are contained within a sealed metal enclosure and insulated with SF6 (sulfur hexafloride)gas.In this way the overall substation can physically be made much smaller. SF6 gas is commonly and widely utilized in the electric utility industry as an insulating medium for high voltage equipment such as gas insulated substations,pipe type cables,and circuit breakers.SF6 is a colorless,odorless,non- flammable and chemically stable gas that can effectively extinguish electrical arcs.SF6 is widely used as an insulating medium in electric apparatus all over the world.The only danger in breathing pure SF6 gas is that it displaces oxygen and can cause suffocation.When the equipment is maintained,the SF6 gas is removed with a gas service unit,which reclaims and re-cycles the SF6 gas for reuse.The potential for unintended release of the gas is small,but can occur if handling is careless or improper or if the equipment becomes damaged.(Asea Brown Boveri, Publication No.526P003-05,Safe handling Practices for SF6 Gas,March 15,1993 and Publication No.526P214- 01,145 PMI Maintenance,August 16.1994). Southem Intertie Project EVAL 2-198 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc equipment would be transported by truck to the structure site.The sections or complete structures would be lifted by a crane into final position. The proposed location for riser poles transition stations are either along north Kenai Road or in south Anchorage.These locations would be easily accessed by public roads.Existing roadways and trails should allow the erection of riser pole termination structures with conventional equipment cranes. Transition Sites -Stations The fenced transition sites require similar preparation as for a substation,and would require clearing,grading,the placement of a ground grid,structure foundations,fencing,a road to the site,gravel,steel erection,and duct bank installation.The equipment required for these installations is the same as for substation construction,and is listed,under work force size in the substation section. Transition Sites -Submarine Cable Terminal Stations Submarine cable terminal stations would be located typically approximately 243.8 to 304.8 meters (800 to 1,000 feet)on shore where the submarine cable makes landfall for a transition to either an overhead or underground transmission line.The terminal stations would be located within the transition structure at the subject location.This transition would be accomplished in various types of station layouts.Discussion on transition station description and facilities are identified previously in the transition station discussion of this section. The submarine cable terminal station would include the ancillary equipment to support the dielectric fluid supply system and cable terminations.This includes pressurization equipment used for the SCFF submarine cables,also known as low pressured fluid filled cables.The pressurization equipment includes a low pressure,static pressure accumulator (approximately 40 to 60 psig).The equipment is silent.No motors or pumps are used to maintain constant hydraulic pressure in the submarine cables.The pressure 1s maintained through a passive pre-pressurized bladder in a closed hydraulic sealed accumulator.The dielectric fluid system is completely enclosed so no fumes or fluid would normally escape the supply system.In the unlikely event of a fluid leak,a fluid containment system,having sufficient capacity to retain the total volume of supply fluid at the site,would contain the leak. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-199 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM _PHX1\SYS\DATA\PROA09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-30 TRANSITION SITES -SUMMARY OF LOCATIONS AND FEATURES Cable Transition Type and Drawing Reference Submarine Cable Reactor Terminal Overhead/Submarine/|Submarine/Secondary Power Transition Sites Required Required |Solid Dielectric|Overhead |Solid Dielectric}Transition Site Type Footprint Size Enclosure Link Numbers Requirement Tesoro Corridor Kenai Lowlands Rediske Airport-1 TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet)diameter None T1.3 None Rediske Airport-2 TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet)diameter None TI.3 None Johnson Airport-1 TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet)diameter None T1.3 None Johnson Airport-2 TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet)diameter None T1.3 None South End Captain Cook SRA TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet)diameter None T2.1 None North End Captain Cook SRA TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet)diameter None T2.1 None Pt.Possession South x/RC-01 TS-03 Outdoor substation 61.0 x 30.5 meters (200 x 100 feet)Fence T5.1 Yes Turnagain Arm Fire Island South x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet)Fence T4.1 Yes Fire Island North x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet)Fence T4.3 Yes Anchorage Bowl Pt.Woronzof submarine Xx X SS-17 Outdoor substation Existing Fence M1.3 and M2.4 Yes Pt.Campbell X \TS-04 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet)Fence PWI.1 Yes Pt.Woronzof via Pt.Campbell x SS-17 Outdoor substation Existing Fence PWI.1 Yes Klatt Road x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet)Fence 13.1 Yes Enstar Corridor Kenai Lowlands Burnt Island X TS-03.||Outdoor substation [39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet)|Fence |MS5.1 [YesAnchorageBowl Cross Road North X TS-07 Gas insulated substation 9.1 x 9.1 x 7.6-high meters (30 x 30 x 25-high feet)|Small building -_|12.5 Yes 120th Avenue TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet)diameter None 12.5 None Klatt Road x TS-03 Outdoor substation 39.6 x 30.5 meters (130 x 100 feet)Fence 13.1 Yes Shooting Range x TS-07 Gas insulated substation 9.1 x 9.1 x 7.6-high meters (30 x 30 x 25-high feet)Small building -_{12.4 Yes Old Seward Highway TS-05 Riser pole 3.1 meters (10 feet)diameter None 12.4 None Riser pole -Single-shaft steel pole cable riser structure Station -Crushed rock surface with fence control Outdoor substation -Crushed rock surface with fence control of access and small control building GIS -Gas insulated switchgear contained within a building Drawings referenced are in Map Volume TSO -Transition Station A -Air insulated P -Pole structure H H-frame structure G -Gas insulated substation Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 2-200 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal Submarine Cable System Ancillary Equipment and Enclosure The submarine cable terminal stations vary in configuration,but all contain either outdoor or gas insulated structure terminations and their corresponding enclosures or structures.Both termination systems at each end of the submarine cable segment require dielectric fluid-feeding systems for the submarine cables and an automated control and monitoring unit. The hydraulic feeding system is an essential feature of the dielectric fluid-filled submarine cable. The system assures the fluid pressure along the cable is higher than the external water pressure, mainly at the deepest area taking into account the pressure transient variations during the cooling stage due to load variation.For short length dielectric fluid-filled submarine cable installation, conventional hydraulic pressure tanks and appropriate alarm equipment are often adequate for maintaining the dielectric fluid pressure within the cable.On longer cable routes it is often necessary to provide pumping plant and fluid storage tanks at both ends of the route because of the much larger dielectric fluid flow under pressure transient conditions.The pumps are normally duplicated and alarm circuits are provided to signal any malfunction of the pumping equipment. The submarine cable crossings on this Project with segment lengths greater than eight miles would require pumping plant components to supply dielectric fluid pressure. Construction of the transition stations requires the same construction activities and access as the Project substation sites.Refer to the construction activities and access portion of the substations section. Terminal Station Installation The installation of the transition stations would require equipment typically used for the erection of substations.In addition to structures installation.the lifting capacity of the equipment would need to be great enough to lift dielectric fluid tanks,control panels,and monitoring equipment. Construction Seasons for Transition Stations The transition station equipment could be installed during the summer season.The submarine cable terminal dielectric fluid control equipment would be housed in a small building with a controlled climate. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-201 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PROJ.09203\0091Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Access to Transition Stations Beyond the site clearing to install the transition station,a permanent site access would be required.The access requirements would vary with the location and type of transition station.A transition station requires access for construction,cable pulling and termination activities,and operation and maintenance access for inspection and the collection of data.This access would be provided on same roads used to access the high-voltage equipment installed at the sites.A helicopter would be used for routine visits to remote locations for periodic inspections or for repairs not involving heavy equipment.Pt.Possession is the ohly proposed remote transition site with a heavy reactor.While access via land is available along the Tesoro pipeline road,for initial installation,or in the event of a failure,transport of the reactor would likely be by barge. Operation and Maintenance of Transition Stations Operation and maintenance of the transition station site would require structure inspection and,at sites involving submarine cable,the monitoring of the dielectric fluid pressure gauge and alarm system.This would include a visual inspection of the dielectric fluid feeding system,all sites would include inspection including cable terminations and sheath bonding and grounding system.Remote monitoring devices are planned to be installed to assist in operation and maintenance of the facility.Sites would be visited every two to three months.For those sites with reactors and circuit breakers,inspections would take place monthly. Periodic Inspection of Transition Stations Personnel would be dispatched periodically to inspect the transition stations.Sites involving submarine cable would include periodic and annually scheduled inspections of the dielectric fluid pressurization system,pressure loss alarm system,and a visual inspection of all submarine cable terminations and fluid filling feeding system.Equipment testing and operation checkout would be performed approximately every five years. Abandonment of Transition Stations If the transmission line is determined to be inoperable,all equipment,building materials,etc.will be removed from the site and the site restored in accordance with the site mitigation/restoration plan. Transition stations involving submarine cable would include additional removal operations. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-202 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009'\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc Before abandonment or removal,the dielectric fluid in the submarine cable and accessories including the fluid feeding system would be purged with nitrogen and removed from the site and disposed in compliance with all relative environmental regulations.The terminal station site would be cleared of all equipment,construction facilities,and materials and the site restored in accordance with the mitigation plan. Substations This section provides a description of the substation and reactive compensation components of the Project.Included are descriptions of the proposed design characteristics,construction activities,access,operation and maintenance,and abandonment. Substation Facilities Description Preliminary designs for the substations and reactive compensation stations are addressed in the route selection study conducted in 1995 and 1996 by Power Engineers.None of these facilities have been designed specific to this Project;rather the descriptions are based on facilities that are similar to the facilities anticipated for this Project.Typical equipment and structure types and arrangements are based on that route selection study report and modified as a result of more recent work.This section addressed substation arrangements,reactive compensation sites,and substation site modifications. Substation Arrangements In order to optimize the operation.cost of construction and maintenance,and to accommodate future expansion,it is necessary to consider several different configurations for each substation. Final selection of these options requires an in-depth analysis of many factors including:cost, available space,transmission line access,future expansion,operational requirements, maintenance,and reliability.It is beyond the scope of this analysis to determine the exact configuration for each substation.Therefore,we have made assumptions based on configuration of existing stations and previous experience with substations of this type. Of the various substation arrangements commonly used,each has unique characteristics that make it most suitable to a particular application.Each of the selection factors must be weighed as to importance and applicability to the particular applications.For example some arrangements are relatively low cost and highly reliable,but will accommodate only a small number of terminals.In some cases reliability must be weighed against construction and maintenance cost. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-203 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX)\SY S\DATA\PROJ\09203\009'F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc The most commonly used substation arrangements include the single bus-single breaker,main and transfer,ring bus,and breaker and a half schemes.The single bus-single breaker is the least cost,but least reliable of the commonly used arrangements.Circuit breakers cannot be maintained without an outage in the circuit connected to the breaker.A bus fault or breaker failure will cause an outage to the entire station.This arrangement is seldom used at transmission voltages,and is usually reserved for radial sub-transmission or distribution applications. The main and transfer arrangements are similar to the single bus-single breaker in that each circuit is protected by a single circuit breaker.However,this atrangement adds a transfer bus and breaker to allow maintenance of any circuit breaker without an outage.It does not,however, solve the problem of an outage to the entire station from a bus fault or breaker failure.This arrangement is commonly applied at lower transmission voltages (69 to 138kV),except when high reliability is a primary concern. Since reliability is a primary concern for the proposed intertie,two main types of substation arrangements have been selected;ring bus and breaker and a half.These two arrangements strike a reasonable balance between reliability and construction cost.The ring bus is applicable where the number of terminals would not exceed a maximum of four.The breaker and a half would be used for applications where more than four terminals is expected.Where existing stations were to be expanded and use an arrangement other than those selected,the existing configuration was used where practical. Table 2-31 identifies the proposed substation arrangements and corresponding layout drawings for this Project. Ring Bus Substation Arrangement The ring bus is one of the simplest and one of the least expensive (construction cost)of the commonly used arrangements.The circuit breakers are placed between circuits and allow the same number of circuits as there are breakers.Therefore,two breakers must open to clear each line fault.The ring bus station has the same number of breakers as circuits;however,each breaker is shared between two circuits.The ring bus is not very flexible where transmission line exits are physically restricted unless the site is large. It is possible to cause an outage to an unfaulted circuit by isolating it from a source.This can happen if a fault occurs while a breaker is out of service.When a fault is cleared or a breaker is taken out of service,the ring is opened.When the ring is open,it is possible to have unusually heavy current flow in some sections of the bus.This current must flow through the circuit breakers,which may normally have little current flow.It is best to alternate source and load Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-204 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXISYS'DATA\PROJ09203\0091F inal\;CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-31 SUBSTATION SITES -SUMMARY OF LOCATIONS AND FEATURES New Reactive Substation Drawing (150x200 feet),new Substation Site Compensation Reference Footprint Size Link Numbers Comments Kenai Lowlands Bernice Lake -SS-09 57.9x67.1 meters TI.1/south end Ring bus addition to the (190x220 feet),addition substation Soldotna -SS-15 45.7x36.6 meters S1.1/south end Breaker and a half operating (150x120 feet),addition as a ring bus Naptowne (new)Reactor NAP-OI 91.4x109.7 meters 82.1/S1.5 Ring bus stations Bradley Lake and associated Protection and control equipment additions (no drawings) N/A Existing site;located out of study area at the south end ofthe Kenai Peninsula at Bradley Lake New transfer trip protection system Chugach Mountains Existing site;located out of theDavesCreekSVSorTCSCRC-08 45.7x61.0 meters Power system reliability and (150x200 feet),addition study area south of the junction|stability correctionsoftheSterlingandSeward highways Anchorage Bowl International Reactor SS-11 45.7x18.3 meters 16.3/west end Breaker and a half bay (150x60 feet),existing addition Pt.Woronzof Reactor SS-17 91.4x61.0 meters PW1.1/north end Ring bus addition (300x200 feet),addition TCSC -Thyristor-controlled series capacitors. SVC --Static var system Drawings referenced in Map Volume Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-205 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 F \DATA\PROJ\09203:000"1FinalTable 2-31 doc the Applicant's Proposal terminals around the ring to minimize these problems.The probability of these problems occurring increases with the number of terminals,and therefore we have limited the ring bus to applications with four or less terminals. The ring bus station is easy to understand and operate and has relatively few components.It is therefore one of the least likely to have a failure or switching error.A fault on a transmission line would,under normal conditions,cause an outage only to that line.A bus fault would cause an outage only to one terminal. Maintenance work can be done on any circuit breaker in a ring bus station without de-energizing circuits or changing the operation of the system.The ring must be opened,however,and the problems outlined above should be considered. The ring bus station is difficult to expand unless it is planned when the station is first designed. The ring must be opened for long periods of time during construction.One option is to design the ring bus to be expandable to a breaker and a half arrangement.This can be done for a slight increase in cost over the standard ring bus design. Considering economics and existing substation arrangements,the ring bus design would be used for additions to the Bernice Lake and Pt.Woronzof Substations,and for the new Naptowne Substation. Breaker and a HalfSubstation Arrangement The breaker and a half station is relatively simple,although one of the most expensive of the commonly used designs.The circuit breakers are placed between circuits with three breakers for every two circuits.The additional breakers used are the main reason for the higher construction cost.Two breakers must open to clear each line fault.The breaker and a half design is not normally used where the site size or shape is restricted.This arrangement can be used for a large number of terminals,and is usually not used for stations with less than five terminals.It is relatively easy to expand by simply adding bays. The breaker and a half station is fairly easy to understand and operate and therefore the chance of switching errors is not high.However.the greater number of components increases the chance that an equipment failure would occur.An equipment failure,fault or switching error would usually have little effect on the operation of the station.A fault on a transmission line would, under normal conditions,cause an outage only to that line.A bus fault on one of the end busses would not cause an outage to any circuits.A bus fault between circuit breakers would cause an outage to only one circuit. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-206 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX \SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Any circuit breaker may be taken out of service for maintenance work without de-energizing circuits or changing the operation of the station. Considering economics and existing substation arrangements,the breaker and a half arrangement would be used for additions to the Soldotna and International Substations. Reactive Compensation Sites Since no future expansion of the reactive compensation sites is anticipated and the number of terminals is not a factor,the configurations for reactive compensation would be a simple single switched arrangement where the compensation device would be protected and switched using a single circuit breaker.Where reactive compensation is incorporated into existing or new substations,the existing or planned substation configuration would be used for the reactive compensation to the extent possible.Reactive compensation is proposed for additions to the International,Pt.Woronzof and the new Naptowne substation.The transition site at the Pt.Possession south site also would incorporate reactive compensation. Additional Substation Site Modifications Two existing substations that are integral parts of the electric power system in the nearby geographic area are the Daves Creek and the Bradley Lake substations.Daves Creek Substation is located in the Chugach Mountains on the Kenai Peninsula.The Bradley Lake Substation is located at the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Plant on the south end of the Kenai Peninsula.The existing electrical system deficiencies (see Chapter 1)have been studied in detail as a result of system studies by Power Engineers,Inc..and earlier by Power Technologies,Inc.The electrical system study effort included both load flow and dynamic system stability modeling to determine the response of the system to various disturbances and corrective actions.The studies examined the existing system and it's capabilities as well as potential additions to the system to correct the deficiencies. Dave's Creek Substation Modification Based on the results of the electrical system studies,recommendations for additions to the existing system have been made.The existing line needs electrical reinforcement to allow emergency transfers of power during an outage of the new intertie required to maintain system stability,and thus,meet the ASCC criteria for single contingency outages.Electrical reinforcement of the existing line would consist of adding additional special equipment to the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-207 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc existing Dave's Creek Substation.Further technical studies are required to refine the equipment types and specifications. Bradley Lake Substation Modification The Power Engineers,Inc.and the Power Technologies Studies in conjunction with operating experience has determined that transfers above 60 MW out of Bradley Lake can result in system instability if either of the 115kV lines between Bradley Lake 'and Soldotna are suddenly tripped open.To allow an increase of the power output to near the plant generator ratings,a means must be implemented to quickly reduce the generator output in the case of a line trip.This is accomplished by installation of a transfer trip scheme that detects a line breaker operation and sends a signal to trip open the generator breaker for one of the Bradley Lake units.This scheme does not require significant equipment additions in the substation;rather,the majority of the equipment will be added to the existing state of Alaska owned microwave sites between Soldotna and Bradley Lake.The equipment additions are required to improve the reliability of the microwave paths to assure constant communications,and add a dedicated path for the transfer trip signals.Equipment to be added at the Bradley Lake facility would consist of microwave transmit and receive gear along with tone gear to signal and detect transfer trip signals from the remote stations.The equipment would be installed within the existing contro!buildings at the Bradley Lake site and at the microwave sites between Bradley Lake and Soldotna,and are essentially an equipment replacement to the existing microwave system. Communications for Relaying and Control Communications for relaying and control for the Project would utilize the existing microwave system.Upgrades to the microwave system may be necessary and would be determined during final design.It is anticipated that any additional equipment required would be housed within the existing control building at the substation.For any new substations,such as the Naptowne Substation,communications equipment would be contained within the control building at the site,except for the microwave antenna which would be mounted on a mast outside the control building within the substation fenced area.the same as at existing substation sites. An alternative to using the existing microwave system would be to use the fiber optic cable being considered for installation on the transmission line.As part of the final design process,a comparison of the operational benefits of using the fiber optic cable for power system relay and control,as an alternative to upgrading the microwave system would be completed.The equipment required for a fiber optic alternative is similar in size to the microwave equipment, and would be housed within the control building at the substation.One advantage to the fiber optic cable is the bandwidth available for communications over the fiber.In addition to providing Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-208 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS'DAT A\PRO}K09203\000F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc communication and control for the Project,the fiber optic cable could also be designed to have the capacity for other uses,such as for telecommunications.The evaluation of other uses for the fiber optic cable path would be evaluated during the detailed design phase of the Project. Substation Construction Activities Construction activities would occur on the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area during the construction of a substation and would include soil boring,surveying,clearing and grading, grounding,fencing,foundation installation,structure and equipment erection,control building erection,conductor installation,conduit and control cable installation,and cleanup.The sequence and timing of these tasks is determined by specific conditions at the site and contractor preference. Soil Boring for Substations Soil borings would be made typically at three to four locations in the substation,particularly at the approximate location of large structures and equipment such as transmission line deadends and transformers,to determine the engineering properties of the soil.Borings would be made with truck or track-mounted equipment.The borings would be approximately four inches in diameter,range from 6.1 to 9.1 meters (20 to 30 feet)deep,and be backfilled with the excavated material upon completion of soil sampling. Surveying for Substations Surveying would be accomplished by ground survey methods.Surveys would be required to establish property boundaries,existing topographic information,construction baselines,and to stake foundation locations.Survey also may be required for permanent access roads.Section and quarter-section corners would need to be located. Clearing and Grading for Substations Clearing of all vegetation would be required for the entire substation area including a distance of about 3.1 meters (10 feet)outside the fence.This is required for personnel safety due to grounding concerns and because of lower clearances to energized conductors in substations as compared to transmission lines.These lower clearances are allowed because the entire substation is fenced. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 2-209 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM _PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\Fmal\CHAPTER 2 doc An insulating layer on the surface of the substation is required to protect personnel from dangerous currents and voltages during fault conditions.Typically,this requires removal of all organic material (vegetation)and a 10.2-to 15.2-cm (4-to 6-inch)layer of crushed rock is applied to the finished surface of the substation.The substation is then usually treated with a soil sterilizer to prevent vegetation growth,which would degrade the insulating qualities of the crushed rock. The entire substation area would be graded essentially flat,with just enough slope to provide for runoff of precipitation.The substation would be graded to use existing drainage patterns to the extent possible.In some cases,drainage structures,such as ditches,culverts,and sumps would be required.) Clearing and grading material would be disposed of in compliance with local ordinances.Any material required to be hauled in would be obtained at existing borrow or commercial sites and trucked to the substation using existing roads and the substation access road. Substation Grounding A grounding system is required in each substation or reactive compensation site for detection of faults and for personnel safety.The grounding system typically consists of buried copper conductor arranged in a grid system and driven ground rods,typically 2.4 to 3.1 meters (8 to 10 feet)long.The ground rods and any equipment and structures are connected to the grounding conductor.The amount of conductor and length and number of ground rods required is calculated based on fault current and soil characteristics. Substation Fencing Security fencing is installed around the entire perimeter of the substation to protect sensitive equipment and avoid accidental contact with energized conductors.This fence is constructed of chain link with steel posts and is 3.1 meters (10 feet)high.Generally 0.31 meter (1 foot)of barbed wire or other similar material is installed on top of the chain link.Locked gates are installed at appropriate locations for authorized vehicle and personnel access. Substation Foundation Installation Foundations for supporting structures are of two types-spread footers or augured holes.Spread footers are placed by excavating the foundation area,placing forms,reinforcing steel and anchor Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-210 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA'\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc bolts,and pouring concrete into the forms.After the foundation has been poured,the forms would be removed,and the surface of the foundation dressed. Augured foundations are placed in a hole generally made by a truck-mounted auger.Reinforcing steel and anchor bolts are placed into the hole using a truck mounted crane.The portion of the foundation above ground would be formed.After the foundation has been poured,the forms would be removed,and the surface of the foundation dressed. Equipment foundations for circuit breakers and transformers would be slab-on-grade type.These foundations are placed by excavating the foundation area,placing forms,reinforcing steel and anchor bolts (if required),and placing concrete into the forms.After the foundation has been poured,the forms would be removed,and the surface of the foundation dressed.Where necessary,provision would be made in the design of the foundations to mitigate potential problems due to frost.: Reinforcing steel and anchor bolts would be transported to the site by truck,either as a prefabricated cage or loose pieces,which would be fabricated into cages on the site.Concrete would be hauled to the site in concrete trucks.Excavated material would be spread at the site or disposed of in accordance with local ordinances. Structures and equipment would be attached to the foundations by means of the threaded anchor bolts imbedded in the concrete.Some equipment such as transformers and reactors may not require anchor bolts. Substation Oil Containment Some types of electrical equipment.such as transformers and some types of reactors and circuit breakers,are filled with an insulating mineral oil.Containment structures are required to prevent oil from this equipment from getting into the ground or waterways in the event of a rupture or leak.These structures take many forms depending on site requirements,environmental conditions,and regulatory restrictions. The simplest type of oil containment is a pit,of a calculated capacity,under the oil filled equipment that has an oil impervious liner and is filled with crushed rock.Usually a sump or drain valve is provided to allow precipitation to be drained if no oil is present.The valve may be an oil stop valve that would allow water to pass,but not oil.In case of an oil leak or rupture,the oil is pumped into tanks and transported to a disposal facility,and the crushed rock removed and replaced.This is the recommended system for this Project. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-211 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA'PROJ09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc If required,more elaborate,and more expensive,oil containment systems can be installed.This may take the form of an on or off-site storage tank and/or oil-water separator equipment. Substation Structure and Equipment Erection Supporting steel structures are erected on concrete foundations as noted above.These are set with a truck mounted crane and attached to the foundation anchor bolts by means of a steel baseplate. These structures would be used to support the energized 'conductors and certain types of equipment.This equipment is lifted onto the structure by means of a truck mounted crane and bolted to the structures.Electrical connections to the equipment are then made. Some equipment,such as transformers,reactors,and circuit breakers,are mounted directly to the foundations without supporting structures.These are set in place by means of a truck mounted crane.Some of this equipment requires assembly and testing on the pad.Electrical connections to the equipment are then made. Substation Control Building Erection A control building is required at each substation to house protective relays,control,standby batteries and remote monitoring equipment.The size and construction of the building depends on individual substation requirements.For this Project,pre-engineered steel buildings on slab or pile foundations are assumed.The buildings are manufactured and fabricated at the factory and assembled on site by means of a truck mounted crane.Once erected,equipment is mounted and wired inside. Conductor Installation at Substations Two main types of high voltage conductors are used in substations;tubular aluminum pipe and/or stranded aluminum conductor.Tubular conductors are a minimum of three inches in diameter for this Project and are supported on porcelain insulators on steel supports.The conductors are welded together and to special fittings for connection to equipment. Stranded aluminum conductors are used as flexible connectors to certain types of equipment. These are connected to the tubular conductors through special fittings and then connected to the equipment.These are used when equipment connections are not lined-up with the tubular connectors and for seismic considerations. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-212 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Conduit and Contro!Cable Installation at Substations Most pieces of equipment in a substation require low voltage connections to protective relaying and control circuits.These circuits allow metering,protective functions and control (both remote and local)of the power system.Connections are made from the control building to the equipment through multi-conductor control cables installed in conduits and/or pre-cast concrete cable trench. Cleanup of Substation Construction The cleanup operation would be performed after construction activities are completed.All waste and scrap material would be removed from the site and deposited in local permitted landfills in accordance with local ordinances.Ruts and holes outside the substation fence due to construction activities would be repaved.Revegetation and restoration would be conducted as required. A permanent access road would be constructed to the site when required.Existing roads and trails would be maintained and repaired as required during use by the construction contractor. Storage and Staging Yards for Substation Construction Construction material storage yards may be located outside the substation fenced area in the vicinity of the substation.These storage yards may be part of the substation property or leased by the contractor.After construction is completed,all debris and unused materials would be removed and the staging/storage yards returned to preconstruction conditions by the construction contractor. Work Force Size for Substation Construction The substations and reactive compensation sites would be constructed under contract by a qualified company experienced in construction of electrical substations.Table 2-32 lists typical crew sizes and equipment needed for various construction activities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-213 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHX SY S\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final.CHAPTER 2 doc TABLE 2-32 EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION PROCESS Construction Activity Crews Crew Size Equipment Needed Soil boring 1 2-3 Rubber-tired drillmg equipment Surveying 1 2-3 Pickup truck Clearing and grading 1-2 3-4 Hydroaxe,chainsaw,bulldozer,loader, grader,pick-up truck Grounding 1 2-4 Trencher,pick-up truck Fencing 1-2 2-4 Small auger,concrete truck,pick-up truck Foundation installation 1-2 2-4 Rubber-tired auger,truck mounted crane,concrete trucks,backhoe,loader, pick-up truck Oil containment ]2-4 loader,backhoe,pickup truck Structure and equipment erection 1-2 3-4 Crane,pickup truck Control building erection l 3-4 Crane,pickup truck Conductor installation 1-2 2-3 Welder,crane,bucket truck,pickup ) truck Conduit and control cable 1-2 2-3 Trencher,pickup truck Cleanup l 2-3 Pickup truck Construction Seasons for Substations Construction for substations and reactive compensation sites could be completed during one summer season.This would require multiple crews and possibly more than one contract.Some activities would be able to be performed more or less simultaneously at more than one site if they are in relatively close proximity to each other.Alternatively,construction could be scheduled over two summer seasons. Summer construction would be appropriate for most substation construction as a graded,totally fenced pad would be used for substation construction.The graded substation area would be covered with 10.2 to 15.2 cm (4 to 6 inches)of crushed rock. Access to Substations Substations generally have permanent access roads.Care in construction would usually eliminate concerns about construction on soft soils. The exact equipment used for construction would vary by contractor.The design process should leave the contractor with as many acceptable options for construction as possible.Each contractor would use the equipment that he has access to and that best suits his method and Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-214 Chapter 2 Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PROS09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc sequence of construction.However,it is anticipated that most equipment,with the exception of some earthmoving equipment,would be conventional rubber tired equipment since permanent access roads are anticipated. Equipment for operation and maintenance would generally be limited to four-wheel drive vehicles and snowmobiles or tracked vehicles depending on the season.Occasionally,a small truck mounted crane would be used to repair failed equipment. Operation and Maintenance of Substations Operation The day-today operation of the substations and reactive compensation sites would be directed by system dispatchers in power control centers.These dispatchers use supervisory equipment to operate and monitor the equipment in the substations to configure the system and direct power flow.The protective relays in the substations detect faults on the substations and transmission lines and automatically open circuit breakers to isolate faulted equipment. Maintenance Typical maintenance programs for substations and reactive compensation sites include routine visual inspections of equipment and periodic testing of equipment.The frequency at which equipment is tested and maintained depends on utility practice and operating conditions.Each utility has their own program of regular testing and calibration to ensure that the substation equipment is performing correctly. Substations are sometimes damaged by vandalism,ice/snow storms,high winds,earthquakes or accidents requiring immediate repair.Emergency maintenance involves prompt movement of crews to repair damage or replace equipment. Abandonment of Substations At the end of useful life of the proposed facilities,if the facility is no longer required,the substation structures and equipment would be dismantled and removed from the site.The site would be restored to its original condition. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-215 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc 2.7.3 HAZARDS The proposed facilities described in the previous sections (overhead,underground,and submarine lines and cables;and transition stations and substations)will be subject to a variety of environmental conditions or hazards that will require design mitigation.This section includes definitions of levels of hazards,descriptions of specific conditions along alternative routes,and design mitigation. Hazard Levels A low hazard to the Project could include surface conditions having a minor effect on the submarine cable or power line,or a hazard that is minimized due to Project design or generic mitigation.For example,areas of compressible soils and flood zones are expected to exhibit a low impact to the project,due to the application of certain design considerations or season- specific construction which schedules work in such areas to occur only after freeze-up. A moderate hazard is one that could cause damage to the power line or submarine cable that is mitigated through engineering design.Hazards have been designated as moderate where a single type of potentially adverse seismic or submarine condition is present (e.g.,liquefiable sediment), but not multiple hazards.For example,a moderate earthquake causing ground shaking and settlement within the Zone 4 seismic design tolerance of the project would be considered a moderate hazard.In offshore areas where terrain prevents protective embedment,minor damage to the cable from ice scour/impact.tidal action,and/or submarine erosion,that does not require repair or replacement of the cable,is considered representative of a moderate hazard level. A high hazard is one in which substantial damage to the submarine cable,power line,transition facilities,or substations could occur,requiring repair or replacement.The following are examples of natural conditions that could represent high level hazards depending on the magnitude of the condition:sediment scour/erosion,boulder movements,and ice scour in the submarine environment;slope or bluff failure;and ground shaking,liquefaction,or other types of ground failure during a major earthquake. Tesoro Route Alternatives Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession (Links T1.1,T1.2.T1.3.T1.4,T2.1,T3.1,73.2,T5.1,T5.2/ Route Option A) A transition from terrestrial to marine installation or "shore-tail”involves the landing of the submarine cable at the departure or receiving end of the crossing.When a shore-tail section lands Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-216 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXISYS\DAT A\PRO]K09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc at the base of a steep slope or bluff which is composed of seismically susceptible soil,hazard values are typically high though linear distance of the hazard is relatively short.The cable could be installed in a cased boring drilled through the bluff.A cased boring usually minimizes impacts to the structural integrity of the bluff and reduces the possibility that power line installation will hasten the natural erosive processes on the bluff.Installation of the cable in a cased boring advanced through the slope may mitigate impacts to the structural integrity of the bluff,but it would not mitigate the hazardous nature of the soils.The soils remain seismically susceptible. regardless of the fact that they are bored and cased.The bluff at Pt.Possession is composed of a steep slope and lies in an area of seismically susceptible soils.'The transition facility is sited well back from the edge of the bluff;however,after shore-tail,the route crosses 0.3 km (0.2 mile)of the bluff face.The bluff may be bored and cased.The combination of the slope and the possibility of seismic failure results in a high geologic hazard to the power line over that distance.Engineering design would include appropriate methods to reduce the level of hazard. Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) The moderate to very high geologic hazards along this entire route result from a combination of factors.The terrestrial and marine substrate along the route is composed of seismically unstable soils which are prone to failure in the event of an earthquake.The shore-tail portions at Pt. Possession and Pt.Campbell are adjacent to steep bluffs composed of seismically unstable soils. Due to the presence of submarine boulders,trenching and embedment of submarine cables will not be attempted at or within approximately 8.1 km (5 miles)of Pt.Possession.The power line will be installed by direct lay methods on Link M2.1,and on approximately half of Link M2.2. Approximately one-third of the marine route is susceptible to damage from ice hazards. Much of the sea ice in Turnagain Arm initially forms on tidal flats.The ice is picked up during flood tide and incorporated into larger ice floes.which undergo frequent collisions,and move with the tidal currents.Ice remaining on the tidal flats is repeatedly refrozen,forming thick sheets or stacks of ice.In this relatively harsh environment,an exposed cable could suffer damage from a number of factors,including ice scour,boulder impact,silt scour and tidal action. Ice freezing around the cable could potentially dislodge it from the sediment,and cause strain or shearing action when the currents move.Boulders being ice-rafted with the floes could cause bottom scour,potentially damaging the cable.Thus,areas where the potential for ice scour is combined with the presence of submarine boulders and high tidal currents are considered to have a very high hazard. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-217 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM_PHXIASYS\DATA PRON09203\00OF inal\CHAPTER 2 doc Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,74.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) Moderate to very high marine geologic hazards result from seismically susceptible soils along the entire submarine portion of this route combined with the potential for damage from ice scour. Due to submarine boulders,trenching and embedment of the submarine cable will not be attempted at or within approximately 8.1 km (5 miles)of Pt.Possession.The submarine cable will be installed entirely by direct lay methods on Link M1.1.Minimal to extensive damage from ice scour and impact,tide and silt scour,and boulder and cobble impact is possible in areas where embedment of the line is not possible.Embedment is feasible and planned for Link M2.3. High terrestrial geologic hazards occur for a short distance on shore-tail portions at Pt. Possession,on Fire Island,and on Pt.Campbell in areas prone to both seismic failure and slope instability.The shore-tail portions at Pt.Possession and Pt.Campbell,and on Fire Island are adjacent to steep bluffs composed of seismically unstable soils. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links Ml1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) Seismically susceptible soils exist along the entire submarine portion and part of the terrestrial portion of this route.Embedment of the line will not be attempted on Link M1.1 due to submerged boulders.Potential for damage from ice scour and impact,boulder impact,and tidal scour exists on Link M1.1 between Pt.Possession and Fire Island.High terrestrial geologic hazards on Pt.Possession,the southwestern end of Fire Island,and on Pt.Woronzof occur in areas prone to seismic failure and slope instability.The gravel content of the bluff at Pt. Woronzof is higher than elsewhere along the coast,and the bluff 1s probably somewhat more stable.However,the bluff along the coast just east of Pt.Woronzof,an area known as Earthquake Park.has a proven likelihood to fail in the event of an earthquake.Existing hazard values assume that the protective backfill within the trench at Pt.Woronzof will be regularly inspected and,if exposed,the power line will be reburied. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof Submarine (Link M2.4/Route Option G) The route is composed entirely of unconsolidated soils prone to seismically induced ground failure.In addition,ice scour potential is high over much of the route.Due to submarine boulders.trenching and embedment of the submarine cable will not be attempted at or within approximately 8.1 km (5 miles)of Pt.Possession.The submarine cable will be installed by direct lay methods from km 0.0 to km 12.6 (mile 0.0 to mile 7.8)of Link M2.4.The potential for damage to the cable from ice scour,tidal action,and cobble impact is compounded over this Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-218 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA PROJ\09203\009\F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc distance and hazard values are very high.In addition,the shore-tail portions at Pt.Possession and Pt.Woronzof land at steep slopes which are seismically susceptible. As previously discussed,when a shore-tail section lands at the base of a steep slope or bluffwhichiscomposedofseismicallysusceptiblesoil,hazard values are typically high though linear distance of the hazard is relatively short.Existing submarine cables to Pt.Woronzof have been buried in a narrow corridor in the bluff in a heavily vegetated area.It is assumed that the same technique would be used for the Project.Existing hazard values assume that the protective backfill within the trench at Pt.Woronzof will be regularly inspected and,if exposed,the power line will be reburied. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) As with other routes which originate at Pt.Possession,subsurface boulders prevent embedment of the line within 8.1 to 11.3 km (5 to 7 miles)of the point.Embedment will not be attempted on Link M2.1 or on Link M3.1 from km 0.0 to approximately km 8.1 (mile 0.0 to approximately mile 5.0)due to submarine boulders.As a result,the power line will be installed by direct lay methods and very high hazard values occur over these links where the potential for ice scour, boulder impact.and tidal scour is increased.The route is composed entirely of unconsolidated soils prone to seismically-induced ground failure.Terrestrial hazards due to the seismically susceptible bluff at Pt.Possession are also high over a short linear distance.The landing shore- tail at Klatt Road is on seismically susceptible soils,and the hazard value is a moderate level. Enstar Route Alternatives Northern Soldotna Alternative (Links $1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) No natural hazards were identified on this route. Southern Soldotna Alternative (Links $2.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) No natural hazards were identified on this route. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1.M5.1/Route Option C) No natural hazards were identified on this route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-219 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXISYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final.CHAPTER 2 doc Chickaloon Bav to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option J) The route is composed almost entirely of soils which are susceptible to seismically induced failure.Approximately 90 percent of the route could potentially be susceptible to damage due to ice scour.Submarine boulders,which may result in inadequate embedment depth of the cable, are not present on this route nor are they present on any routes which shore-tail from Chickaloon Bay.Due to the possibility of seismic failure,there is a medium hazard. x Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route OptionJ) The route is composed entirely of soils which are susceptible to seismically induced failure. Approximately 90 percent of the route could potentially be susceptible to damage due by ice scour.Submarine boulders,which may result in inadequate embedment depth of the cable,are not present on this route nor are they present on any routes which shore-tail from Chickaloon Bay.As a result,a medium hazard is due to the possibility of seismic failure. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K) The route is composed entirely of soils which are susceptible to seismically induced failure. Approximately 90 percent of the route could potentially be susceptible to damage by ice scour. Submarine boulders,which may result in inadequate embedment depth of the cable,are not present on this route nor are they present on any routes which shore-tail from Chickaloon Bay. As aresult,a medium hazard is due to the possibilities of seismic failure. Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) The terrestrial and marine substrate along the route is composed entirely of seismically unstable soils which are prone to failure in the event of an earthquake.The transition facility on Pt. Campbell is sited 91.4 to 182.9 meters (300 to 600 feet)from a steep bluff composed of seismically unstable soils.Over 95 percent of the marine route is susceptible to damage from ice scour.The moderate geologic hazard along this route results from a combination of these factors. Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) The route is composed entirely of seismically susceptible soils.A low hazard is assigned due to these soils.The hazard increases to a high level along the route where soils prone to seismically induced failure are combined with steep areas which may be prone to slope instability. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-220 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal WDM _PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\CHAPTER 2 doc Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road Alternatives (Links 14.2,14.3,14.4,15.5/Route Options N,O, R,T.U,V.Z) An approximately 1.6-km (1-mile)portion within Link 14.3 is composed of soils which are susceptible to failure as a result of seismic activity.Seismically susceptible soils within this link represent approximately one fifth of the total mileage of the links.In some areas the occurrence of these soils overlaps with isolated portions of compressible soils.The discontinuous nature of the seismically susceptible soils and their relatively infrequent occurrence results in a low hazard value for the links in which they occur and a negligible hazard'value over the routes as a whole. Alaska Railroad Alternatives (Links I2.5,I2.8.12.6,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Options P V.W.Y.Z) A steep slope combined with seismically susceptible soils results in a moderate to high hazard for a distance of approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mile)of Link 12.5. Old Seward Highwav/International Airport Road Alternatives (Links 12.4,12.8,I2.7,15.6,16.1, 15.7.15.3/Route Options S.T,U.V.W.X.Y.Z) Seismically susceptible soils result in a moderate hazard to the project over 0.5 km (0.3 mile)of Link 12.4,the shore-tail portion.Potential ice scour over that distance is mitigated by directional drilling which places the cable beneath the flats where ice scour is not a possibility.Several other isolated pockets of seismically susceptible soils exist within Link 15.6;however,their relatively small areal extent and the discontinuous nature of their occurrence results in a low hazard value. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2/Route Option N) The combination of seismically susceptible soils and slope instability results in a high hazard over 0.1 km (0.05 mile)of Link M3.2.The hazard for the remainder of the route is negligible. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4/Route Option O) The combination of seismically susceptible soils and slope instability results in a high hazard on less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of Link M3.2.The hazard for the remainder of the route is negligible. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-221 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \\DM_PHX IAS YS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Finalh\CHAPTER 2 doc Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3/Route Option P) The combination of seismically susceptible soils and slope instability results in a high hazard on less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of Link M3.2.Low hazards are associated with discontinuous occurrences of areas prone to seismically induced ground failure over approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mile)of Link 14.3. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 2-222 Chapter 2 -Alternatives Including July 1999 the Applicant's Proposal \WDM_PHXIASYS\DAT A\PROJ09203\009F inal\CHAPTER 2 doc PSrePF Vy TT FN OR EE RET OE ER om EEFETOPL ET 5 RTE TET ST TEre Tr =F 2iad aan aie aia. TF Es amelie: lat|a ert wre ee [eC ee EVERES,9h CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT cMidunat tua cat died apatticeanediniisnahteatoneeatedaem helene naa ter aaamhationdees ” OnaOEE YES A ar Se FR SR oneeoenewer seat a a faa | || 4 contmeeMat a a tte. i tl a olen ane a hee So tata SaaleS aan tata ers Fe a ch Baten ate Be : tamefaeSeatateatEe aa i le =trnearaatCid CHAPTER 3.0 -AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing environment that potentially could be affected by the alternatives.The resources inventoried and described in this chapter include the following: climate geologic resources water resources marine environment biological resources land use recreation and tourism socioeconomic subsistence visual resources cultural resources Each resource description contains an explanation of the methods used to gather data and the inventory results.Where appropriate,inventory results are detailed for each alternative.For reader assistance,measurements are listed in metric units followed by the equivalent United States measurement in parentheses.In addition,each resource description references maps,titled Figures MV-1 through MV-36,that are included in a separate Map Volume. 3.2.CLIMATE The climate of south-central Alaska is transitional between maritime and continental.Heavy precipitation,cool summers,and mild winters characterize the maritime regions of the coast and Kenai Mountains.The Cook Inlet basin lies in the rain shadow of the Kenai Mountains and receives 38.1 to 76.2 centimeters (cm)(15 to 30 inches)of precipitation a year,with July and August typically the wettest months.This area experiences short periods of extreme cold in winter and high winds throughout the year.Average mean maximum and minimum temperatures recorded in the region are 4.5°to 7.2°Celsius (C)and -6.7°and -1.1°C (40°to 45°Fahrenheit [F]and 20°to 30°F),respectively.Highest and lowest recorded temperatures in Anchorage are 29.5°C and -36.7°C (85°F and -34°F),respectively.Highest and lowest recorded temperatures in Kenai are 33.9°C and -43.9°C (93°F and -47°F),respectively.Mean snowfall varies from 171.5 cm (67.5 inches)of snow in Anchorage to 140 cm (55.1 inches)in Kenai (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]1997). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-1 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC 3.3 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES The description of geologic resources encompasses structural geology and _seismicity, earthquake-induced hazards,and mineral and paleontologic resources.The description of geologic resources is followed by a brief explanation of the methods used to gather information and prepare the description. Regardless of the route the proposed Project would follow,it would cross one of the most geologically active regions in the world.Ground failure'from seismic activity,including liquefaction,landslides,and compressible soils,can damage power lines,submarine cables,and other Project components through ground shaking and settlement.This section addresses the geologic makeup of the region,as well as the natural occurrences triggered by seismic activity.In addition,this section discusses the possibility for Project construction to disturb earth resourcessuchasmineralsandpaleontologicspecimens.: The two main geologic units that occur in the study area are metamorphic bedrock and unconsolidated deposits (silts,sands,gravels).Bedrock (Map Unit B),exposed at the ground surface in the Western Kenai Mountains,is composed of the late Triassic to mid-Cretaceous age McHugh Complex,approximately 200 million to 100 million years before present (mybp).The McHugh Complex consists of metamorphosed volcanic (greenstone,pillow basalt)and sedimentary (siltstone,sandstone,chert,conglomerate,graywacke,argillite)rocks.This rock sequence is strongly deformed and steeply dipping in the study area (Clark 1973;Plafker and others 1994b;Tysdal and Case 1979;Winkler 1992). Unconsolidated to semi-consolidated Quaternary-age (<1.8 mybp)units in the study area encompass a variety of glacial,alluvial,colluvial,lacustrine,and marine deposits.These include moraine and associated outwash deposits,streambed and terrace deposits,alluvial fans,glacial lake/muskeg deposits,landslides,beach sands and gravels,submarine sediment,and tidal mud flats (Anderson and Jones 1972;Winkler 1992).Most of the glacial deposits comprising the Anchorage and Kenai Lowlands are Pleistocene in age (1.8 million years to 11,000 years before present [bp]).The alluvial and marine units in the study area are primarily Holocene (<11,000 years bp)in age.As described in Table 3-1,Quaternary units with low potential for seismically induced ground failure or compressibility,and moderate to low potential for slope instability include moraine deposits,coarse alluvium,alluvial fan deposits,till,and other deposits with high gravel and clay content. 3.3.1 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY South-central Alaska is one of the most seismically active regions in the world.An active subduction zone extending from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern Gulf of Alaska is the cause of large,deep-focus earthquakes in the region.These earthquakes occur along an extensive thrust Souther Intertie Project EVAL 3-2 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P.\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC TABLE 3-1 CRITERIA AND SOURCES USED FOR EARTH RESOURCES MAP (MV-1) Map Unit Expanded Description References Unconsolidated deposits (Q) Quaternary-age (<1.8 mybp)unconsolidated deposits with low potential for seismically induced ground failure and moderate-low potential for slope instability.Includes moraine deposits.coarse alluvium,alluvial fan deposits. till,and other deposits with high gravel and clay content. Anchorage area:Magoon et al. (1976)and Bartsch-Winkler and Schmoll (1984).Turnagain Ann: Tysdal and Case (1979).Bartsch- Winkler and Schmoll (1984). Kenai Peninsula:Anderson and Jones (1972),Tysdal and Case (1979).Magoon et al.(1976) Unconsolidated deposits prone to seismically induced ground failure (Qg) Quaternary-age unconsolidated deposits with high-to- moderate susceptibility to seismically induced or other ground failure.These deposits are likely to experience ground cracking and horizontal movement due to liquefaction landspreading,lurching,translational landsliding.and differential settlement.Includes: =deposits with high liquefaction potential due to a homogeneous fine grain size (sands and silts)and high ground water level (generally <3.1 meters [10 feet]deep) ®aband of deposits above and below steep slopes (Qs). the width of which ranges from 5 x height for slopes of generally low stability to 10 x height for slopes of lowest stability =deposits underlain by Bootlegger Cove Clay HLA (1979).Bartsch-Winkler and Shmol!(1984),CEA (1996) Anchorage area:HLA (1979), Dobrovolny and Schmoll (1974); Kenai flats area:interpretation based on CEA (1996)aerial photos and USGS topographic maps HLA (1979).Updike et al.(1988) Compressible soils (Qc)Quaternary-age unconsolidated organic-rich soil with high-to-moderate susceptibility to.compressibility when loaded.This includes primarily marsh/bog deposits such as silt.clay.and peat.These soils also are subject to subsidence and ground cracking during major earthquakes. Anchorage area:HLA (1979): Municipality of Anchorage (1980). Tumagain Arm area:HLA (1979). McCulloch and Bonilla (1969a). Kenai flats area:interpretation based on CEA (1996)aerial photos and USGS topographic maps. Unconsolidated deposits prone to slope instability (Qs) Quatermary-age unconsolidated deposits with high-to-very- high potential for slope instability. m==In Anchorage area includes (1)coarse-grained (mainly gravel)or mixed coarse-and fine-grained deposits forming very steep to precipitous slopes (>45 percent):and (2)sand.fine-grained (silt and clay).or landslide deposits forming steep to precipitous slopes (>25 percent). =On Kenai Peninsula includes Quaternary deposits forming (1)very steep to precipitous slopes (>45 percent):and (2)slopes with obvious scarps due to recent sliding and coastal erosion as viewed on aerial photographs. In marine environment includes Quaternary deposits forming steep slopes (>2 percent). Anchorage area:Dobrovolny and Schmoll (1974),McCulloch and Bonilla (1969b) Kenai Peninsula:interpretation based on CEA (1996)aerial photos and USGS topographic maps. Marine Corridors:Golder Associates (1997),Shepard (1973) Bedrock (B)Triassic to Cretaceous-age (200 to 100 mybp)McHugh Complex metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks.These include strongly deformed siltstone,sandstone,greenstone, metachert.and argillite. Magoon et al.(1976),Winkler (1992) Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P.\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC 3-3 Chapter 3-Affected Environment TABLE 3-1 CRITERIA AND SOURCES USED FOR EARTH RESOURCES MAP (MV-1) Map Unit Expanded Description References Reverse Fault High angle,compressional fault,trending generally northeasterly,dashed where approximately located or |concealed beneath Quaternary deposits: =Border Ranges (or Knik)Fault:reverse fault,Magoon et al.(1976),Winkler concealed throughout Project area,possibly active,(1992),Haeussler (1996) crosses between Burnt Island and Chickaloon River and at Sterling Highway..=Unnamed fautt approximately 8.1 to 16.1 km (5 to 10 |Magoon et al.(1976).Plafker et al. miles)west of Border Ranges Fault:reserve fault,(1994) concealed,probably not active in Project area,crosses corridors in Anchorage and near Sterling Highway. Buried Anticline Anticlinal structure within Tertiary-(65 to 1.8 mybp)and Haeussler and Bruhn (1995), possibly Quaternary-age (<1.8 mybp)deposits in Upper Haeussler (1996),Plafker et al. Cook Inlet basin.Folding is suspected to be active as are (1994),Magoon et al.(1976) reverse faults that typically core the folds.Thus,the anticlines indicate increased possibility of significant local earthquake foci on buried structures. Flood Zones Includes areas prone to flooding due to precipitation, snowmelt,and/or glacier dam outburst. ®In Anchorage,Turnagain Arm.and Kenai Flats areas,|Anchorage and Turnagain Arm hatched areas are equivalent to 100-year flood.areas:FEMA (1987,1990).Kenai flats area:Dowl Engineers (1983) and FEMA (1981,1983,1988), ®Flood zones in Kenai and Chugach Mountain areas Post and Mayo (1971),CEA interpreted from statewide map and aerial (1996) photographs. Marine Cobbles and Areas with cobble and boulder deposition along proposed |Golder Associated (1997) Boulders submarine routes.potentially limiting cable imbedment. Potential Ice Scour or Includes areas prone to ice scour or impact from floes and |Gatto (1976).Golder Associates Impact Zones pressure ridges at water depths up to -7.6 meters (-25 feet)|(1997),NOAA (1994,1996a, MLLW.1996b),Alaska Tidebook Company (1997) mybp =million vears before present km =kilometers FEMA =Federal Emergency Management Agency HLA =Harding-Lawson Associates CEA =Chugach Electric Association.Inc. USGS =U.S.Geological Survey MLLW =mean lower low water fault system called the Aleutian Megathrust that dips northward beneath the Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet.The largest,most damaging earthquake to affect the study area was the Good Friday Earthquake of March 27,1964.The epicenter of this earthquake,located about 120.7 kilometers (km)(75 miles)east of the study area in Prince William Sound,caused significant damage to Anchorage from landslides,land subsidence,ground shaking,and differential settlement (Seikregg 1974). The 1964 earthquake generated ground-shaking intensities in the study area in the range of VII through XI on the Modified Mercalli Scale (Harding-Lawsen Associates [HLA]1979). >Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-4 ,Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC Significant widespread damage to well-built structures typically begins at about intensity VIII. Unconsolidated deposits in the Anchorage Bowl and Kenai Lowlands caused more intense and longer lasting shaking than the underlain bedrock of the Chugach and Kenai mountains.The earthquake also caused land subsidence of 0.7 to 1.2 meters (2 to 4 feet)in the study area (HLA 1979).The magnitude of the 1964 earthquake is believed to have been approximately 9.2 on the Richter scale (Plafker et al.1994;Updike et al.1988).This magnitude and the shaking intensities experienced during this earthquake represent the maximum probable event for the study area (HLA 1979). The depth of the Aleutian Megathrust is approximately 20 to 25 km (12.4 to 15.5 miles)in the vicinity of the 1964 earthquake epicenter,and dips to more than 35 km (21.8 miles)beneath the 'study area (Plafker et al.1994b).According to Haeussler and Bruhn (1995),there may be an additional earthquake threat in the study area associated with shallow deformation above the megathrust.Buried,northeast-trending,reverse faults,and anticlines (folds)in the upper Cook Inlet basin have been associated with historic seismic activity up to magnitude 6.9.These faults and folds form oil-and gas-producing structures beneath Cook Inlet and the Kenai Lowlands. These structures as well as the Border Ranges Fault,which is oriented northeasterly along the western front of the Chugach and Kenai mountains,also may be active at depth.No known active faults offset Quaternary surface deposits within the study area (HLA 1979;Plafker et al. 1994a),indicating no surface rupture in the last 2 million years;however,potentially active faults at depth could cause significant disturbance in the area. 3.3.2 EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED HAZARDS Due to the active seismicity in the region,an earthquake analysis is included describing potentially active surface and buried faults.and types of areas prone to seismically induced ground failure.Surficial deposits subject to potential slope instability,erosion,settlement, permafrost,and frost heave also are identified. Earthquakes are often accompanied by related hazards,such as ground failure,uplift,tsunamis (seismic sea waves),and slope instability.as described in the following paragraphs. Ground Failure Unconsolidated deposits that are prone to seismically induced ground failure are depicted as Qg on Figure MV-1,Earth Resources,in the Map Volume.These deposits are likely to experience ground cracking and horizontal movement from liquefaction,landspreading,lurching, translational landsliding,and differential settlement (Bartsh-Winkler and Schmoll 1984; Dobrovolny and Schmoll 1974;HLA 1979;Updike et al.1988). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-5 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC Liquefaction occurs when fine-grained,cohesionless,saturated soils are vibrated during an earthquake or with the use of heavy equipment,transforming the soil from solid to a liquid. Deposits prone to liquefaction have high ground water levels (generally less than 3.1 meters [10 feet]deep).Most lowland parts of the study area have some susceptibility to liquefaction,while the shallow sediment in Turnagain Arm is expected to be very susceptible to liquefaction. Large earthquakes also could cause landslides resulting in significant damage to the proposed Project.Steep slopes in the study area that could experience landsliding independent of earthquakes are depicted as Qs on Figure MV-1.Bands of unconsolidated deposits located above and below steep slopes,as well as deposits underlain by Bootlegger Cove Clay are included on Figure MV-1 as Qg because of the potential for landslides.Lateral movement landslides in Turnagain Heights and downtown Anchorage caused significant damage during the 1964 earthquake.These slides occurred when Bootlegger Cove Clay suffered a drastic loss of strength due to seismic vibration,causing large areas of land to slide north toward Knik Arm and break into blocks.Other landslide hazards that could be triggered by earthquakes in the study area include bluff failure along Turnagain Arm and Cook Inlet. Uplift Crustal deformation during the 1964 earthquake caused widespread uplift and subsidence throughout southern Alaska,with notable changes in land level over an area between 181,299 and 284.899 square km (70,000 and 110.000 square miles).Subsidence within the study area caused the ground to settle approximately 0.7 to 1.2 meters (2 to 4 feet)(HLA 1979). Tsunamis and Seiches Earthquakes can trigger large waves in oceans (tsunamis)or lakes (seiches)that can cause severe damage in nearby areas.The size of these waves is dependant on a variety of factors,including earthquake intensity and location,relative movement on the ocean floor,water depth,tidal phase, and coastline orientation and configuration.Based on computer models used for tsunami prediction,tsunamis of significant size are not expected to occur in upper Cook Inlet or Turnagain Arm due to the shallowness and configuration of the inlet.(Sokolowski 1996). Modeling of tsunamis reported by HLA (1979)has shown that runup from any conceivable tsunami in the project area would be exceeded by a 1-in-100-year runoff/tidal flood (HLA 1979). The term "]-in-100-year event”refers to a natural event,such as a runoff/tidal flood,that would have a one percent probability of recurring at any given year at the same or greater size.wo'nNSouthern Intertie Project EVAL Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC Slope Instability Mass wasting occurs in the study area in the form of landslides,rock slides,and coastal erosion. Locally,steep slopes such as stream banks,coastal bluffs,and road or railroad cuts are subject to slumping,soil fall,and debris sliding.Coastal erosion along the bluffs depends on two factors: (1)the intensity of wave action and tidal currents,and (2)the erodibility of the unconsolidated glacial deposits at the shoreline.Coastal retreat rates in the study area range from less than (.3 meter)1 foot per year to as much as 3.1 meters (10 feet)per year (Dames &Moore 1995;HLA 1979).Quaternary-age unconsolidated deposits prone to slope instability are mapped as Qs on Figure MV-1.Criteria used for mapping this unit were drawn from various sources (CEA 1996; Dobrovolony and Schmoll 1974;Golder Associates 1996;McCulloch and Bonilla 1969b; Shepard 1973),and are detailed in Table 3-1. Compressible Materials Compressible materials (depicted as Qc on Figure MV-1)within the study area include Quaternary-age,unconsolidated,organic-rich soils,which are potentially subject to high settlement.Typical areas containing compressible soils include marsh/bog deposits consisting of silt,clay,and peat commonly found on low-lying,poor-draining topography.These occur in the Anchorage Bow!and Kenai Lowlands.This material has a high to moderate susceptibility to compressibility when loaded,and foundations placed within the compressible soil can settle over time (Holtz and Kovacs 1981).These soils also are subject to subsidence and ground cracking during major earthquakes (HLA 1979)., Permafrost Isolated,discontinuous areas of permafrost have been reported in the southeast portion of the Anchorage Bowl.The area between Campbell and Furrow creeks in particular is reported by HLA (1979)to have a high potential for isolated permafrost conditions.Other parts of the Anchorage Bowl and Kenai Peninsula are considered to be free of permafrost,although small isolated patches may exist (HLA 1979;Selkregg 1974).Ground conditions in the Anchorage Bowl that contribute to potential subsurface permafrost include low areas,northern slopes, undeveloped areas,sparse tree cover,organic ground cover over peat or fine-grained soils,near- surface water table,and relic glacial ice.Areas with permafrost that are cleared are subject to ground subsidence.Ground movements of up to 1.2 meters (4 feet)have been reported in the Anchorage area (HLA 1979). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-7 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC Frost Heave Frost heave is a process where soil expands due to freezing temperatures.Frost Jacking occurs when this upward expansion displaces pilings or other buried structures such as transmission line structures.Silty frost-susceptible soils combined with shallow ground water,a thick capillary fringe,and sub-freezing temperatures provide optimum conditions for frost heaving to occur. These conditions occur throughout much of the Anchorage Bowl and Kenai Lowlands.In particular,fine-grained surficial deposits,which were mapped as having a high potential for compressibility based on various sources (Chugach Electri¢Association [CEA]1996;HLA 1979;Holtz and Kovacs 1981;Municipality of Anchorage 1980;Smith 1986),are expected to be susceptible to frost heave. 3.3.3 MINERAL AND PALEONTOLOGIC RESOURCES The study area contains a variety of nonmetallic mineral resources,including sand and gravel, clay,and coal.Clay,suitable for brick and ceramic manufacturing occurs in the Anchorage area. Sand and gravel resources suitable for construction purposes occur along major streams and are actively mined from subsurface glacial deposits in the Anchorage Bowl.Cook Inlet also is known for its oil and gas resources,although no active fields are crossed by the proposed corridors (Magoon and others 1976). There are no known paleontological resources in the Quaternary surficial deposits of Anchorage or the Kenai Lowlands.Bedrock outcrops of the McHugh Complex occur only in the northeastern corner of the study area near Burnt Island.Most of the rock types included in the McHugh Complex are not associated with paleontological resources.Microfossils (radiolaria) have been reported in metachert lenses (fine-grained sedimentary rock altered by heat and pressure)in the McHugh Complex.but are rarely preserved (Clark 1973;Plafker and others 1994b). 3.3.4 INVENTORY STUDY METHODS The analysis of geologic resources first involved a review of the regional physiographic setting of the study area,followed by a more specific investigation and evaluation of resource features that could adversely affect,or be adversely affected by,construction,operation,or maintenance of the proposed transmission line.For purposes of the environmental analysis (EVAL),the study corridor for geologic resources was 0.8 km (0.5 mile)wide,centered along the proposed centerline of each of the alternative transmission line routes.Results of the evaluation are presented in two places.First,geologic resource features that could affect the project (i.e., potential geologic hazards)are presented in Chapter 2,Alternatives Including the Applicant's Proposal.Geologic resource features that could be affected by the proposed project are presented in Chapter 4,Environmental Consequences. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-8 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC Information for the geologic inventory was obtained and reviewed from various federal,state, and local agencies,including the following: B existing U.S.Geological Survey (USGS)geologic,topographic,and slope stability maps of the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula;and USGS historical seismic activity databases ®aerial photographs (1996)at a scale of 1:2,000 (1 inch equals 2,000 feet)flown along the alternative routes . =National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and Minerals Management Service studies ™various maps and information available from:municipality and borough planning departments showing surficial geology,geologic hazards,and soil conditions m Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Alaska Railroad information concerning existing geologic conditions along highways and railroads that are within the alternative corridors ®discussions with local experts on seismicity and paleontology Fieldwork was limited to site visits and overflights by fixed-wing aircraft for resource verification only.Maps depicting geologic resource constraints were developed using 1:25,000 scale topographic base maps of each route.Resource data were entered into a geographic information system (GIS)for display and analysis.Map units,mapping criteria,and data sources used in developing the maps are presented in Table 3-1.For the purpose of identifying potential hazards to the proposed Project,geologic units prone to certain hazards (e.g.,ground failure or slope instability)were separated from other units on Figure MV-1 and in Table 3-1. 3.4 WATER RESOURCES The description of water resources provided below is followed by a brief explanation of the methods used to gather information and prepare the description. Hydrologic data for the study area were researched to address both freshwater and marine environments.This included addressing the watersheds,which are ridges of high land that divide the region into "funnels.”Although these funnels ultimately create rivers,the watershed is not just the river or tributaries,as its name may imply;it is the entire region that drains a river,river system,or other body of water.This water resources section,therefore,includes watersheds and streamflow,watershed soils,flood zones,and ground water,while Section 3.5,Marine Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-9 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Environment,includes documentation of sea-floor configuration,subbottom conditions, sedimentation,tides and currents,sea-ice behavior,and marine water quality. 3.4.1 WATERSHEDS AND STREAMFLOW This section provides a description of the watershed and streamflow characteristics of rivers and streams crossed by the alternative routes.The discussion addresses the Kenai River and its tributaries,streams in the Kenai Lowlands,and streams in the Anchorage Bowl. Kenai River The Kenai River would be crossed by Option C of the Enstar Route alternative.This river,the only glacier-fed river in the study area,has runoff characteristics significantly different from those of nonglacial rivers.The Kenai River derives most of its discharge from the snowfields and glaciers of the Kenai Mountains (Anderson and Jones 1972).During periods of low precipitation, wetlands act as reservoirs,releasing water into rivers and streams.The river originates at the outlet of Kenai Lake,flows from east to west,and empties into Cook Inlet near the community of Kenai. The river drains an area of 5,206 square kilometers (km)(2,010 square miles)(U.S.Geological Survey [USGS]1996).Peak flows in the Kenai River commonly occur during intense snow melting in mid summer,but also have resulted from the release of glacially impounded water in headwater tributaries.During periods of low flow,the river is sustained primarily by outflow from larger lakes. Tributaries of Kenai River potentially crossed by alternative routes include Soldotna Creek, Moose River,and Funny River,each of which is described as follows: =Soldotna Creek,a tributary of the Kenai River,drains a series of lakes and wetlands in a southwest direction toward the community of Soldotna and would be crossed by Route Option B North.No streamflow data exist for Soldotna Creek. =Moose River,crossed by Route Option B North,is the largest tributary of the Kenai River with a watershed area of approximately 648 square km (250 square miles).The headwaters are tributary streams originating in the northwestern slopes of the Mystery Hills of the Kenai Mountains.Tributaries of Moose River that would be crossed by Option C of the Enstar Route alternative include East Fork Moose River (north of Seven Lakes)and four unnamed streams.Moose River has an average gradient of 0.95 meter per km (5 feet per mile),and empties into the Kenai River at Sterling.There are no gauging stations on the Moose River. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 3-10 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC =Funny River,crossed by Route Option B South,is a nonglacial tributary of the Kenai River with a watershed area of approximately 329 square km (127 square miles)(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]1995).The headwaters originate in the Kenai Mountains,and drain a small area of lakes and wetlands south of Sterling.Drainage is toward the northwest,with an average gradient of 21.4 meters per km (113 feet per mile) (USFWS 1995),and empties into the Kenai River southwest of Sterling.No streamflow data exist for Funny River. Water quality conditions of the Kenai River are typical of glacial streams,with low total dissolved solids,presumably because the source is mainly snow and ice melt.However,glacial streams contain glacial flour of suspended silt or clay-sized particles (Anderson and Jones 1972). Suspended sediment concentration below Skilak Lake is low,but increases downstream at Soldotna.The increase can be attributed to sediment entrapment at the lake.Additional sediment input downstream from the lake is from the Killey River basin,and bank erosion along the Kenai River (Scott 1982). Kenai Lowlands Nonglacial streams throughout the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage Bowl originate from lowland lakes and tributaries of the western portion of the Kenai and Chugach mountains.Channel characteristics of these drainages are typical of low-gradient,meandering systems.Nonglacial streams typically flow high in spring from snowmelt and high in late summer and autumn from rain.Low flows occur mainly during winter and are sustained by ground water (Anderson and Jones 1972).Watersheds of the Kenai Lowlands are described below. Several streams are crossed by the Tesoro Route Option A along the northwest portion of the Kenai Lowlands and drain into Cook Inlet.From south to north,these include Bishop Creek, Swanson River,Scaup Creek,Otter Creek,Seven Egg Creek,and Miller Creek,each of which is described as follows: m The Bishop Creek watershed is approximately 87.8 square km (33.9 square miles)and drains the low lying areas east of Nikiski.The headwaters of Bishop Creek originate at several small lakes,and drain to the north.Limited historical streamflow data exit for Bishop Creek.The maximum flow recorded on Bishop Creek was 4.2 cubic meters per second (cms)(150 cubic feet per second [cfs])and the minimum was approximately 0.1 cms (5 cfs)(USGS 1997a).The maximum was recorded during spring runoff,and the minimum during mid to late summer when input from precipitation was probably low. =The Swanson River watershed is approximately 717.4 square km (277 square miles).The headwaters originate from the Swanson Lake chain in the north-central portion of the Kenai Lowlands.The Swanson River watershed has more lakes than any other watershed Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-11 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR 199Sa).The Swanson River has an average gradient of 0.8 meters per km (4 feet per mile). =The Scaup Creek watershed is approximately 49.2 square km (19 square miles)(KNWR 1995a).The headwaters of Scaup Creek originate at Scaup Lake.Drainage is to the southwest,with an average gradient of 7 meters per km (37 feet per mile).No streamflow data exist for Scaup Creek. m The Otter Creek watershed is approximately 51.8 square km (20 square miles)(KNWR 1995a).The headwaters of Otter Creek originate in low-lying muskegs with several small unnamed lakes.Drainage is to the southwest,with an average gradient of 3.8 meters per km (20 feet per mile).No streamflow data exist for Otter Creek. m™The Seven Egg Creek watershed is approximately 108.8 square km (42 square miles) (KNWR 1995a).The headwaters of Seven Egg Creek originate at Kakoon Lake. Drainage is to the west,with an average gradient of 2.8 meters per km (15 feet per mile). No streamflow data exist for Seven Egg Creek. m The Miller Creek watershed is approximately 28.5 square km (11 square miles)(KNWR 1995a).The headwaters of Miller Creek originate at Vogel Lake.Drainage is to the northwest,with an average gradient of 4.9 meters per km (26 feet per mile).No streamflow data exist for Miller Creek. The Enstar Route Option C would cross a number of streams that drain into Chickaloon Bay, including Chickaloon River,tributaries of Chickaloon River (Mystery Creek and several unnamed streams),Big and Little Indian creeks,and Burnt Island Creek,all of which are described as follows: =The Chickaloon River watershed is the third largest in the KNWR.The watershed area is approximately 797.8 square km (308 square miles).The headwaters are a combination of tributaries originating along the western slope of the Kenai Mountains and some of the lakes and marshes of the eastern Kenai Lowlands.Named tributaries in the western Kenai Mountains include Mystery and Thurman creeks.Thurman Creek is not crossed by the Enstar Route.Several unnamed tributaries contribute flow as well.The Chickaloon River has an average gradient of approximately 0.9 meters per km (4.7 feet per mile).There are no gauging stations on Chickaloon River. =The watersheds of Big and Little Indian creeks are 150.2 and 41.4 square km (58 and 16 square miles),respectively.Both creeks drain small mountainous watersheds of the western Kenai Mountains.The average stream gradients of Big and Little Indian creeks are 24.8 and 65.5 meters per km (131 and 346 feet per mile),respectively.There are no gauging stations on either creek. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-12 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC =Burnt Island Creek watershed,a small watershed adjacent to Little Indian Creek,drains a small mountainous watershed of the western Kenai Mountains.No hydrologic data exist for Burnt Island Creek. General water quality conditions for nonglacial streams in the Kenai Lowlands are described by the KNWR (1995a)as clear water with suspended sediment load during heavy runoff.Most streams in the Kenai Lowlands are slightly alkaline to slightly acidic and the oxygen content is usually high during summer (KNWR 1995a). Anchorage Bowl Streams in the Anchorage Bowl that potentially would be crossed by the alternative routes include Campbell,Furrow,and Rabbit creeks,each of which is described as follows: =Campbell Creek is a nonglacial stream that drains the hillside and upper reaches of the Chugach Mountains.The watershed is forested at the lower elevations,with tundra at elevations above 457.2 meters (1,500 feet).Campbell Creek has a steep gradient of about 49.2 meters per km (260 feet per mile)in its upper reaches,and a gentler slope of about 30.3 meters per km (160 feet per mile)downstream from the mountain front.The river drains an area of 191.7 square km (74 square miles)(USGS 1994).Peak flows in Campbell Creek commonly occur during spring snowmelt,but also can result from large rainstorms during late summer. Water quality of Campbell Creek above its confluence with Little Campbell Creek consists of relatively low concentrations of dissolved solids,suspended sediment,and fecal coliform.However,downstream of the confluence,concentrations of these water quality parameters increase as partially urbanized Little Campbell Creek contributes to the stream.This effect occurs during lowland snowmelts with an increased loading of total dissolved solids,suspended sediment.and fecal coliform.During storms,flow from the North Fork and South Fork Campbell Creek tributaries tend to dilute the water and lessen the impact from Little Campbell Creek (Brabets and Wittenberg 1983). =Furrow Creek is a small watershed draining only the lower portion of the south Anchorage hillside.No streamflow or water quality data exist for this creek. =Rabbit Creek is located in the southern portion of Anchorage Bowl.Together with Little Rabbit Creek,it drains approximately 54.4 square km (21 square miles)of the Chugach Mountains.The basin is forested at the lower altitudes and tundra grows at altitudes above 457.2 meters (1,500 feet).For the period of record for Rabbit Creek,the maximum flow recorded was 3.7 cms (130 cfs)and the minimum was 0.1 cms (5 cfs),measured at a USGS streamflow-gaging station at New Seward Highway (USGS 1997).The maximum flow,recorded in September 1983,was generated from a storm event.The minimum was Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-13 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC recorded in late winter/early fall when the stream was partially frozen.Streamflow patterns for this small watershed appear to be such that peak flows occur during spring runoff and reduce during mid summer and fall. 3.4.2 WATERSHED SOILS Surface soils in the Kenai Lowlands watersheds range from organic soils (peat)typically found in muskegs to silt loams typically found along floodplains arid streambanks of small drainages. Coarse-grained,poorly drained,sandy or gravely soils dominate the western edge of the Kenai Mountains and the Moose River floodplain (Soil Conservation Service [SCS]1962,1979a). Surface soils along the Kenai River range from well-drained and moderately deep,wind-laid silty material over thick deposits of gravely sand or coarse sand to well-drained,very shallow silt loam over a gravely substratum (SCS Soil Survey 1962).Kenai River streambank material ranges from cohesive clay-rich sediment interbedded with less cohesive silt and sand to sections composed mainly of glacial-outwash gravel.Erosion progresses most rapidly in the sand and gravel layers and triggers bank failure by slumping (Scott 1982). Surface soils along the lower portion of the Funny River range from coarse-grained,poorly drained soils consisting mostly of sand with little gravel found adjacent to the stream to well- drained soils developed in a moderately deep deposit of wind-laid silty material underlain by water-worked sand and gravel (SCS Soil Survey 1962). Surface soils within the watersheds of Campbell and Furrow creeks consist primarily of silt loam mixed with some areas of gravely sandy loam and scattered patches of peat along the floodplains (SCS 1979b). Tidal marsh deposits exist near the mouths of all of the rivers described above with the exception of the Kenai River.These deposits consist of fine-textured materials deposited by tidal waters, which are mixed with peat and sand layers at depth (SCS 1962;1979b). 3.4.3 FLOOD ZONES Areas prone to flooding due to precipitation,snowmelt,and/or glacier dam outburst were mapped as shown on Figure MV-1,Earth Resources,in the Map Volume and described in Table 3-1.Flood zones along rivers and streams are equivalent to the 1-in-100-year event.Outburst flooding from the release of glacier-dammed lakes occurs regularly on Kenai River.This type of flooding is caused by the sudden release of ice-dammed lakes in the upper basin.When flooding occurs in winter,the increase in flow can raise and destroy the river's ice cover,resulting in ice jams and subsequent backwater flooding.Flooding in nonglacial streams occurs as the result of heavy precipitation,snow and ice melt,and storm surges during high tide. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-14 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P\09203\009\F inal:\Chapter 3 DOC 3.4.4 GROUND WATER Shallow unconfined ground water occurs throughout the Anchorage Bowl and Kenai Lowlands in glacial deposits and alluvium.Seeps and springs are common along coastal bluffs and stream banks in these areas.Because of the range in types of surficial deposits and permeabilities in the area,local ground water conditions are very different.Areas of poor drainage and near-surface ground water conditions tend to occur in areas with compressible soils (depicted as Qc on Figure MV-1). 3.4.55 INVENTORY STUDY METHODS The analysis of water resources first involved a review of the regional physiographic setting of the study area.The regional overview was followed by a more specific investigation and evaluation of resource features.Results of the evaluation are presented in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Information was obtained and reviewed from various federal,state,and local agencies,including the following: =USGS water resources data =aerial photographs (1996)at a scale of 1:2,000 (1 inch equals 2,000 feet)flown along the alternative routes m™Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the U.S.Federal Emergency Management Agency showing flood hazard zones m Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Alaska Railroad information concerning flood hazards along highways and railroads that are within the alternative corridors Maps depicting water resource constraints were developed using 1:25,000 scale topographic base maps of each route and are shown on Figure MV-1 and in Table 3-1. 3.55 MARINE ENVIRONMENT This section describes the marine environment of the study area,including the physiography and bathymetry,currents and tides,sedimentation,sea ice,and marine water quality.Of these marine elements,high sediment load,sea ice,submarine erosion,and shifting bottom contours can damage submarine cables.(The Tesoro Pipeline crosses the Turnagain Arm at the entrance to the Cook Inlet,where these conditions are present.It has survived because of the steel pipe Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-15 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC construction and embedding techniques.)In addition,construction of the Project could impact the natural drainage of the Turnagain Arm mudflats.A description of submarine conditions of the area illustrates how these hazards and resources are distributed along the alternative routes. The description of the marine environment is followed by a brief explanation of the methods used to gather information and prepare the description.As noted,the end of this section also includes the inventory results along the alternative routes for geologic resources,water resources, and the marine environment combined. 3.5.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND BATHYMETRY The physiography of the study area can be described as a large tidal estuary approximately 273.6 kilometers (km)(170 miles)long and 16.1 to 88.5 km (10 to 55 miles)wide at the head of Cook Inlet.This region of Cook Inlet branches into Knik and Turnagain arms,which are approximately 72.4 and 69.2 km (45 and 43 miles)long,respectfully.The alternative routes cross the central and western portion of Turnagain Arm.The seafloor in this area comprises mudflats with tidal channels and deeper channels or depressions.At low tide,approximately 70 percent of the sea floor within Turnagain Arm is exposed as elongate bars dissected by braided tidal channels (Bartsch-Winkler 1985). The bathymetry,or depth,of Cook Inlet varies (Figure 3-1).The mudflats that extend from 0 to -3.1 meters (0 to -10 feet)mean lower low water (MLLW)dominate most of Turnagain Arm. The exceptions are the deep channels that run down the middle of the arm,the deepest of which descends 54.9 meters (180 feet)between Fire Island and Pt.Possession (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]1994,1996a,1996b). 3.5.2 CURRENTS AND TIDES The tidal range in upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm is one of the highest in the world.Tides within Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm are mixed,with two unequal high and low tides per tidal day (24 hours,50 minutes)(Gatto 1976).Tidal change at Fire Island occurs approximately 2.5 hours later than at the mouth of the Kenai River and about a 0.5 hour later near Burnt Island than at Fire Island (Alaska Tidebook Company 1997).The maximum tidal range of Turnagain Arm is 11.4 meters (37.4 feet)(Bartsch-Winkler and Schmoll 1984). Tidal bores are a frequent occurrence in the head region of Cook Inlet and in Turnagain Arm.A tidal bore is a solitary,tidally generated wave that typically moves up a slowly flowing estuary with the incoming tide.In Turnagain Arm,a tidal bore forms with each incoming tide,reaches heights of 1.5 meters (5 feet),travels more than 16.1 km (10 miles)per hour,and occurs Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-16 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC |Cook Inlet - % Ne!Delta 0) Mod TOWER CYRADIO TOWE1604QUMPSITEOcrY/(drédged material)ship2(see note S)naraMICROTR "2 '@Hospial TV TRSAANHORAGE®{Chester > Hospital =earsRA\DOME . 630 kHzwwfPt.Campbell 2D\ A f "\\el :ms $aon\oo}Marsh 5 Rabbit Cr, Var Nt"7 LSPS : o*I 2hon OaJN1' (see note G) 4 33 CHICKALOON: ©RimroOSS CTIONCREEKPal ">? '-Windy Pt're tthe2807Hest,27024wulioliicin02 4 @ 7\4,;iS|Js Oreck, |>4700 . I I !\ /\c /I mi /&/X pee 065Popis//500577qe!)me =eis3 380\ywlnsWw P z.@%%¢€ /,: Tibary|yyal"Nyod,PM ons Wy :209 papa anye *|Bathymetry 350 9 Vauvtistindies SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECTAgqvtntontincei)ws vyeebplyayeep Proposed Anchorage to Kenai i}Peninsula Transmission Line Uo =Stig SSERESEEES /|Legend + eoR EASE ® ost 190 180 Soundings in fathoms at mean lower low water [| Genera!Reference Features "V sAlternative Route N Existing Transmission Line Re&: - w IC DAMES &MOOREetebene Q OY [Vi ARS i Figure 3-1 throughout the year (Bartsch-Winkler 1985).The tidal bore forms within 1!hour after each predicted low tide in Anchorage and takes 5.5 hours to travel from the mouth of Turnagain Arm to the end of the arm. Cook Inlet currents typically average 4 knots with occasional extremes of 6 to 8 knots ,although velocities vary with location and the height and range of tides (Gatto 1976).Oceanic water flows north into Cook Inlet along the east side of the inlet.Maximum tidal current velocities usually occur in Turnagain Arm during flood tides.Peak velocities of 2.5 meters (8.2 feet)per second (about 5 knots)occur during the onset of tidal flooding,and peak velocities during ebbtides occur at approximately mid-cycle (Alaska Department of Highways 1969).Tidal currents flow up and down Turnagain Arm with some lateral movement during early flood and late ebb stages (Gatto 1976). 3.5.33 SEDIMENTATION Estuarine Deposits Turnagain Arm was filled with glacial ice approximately 14,000 years ago when the sea level was lower.Since then,the arm has steadily filled with estuarine deposits.The thickness of these deposits at the head of Turnagain Arm is approximately 304.8 meters (1,000 feet)(Bartsch- Winkler and Schmoll 1984). Estuarine deposits in Turnagain Arm range from silty fine sand to sandy silt.Grain-size distributions of seafloor sediment indicate about a 90 percent sand content near tidal channels in Turnagain Arm and about 10 percent sand content near the shoreline along Anchorage and Chickaloon Bay (Bartsch-Winkler and Schmoll 1984).The current sedimentation rate is estimated to be about 0.25 centimeter (cm)(0.1 inch)per year,although sedimentation rate changes have occurred due to glacial fluctuations.tectonic events,and sea level changes. The Turnagain Arm floodtide is stronger than the ebbtide,carrying more sediment into Turnagain Arm than is drained out.Sources of Turnagain Arm sediment are composed of glacial deposits surrounding Cook Inlet,including Susitna River and Knik Arm sediment (Bartsch- Winkler and Schmoll 1984). Submarine Erosion The strong,turbulent tides in Turnagain Arm carry large quantities of sediment,which have previously damaged submarine cables between Pt.MacKenzie and Pt.Woronzof,and have contributed to submarine cable failures.The damage to cables usually is a result of shifting bathymetry,when the seafloor profile changes due to erosion and deposition of sediment. Southem Intertie Project EVAL 3-18 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inalsChapter 3 DOC Data indicate that shifts in the seafloor profile of up to 7.6 meters (25 feet)have occurred over the past 20 years.Channels cut in the seafloor also slowly but constantly move and change size with the tides.The slopes of the channels are particularly susceptible to erosion.As a result, submarine areas with steep slopes of more than 2 degrees were mapped as Qs on Figure MV-1, Earth Resources,in the Map Volume and are listed in Table 3-1. Boulders The easily eroded glacial deposits that constitute the bluffs along Cook Inlet and portions of the Anchorage and Fire Island coastlines,slough and break off into large boulder-sized clumps. These boulders are eroded further and moved by currents and sea-ice rafting,resulting in a number of boulder patches in the western portion of Turnagain Arm.Boulders occur on tidal flats around the south end of Fire Island and at Pt.Possession,:and extend about 9.7 km (6 miles)east along Chickaloon Bay (NOAA 1994,1996a,1996b).The boulders diminish in number and size toward the east in Turnagain Arm,probably due to distance from source and erosion.Discrete boulder patches also have been recorded on the seafloor between Pt.Possession and Fire Island and between Pt.Possession and Pt.Campbell at water depths of between approximately -6.1 and -15.2 meters (-20 and -50 feet)MLLW (Golder Associates 1996).In addition,boulders have been recorded by Golder in the deepest parts of the channels,some at depths of -18.3 to -27.4 meters (60 to -90 feet)MLLW. 3.5.4 SEA ICE Sea ice begins to form in Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm from October through November and remains until March or April.Much of the ice is formed on tidal flats and is lifted during flood tide and incorporated into larger sea ice floes.These are commonly greater than 304.8 meters (1.000 feet)across,with individual blocks less than 0.9 meters (3 feet)thick (Gatto 1976). Pressure ridges up to 6.1 meters (20 feet)occasionally form on the floe peripheries due to frequent collisions with other floes.The floes become scattered when they move with the tide in upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm.Ice remaining on the tidal flats that is repeatedly refrozen forms sheets or stacks of ice (stamukhi),some as thick as 12.2 meters (40 feet)(Gatto 1976). Submarine areas prone to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges were mapped (see Figure MV-1).A water depth of -7.6 meters (-25 feet)MLLW was chosen as a probable limit of seafloor ice impact,based on the size of pressure ridges and tidal range (Alaska Tidebook Company 1997;Gatto 1976).These areas include mudflats and adjacent seafloor slopes between Pt.Campbell,Pt.Woronzof.and Fire Island;in the Anchorage Bowl area from Pt.Campbell to Potter Marsh;at Pt.Possession;and in Chickaloon Bay. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-19 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC 3.5.55 MARINE WATER QUALITY Marine water in upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm is well mixed due to the large tidal fluctuations and current velocities.Temperature,salinity,and suspended sediment vary with season,water depth,and tidal cycle.Surface water data collected during spring and late summer (Gatto 1976)indicate the following ranges of water quality characteristics near the mouth of Turnagain Arm -temperature 10°to 15°C (50°to 59°F),salinity 15 to 20 parts per thousand (ppt),oxygen 75 to 80 milliliters of oxygen per liter (mLO,/L),and suspended sediment 400 to 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L).Suspended sediment in Turnagain Arm is typically fine to coarse silt size,with about 2 to 4 percent clay (Bartsch-Winkler and Schmoll 1984). 3.5.6 INVENTORY STUDY METHODS Information about the marine environment was obtained primarily through an extensive marine geophysical survey conducted in Turnagain Arm from July 8,1996 to July 13,1996 by Power Engineers,Inc.and Golder Associates,Inc.During the survey,bottom profile,side scan sonar, sub-bottom profile,and deep seismic reflection data were collected along the following routes: Route Link(s) Pt.Woronzof to Fire Istand's North Side M1.3 Fire Island's South Side to Pt.Possession M1.1 (Moose Point Light) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Possession (near Tesoro Pipeline)M2.1 and M2.2 Potter to South of Burnt Island MS5.3 Near Bird Point to Near Sixmile Creek M6.2 The results of the hydrographic surveys are presented in the Southern Intertie Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Engineering Final Hydrographic Survey Report (Power 1997). Information also was obtained and reviewed from various federal,state,and local agencies, including the following: #NOAA nautical charts pertinent to marine portions of the routes Fieldwork was limited to site visits and overflights by fixed-wing aircraft for resource verification only.Maps depicting marine environment constraints were developed using 1:25,000 scale topographic base maps of each route.Resource data were entered into a geographic information system (GIS)for display and analysis.Map units,mapping criteria,and data sources used in developing the maps are presented in Table 3-1.For the purpose of identifying potential hazards to the proposed Project,geologic units prone to certain hazards (e.g.,ground failure or slope instability)were separated from other units on Figure MV-1 and in Table 3-1. *ySouthernIntertieProjectEVAL3-20 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC 3.5.7 ALTERNATIVES The following sections summarize geologic,water,and marine resource issues identified along each alternative route.Figure MV-1 illustrates geologic,water,and marine resources (i.e.,earth resources)mapped within a 0.8-km (0.5-mile)-wide corridor. Tesoro Route Alternatives Geologic and Water Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,T2.1,T3.1,T3.2,15.1, T5.2/Route Option A) The Tesoro Route,from Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession crosses a short section of unconsolidated deposits in steep bluffs southeast of Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)that are prone to erosion and slumping.Route Option A also crosses areas of soils adjacent to the steep slopes that are prone to ground failure during earthquakes and compressible soils in muskegs.Three buried anticlines cross this route near its northern end and in the vicinity of Seven Egg Creek,which may indicate an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking.Six streams and adjoining floodplains are crossed including Bishop Creek,Swanson River,Scaup Creek,Otter Creek,Seven Egg Creek and Miller Creek.These creeks have flood zones that are generally on the order of 152.4 to 213.4 meters (500 to 700 feet)wide.: Marine Environment in Turnagain Arm (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) The submarine route from Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell crosses sections of boulder fields,large areas of potential ice scour or impact,and a steep submarine slope,which may be prone to slumping or erosion. Pt.Possession To Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) The submarine portion of the Tesoro Route from Pt.Possession to Fire Island crosses sections of boulder fields,shallow areas of potential ice scour or impact,and steep slopes indicating a possible increased potential for sediment erosion and shifting bathymetries.At Fire Island,the route crosses a short section of steep erodable bluffs and adjacent soils prone to ground failure Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-21 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC during earthquakes.The submarine portion from Fire Island to Pt.Campbell also crosses a large section of potential ice scour or impact. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) This route is similar to Route Option E up through Fire Island.The submarine section from Fire Island to Pt.Woronzof crosses areas of potential ice scour or impact and a short section of steep erodable bluffs adjacent to the Pt.Woronzof Substation. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof Submarine (Link M2.4/Route Option G) This route is similar to Route Option D up to Pt.Campbell and Route F to Pt.Woronzof. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) The submarine route from Pt.Possession to Klatt Road crosses a section with boulders and a large area of potential ice scour or impact.The north end of this route ends at a steep coastal bluff prone to landslides and erosion. Geologic and Water Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) The steep coastal bluff is prone to landslides,erosion,and seismic ground failure.After the landing at the bluff,the route is not in proximity to these hazards. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4,15.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-22 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Enstar Route Alternatives Geologic and Water Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldotna Alternative (Links $1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) This alternative route crosses areas of compressible soils in muskegs and minor sections of unconsolidated soils in creek bottoms prone to liquefaction during an earthquake.Two buried anticlines and an unnamed concealed fault cross this route,which may indicate an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking.Streams and adjoining floodplains are crossed including three crossings of Soldotna Creek,two crossings of unnamed creeks,and one crossing of Moose Creek.Flood zones in these creeks range from about 91.4 to 396.2 meters (300 to 1,300 feet)wide at the route crossings. Southern Soldotna Alternative (Links $2.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) This alternative route crosses some areas of compressible soils in muskegs and a steep slope adjacent to Kenai River that may be prone to landslides and erosion.Soils adjacent to this slope may be prone to seismic ground failure and minor sections of unconsolidated soils in creek bottoms may be prone to liquefaction.A buried anticline and unnamed concealed fault cross this route,which may indicate an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking. Three streams and adjoining floodplains are crossed by this alternative,including two crossings of Kenai River and one crossing of Funny River both of which have flood zones on the order of 152.4 to 182.9 meters (500 to 600 feet)wide.Additional concerns include streambank segments of the Kenai River composed primarily of glacial-outwash sand and gravel,which are easily eroded triggering bank failure by slumping. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) This route between the Soldotna area and Burnt Island crosses areas of compressible soils in muskegs,minor areas of soils prone to liquefaction,and one area of steep slope potentially prone Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-23 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC to landslides.The concealed Border Ranges Fault parallels the northern part of this route and may indicate an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking. There are four streams crossed within the Moose River watershed.These include East Fork Moose River,and three unnamed tributaries.There are seven streams crossed within the Chickaloon River watershed.These include Mystery Creek,the upper portion of Chickaloon River,and five unnamed tributaries of Chickaloon River.Three additional small watersheds are crossed-Big and Little Indian creeks,and Burnt Island Creek.These watersheds have flood zones ranging from 30.5 to 182.9 meters (100 to 600 feet)wide at the route crossings. Marine Environment in Turnagain Arm (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I) The northern end of the crossing to the Oceanview landing crosses a relatively steep slope comprised of unconsolidated deposits prone to landslides and/or erosion and ground failure during earthquakes.A large portion of the route crosses shallow ice scour or impact zones within the tidal flats area of Turnagain Arm.Near the southern portion of Chickaloon Bay,the route crosses an area of unconsolidated material prone to slope instability.The concealed Border Ranges Fault to the east,parallels this route,and may indicate an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking.From Chickaloon Bay to the Anchorage area, the alternative crosses tidal flats which are subject to ice scour/impact.The northern end terminates at a steep bluff prone to landslides and coastal erosion. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J) The northern end of the crossing to the Oceanview landing crosses a relatively steep slope composed of unconsolidated deposits prone to landslides and/or erosion and ground failure during earthquakes.A large portion of the route crosses shallow ice scour or impact zones within the tidal flats area of Turnagain Arm.Near the southern portion of Chickaloon Bay,the route crosses an area of unconsolidated material prone to slope instability.The concealed Border Ranges Fault is to the east and parallels this route,indicating an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking.From Chickaloon Bay to the Anchorage area the route is composed of tidal flats,which are subject to ice impact and scour.The northern end terminates at a steep bluff prone to landslides and coastal erosion. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K) The northern end of the crossing to the Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek landing crosses a relatively steep slope composed of unconsolidated deposits prone to landslides and/or erosion.A large Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-24 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC portion of the route crosses shallow ice scour or impact zones within the tidal flats area of Turnagain Arm.Near the southern portion of Chickaloon Bay,the route crosses an area of unconsolidated material prone to slope instability.The concealed Border Ranges Fault is to the east and parallels this route,indicating an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking.From Chickaloon Bay to the Anchorage area the route is composed of tidal flats,which are subject to ice impact and scour.The northern end terminates at a steep bluff prone to landslides and coastal erosion. Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) The northern end of the crossing to the Pt.Campbell landing crosses a relatively steep slope composed of unconsolidated deposits prone to landslides and/or erosion and seismically induced ground failure.A large portion of the route crosses shallow ice scour or impact zones within the tidal flats area.Near the southern portion of Chickaloon Bay,the route crosses an area of unconsolidated material prone to slope instability.The concealed Border Ranges Fault is located to the east of this route,indicating an increased potential for significant local earthquakes and ground shaking.From Chickaloon Bay to the Anchorage area the route is composed of tidal flats which are subject to ice impact and scour.The northern end terminates at a steep bluff prone to landslides and coastal erosion. Geologic and Water Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro route alternatives-While Route Option M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar route or the Tesoro route,it is described as part of the Tesoro route alternatives. Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road Alternatives (Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V,Z) From the junction of New Seward Highway and O'Malley Road to the International Substation, two areas of compressible soils and muskegs areas are crossed.Campbell Creek is crossed along this route as well,with a flood zone approximately 213.4 meters (700 feet)wide. Alaska Railroad Alternatives (Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y,Z) The southern end of this route crosses a steep coastal bluff which is prone to erosion and seismic ground failure.Scattered patches of potentially unstable soils susceptible to seismic ground failure are also crossed north of the bluff.Campbell Creek is crossed along this route at a point Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-25 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\Final Chapter 3 DOC near its confluence with Little Campbell Creek.The combined flood zone ranges from 121.9 to 304.8 meters (400 to 1,000 feet)wide in this area. Old Seward Highway/International Road Alternatives (Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y, Z) Campbell and Furrow creeks are streams that are crossed along these routes.The flood zone at Campbell Creek is approximately 152.4 to 304.8 meters (500'to 1,000 feet)wide at the crossing. The area between Campbell and Furrow creeks has been identified as having a high potential for isolated permafrost conditions in undeveloped areas,which may be subject to ground subsidence in the event of clearing. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) From the Victor Road submarine cable landing to Minnesota Drive via Link 13.2,areas of compressible soils in muskegs of the Klatt Bog are crossed.A section of steep erodable bluff is located at the southern end of this route. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4.15.5/Route Option O) From the Victor Road submarine cable landing to the International Substation along Klatt Road and Minnesota Drive,areas of compressible soils in muskegs and a section of steep erodable slope along the coast are crossed.Campbell Creek is crossed along this route as well. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) The same conditions described above are crossed for routes heading to the Alaska Railroad including areas of soils prone to seismic ground failure due to adjacent landslides and liquefaction.Campbell Creek is the only stream crossed along this route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-26 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives Tesoro Alternatives The Bernice Lake Substation addition would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits.The closest compressible soils associated with muskegs lie approximately 243.8 meters (800 feet)north of the substation. The Pt.Possession Transition Facility would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits.Steep bluffs prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 304.8 meters (1,000 feet)northwest of the site.Soils above the steep slopes that are prone to ground failure during earthquakes extend to approximately 213.4 to 243.8 meters (700 to 800 feet)of the site. The transition facility at the south end of Fire Island would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits,surrounded closely by unstable soils.Steep bluffs prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 60.7 to 121.9 meters (200 to 400 feet)to the east and southeast of this site.Soils prone to liquefaction,as well as soils above and below the steep slopes which are prone seismically to induced ground failure,extend to approximately 30.5 to 91.4 meters (100 to 300 feet)of the site. The transition facility at the north end of Fire Island would be located in an area of soils prone to liquefaction.as well as impacts by sea ice during high tides.Steep bluffs prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 60.7 to 91.4 meters (200 to 300 feet)to the south of this site. Enstar Alternatives The Soldotna Substation addition would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits.Compressible soils associated with muskegs lie to the south of the current substation.and Soldotna Creek and its relatively narrow floodplain are located about 60.7 to 91.4 meters (200 to 300 feet)northwest of the substation. The Naptowne Substation siting area has both relatively stable unconsolidated deposits,as well as compressible soils associated with muskegs. The Burnt Island Transition Facility would be located in an area underlain by metamorphic bedrock.The mudflats of Chickaloon Bay lie directly adjacent to the site to the west. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-27 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC Anchorage Bowl Substations:Pt.Woronzof,International The Pt.Woronzof Transition Facility addition would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits.Steep bluffs that are prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 60.7 to 91.4 meters (200 to 300 feet)northwest of the site.Soils above the steep slopes are prone to ground failure during major earthquakes. The Pt.Campbell Transition Facility siting area would be located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits.Steep bluffs that are prone to erosion and slumping lie approximately 242.8 meters (800 feet)south of the site.Soils above the steep slopes may be susceptible to ground failure during earthquakes extend to approximately 242.8 meters (800 feet) of the site.Coastal mudflats and soils prone to liquefaction during earthquakes extend out into Turnagain Arm. The Klatt Road Transition Facility siting area has both boggy compressible soils and relatively stable unconsolidated deposits. The Alaska Railroad-Rabbit Creek Transition Facility siting area contains low-lying soils prone to liquefaction.Rabbit Creek is located nearby to the east,where it drains into the north end of Potter Marsh.Steep slopes prone to slumping and erosion are also located in the siting area along the edge of Potter Marsh and Rabbit Creek. The Alaska Railroad-Oceanview Transition Facility siting area contains a steep bluff prone to erosion and slumping,as well as soils above the bluffs which are prone to ground failure during earthquakes.These soils extend to approximately 213.4 to 274.3 meters (700 to 900 feet)north of the top of the Oceanview bluff.Soils north of this point consist of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits. The International Substation is located in an area of relatively stable unconsolidated glacial deposits.Compressible soils associated with muskegs lie to the southwest of the current substation. Dave's Creek Substation This substation is located in an area of alluvial deposits associated with the confluence of Quartz and Dave's creeks.The floodplain in this area is approximately 609.6 meters (2,000 feet)wide. Quartz Creek runs along the north side of the current substation,and a bedrock slope is located on the other side of the creek about 152.4 meters (500 feet)north of the substation.Dave's Creek is located about 304.8 meters (1,000 feet)south of the current substation on the south side of Sterling Highway.It is possible that soils in this area may be prone to liquefaction during an earthquake. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-28 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Project study area on the Kenai Peninsula,Fire Island,and the Anchorage Bowl falls within the interior boreal forest zone,which transitions to coastal forest just east of the study area toward Prince William Sound (Hulten 1968).Boreal forest in the study area contains a mixture of white spruce (Picea glauca),white spruce and Sitka spruce hybrid (Picea glauca x P.sitchensis), black spruce (Picea mariana),balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera),quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides),paper birch (Betula papyrifera),and Kenai birch (Betula kenaica).Widespread, poorly drained areas are dominated by muskeg or shrub bog Communities and forested wetlands of black spruce. On the Kenai Peninsula,a broad expanse of wetlands dominates the central portions of the Kenai Lowlands consisting of an extensive area of lakes,muskegs,and bogs,most of which is within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR).To the west,lowlands contain many lakes and,as a result of the low relief and poor drainage in this area,bogs and muskegs are extensive.Eastern portions of the Kenai Lowlands also have extensive wetlands,but fewer lakes. The Kenai Peninsula supports a wide diversity of wildlife species.Thirty-five species of mammals,127 species of birds,and 28 species of fish are expected to occur in the study area. Birds known to occur in the study area include loons,ducks,geese,trumpeter swans,shorebirds, eagles,hawks,and neotropical migrant and resident species of songbirds.Salt marshes of the Chickaloon Flats,Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR),and Potters Marsh are major waterfowl concentration areas.Mammals of the study area include wolves,bears,lynx,moose, and caribou.Wolves,bears,moose,and lynx are found throughout the majority of the Kenai Peninsula portion of the study area.Moose are also common in the Anchorage area. Many of the lakes and streams in the study area support anadromous fish,including five species of salmon.These fish provide an important source of food for bears and eagles.Upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm provide habitat for marine fish including saffron cod and Bering cisco. Turnagain Arm also provides habitat for beluga whales. 3.6.1 INVENTORY STUDY METHODS Key wildlife resources within the study area for which data were available were mapped using an ArcInfo geographical information system (GIS).Resources mapped included anadromous fish streams;recently and/or historically active bald eagle nests;nesting and staging areas for trumpeter swans,ducks,and geese:brown bear feeding and concentration areas;relative abundance areas of lynx,wolf,and moose;caribou herd distributions;and beluga whale habitat. Location data were obtained from existing GIS databases,low-level aerial surveys,ground surveys,published reports,resource atlases.and interviews with wildlife agency personnel. Information on abundance and distribution of wildlife species was gathered from Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)wildlife resource atlases,published literature, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-29 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC unpublished agency reports and survey data,and interviews with biologists from the US.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),National Marine Fishery Service,KNWR,Chugach State Park, Chugach National Forest,and ADF&G. Habitat maps for waterfowl,bald eagles,and large mammals were being developed by the Muncipality of Anchorage for the greater Anchorage area at the time of this writing,but were in preliminary draft form.These preliminary habitat maps of Anchorage delineate habitat quality and wildlife use and abundance relative to other areas in Anchorage and are not directly comparable to similar categories on the Kenai Peninsula.Urbanization of much of the study area within Anchorage has degraded the quality of habitat in many areas,although some areas of open space,such as Kincaid Park,Klatt Bog and Connors Bog,continue to provide important habitat for some species.Therefore,information from preliminary maps combined with the distribution of open space,or areas of low density development,were used to characterize wildlife habitat in Anchorage.: Two types of vegetation maps were prepared:one to show the general character of vegetation within the northern Kenai Peninsula (Figure MV-2,Generalized Vegetation Types,in the Map Volume)and one to evaluate type of landcover traversed by each of the alternative routes and serve as a basis for habitat evaluation for wildlife species (Figure MV-3,Vegetation Cover/Wetlands and Figure MV-4,Anchorage Area Vegetation Cover/Wetlands and General Wildlife habitat).Vegetation along each of the alternative routes was mapped within a 1-mile- wide corridor,0.5 mile on either side of the centerline,for each alternative route,using true-color aerial photography at a scale of 1:2,400 (1 inch =2,000 feet).Wetlands within the study area have been mapped on 1:63,360-scale (1 inch =1 mile)quadrants for the Kenai Peninsula on 1:25,000-scale (1 inch =0.4 mile)quadrants for the Anchorage area by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)(USFWS 1982,1992)(see Figure MV-4).The classification system used by the USFWS follows Cowardin et al.(1979)and defines wetlands according to ecological characteristics. A total of 19 map units were developed using the Alaskan Vegetation Classification,Level IV (Viereck et al.1992)where possible,and incorporating wetland types based on NWI wetland maps (Cowardin et al.1979).After initial mapping of vegetation cover types on photos and ground verification in 1996,map units were transferred onto topographic quadrangle maps (1:25,000)and entered into the GIS.GIS centerline reports,summarizing the length of intersection with vegetation and wetland types,were generated for each alternative. 3.6.2 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT Terrestrial environments that could potentially be affected by the proposed Project include lands on the Kenai Peninsula,Fire Island,and areas within the Municipality of Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-30 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC Vegetation Vegetation within the alternative corridors includes plant communities associated with wetlands and drier upland areas.Upland communities include closed white spruce forest,needleleaf woodland,closed mixed forest,closed tall shrub,and moist grasslands.Wetlands include saltmarshes,and freshwater bog and meadow communities.Each of the vegetation types identified are described below.A list of vegetation types and associated dominant plant and wildlife species is provided in Table 3-2.Figures MV-3 and MV-4 illustrate vegetation cover and wetlands.° TABLE 3-2 MAJOR VEGETATION TYPES AND CHARACTERISTIC SPECIES CROSSED BY THE SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Major Vegetation Characteristic Plant Characteristic Animal Species Types Species Closed White Spruce Forest White spruce,mountain hemlock, rusty menzesia.devil's club,feather moss.club moss Martin,red squirrel,boreal chickadee,Townsend's warbler,ruby-crowned kinglet.brown creeper,three- toed woodpecker Black Spruce Forest Black spruce,balsam poplar,paper birch Moose.black bear,Arctic shrew Closed Mixed Forest White spruce,paper birch,aspen, cottonwood.highbush cranberry, lowbush cranberry.wild rose Black bear,wolf,lynx.moose,red squirrel.coyote, snowshoe hare,porcupine,black-capped chickadee, hairy woodpecker,three-toed woodpecker,great horned owl.spruce grouse,yellow-rumped warbler, gray jay.dark-eyed junco,Swainson's thrush,white- crowned sparrow,yellow warbler.song sparrow Needleleaf Woodland Black spruce,white spruce.willow, Labrador tea.horsetail Moose,greater yellowlegs,common snipe,gray jay Closed Tali Shrub (riparian)Alder.willow,white spruce,paper birch.bluejoint reed-grass Muskrat.beaver,river otter,bald eagle.rusty blackbird.Lincoln's sparrow.Barrows's goldeneye Moist Grassland Bluejoint reed-grass.fireweed.cow parsnip.lupine Moose.Savannah sparrow.fox sparrow Saltmarsh Lyngbve's sedge.Raminski's sedge.alkali grass.goosetongue, seaside arrowgrass Canada goose,sandhill crane,northern pintail,least sandpiper.song sparrow Low Shrub Bogs Dwarf birch.bog blueberry. Labrador tea.crowberry Caribou.sandhill crane,greater yellowlegs,least sandpiper.common snipe,northern harrier,mew gull, red-necked phalarope Black Spruce Bogs and Muskegs Black spruce.Labrador tea, crowberry.bog blueberry.sweet gale.shrubby cinqucfoil.bog rosemary.willow Lincoln's sparrow,masked shrew,arctic shrew, Barrow's goldeneye,spotted sandpiper Wet Meadows Sedges.cottongrass.spike rush. buckbean.dwarf birch.crowberry. Labrador tea.bog cranberry Common snipe.masked shrew,Arctic shrew,mink, northern harrier,spotted sandpiper,short-eared owl Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal'Chapter 3 DOC Chapter 3-Affected Environment Uplands Closed White Spruce Forest The closed white spruce forest cover type is dominated by white spruce,with scattered paper birch and aspen.This type occurs on well-drained soils of rolling,low-lying hills,primarily in the eastern portions of the study area.The understory is typically rusty menziesia (Menziesia Jerruginea),American red current (Ribes triste),highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis),starflower (Trientalis europaea),and lowbush cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea).Ground cover is usually a thick carpet of feather moss (Hylocomium spp.),club moss (Polytrichum spp.,Lycopodium spp.),and foliose lichens (Peltigera spp.). Recent epidemic infestations of the spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis)have resulted in the death of nearly all mature white spruce in thousands of acres of pure and mixed white spruce stands on the KNWR (KNWR 1996). Needleleaf Woodland This open forest community is dominated by black spruce,with some white spruce on moderately well-drained to poorly drained soils on level ground to rolling hills scattered throughout the study area.The understory is sparse with scattered forbs and low growing shrubs ona thick carpet of feather moss and lichens. Closed Mixed Forest Mixed spruce/birch/aspen forest is a very widespread forest type occupying the foothills area of western Kenai Mountains,well-drained uplands along Cook Inlet,including much of the Anchorage area,and on smaller well-drained sites within the Kenai Lowlands.In some areas, notably in the Anchorage area at Pt.Campbell and Pt.Woronzof,spruce bark beetle infestations have killed most of the white spruce trees,leaving a plant community that is strongly dominated by birch,poplar,and aspen.In its healthy state,this community consists of closed canopy white spruce (white and Sitka spruce hybrid),paper birch or Kenai birch,balsam poplar,and quaking aspen.Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana)also is found in some areas,especially in foothills of the Kenai Mountains.Shrub species include Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata),thinleaf alder (A.tenuifolia),willows (Salix spp.),Labrador tea (Ledum decumbens),wild rose (Rosa acicularis),devil's club (Oplopanax horridus),and highbush cranberry.Ground cover species include lowbush cranberry,oak fern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris),twinflower (Linnaea borealis), club moss (Lycopodium spp.),and wintergreen (Pyrola spp.).Black spruce occurs in poorly drained areas within this forest type. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-32 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Closed Tall Shrub Tall shrub communities in the study area occur both as floodplain thickets on major streams and rivers (riparian communities)and,in the higher elevations,as alder-willow communities in the transition zone between forest and alpine tundra.The riparian shrub thickets on river floodplains consist primarily of willows and thinleaf alder.This community is found along most major tributaries within the study area.The tall shrub communities at timberline consist of shrub birch (Betula glandulosa),Sitka alder,and several species of willow. Moist Grassland The moist grassland community consists of open communities of bluejoint reed-grass (Calamagrostis canadensis)mixed with red fescue (Festuca rubra),foxtail barley (Hordeum jJubatum),and bluegrass (Poa spp.).Common forbs include cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium),nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis),and meadow rue (Thalictrum sparsiflorium).A small percentage of shrubs such as aspen,willow,and alder also are associated with this community.This type is relatively limited in the study area,mainly occurring in the 1947 and 1969 burn areas on the Kenai Peninsula and in disturbed areas in Anchorage. Wetlands Saltmarsh Saltmarsh habitats in Upper Cook Inlet are characterized by a distinct zonation depending on exposure to saltwater (Batten et al.1980).The upper elevations of the inter-tidal and supra-tidal zones are dominated by a variety of sedges,such as Lyngbye's sedge (Carex Lyngbyei)and Raminski's sedge (Carex Ramenskii),and several species of alkali grass (Puccinellia spp.) (ADF&G 1990;USFWS 1982).The middle elevations are irregularly flooded by tides and are characterized by forbs such as seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimuem),goosetongue (Plantago maritima),arctic daisy (Chrysanthemum arcticum),pacific silverweed (Potentillia - egedii),lupine,and seabeach lyme-grass (Elymus arenarius).In the lower portions of the marsh on muddy inter-tidal substrates is a thin layer of dark-green algae (Vaucheria longicaulis) (ADF&G 1990). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-33 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Bogs and Meadows Black Spruce Forest Black spruce forest greater than 6 meters (20 feet)tall covers portions of the interior Kenai Lowlands,and is dominated by extensive stands of black spruce with small amounts of balsam poplar and paper birch,or Kenai birch.Understory species include Labrador tea,dwarf Arctic birch (Betula nana),wild rose,and leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata).Sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum spp.),horsetail (Equisetum spp.),bog cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos),blueberry (Vaccinium spp.),and lowbush cranberry are the major ground cover species in this forest type. This type grows extensively on shallow peat soils,glacial deposits,poorly drained outwash plains,and on some north-facing slopes in the study area.Large areas of this forest type have become established on the eastern portions of the 1947 burn near Mystery Creek,where moose overbrowsed the young hardwood component as the forest grew back,giving a competitive edge to the spruce (Bangs and Bailey 1980;Oldemeyer 1977).Mature black spruce forests are highly susceptible to wildfires,especially during periods of warmer and drier summers. Black Spruce Bogs and Muskegs These communities occur in low-lying areas with saturated soils,wet areas on old,poorly- drained floodplains,and in the higher elevations of stream drainages.They are dominated by dwarf trees (less than 6 meters [20 feet]tall)and low shrubs with varying degrees of sedges and mosses,and are classified as wetlands by the NWI (Cowardin et al.1979).Stunted black spruce is often a dominant species with dwarf birch,Labrador tea,crowberry (Empetrum nigrum),bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum),sweet gale (Myrica gale),shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruiticosa),bog rosemary (Andromeda polifolia),and several species of willow.Sedges (Carex spp.),grasses,and cottongrass (Eriophorum spp.)are often common components of this community.The most extensive areas of bogs and muskegs occur in the Kenai Lowlands, particularly northeast of the Kenai Airport and north of Sterling in the Moose River Flats.This community type is present also in the Anchorage area,mostly at Klatt/Campbell,Turnagain,and Connors bogs. Low Shrub Bogs Dominant species in this saturated scrub-shrub bog community are dwarf birch,labrador tea,bog blueberry,bog cranberry,sweet gale,and leatherleaf.Cottongrass and a variety of sedges dominate the herbaceous layer,growing on a thick layer of sphagnum moss.This community is similar to the dwarf tree type,only lacking black spruce as a dominant. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-34 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Wet Meadows This community type consists of saturated emergent bog-type marshes with a sphagnum mat, string bogs,and wet sedge meadows.Dominant herbaceous species include several sedges, cottongrass,spike rush (Eleocharis spp.),and buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata).A shrub component also is typically associated with this community and includes dwarf birch,crowberry, Labrador tea,and bog cranberry. Fire Ecology Wildland fires have played a significant role in the terrestrial ecology of the Kenai Peninsula,and are the primary force that sets back primary and secondary plant succession (Viereck and Schandelmeier 1980).The Kenai Lowlands has experienced two major forest fires in the past 50 years,the 1947 burn and the 1969 burn (Figure MV-5,Burn Areas,in the Map Volume).Both of these fires have had a significant effect on the vegetation communities of the areas.The 1947 fire burned a total of 50,587 hectares (125,000 acres)of the Kenai Lowlands from Skilak Lake to the Swanson River and as far north as Mystery Creek on the Enstar Pipeline route.The 1969 burn covered approximately 24,282 hectares (60,000 acres)in the western portion of the Kenai Lowlands.The greater intensity of the 1969 burn resulted in fewer "islands”of unburned forest. Approximately 46 percent of the area within the 1947 burn was unburned,compared with 7 percent within the 1969 burn (Bangs et al.1983). The 1947 and 1969 burns improved habitat conditions for moose,wolf,and Canada lynx.Early- to-mid successional-stage forest provides high prey densities (i.e.,snowshoe hare)for lynx and winter browse for moose.Wolf distribution mimics that of moose,an important prey species.As the forest in the 1947 burn matured,much of the vegetative cover came back as black spruce,a possible result of overbrowsing of the deciduous component by moose.The quality of moose habitat has been steadily declining in both areas with the maturation of the forest.In order to maintain high quality moose habitat,habitat manipulation practices,such as tree crushing and controlled burning,have been employed to improve moose browse (Oldemeyer and Regelin, 1984). Wildlife The Kenai Peninsula supports a very diverse population of birds and mammals,with over 200 species occurring on a seasonal basis (KNWR 1984).Many of these same species also occur in the Anchorage area (Figure MV-6,Anchorage Area General Wildlife Habitat,in the Map Volume).A list of common bird and mammal species in the study area is presented in Tables 3-3 and 3-4,respectively (at the end of this section). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-35 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Birds The study area supports over 150 species of birds (see Table 3-3 at end of Section 3.6)that occur as either year-round residents or migrants (KNWR 1984;West 1994).The major groups of species include:loons,grebes,waterfowl,shorebirds,gulls,terns,raptors,and many species of songbirds.Figure MV-7,Waterfowl Distribution (in the Map Volume)illustrates duck and goose concentration areas.Comprehensive swan and eagle nesting data are illustrated on Figures MV-8,Trumpeter Swan Nesting Areas (1968-1998),and MV-9,Bald Eagle Nesting Areas. Loons Three species of loons nest within the study area:common (Gavia immer),Pacific (Gavia pacifica),and red-throated loons (Gavia stellata).Common loons are the most widespread (KNWR 1984).Smith (1981)estimated the population of common loons to be around 1,200 for the KNWR.Loons occupy many of the larger lakes and ponds (greater than 20 acres)on the refuge (Bailey 1978). Grebes Two species of grebes occur in the study area.These include red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena)and the horned grebe (Podiceps auritus).Red-necked and horned grebes are relatively common year-round residents of the Cook Inlet region,but occur in the study area during the spring through the fall.Pied-billed grebes (Pedilymbus podiceps)occur as a casual or accidental species.During the breeding season,grebes occupy freshwater lakes,ponds,marshes,and slow- moving rivers.Their floating nests are anchored to emergent vegetation in shallow waters. Grebes occupy inshore marine waters during winter (Armstrong 1995). Waterfowl The study area supports a diverse population of waterfowl on a seasonal basis,either as migrants or breeders at lakes and wetlands throughout the Kenai Lowlands and Anchorage area.Common species of waterfowl using upper Cook Inlet regions include tundra (Cygnus columbianus)and trumpeter swans (C.buccinator),Canada goose (Branta canadensis),white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons),snow goose (Chen caerulescens),and various species of diving and dabbling ducks. Diving ducks include greater scaup (Aythya marila),barrows goldeneye (Bucaephala islandica), harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus),and common (Mergus merganser)and red-breasted merganser (M.serrator).The harlequin duck nests along mountain streams.This species was heavily impacted by oil following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in the Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska.As of 1998,the harlequin duck was considered a "species not yet recovered” (EVOS Trustee Council 1998).The most common dabbing duck species include the northern Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-36 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 F ADATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC pintail (Anas acuta),American wigeon (A.americana),mallard (A.platyrhynchos),green- winged teal (4.crecca),and northern shoveler (A.clypeata)(Eldridge 1997). Major waterfowl concentration areas include saltmarsh habitats in the Chickaloon Flats,portions of the ACWR,and Potters Marsh.These areas provide feeding habitat and limited nesting habitat.In the upper Cook Inlet,ducks tend to concentrate along the inter-tidal mudflats during migration,feeding along the tideline as the tide rises and falls (Eldridge 1997). The Chickaloon Flats estuary and associated wetlands are the major staging area on the northern Kenai Peninsula for thousands of migrating waterfowl and shorebirds (Quimby 1972).Species that use the flats include both trumpeter and tundra swans,lesser and cackling Canada geese, greater white-fronted geese,snow geese,mallard,northern pintail,green-winged teal,northern shoveler,and a number of species of shorebirds.The total number of birds on the flats during fall migration may exceed 25,000 individuals.Numbers of geese in fall can be in excess of 5,000 birds (KNWR 1986). Other areas of importance to waterfowl include the numerous small lakes and associated wetland habitats throughout the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula.These areas provide significant nesting and brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl (USFWS 1994). Trumpeter Swans After a period of concern for population numbers of trumpeter swans,the species has made a comeback over the last 28 years.The species has expanded its range and the numbers of swans in the Alaskan breeding population,including the south-central region of the state,has steadily increased (Bangs et al.1982a;Connant et al.1991).However,trumpeter swans have been shown to be sensitive to human activity and development,and this species is listed as a Migratory Nongame Bird of Management Concern by the USFWS (USFWS 1995).With the human population on the Kenai Peninsula increasing in areas occupied by nesting swans,long-term viability of swan populations is a concern (Bailey and Fischbach 1995).Twenty-three of the 89 historic nesting territories identified between 1957 and 1994 had been abandoned due to increased human activity,including lakeshore residences and recreational boating (Bailey and Fischbach 1995).In 1998,52 nesting territories on the central and northern Kenai Peninsula were occupied by nesting pairs of trumpeter swans.Most of the available habitat on the Kenai Peninsula appears to be fully occupied,as indicated by establishment of territories in newly constructed beaver ponds or at high elevations,and by a significant proportion (about 47 percent) of non-breeding adults using the Kenai Peninsula in the summer (Bailey and Fischbach 1995). Nesting trumpeter swans and cygnet productivity on and adjacent to the KNWR have been monitored annually since 1957 via aerial surveys by KNWR pilots and biologists.Most annual trumpeter swan surveys include a nesting survey (May to June),an early cygnet productivity survey (July),and a late cygnet productivity survey (August to September).Movements of Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-37 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC trumpeter swans on the refuge nesting grounds,areas used by trumpeter swan broods,staging areas,and migration routes and wintering areas have been documented and identified by banding swans with neck-collars and leg bands in the 1970s and 1980s.In addition,25 swans were fitted with radio transmitters in 1984 and 1985 to accomplish these study objectives.This study revealed the importance to swan broods of lakes adjacent to nesting lakes;documented the lower Moose River and Watson Lake as important swan staging areas;and verified that swans migrated through the Chickaloon River Flats area (Compton 1988). Trumpeter swan nest survey data were plotted for all years in which data from aerial surveys were digitized (KNWR 1998b,unpublished data)to delineate optimum swan habitat.Also,a plot of 1998 locations was generated to represent a typical distribution and provide a relative number of swans nesting in the Kenai Lowlands in 1998.Swan nesting areas,which have supported nesting swans at some time since 1968,have been identified throughout the KNWR and on nonrefuge lands.These areas were mapped (see Figure MV-8)to quantify the number of swan nesting areas either intersected by the alternative routes or falling within 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile)of each alternative route. The trumpeter swan nesting areas map indicates that swan concentrations extend throughout the lowlands,from the coastal fringe along Cook Inlet to the foothills of the Kenai Range just west of the Enstar Pipeline Route (see Figure MV-8).Many of the trumpeter swans that use the Kenai Lowlands stage in the lower reaches of Moose River in the spring prior to establishing nesting territories and in the fall prior to migration (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 1986). Trumpeter swans also use other areas for staging,including the Chickaloon Flats and ACWR. Shorebirds More than 30 species of shorebirds have been documented within the Project study area. Shorebirds are present along lakeshores,saltmarshes,and on estuarine mudflats within the study area.They occur as summer residents (i.e.,red-necked phalaropes [Phalaropus lobatus],spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia),least sandpipers [Calidris minutilla],greater and lesser yellowlegs [Tringa melanoleuca and T.flavipes],and common snipe [Gallinago gallinago])and migrants (i.e.,western sandpiper [Calidris mauri],semipalmated sandpiper [C.pusilla},dunlins [C. alpina],and turnstones [Arenaria spp.])moving to breeding areas in western Alaska or the Arctic (Rosenberg 1986). Gulls and Terns Common gull species in the study area include glaucous-winged (Larus glaucescens),herring (L. argentatus),mew (L.canus),and Bonapart's gulls (LZ.philadelphia).Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)are also common.Glaucous-winged gulls and mew gulls are year-round residents of the Cook Inlet.Herring gulls are present during migration.Bonapart's gull and Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-38 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC black-legged kittiwake are common from spring through fall.Gulls nest in trees,cliff ledges,or on the ground near lakes,rivers,tidal flats and beaches.During the winter,they are found in inshore and offshore marine waters,tidal flats,lakes,rivers,and rocky shores.The Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea)is the only tern species commonly found in the study area,and is present from spring through fall.This species nests on the ground along tidal flats,beaches,rivers,lakes, and marshes (Armstrong 1995). Raptors A variety of raptor species occur in the study area either as breeders or migrants.Species regularly present in the study area include bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)and golden eagles (Aguila chrysaetos),northern harrier (Circus cyaneus),northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),rough-legged hawk (B.lagopus),sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),American kestrel (Falco sparverius),merlin (F.columbarius),and gyrfalcon (F.rusticolus)(Bailey,personnal communication,1997;KNWR 1984).The American peregrine falcon (F.peregrinus anatum),a federally listed endangered species,occurs as a migrant on the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area and is discussed further in the section describing threatened and endangered species. Bald eagles and their nests are protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1972.These birds are common,year-round residents of the study area,nesting in areas near suitable food supplies along the coast or major water courses including lakes,rivers,and sloughs (Bangs et al. 1982b).Streams with both spring spawning fish and fall salmon runs appear to provide the best bald eagle nest sites (Bangs et al.1982b).Bald eagles usually select large mature trees,often cottonwoods,to support their large,bulky stick nests.Nest trees typically have a perch with a view of the water (KNWR 1984).Bald Eagle nest sites are scattered along the coastal fringe north of Nikiski,along the Moose and Kenai rivers,and at a few sites along the foothills of the Kenai Mountains (see Figure MV-9).The population of bald eagles in the Anchorage area has increased in recent years.Nests have been documented on Little Rabbit Creek,near John's Park, east of Pt.Woronzof,and at Pt.Campbell (Sinnott,personal communication,1996). Nesting bald eagles and eaglet productivity on and adjacent to the KNWR have been monitored annually since 1979 via aerial surveys by KNWR pilots and biologists.Most annual bald eagle surveys include a nesting survey (May)and an eaglet productivity survey in June to July (early) and/or July to August (late).Surveys of numbers of bald eagles wintering along the upper Kenai River,between Kenai Lake and Skilak Lake,have been conducted by watercraft (boat or raft) under ice-free conditions,or by aircraft if the river is frozen,since the winter of 1983-84. Between 1984 and 1986,26 bald eagles were captured along the Kenai River and fitted with radio transmitters to determine movements to and from the upper Kenai River. Golden eagles,also protected under the Eagle Protection Act,are uncommon or rare breeders in the upper elevations of the Kenai Mountains.They migrate south during the winter (Bangs et al. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-39 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC 1982b).Golden eagles would not likely be encountered along the alternative routes due to the lack of suitable habitat. . Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus)are uncommon on the Kenai Peninsula.Ospreys on the peninsula have been observed nesting on oil field towers near Swanson River and on an electrical transmission line structure in the Bernice Lake area (Bailey,personal communication,1996). The northern goshawk is an uncommon resident of the northern Kenai Peninsula.The species is considered a Migratory Nongame Species of Management Concern by the USFWS (USFWS 1995)and appears on the Partners-in-Flight list of land birds with high priority for conservation action in south-coastal Alaska.Population numbers tend to follow the cycles of their major prey species,the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus).Snowshoe hare numbers are presently high, therefore,northern goshawk numbers also are likely to be high (Bailey,personal communication, 1997). The great gray owl (Strix nebulosa)and the boreal ow!(Aegolius funereus)are also likely present in the Project study area.These species have been identified on the Partners-in-Flight list of land birds with high priority for conservation action in south-coastal Alaska. Songbirds Common songbirds in the study area include two species of flycatchers,four swallows,two jays, two chickadees,one nuthatch,one creeper,one dipper,five thrushes,seven warblers,one pipit, one waxwing,two kinglets,one shrike,seven sparrows,one junco,one bunting,one blackbird, and five finches.Songbirds occupy a diverse array of vegetation communities in lowland and upland portions of the study area. Many of the songbirds that occur in the study area in summer are neotropical migrants that nest in Alaska and winter in Latin America,and they are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Trend data in recent years has indicated that populations of these birds are in decline in North America,although local data is often insufficient to determine local trends.Populations of neotropical migratory birds are experiencing threats from a number of factors,including habitat loss within their breeding and wintering ranges,and migration stop-overs;severe weather;and nest parasitism.An aspect of habitat loss that is of particular concern for neotropical migratory and resident birds is habitat fragmentation.Habitat fragmentation involves the reduction of large areas of habitat into smaller and often isolated habitat patches as a result of habitat removal. Smaller habitat patches generally support fewer species because they cannot adequately accommodate species that require large territories or species that specialize in habitat interiors. Increasing edge from habitat fragmentation,or edge effect,in forested habitats leaves forest- breeding birds more vulnerable to predation,nest parasitism,and invasion of non-indigenous species. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-40 :Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC The USFWS has identified several song bird species as Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern,based on declining population trends.These include alder flycatchers (Empidonax alnorum),olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi),gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus),and blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata).The olive-sided flycatcher,gray-cheeked thrush,and blackpoll warbler are also considered Species of Special Concern by the State of Alaska.The State of Alaska's list of Species of Special Concern includes species of fish or wildlife native to Alaska that have entered a long-term decline in abundance or are vulnerable to a significant decline due to low numbers,restricted distribution,dependence on limited habitat resources,or sensitivity to environmental disturbance.Townsend's warbler (Dendroica townsendi)is another songbird species in the study area that is considered a Species of Special Concern. Partners in Flight is a international program of governmental and non-governmental entities formed to emphasize the conservation of land birds which are not covered under other programs such as the Endangered Species Act but are in need of conservation actions.Boreal Partners-in- Flight,the local Alaska working group for Partners in Flight,is in the process of assembling a list of species specific to Alaska for which there is a high priority for conservation efforts.For birds that occur on the western portions of the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage area, several species are listed under the category of "Species of High Priority for Conservation”and include the olive-sided flycatcher,boreal chickadee (Poecile hudsonicus),varied thrush (Jxoreus naevius),Townsend's warbler,white-winged crossbill (Loxia Iuecoptera),and pine grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator)(B.Andres,personal communication,1999).Concern for many of these songbirds is based on the suspected negative effects on populations from the loss of forest cover in central or south coastal Alaska.Alaska is of substantial importance to the North American populations of these birds (B.Andres,personal comunication,1999). Small Mammals Over 20 species of small mammals occur in the Kenai Lowlands (see Table 3-4 at the end of Section 3.6).These include at least 11 rodents,6 members of the weasel family,2 shrews,2 lagomorphs (hares and pikas),and 1 bat species.About one-third of these species are commercially harvested as furbearers.Feeding habits among these groups of small mammals range from herbivorous to insectivorous and carnivorous.Small mammals may use a variety of vegetation types in the study area,but in general,require some vegetative cover for concealment from predators.Although not identified as a group of special concern in the Project area,small mammals are also vulnerable to the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation,especially during dispersal. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-41 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Predators The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)and gray wolf (Canis lupus)are key predators in the study area.Other predators present are coyote (Canis latrans),red fox (Vulpes vulpes),wolverine (Gulo gulo),and mink (Mustela vison)(see Table 3-4). Canada Lynx The Canada lynx is a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered (62 FR 49398)under the ESA in the contiguous United States due to declining population trends.The lynx is an important furbearer in central Alaska.Lynx are distributed throughout much of the forested lowlands of the northern Kenai Peninsula (Figure MV-10,Lynx Distribution in the Kenai Peninsula Study Area, in the Map Volume),overlapping the distribution of their major prey species,the snowshoe hare (Bailey et al.1983).Lynx also are present in the foothills of the Chugach range and in the undeveloped areas of Anchorage.Fluctuations in the abundance of snowshoe hare on an 8-to 11- year cycle generally result in drastic changes in lynx abundance.During years with high hare populations,lynx numbers can reach as much as 10 times the numbers observed during low population cycles (Poole 1994).Studies of lynx populations on the KNWR,however,indicate a depressed lynx population,despite abundant habitat and prey (Bailey et al,1986).Snowshoe hare habitat includes forested and shrub habitats that provide cover from avian predators.Lynx are most abundant in early to mid-successional stage forests and subalpine shrub zones,but most often select mature forest stands for denning. Densities (number per 100 square km [38.61 square miles]),home range sizes,movements, productivity,and mortality have been determined each year for lynx in selected areas on the KNWR since 1983.The segment of the refuge lynx population that is monitored includes those lynx inhabiting areas of the refuge that are intensively developed and experience the most recreational use north of the Kenai River.Lynx in that portion of the refuge occur at the highest densities and are most susceptible to human-related mortality and disturbance.The principal monitoring method for lynx on the KNWR has been radio-telemetry since their secretive behavior and preference for dense cover,plus frequent poor snow cover and tracking conditions, often preclude snow-dependent census methods.Lynx are live-captured annually,fitted with radio collars,and monitored periodically from aircraft.Results of these studies and monitoring efforts have been published in scientific journals (Bailey et al.1986)and are presented in two graduate students'Master of Science theses (Kesterson 1988 and Staples 1995). Gray Wolf The wolf is one of the dominant predators of the Kenai Lowlands,preying mostly on moose (Alces alces),beaver (Castor canadensis),and various small mammals (Peterson et al.1984). Wolves tend to avoid human activity or disturbance,including settled areas west of the KNWR Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-42 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC and along the Sterling Highway corridor (Bailey 1984).They do use roads that are closed to vehicular traffic,such as the Enstar Pipeline access road (Thurber et al.1994).Wolves are strongly associated with their main prey species,the moose,for much of the year (Peterson,et al. 1984).There are seven wolf packs that may potentially utilize the northern Kenai Peninsula portions of the study area.These include the Big Indian River pack,Mystery Creek I and II packs,Skilak Lake pack on the eastern side of the study area,and Swanson River,Bear Lake, and Pt.Possession packs in the western portion of the study area (Figure MV-11,Wolf Distribution in the Kenai Peninsula Study Area,in the Map Volume).The health status of the packs is a concern due to a biting louse infestation in most of the packs (Bailey,personal communication,1997),and their incidence of exposure to canine parvo virus and distemper (Bailey,personal communication,1999). Wolves also occur in the outskirts of Anchorage along the foothills of the Chugach Mountains and undeveloped areas of the military bases,but generally are not associated with the developed coastal areas and do not occur on Fire Island (Sinnott,personal communication,1996). The most critical habitat requirements for wolves are an abundance of large ungulates,especially moose,and minimum human disturbance (KNWR 1984).Wolf habitat has diminished on the northern Kenai Peninsula due to increased human settlement,transportation corridors,and other forms of development.Human-caused mortality in the form of hunting and trapping is the most significant factor influencing the size of the wolf population (Peterson et al.1984). Densities (number per 1,000 square km [386.1 square miles]),numbers per pack,numbers of packs,pack territory sizes,movements,and rates and causes of mortality have been determined each year for wolves on the KNWR since 1976.The wolves that are monitored are those wolves inhabiting areas on the refuge that are intensively developed and experience most recreational use north of the Kenai River.Wolves in that portion of the refuge occur at the highest densities and are most susceptible to human-related mortality and disturbance.The principal monitoring method for wolves has been radio-telemetry,since the dense forest cover and frequent poor snow cover and tracking conditions often preclude snow-dependent census methods.Wolves are fitted with radio collars annually using a combination of live-capture and helicopter darting capture methods and monitored periodically from aircraft.Results of these studies and monitoring efforts have been published in scientific journals (Peterson et al.1984)and a graduate student's Master of Science thesis (Jozwiak 1997). Large Mammals Four species of large mammals are of particular importance in the Project area because of their subsistence,recreational,or ecological importance.These species include black bear (Ursus americanus),brown bear (U.arctos),caribou (Rangifer tarandus),and moose and are discussed below.Dall sheep (Ovis dalli)and mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus)habitat is not present along any alternative routes. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-43 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Black Bears Black bears are common throughout the study area and are much more common than brown bears.Black bears use a wide range of habitat types from den emergence in the spring to late fall (KNWR 1984).They prefer open forest,mixed forest,and shrub habitats,which provide cover and preferred forage species,such as berries,succulent forbs,grasses,and Devil's club (Erickson 1965;Schwartz and Franzman 1980;Schwartz et al.1988).General black bear habitat on the Kenai Peninsula study area and vegetation communities tht may support devil's club within the study corridor are shown on Figure MV-12,Black Bear Habitat in the Kenai Peninsula Study Area,in the Map Volume.In the Anchorage area,black bears occur in the foothills of the Chugach Mountains,coastal fringe of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge,and undeveloped areas.Black bears tend to avoid unforested areas,preferring dense timber,except during the spring when grasslands or estuarine saltmarsh habitat provide important feeding habitat for bears emerging from their dens (USFWS 1980).Black bears feed mostly on herbaceous vegetation,but also feed on carrion and spawning salmon in many of the rivers and streams during the summer months (ADF&G 1976a).The highest quality habitats for black bears are forested areas with relatively small openings (close to escape cover),a high diversity of forage species,and a high percentage of cover of these species.The highest carrying capacity for black bears is reached in mature forests (51 to 100 years)(Schwartz et al.1985). Brown Bears Brown bears are a species of special interest for resource agencies,as well as the public,since they need large tracts of undeveloped land with little human presence to survive.Over the last 20 years,the human population of the Kenai Peninsula has almost doubled.Associated with this rapid development has been an increase in roads,utility corridors,logging,development of private lands,and recreational activity (i.e.,hiking,fishing,hunting,etc.).As more people have entered formerly undeveloped areas,bear-human encounters have increased,resulting in an increase in defense of life and property (DLP)shootings on the Peninsula. DLP bear deaths have doubled in the last 10 years.From 1973 through 1989,38 DLP bear deaths were recorded (2.4 bears per year)on the Kenai Peninsula.From 1990 through 1996,40 DLP bear deaths were recorded (5.7 bears per year).The annual brown bear harvest is limited to 14 bears,of which only a portion are female.In 1995,1996,1997 and 1998,the fall brown bear harvest season remained closed by emergency order because the number of females lost from the population exceeded the maximum allowable number (ADF&G,unpublished data,1999). Brown bears are one of the dominant large mammals on the Kenai Peninsula and are considered an indicator species by the USFWS and U.S.Forest Service.Brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula are believed to be isolated from populations to the north (Jacobs 1989a).Brown bears prefer open tundra and grasslands or shrub habitats that provide lush vegetation and berry-producing plants.After emerging from their dens in the spring,bears feed extensively on horsetail,sedges, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-44 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC and grasses in the valley bottoms and open wetland areas.They also prey on moose and caribou calves,and eat carrion (Jacobs 1989a).Terrestrial meat (e.g.,moose,caribou,rodents)and vegetation comprise approximately 76 and 24 percent of the spring diet,respectively (Hilderbrand 1998).In the summer,bears graze on bluejoint reedgrass and feed on spawning salmon in the streams (KNWR 1984).In the fall,roots and berries,along with salmon,are fed on heavily prior to denning.Devil's club may be an important food source for brown bears as well as black bears (Schwartz,personal communication,1997). Salmon is the most important fall resource for brown bears,constituting approximately 60 percent of their diet,with terrestrial meat (21 percent)and vegetation accounting for the remainder.During the fall,the average adult female accumulates 56 kilograms (kg)(123.5 pounds)of body weight,most of which is fat (81 percent)(Hilderbrand 1998).Thus,salmon is critical to accumulating the energy reserves necessary to support the costs of hibernation(denning)and/or cub production. Brown bears generally enter dens from late October through November and emerge in early April.Brown bear home ranges are large and their population densities are low.Home range size for males is approximately 950 km?(368 miles')and about 483 km?(186.5 miles')for females (Interagency Brown Bear Study Team 1999).Recent population estimates range from 200 to 300 brown bears on the entire Kenai Peninsula (Schwartz and Arthur 1997). Particularly sensitive habitats for brown bear include areas where salmon are available,spring feeding areas in valley bottoms,riparian habitats,and denning areas.Anadromous fish streams provide potential feeding areas for bears.These streams vary in quality as brown bear feeding habitat,depending primarily on availability of salmon to bears,and degree of human activity. Riparian habitats along the western face of the Kenai Mountains may also serve as travel routes for brown bears feeding along anadromous fish streams (Figure MV-13,Brown Bear Habitat in the Kenai Peninsula Study Area,in the Map Volume).The Chickaloon River drainage has been suggested as optimum or "essential”habitat for brown bears on the northern Kenai Peninsula because of its quality and diversity of habitats,anadromous fish streams,and absence of human development (Jacobs 1989).Telemetry has revealed that some brown bears move from the Kenai Mountains to feed in the lowlands during the spring,summer,and fall;then return again in the winter to den in the mountains.These bears would seldom,if ever,move as far west as the coast of Cook Inlet because there are fewer salmon spawning streams with abundant spawning salmon along the western side of the Refuge,compared to the foothills of the Kenai Mountains. The Interagency Brown Bear Study Team (IBBST),which consists of biologists from the U.S. Forest Service,USFWS,ADFG,and the National Park Service,is in the process of assessing habitat quality for brown bears throughout the Kenai Peninsula.This preliminary assessment indicates areas of known or potential brown bear habitat.Dames &Moore met with the IBBST in February and March 1999 to determine habitat assessment criteria for brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula.As a result of these meetings,it was determined that areas of particular importance to brown bears include anadromous fish streams and riparian habitat associated with Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-45 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC these streams.Streams identified by the ADF&G as having anadromous fish runs are mapped as important summer feeding areas for brown bears.Riparian habitats adjacent to these streams, assumed to be approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mile)on either side of the stream in undeveloped areas, and approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mile)in developed areas,are identified as brown bear concentration areas.Remaining areas on the Peninsula are either brown bear habitat, development,or areas of potential development influence. Moose The KNWR was established originally to protect the Kenai moose population,which declined in the mid 1920s and 1930s from over use of winter range and harsh winter weather on the peninsula (Bangs et al.1982b).Wildfires on the KNWR may influence moose populations through improvement of browse conditions.For example,after an extensive wildfire on the Kenai Peninsula in 1947,the moose population increased over the next 20 years.A burn in 1969 northeast of Kenai provides the best winter habitat for moose on the northern Kenai Peninsula. The winter abundance of moose within the Kenai Peninsula portion of the study area is influenced by these burn areas (Figure MV-14,Winter Moose Distribution in Kenai Peninsula,in the Map Volume). Numbers of moose present during winters on and adjacent to portions (usually within ADF&G management sub-units)of the KNWR have been determined via aerial surveys since the mid- 1940s using transect (up to 1964)or quadrant/survey unit census techniques (since 1964).These surveys are dependent on adequate snow cover and vary three to seven years between surveys. Also dependent on adequate snow cover are annual,aerial moose population composition surveys,which are used to determine the proportions of calves,cows,and bulls in the moose populations. Moose are one of the most common and visible wildlife species in the region and are found throughout the majority of the study area on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage.They are the primary large herbivore and a key prey species for many species such as wolf,black bear,brown bear,and several species of scavengers.Moose seasonally occupy habitats from the lowland muskegs to the high mountain valleys.Bailey (1978)described two moose populations on the Kenai Peninsula:migratory populations that gather in the mountain drainages during rutting season but move to the lower elevations and into the Kenai Lowlands to winter,and a second population that remains in the Kenai Lowlands throughout the year.Similarly,moose in Anchorage move from between the Chugach Range and undeveloped lowlands around Anchorage,such as Kincaid Park.Some animals remain in the lowlands through summer. Moose are common to all terrestrial habitats in the study area,with the possible exception of mature needleleaf forest areas.Two important resources for moose are winter range habitat, determined by snow depth and forage availability,and areas suitable for calving.Optimum moose winter range occurs in early successional forest (burn areas)with birch and aspen Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-46 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC saplings,and climax and riparian shrub communities,which have little snow cover (KNWR 1984).Also,intermediate and mature forest stands are heavily used during years of low snow cover (Oldemeyer and Reglin 1984).Cover provided by dense coniferous or mixed forest is important,particularly in late winter and especially when such cover is in proximity to areas with good forage (KNWR 1984).During the spring,summer,and fall,water is an important habitat component in that it facilitates escape from predators such as wolves (Peterson et al.1984)and provides aquatic vegetation for forage (KNWR 1984). Moose calving areas are scattered throughout the Kenai Lowlands in open,bog meadows and black spruce habitat,although denser habitats also may be valuable (Bailey and Bangs 1980). The numerous wetlands,ponds,bogs,and sloughs provide suitable cover for calving.Cows often give birth on islands or peninsulas where the threat from predators is reduced.Moose River Flats, between the drainages of the Moose and Chickaloon rivers,provided optimum calving habitat prior to forest succession following the 1947 wildfire (Bailey and Bangs 1980). Preferred moose browse varies by geographic area and season of the year,but willow is the favored winter food.Burned-over areas in the Kenai Lowlands offer such browse.Birch and aspen also are used as a food source and are found throughout upland spruce hardwood forests in the study area (Oldemeyer and Reglin 1984).Moose forage in the early spring and summer on aquatic vegetation and emergent plants associated with rivers,bogs,and muskegs. Caribou Caribou were extirpated on the Kenai Peninsula by 1912 as a result of fires and unregulated hunting.The species was reintroduced by the ADF&G in 1965 and 1966,when 44 animals were released just north of the Kenai River (Bangs et al.1982a).These animals became established and formed two distinct herds -the Kenai Mountain herd (KMH)and the Kenai Lowlands herd (KLH),and have now grown to 400 and 100 animals,respectively (ADF&G 1985;USFWS 1994).Each of these herds occupy distinctly different habitats (Figures MV-15,Caribou Distribution in the Kenai Peninsula Study Area,in the Map Volume).The KMH is confined to the upper elevations of the Kenai Mountains and the KLH occupies the extensive wetlands in the center of the Kenai Lowlands near the Kenai Airport and south and east of Kalifornski Beach Road.The KMH ranges throughout the alpine and subalpine areas of the Kenai Range near Hope and to the foothills on the western slope of the Kenai Range.This herd winters in the Big Indian Creek watershed and ranges south to their calving area at American Pass (ADF&G 1985). The KLH became established in an extensive wetland surrounding the Kenai Airport (Bangs et al.1982a).This herd has two possible calving areas north of the Kenai Airport:a large wetland south of the Lower Kenai River mouth,and a small area in the Moose River Flats.Caribou from this herd move east to the Moose River rutting area in early October.The KLH winters in the Moose River Flats in the eastern portion of the its range as far north as Scenic Lake (Spraker, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-47 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC personal communication,1996).There is no post-calving aggregation area for either of these herds (ADF&G et al.1994). Caribou are not present in the Anchorage area or Fire Island. 3.6.3 FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT Aquatic Communities Riverine Riverine systems occur within the limits of river or stream channels (Cowardin et al.1979).Such systems are numerous within the study area and include both high gradient mountain streams (i.e.,upper reaches of the Big Indian Creek)and low gradient,slower,perennial streams and rivers (i.e.,Swanson and Moose rivers).The largest riverine system in the area is the Kenai River,which supports substantial runs of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),coho (O. Kisutch),pink (O.gorbuscha),and sockeye salmon (O.nerka);and small runs of chum salmon (O.keta).These riverine systems function as spawning and rearing habitats for salmon and habitat for resident species such as Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma)and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).This category includes all anadromous fish streams,which provide important summer feeding habitat for brown bears.Other key species that use riverine habitats include common merganser,river otter (Lutra canadensis),and mink. Lacustrine Lacustrine systems include lakes and ponds more than 0.8 hectare (2 acres)in surface area (Cowardin et al.1979).There are hundreds of small lakes and ponds throughout the study area, with the highest concentration located in the central portions of the Kenai Lowlands.These areas provide feeding and nesting habitat for many kinds of birds,including loons,ducks,geese,and trumpeter swans.These areas also are important habitat for mammals such as muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),beaver,and mink.They also provide rearing habitat for both resident and anadromous fish,such as Dolly Varden (resident and anadromous populations),rainbow trout, and longnose suckers (Catostomus catostomus).Some of the common plants characteristic of these habitats include white waterlily (Nuphar polysepalum),pond lily (Nymphaea tetragona), and pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.). Estuarine Estuarine saltmarsh habitats are one of the more important habitats in the study area.They are found in low-lying coastal areas,typically at the mouths of river systems as in Chickaloon Bay Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-48 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC (Chickaloon River),the Kenai River,and Captain Cook State Recreation Area (Swanson River) on the Kenai Peninsula,and low-lying tidal areas below the coastal bluffs in the Anchorage area. These areas are important feeding and resting areas for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds, especially at Chickaloon Bay.Bears feed on terrestrial meat (e.g.moose,caribou,rodents)and vegetation in the spring and on anadromous fish in the fall in estuarine habitats.Inter-tidal mudflats and estuarine open water areas function as habitat for low densities of epifaunal marine invertebrates,marine and anadromous fish,and feeding areas for beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Resident Fish Several species of resident fish,ones which remain in freshwater,inhabit lakes and streams in the study area.Among these are rainbow trout,lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush),and Dolly Varden, which are considered important for recreational fishing on the Kenai Peninsula.Several of the resident fish species also have anadromous populations in the same drainage system,such as the Dolly Varden,rainbow trout (steelhead),Arctic lamprey (Lampetra japonica)and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus).Common and scientific names of freshwater fish species are presented in Table 3-5 at the end of Section 3.6. Anadromous Fish Commercially important anadromous fish species in the study area include five species of salmon:chinook,coho,pink,chum,and sockeye.A large number of lakes and freshwater streams provide both spawning and rearing habitat for salmon.Nearshore estuarine environments provide important foraging habitat for outmigrating juvenile salmon.Spawning habitats of these species are particularly sensitive in that siltation can result in loss of eggs or newly hatched fry in the stream gravels from suffocation or burial.Recreational boating,sportfishing,and shoreline development can degrade nearshore rearing habitats.Other important anadromous species include Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus),Arctic lamprey,Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae),eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus),longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys)and threespine stickleback.Anadromous fish also use the nearshore estuarine habitats for foraging during out migration of juveniles and migration of adults back to the spawning stream.Other important habitats for these fish include nearshore rearing habitat for juveniles in the streams and lakes. Spawning adult salmon provide a significant food source for wildlife species on the Kenai Peninsula.Fish-eating birds include several species of gulls,osprey,and bald eagles.Avian scavengers that eat fish include common raven (Corvus corax),black-billed magpie (Pica pica), and gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis).Other wildlife species that make use of the anadromous fish resource include mink,river otter,coyote and black and brown bears.Spawning salmon play Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-49 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC an important role in the distribution of bears throughout the KNWR (Jacobs 1989a).Beluga and killer whales (Orcinus orca)also feed heavily on adult salmon. A map of anadromous fish streams located within the study area is provided on Figure MV-16, Anadromous Fish Streams and Beluga Whale Concentration Areas,in the Map Volume.A brief description of the major streams is provided below.Anadromous fish stream crossings of each alternative route are presented in Table 3-6 at the end of Section 3.6. Kenai Lowlands Watersheds The Kenai Lowlands may be divided into several watersheds.The Swanson River watershed covers approximately 717.4 square km (277 square miles)of the northwest portion of the KNWR.It originates in the Swanson Lakes area and flows west into Cook Inlet.The Swanson River supports the largest runs of salmon on the northwest side of the peninsula,including runs of sockeye,pink and coho salmon,as well as small runs of chinooks. Resident fish in the Swanson River system include Arctic char (Salvelinus alpina)which is found in approximately 50 lakes within the drainage.Other resident fish include the Dolly Varden,longnose sucker (Prosopium cylindraceum),Arctic lamprey (freshwater population) (Lampetra japonica),coastrange and slimy sculpin (Cottus aleuticus and C.cognatus),and the threespine and ninespine sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius)(KNWR 1995b). Other drainages on the Kenai Lowlands that support anadromous fish runs include Bishop,Otter, and Seven Egg creeks.Bishop Creek supports a run of sockeye and coho salmon.The other two streams support runs of coho salmon only,and little is known of the timing or size of these runs. Miller and Scaup creeks also drain the Kenai Lowlands,but are not known to support anadromous fish runs (KNWR 1995b). Kenai Mountains Watersheds The largest river on the Kenai Peninsula,the Kenai River,is glacially fed and drains much of the interior of the Kenai Mountains and central Kenai Peninsula.It flows from Kenai Lake through Skilak Lake west into Cook Inlet.The Kenai River system provides spawning and rearing habitat for chinook,pink,sockeye,and coho salmon.The river also has both resident and anadromous populations of Dolly Varden.The Kenai River,including the Russian River and Hidden Lakes system,is the major producer of sockeye salmon in Cook Inlet.Kenai River sockeye support both a major commercial fishery in Cook Inlet and the largest recreational sockeye fishery in Alaska (KNWR 1995b). Large numbers of chinook,coho,and sockeye return to the Kenai River in two distinct runs. Early run chinook salmon enter the river in mid-May and late run chinook begin in July.Early Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-50 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC run chinook begin spawning in July in tributary streams,whereas late run fish tend to spawn in the main channel from mid-to late August (ANWR 1995b).The early run of sockeye salmon typically enters the Kenai River in June and spawns in the Russian River system.Late run sockeye enter the Kenai River in mid-July,and spawn in the mainstream Kenai River and tributary streams (KNWR 1995b).Coho salmon begin entering the Kenai River in August,and spawn in tributaries during September and October.Late run coho enter the river in September and spawn in the main stem of the Kenai River in October through March.Pink salmon enter the river in July and August,in greater numbers in even-numbered years.Adults generally do not migrate far upstream and,in some areas,spawning occurs in tidally influenced areas on the river. Resident fish species in the Kenai River include the rainbow trout,Dolly Varden,lake trout, round whitefish,longnose suckers,Arctic lamprey,and coastrange and slimy sculpin and threespine and ninespine sticklebacks (KNWR 1995b) Moose River is the largest tributary of the Kenai River,with a watershed covering 647.5 square km (250 square miles)of lowland habitat containing 188.3 km (117 miles)of streams,60 named lakes,and over 200 un-named lakes and ponds.The East Fork Moose River is an important tributary of the Moose River.The Moose River watershed supports at least 16 species of fish, including sockeye,coho,chinook and pink salmon,as well as Pacific and Arctic lamprey, eulachon,rainbow trout,and Dolly Varden (KNWR 1995b).Northern pike (Esox lucius),a species believed to have been introduced into MacKay Lake in the Soldotna Creek watershed by a private citizen,was observed in the Moose River in 1986.Salmon runs in the Moose River system are moderate in size in comparison to those of the Kenai River. Other major tributaries of the Kenai River include the Funny River and Soldotna Creek.The Funny River enters the Kenai River from the south and drains a large watershed on the south side of the Kenai River.The river supports runs of pink,coho,chinook,and sockeye salmon,as well as populations of rainbow trout and Dolly Varden (KNWR 1995b). The Chickaloon River watershed,one of the largest on the KNWR,includes 11 tributaries and drains 797.7 square km (308 square miles)along the western slope of the Kenai Mountains and a portion of the Kenai Lowlands into Turnagain Arm.Mystery Creek is the largest of the Chickaloon River tributaries,followed by the North Fork and East Fork Chickaloon River.The Chickaloon River system supports major runs of pink,chinook,sockeye,and coho salmon,in addition to a diverse population of other anadromous and resident fish species.This system is the largest producer of salmon on the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula (KNWR 1995b).The lakes within this drainage support Dolly Varden,rainbow trout,lake trout,longnose sucker, coastrange and slimy sculpins,and threespine and ninespine sticklebacks. Anchorage Watersheds In the Anchorage area,Campbell and Rabbit creeks are the only anadromous fish streams potentially affected by the Project.Fire Island does not have anadromous fish streams.Campbell Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-51 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Creek is the largest free-flowing stream in the Anchorage metropolitan area.The North and South forks of the stream drain the Chugach Mountains east of Anchorage.The upper sections of the creek flow through canyons that are impassable to upstream fish migration. The lower portion of the creek,from Lake Otis Parkway downstream to Campbell Lake, comprises the primary salmon spawning and rearing habitat for chinook and coho salmon and Dolly Varden (Stratton and Cyr 1997).Small numbers of sockeye salmon also spawn and rear within the watershed.Resident fish species include rainbow trout (stocked),Dolly Varden, coastrange and slimy sculpin,and threespine and ninespine sticklebacks.The Municipality of Anchorage has been making an effort to obtain and preserve riparian habitat,and improve the water quality of the creek to increase the spawning and rearing success of the creek's salmon populations. Rabbit Creek,which flows into Potter's Marsh and then into Turnagain Arm,supports runs of all five species of salmon.Pink,chinook,and coho are the major species,with smaller runs of sockeye and chum salmon.Resident fish include rainbow trout (stocked),Dolly Varden,and the common sculpins and sticklebacks (P.Cyr,personal communication,1999).Northern pike have also been introduced into some lakes around the Anchorage area,but are not known to occur in Campbell or Rabbit creeks. 3.6.4 MARINE ENVIRONMENT Lower Trophic Level Turnagain Arm in Upper Cook Inlet is a large tidal estuary that experiences a great degree of physical stresses (ADF&G 1990).Turnagain Arm is a relatively unproductive marine environment compared to other areas in Cook inlet,such as Kachemack Bay,which is characterized by a highly diverse flora and fauna.The paucity of resident marine organisms found in Upper Cook Inlet is primarily because of low primary productivity,widely fluctuating water temperatures and salinities,glacial silt,high turbidity,and ice scour of the bottom and inter-tidal sediments (ADF&G 1990).The primary source of organic carbon for upper Cook Inlet appears to be the large quantities of terrestrial organic material discharged into the inlet from the area's many rivers,streams,and marshes (Dames &Moore 1983).Marine invertebrates that occur in this area are listed in Table 3-7.The few species that do occur in very low densities include inter-tidal marine infaunal invertebrates (living in the sediment)such as clams (Mya arenaria),Baltic macoma (Macoma balthica),eastern softshell clam (Mya arenaria),heart cockle (Clinocardium nuttalii),periwinkle snails (Littorina spp.),and five species of polychaetes (Bakus et al.1979).Epifaunal invertebrates (living above the bottom)are the dominant marine invertebrates in the Upper Cook Inlet and include gammarid amphipods or sand fleas (Eogammarus confervicolous),sand shrimp (Crangon spp.),and a small mysid (shrimp-like crustacean)(Mysis spp.)(Bakus et al.1979;Dames &Moore 1983). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-52 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Marine Fish Marine fish within upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm that do not enter freshwater to any significant extent are listed in Table 3-5.Many of these fish species are important food sources for both birds and marine mammals.Saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis)and Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae)appear to be relatively abundant in upper Cook inlet (Dames &Moore 1983).Both the saffron cod and Bering cisco appear to spawn in streams in the fall and return to the inlet for the remainder of the year.Upper Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm also are used as seasonal migration routes for large numbers of anadromous salmonids,both out-migrating juveniles and returning adults.Out-migrating juvenile salmon appear to be present in upper Cook Inlet during May through June (Dames &Moore 1983)and returning adult salmon from approximately mid-May until August. Marine Mammals Four species of marine mammal frequent the waters of the Upper Cook Inlet on a seasonal basis: the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus),harbor seal,beluga whale,and killer whale.Harbor seals may be found in small numbers in Turnagain Arm during the summer months when salmon are present.No specific concentration areas for seals have been identified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)or ADF&G within the study area (ADF&G 1976),although they are often seen hauled out on the flats at Chickaloon Bay during low tide. KNWR staff have observed approximately 20 to 30 seals at a time in Chickaloon Bay (KNWR 1999).Due to recent declines in harbor seal populations,the State of Alaska has designated this seal a Species of Special Concern (ADF&G et al.1994). Beluga whales in Cook Inlet appear to be a small,geographically isolated population separated from the populations in the Bering,Chukchi,and Beaufort seas and the Arctic Ocean (Caulkins 1989;Klinkart 1966;Morris 1992).The beluga whale is included on the state's list of Species of Special Concern.Belugas are mainly found in the inter-tidal and nearshore areas of Turnagain and Knik Arms near Anchorage.The distribution of beluga whale habitat is shown on Figure MV-16.These areas provide food sources and also may be used for calving or epidermal molt (Morris 1992).Concentrations occur primarily in the early spring to late fall (March through November)usually at the mouths of rivers (Mahoney,personal communication,1997).During this time,beluga whales frequent the waters of Turnagain Arm as they feed on smelt and adult salmon (Mahoney,personal communication,1997).Beluga whales are not known to be present in the Upper Inlet from December through February.Beluga calving areas in Cook Inlet have not been identified,but it is now believed that calving may occur in May and June,particularly in estuaries such as Chickaloon Bay (Mahoney,personal communication,1997). Improvements in survey techniques for beluga whales and development of a correction factor for estimating population sizes have recently revealed a dramatic decline in numbers of beluga whales in Cook Inlet.Between 1994 and 1998,population estimates decreased from 650 to 350 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-53 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC beluga whales (Mahoney,personal communication,1998).In April 1999,the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)announced that it had received petitions to list the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales under the Endangered Species Act and to designate the population as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.NMFS determined that the petitioned actions may be warranted (64FR 17347,April 9,1999).Petitions called for implementation of emergency conservation strategies and regulations on subsistence hunting of the whales. Negotiations were initiated in mid-March 1999 on a two-year interim,co-management agreement with the goal of concluding the agreement before subsistence hunting begins in May 1999.Most of the nearshore oil and gas lease tracts in the Chickaloon Bay have been removed from lease sale based on concern for the beluga population. Although infrequent,killer whales occur in the waters of the upper inlet in small pods feeding on beluga whales (Morris 1992).No concentration areas have been identified. 3.6.55 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES A species list obtained from the USFWS,under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, indicated the occurrence of the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum),in the study srea.The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)is also listed under the Endangered Species Act and may be present in the study area. Peregrine Falcon The USFWS listed the American peregrine falcon as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act in 1970 (35 FR 16047,October 13,1970).This species has recovered significantly and is currently proposed for removal from the endangered species list (63 FR 45446,August 26,1998).The American peregrine falcon is also included in the State of Alaska's list of Species of Special Concern.This species may occur as an occasional migrant in the Upper Cook Inlet area during migration to and from nesting areas in central Alaska.This subspecies is not known to nest in the KNWR (Bailey,personal communication,1997).With the population of American peregrine falcons increasing in numbers across its breeding range in the interior,more peregrines will likely be seen in the Upper Cook Inlet during migration.However,most of the population takes an interior route on their annual migration (Ambrose,personal communication, 1997).Peregrines have been documented nesting in the Skilak Lake area,south of the study area, but these were more likely the nonmigratory coastal race of peregrines (Falco peregrinus pealei), which is not endangered (Bailey,personal communication,1997).This subspecies,although not listed,is protected due to its similar appearance to the endangered American peregrine falcon.If the American peregrine falcon is delisted,it would also remove the designation of endangered due to similarity of appearance for any free-flying peregrine falcon.The prepared rule would include a five-year post-delisting monitoring plan.During the post-monitoring period,if the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-54 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC American peregrine falcon populations decline below an established threshold,the species could be re-listed. Steller Sea Lion The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)is federally listed as endangered and threatened, dependent on the stock,and appears on the State of Alaska's list of Species of Special Concern. The western stock was listed as endangered in 1997 (62 FR 30772,June 5,1997)for the area west of Cape Suckling in the eastern Gulf of Alaska.The eastern stock,which is the stock to the east of Cape Suckling,remains listed as threatened (SS FR 49204,November 26,1990).The Steller sea lion is a year-round resident of Lower Cook Inlet,but rarely ventures into the turbid waters of Upper Cook Inlet,although there are irregular sitings off Anchorage (Smith,personal communication,1997).The nearest haulout site to the Project is West Forelands on the western side of Cook Inlet near Trading Bay.There are no documented haulouts in Turnagain Arm or on Fire Island. 3.6.6 ALTERNATIVES An inventory of vegetation types,aquatic resources,and selected wildlife species was conducted for each alternative route. The following wildlife species were selected for a site-specific inventory and analysis based on their sensitivity,agency and/or public concern,and availability of site-specific data.Maps depicting information on species distribution and habitat resources are referenced by map number for each species/group: anadromous fish (MV-16) waterfowl (MV-7) trumpeter swan (MV-8) bald eagle (MV-9) wolf (MV-11) Canada lynx (MV-10) black bear (MV-12) brown bear (MV-13) beluga whale (MV-16) moose (MV-14) caribou (MV-15) This set of species does not include all species of concern in relation to the Project.Wildlife resources expected to be present within the Project study area for which site-specific data are not available are described earlier in Sections 3.6.2,3.6.3 and 3.6.4. Vegetation and aquatic resources were inventoried within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of either side of assumed route centerlines.Wildlife resources were inventoried and mapped for 3.2 km (2 miles) on either side of centerlines based upon agency data and vegetation associations.Bald eagle and swan locations mapped include both recent and historic data for both species.Although resources Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-55 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC are mainly reported for the assumed centerline,resources adjacent to the centerline may also be affected by the project. The following is a brief summary of vegetation and aquatic resources present along each of the project alternatives.Information on selected wildlife resources for each alternative also are summarized. Tesoro Route Alternatives The two federally listed threatened and endangered species potentially occurring within the Project study area may be present on an infrequent basis within the alternative routes.Peregrine falcons may occasionally pass through areas within the routes during migration.No known Steller sea lion haulouts are known in Turnagain Arm;however,this species has been observed irregularly off the coast of Anchorage. Biological Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake through Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)-26.9 km (16.7 miles) (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,T2.1/Route Option A) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this segment passes through about 15.6 km (9.7 miles)of closed mixed spruce forest,9.5 km (5.9 miles)of developed lands,1.0 km (0.6 mile)of open water,0.5 km (0.3 mile) of bogs and meadows,and less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of riverine community.Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of most to least common,include closed mixed spruce forest,developed lands,estuarine flooded mudflats,bogs and meadows, open water (greater than 8 hectares [20 acres]),open water (less than 8 hectares [20 acres)]), barren bluffs,and riverine (see Figure MV-3,Route Option A/Panel 1). Wildlife Approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mile)of this segment pass through developed areas,and approximately 20.3 km (12.6 miles)pass through areas influenced by development.Human disturbance in these areas may displace wildlife or prevent wildlife use. Anadromous Fish Anadromous fish streams crossed by this segment include Bishop Creek and Swanson River.Both of these streams support runs of pink,coho,sockeye salmon,and small Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-56 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC numbers of chinook salmon in the Swanson River (Table 3-6).The Swanson River is the largest producer of salmon on the northwest side of the Kenai Peninsula. Waterfowl All of this segment passes through areas used by waterfowl during the spring and summer for nesting,brood-rearing,and staging.Waterfowl habitat includes small ponds,lakes, riverine habitats,and emergent wetlands. Trumpeter Swan About 9.7 km (6.0 miles)of this segment are within three known trumpeter swan nesting areas.Two of the nesting areas were occupied in 1998 (KNWR 1998b,unpublished data).Historically,seven pairs of trumpeter swans have occupied territories within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the segment with six of the pairs observed having young.Historic observations of the swans are concentrated in the area between Bernice Lake and Captain Cook State Recreation Area. Bald Eagle This segment does not pass through any known bald eagle nesting areas.Seven known bald eagle nesting areas were identified within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this segment.Only one of these nesting areas was confirmed to be active during the 1998 breeding season (KNWR 1998c,unpublished data).Swanson River and Bishop Creek area anadromous fish streams that provide feeding opportunities for bald eagles,primarily from June through September. Wolf Approximately 5.8 km (3.6 miles)of this route pass through areas of low wolf abundance. Canada Lynx Lynx abundance is low for 5.8 km (3.6 miles)of this segment because of the presence of mature forest habitat. Black Bear This segment contains 5.8 km (3.6 miles)of black bear habitat.Approximately 5.1 km (3.2 miles)are in mature forests which may support devil's club,an important food source for black bears. Brown Bear The centerline of this segment crosses two anadromous fish streams which provide summer feeding areas for brown bear when salmon are present.Along this segment, approximately 7.4 km (4.6 miles)of riparian habitat associated with these streams are concentration areas for brown bear.These areas consist of a 1.6-km (1-mile)corridor on either side of the Swanson River and a 1.6 km (1.0 mile)corridor on the east side of Bishop Creek.A 0.4 km (0.25-mile)corridor is assumed for the west side of Bishop Creek,because of existing development.Approximately 4.8 km (3.0 miles)of this segment pass through general brown bear habitat.Despite the presence of resources that could be used by brown bears,the amount of development and human activity along this segment of Route Option A have probably already displaced brown bear use of the salmon resources. Beluga Whale Beluga whales occur in the waters of Cook Inlet adjacent to this segment,but this segment does not affect beluga whale habitat. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-57 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Moose Moose habitat along this segment includes year-round moose habitat and high quality moose winter range.Approximately 5.1 km (3.2 miles)are within areas of high winter moose abundance,and 0.6 km (0.4 mile)are within areas of low moose abundance. Caribou The primary winter range for caribou from the KLH would not be affected by this segment,although caribou may pass through the area during winter.Calving areas for this herd are located well to the east of this segment. Captain Cook SRA to Pt.Possession -44.0 km (27.4 miles)(Links 13.1,T3.2,T5.1, T5.2/Route Option A) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this segment intersects about 37 km (23.0 miles)of closed mixed forest,6.7 km (4.2 miles)of bogs and wet meadows,0.2 km (0.1 mile)of barren cliffs and beach,and 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of closed tall shrub.Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in decreasing order of commonness,include:closed mixed forest,estuarine open water,bogs and meadows,barren bluffs,closed tall shrub,open water,and saltmarsh (see Figure MV-3,Route Option A/Panels 1 and 2). Wildlife Approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mile)of this segment pass through areas of development influence. Human disturbance in these areas may displace wildlife use. Anadromous Fish This segment crosses two known anadromous fish streams:Otter and Seven Egg creeks (Table 3-6).Both of these streams support runs of coho salmon but little is known about the size or timing of the runs.The numbers of fish in these systems would be expected to reflect the small size of the watersheds.Miller Creek and Scaup Creek are not known to support runs of salmon. Waterfowl This segment of Route A passes through areas used by waterfowl during the spring and summer for nesting,brood rearing and staging.Waterfowl habitat includes small ponds, lakes,riverine habitats,and emergent wetlands. Trumpeter Swan Approximately 25.8 km (16.0 miles)of the segment traverses nine known trumpeter swan nesting territories.Five of these nesting areas were occupied during the 1998 breeding season (KNWR 1998b,unpublished data).A total of 11 pair of trumpeter swans,3 with young,have historically been observed within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this segment in the proximity of Gull,Gray Cliff,Besser,Seven Egg,and Diamond lakes. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-58 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Bald Eagle The centerline of this segment passes within 0.40 km (0.25 mile)of a documented bald eagle nest.This nest was determined to be inactive during the spring of 1998 (KNWR 1998c,unpublished data).Two other nesting areas have been identified within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the centerline of this segment.One of these nests was active in the 1998 breeding season (KNWR 1998c,unpublished data).Otter and Seven Egg creeks,anadromous fish streams, provide feeding opportunities for bald eagles,primarily from June through September. Wolf The southernmost portion of this segment traverses the home range of the Swanson River wolf pack.The remainder of the segment passes to the west and avoids the traditional home range of the Pt.Possession wolf pack.This pack has not been monitored in several years,and the exact status of this pack in 1998 is unknown (Bailey,personal communication,1999).Wolf abundance is low along 43 km (26.7 miles)of this segment. Canada Lynx Lynx abundance is low for 43 km (26.7 miles)of this segment due to the presence of mature forest habitat. Black Bear This segment contains 43 km (26.7 miles)of black bear habitat.Approximately 36.0 km (22.5 miles)are in mature forests which may support devil's club,an important food source for black bears. Brown Bear In this segment,the centerline intersects two anadromous fish streams which may provide summer feeding areas for brown bear when salmon are present.Along this segment, approximately 10.6 km (6.6 miles)of riparian habitat associated with the streams are potential concentration areas for brown bear.These areas consist of a 1.6 km (1.0-mile)corridor on either side of the anadromous fish streams.This segment traverses approximately 32.2 km (20.1 miles) of general brown bear habitat. Beluga Whale Beluga whale habitat exists along the western side of the study corridor in Cook Inlet,along the coast of Pt.Possession.However,this segment of Route Option A is entirely on land and no beluga whale habitat would be affected. Moose Approximately 43 km (26.7 miles)of this segment pass through areas of low winter moose abundance. Caribou Caribou from the KLH could potentially use the area along this segment,but it is outside traditional use areas for this herd.No calving areas would be traversed by this segment. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-59 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Biological Resources in Turnagain Arm (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell-22.4 km (13.9 miles)(Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route intersects 14 km (8.7 miles)of estuarine open water,8.2 km (5.1 miles)of estuarine flooded mudflats,and 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of saltmarsh.Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of decreasing commonness,include estuarine open water,estuarine flooded mudflats,developed lands,closed mixed forest, saltmarsh,closed tall shrub,barren bluffs,and open water (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Anadromous Fish No anadromous fish streams are crossed by Route Option D. Waterfowl Pt.Campbell is within the ACWR,which supports staging,nesting,and brood rearing waterfowl,although concentration areas have not been identified at Pt.Campbell. Trumpeter Swan This route passes through the periphery of two known trumpeter swan nesting areas at Pt.Possession. Bald Eagle Bald eagles forage for carrion along the shoreline in this segment.However,the lack of nearby anadromous fish streams limits the use of the area. WolflCanada Lynx Route Option D does not include any wolf or lynx habitat. Black Bear Black bear may feed on carrion along the beach near Pt.Possession.No black bear habitat occurs along this route at Pt.Campbell. Brown Bear Shoreline areas at Pt.Possession provide less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat.However,due to the lack of anadromous fish streams in the vicinity,this area does not provide summer feeding areas for brown bear.No brown bear habitat occurs at the north end of the route near Pt.Campbell. Beluga Whale Approximately 13.8 km (8.6 miles)of this route pass through beluga whale concentration areas.These areas are east of Pt.Possession and south of Pt.Campbell. Moose_The shoreline at either end of this route does not provide any habitat for moose. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-60 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Caribou The southern end of the route is outside the range of caribou from the KLH. Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island -27.5 km (17.1 miles)(Links M1.1,T4.1, T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of the route passes through 8.3 km (5.2 miles)of closed mixed forest,13.9 km (8.7 miles)of estuarine open water,4.7 km (3.0 miles)of estuarine flooded mudflats,0.3 km (0.2 mile)of saltmarsh,and 0.5 km (0.2 mile)of barren bluffs and beaches.Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of most to least common,are estuarine open water,closed mixed forest,estuarine flooded mudflats,developed lands,saltmarsh,barren bluffs, bogs and meadows,closed tall shrub,and open water (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Anadromous Fish Route Option E does not cross any anadromous fish streams. Waterfowl Waterfowl are distributed along the shoreline of Fire Island and Pt.Campbell from spring through the early fall.Saltmarsh habitats on the southwest end of Fire Island and in the ACWR near Pt.Campbell are used by waterfowl for nesting and staging during migration. Trumpeter Swan This route passes through two historic trumpeter swan nesting areas at Pt. Possession.One nesting pair of trumpeter swans with three young was observed on the only lake on Fire Island during a 1984 survey.Swan nesting on Fire Island had not been previously documented.No nesting trumpeter swan observations were recorded on Fire Island during four subsequent surveys. Bald Eagle Bald eagles forage along the shoreline of Pt.Possession,Fire Island and Pt. Campbell.However,no bald eagle nests have been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the route. Wolf/Canada Lynx No wolf or lynx habitat occurs at Pt.Possession or Pt.Campbell.Wolves and lynx are not present on Fire Island. Black Bear Black bears potentially use the beach area near Pt.Possession to forage for carrion. No black bear habitat occurs at Pt.Campbell.Black bears are not know to regularly occur on Fire Island. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-61 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Brown Bear Shoreline areas at Pt.Possession provide less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat.However,due to the lack of anadromous fish steams in the vicinity,this area does not provide summer feeding areas for brown bear. Beluga Whale The route crosses 9.0 km (5.6 miles)of beluga whale concentration areas.These areas are north of Pt.Possession,and between Fire Island and Pt.Campbell. Moose Moose habitat on Fire Island,along 7.8 km (4.9 miles)of this route,supports small numbers of resident moose.The shorelines at Pt.Possession and Pt.Campbell doe not provide habitat for moose. Caribou Pt.Possession is north of the range of caribou from the KLH,and there are no caribou in the Anchorage area or on Fire Island. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island 30.7 km (19.1 miles)(Links M1.1 T4.1,T4.2, T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route passes through 20.8 km (12.9 miles)of estuarine open water,8.4 km (5.2 miles)of closed mixed forest,1.1 km (0.7 mile)of estuarine flooded mudflats,0.3 km (0.2 mile)of saltmarsh,0.3 km (0.2 mile)of barren bluffs and beaches,and 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of developed lands.Community types included within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of most to least common,are estuarine open water,closed mixed forest,estuarine flooded mudflats,saltmarsh,developed land,barren bluffs,bogs and meadows,and open water (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife This route crosses an undeveloped area of Fire Island. Anadromous Fish No anadromous fish streams are crossed by this route. Waterfowl Saltmarsh habitats on the southwest end of Fire Island and in the ACWR south of Pt.Woronzof are used by waterfowl for staging during migration. Trumpeter Swan _This route passes through two historic trumpeter swan nesting areas at Pt. Possession.One pair of trumpeter swans with three young was observed on the only lake on the island during a 1984 survey.Swan nesting on Fire Island had not been previously documented. No nesting trumpeter swan observations were recorded on Fire Island during four subsequent surveys. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-62 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Bald Eagle The only documented bald eagle nesting area along this route is located east of Pt. Woronzof within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the Pt.Woronzof Substation.However,shoreline areas along the route are likely used to some extent for foraging by bald eagles during the summer. Wolf/Canada Lynx Wolf and lynx do not occur in shoreline areas at Pt.Possession,on Fire Island,or at Pt.Woronzof. Black Bear Black bears potentially use the beach area near Pt.Possession to forage for carrion. No appreciable amount of black bear habitat occurs at Pt.Woronzof.Black bears are not known to regularly occur on Fire Island. Brown Bear Shoreline areas at Pt.Possession provide less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat.However,due to the lack of anadromous fish steams in the vicinity,this area does not provide summer feeding areas for brown bear.No brown bear habitat occurs at Pt. Woronzof or Fire Island. Beluga Whale The route crosses beluga whale concentration areas for 11.8 km (7.4 miles). These areas are north of Pt.Possession,and between Fire Island and Pt.Woronzof. Moose Fire Island provides moose habitat along 5.9 km (4.9 miles)of this route and supports small numbers of resident moose. Caribou Pt.Possession is north of the range of caribou from the KLH,and there are no caribou in the Anchorage area or on Fire Island. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof Submarine 27.7 km (17.2 miles)(Link M2.4/Route Option G) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route intersects 16.4 km (10.2 miles)of estuarine open water,10.8 km (6.7 miles)of estuarine flooded mudflats,0.3 km (0.2 mile)of developed lands,0.2 km (0.1 mile)of barren bluffs and beaches and 0.05 km (0.03 mile)of closed mixed forest.The area within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline contains mostly estuarine open water and estuarine flooded mudflats with small amounts of developed land,barren bluffs,and closed mixed forest at Pt. Woronzof (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-63 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Anadromous Fish No anadromous fish streams are crossed by this route. Waterfowl Wetland habitat that provide waterfowl nesting or staging habitat are not present along this route option.Saltmarsh south of Pt.Woronzof is used by nesting and staging waterfowl. Trumpeter Swan The shoreline at Pt.Possession is within two historic trumpeter swan nesting areas. Bald Eagle The shoreline in this route provides some foraging habitat for bald eagles,but the lack of nearby anadromous streams limits the use of the area.One bald eagle nest has been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this route option east of Pt.Woronzof. Wolf/Canada Lynx Wolf and lynx are not present at the shoreline area of Pt.Possession or at Pt.Woronzof. Black Bear Black bear potentially use the beach area near Pt.Possession to forage for carrion. No appreciable amount of black bear habitat occurs at Pt.Woronzof. Brown Bear Shoreline areas at Pt.Possession provide less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat.However,due to the lack of anadromous fish steams in the vicinity,this area does not provide summer feeding areas for brown bear.No brown bear habitat occurs at the north end of the route near Pt.Woronzof. Beluga Whale This route passes through beluga whale concentration areas for approximately 19.2 km (12.0 miles).These areas are east of Pt.Possession and south of Pt.Woronzof.Beluga whales use these areas from spring through the fall. Moose _The shoreline at either end of this route does not provide habitat for moose. Caribou The southern end of the route is outside the range of caribou from the KLH. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road -25.7 km (16.0 miles)(Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of the route passes through 16.7 km (10.4 miles)of estuarine open water,8.7 km (5.4 miles)of estuarine flooded mudflats,0.2 km (0.1 mile)of saltmarsh,and 0.2 km (0.1 mile) of barren bluffs and beaches.Most of the area within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline includes estuarine open water and mudflats,with small amounts of saltmarsh,closed mixed forest,barren bluffs,developed lands,and bogs and meadows along the route (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Souther Intertie Project EVAL 3-64 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Anadromous Fish No anadromous fish streams are crossed by this route. Waterfowl The north end of the route goes through the ACWR,an important area for waterfowl.The fringe of saltmarsh in this area provides potential habitat for waterfowl nesting and brood-rearing and staging areas.Ducks and geese are present in the area from spring through early fall.Waterfowl nest in areas above tidal influence generally located just below the bluffs. Trumpeter Swan Two historic trumpeter swan nesting areas are present on Pt.Possession. There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitatin the ACWR,but this area is potentially used tosomeextentforstagingduringmigration. Bald Eagle One bald eagle nest has been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this route along the bluff in the ACWR.Bald eagles forage for fish and carrion over coastal areas at both ends of the route;however,no concentration areas have been documented. Wolf Shoreline areas at Pt.Possession do not provide habitat for wolves.Wolves occasionally travel along the ACWR in the area near Klatt Road. Canada Lynx This route options does not contain lynx habitat. Black Bear Black bear potentially use the beach area near Pt.Possession to forage for carrion. The saltmarsh in the ACWR also is potential habitat for black bears. Brown Bear Shoreline areas at Pt.Possession provide less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat.However,due to the lack of anadromous fish steams in the vicinity,this area does not provide summer feeding areas for brown bear.General brown bear habitat occurs at the north end of the route in Anchorage. Beluga Whale The route passes through beluga whale concentration areas for approximately 15.5 km (9.7 miles).These areas are east of Pt.Possession and south of the Anchorage landing. General beluga whale habitat exists along the corridor within about 9.7 km (6.0 miles)east of Pt. Possession and about six miles south of the Anchorage shoreline. Moose This route option does not provide habitat for moose. Caribou Pt.Possession is north of the range of caribou from the KLH,and there are no caribou in the Anchorage area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-65 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Biological Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof -6.4 km (4.0 miles)(Link PW1.1/Route Option M) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route traverses 3.4 km (2.1 miles)of closed mixed forest,2.4 km (1.5 miles)of developed land,and 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of barren bluffs and beaches.Closed tall shrub is also present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife This route follows a pipeline through an undeveloped portion of Kincaid Park.The remainder of the route is influenced by adjacent airport and industrial development. Anadromous Fish No anadromous fish streams are crossed by this route. Waterfowl The saltmarsh below the bluff adjacent to this segment is within the ACWR and is used by seasonally by waterfowl and shorebirds for feeding and staging for migration.No waterfowl use areas are transected by this route. Trumpeter Swan No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the vicinity of this route. However,the ACWR is adjacent to this route and contains saltmarsh habitat which could potentially be used by migrating swans. Bald Eagle Route Option M crosses a known bald eagle nesting area north of Pt.Campbell. The nest is within 0.4 km (0.25 mile)of the centerline.Another bald eagle nesting area was documented east of Pt.Woronzof within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the route (KNWR 1998c, unpublished data).Bald eagles forage along the coast adjacent to this route from spring through fall,but the lack of anadromous fish streams in the immediate area likely limits use by eagles. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear Kincaid Park provides a very limited amount of habitat for wolves,lynx,black bears,and brown bears.The presence of these animals in this area is likely limited due to development and high year-round human recreational use. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose Kincaid Park is notable because of its thriving moose population.Mixed forest and shrub habitat on this route provides year-round moose habitat. Caribou Caribou do not occur in the Anchorage area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-66 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive -7.7 km (4.8 miles)(Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 -8.2 km (5.1miles)Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4, 15.5/Route Option O): See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad -10.1 km (6.3 miles)(Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9, 16.3/Route OptionP) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Enstar Route Alternatives Biological Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) The two federally listed threatened and endangered species potentially occurring within the Project study area may be present on an infrequent basis within the alternative routes.Peregrine falcons may occasionally pass through areas within the routes during migration.No Steller sea lion haulouts are known in Turnagain Arm;however,this species has been observed irregularly off the coast of Anchorage. Northern Soldotna Alternative -34.7 km (21.6 miles)(Links $1.1,S1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route intersects 18.5 km (11.5 miles)of closed mixed forest,6 km (3.7 miles)of developed lands,6.9 km (4.3 miles)of bogs and meadows,2.7 km (1.7 miles)of needleleaf woodland,0.5 km (0.3 mile)of riverine habitat,and 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of open water. Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of decreasing Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-67 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC commonness,are closed mixed forest,bogs and meadows,developed lands,needleleaf woodland,open water,and riverine (see Figure MV-3,Alternative B/North and South Panel). Wildlife Approximately 21.0 km (13.1 miles)of this route pass through areas of development influence and less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)pass through developed areas.Human disturbance in these areas may displace wildlife use., Anadromous Fish Route Option B North crosses the Moose River once (S1.3)and Soldotna Creek twice (S1.1,$1.3).Soldotna Creek supports runs of coho salmon.Moose River,a large slow-moving river,supports runs of chinook,pink,sockeye,and coho salmon,along with several other anadromous and resident fish species (Table 3-6).- Waterfowl Approximately 19.3 km (12.0 miles)of Route Option B North are within areas used by waterfowl during nesting,brood rearing,and staging.Waterfowl along this route include small ponds,lakes,riverine habitats,and emergent wetlands.The Moose River has been identified as a migratory staging area for several species of waterfowl. Trumpeter Swan This route traverses one known trumpeter swan nesting area identified during the 1998 breeding season (KNWR 1998b,unpublished data).Historic records indicate that a total of 10 pairs of trumpeter swans,including one pair with young,were identified within one mile of the route.The Moose River is an important migration staging area for trumpeter swans and other waterfowl,and is periodically used by migrating tundra swans. Bald Eagle Route Option B North passes within 0.40 km (0.25 mile)of a known bald eagle _hest that was active during the 1998 breeding season (KNWR 1998c,unpublished data).Five other known nesting areas within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the route were active during the 1998 breeding season (KNWR 1998c,unpublished data).Moose River provides feeding habitat for bald eagles primarily between June and September. Wolf A portion of this route traverses the home range of the Elephant Lake wolf pack.Wolf abundance along this route is anticipated to be high for about 1.1 km (0.7 miles),medium for about 5.9 km (3.7 miles),and low for about 6.6 km (4.1 miles). Canada Lynx This route traverses approximately 7.4 km (4.6 miles)where lynx abundance is low,5.1 km (3.2 miles)where abundance is moderate,and less than 1.6 km (1.0 mile)where lynx abundance is high. Black Bear This route contains 13.4 km (8.4 miles)of black bear habitat.Approximately 6.9 km (4.3 miles)are in mature forests which may support devil's club,an important food source for black bears.The remaining portion of the route is developed or within areas of potential Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-68 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\109203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC development influence.Although black bears may be present,these areas do not provide good black bear habitat. Brown Bear Along this route,the centerline intersects 4 anadromous fish streams which provide summer feeding areas for brown bear when salmon are present.Approximately 13.4 km (8.4 miles)of riparian habitat associated with the streams are potential concentration areas for brown bear.These areas represent a 0.4 km (0.25 mile)corridor on either side of Soldotna Creek and one of the unnamed tributaries.The other unnamed tributary has a 1.6 km (1.0 mile)corridor on either side.Moose River has a 1.6 km (1.0 mile)corridor on either side,except in areas of development or potential development influence.This route traverses approximately 6.2 km (3.9 miles)of general brown bear habitat. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose This entire route lies within year-round moose concentration areas.Winter moose abundance is super-high for approximately 3.0 km (1.9 miles),high for approximately 5.9 km (3.7 miles),and low for approximately 4.6 km (2.9 miles). Caribou All of Route Option B North passes through the range of the KLH. Southern Soldotna Alternative-30.6 km (19.0 miles)(Links $2.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route passes through 14.3 km (8.9 miles)of developed lands,7.4 km (4.6 miles)of closed mixed forest,4.7 km (2.9 miles)of needleleaf woodland,3.5 km (2.2 miles)of bogs and meadows,and 0.6 km (0.4 mile)of riverine habitat.Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of decreasing commonness,are developed lands, closed mixed forest,needleleaf woodland,bogs and meadows,riverine,closed white spruce forest,and open water (see Figure MV-3,Alternative B/North and South Panel). Wildlife Approximately 3.0 km (1.9 miles)of this route pass through developed areas and approximately 24.0 km (15.0 miles)pass through areas of development influence.Human disturbance in these areas may displace wildlife use. Anadromous Fish Link S2.1 crosses the Kenai River in two places and also crosses the Funny River.The Kenai River is the largest river in the project areas and supports large runs of sockeye, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-69 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC chinook,pink,and coho salmon (Table 3-6).The Kenai River also supports populations of several other anadromous and resident fish species. Waterfowl This route passes through areas of waterfowl habitat along the Kenai River,but no concentration areas have been identified. Trumpeter Swans There are a few historic records of trumpeter swans along Route Option B South.However,the route does not traverse any known nesting areas. Bald Eagles The Kenai River provides feeding habitat for bald eagles,primarily from June through September.It also provides some winter feeding habitat.This segment also passes within 0.4 km (0.25 mile)of a known bald eagle nest that was active during the 1998 breeding season (KNWR,1998c,unpublished data).Four other known nesting areas are within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the route. Wolf Wolf abundance along this route is expected to be moderate for approximately 3.4 km (2.1 miles).This route does not traverse any wolf pack areas. Canada Lynx Approximately 3.4 km (2.1 miles)of Route Option B South occur in areas where lynx abundance is moderate. Black Bear This route contains approximately 3.4 km (2.1 miles)of general black bear habitat. Approximately 2.9 km (1.2 miles)are in mature forests which may support devil's club,an important food source for black bears. Brown Bear Along this route,the centerline intersects the Kenai River at two locations,and the Funny River in one.These anadromous fish streams provide summer feeding areas for brown bear when the salmon are running,and carcasses later in the season.Approximately 5.6 km (3.5 miles)of riparian habitat associated with the streams are concentration areas for brown bear. These areas consist of a 1.6-km (1.0-mile)corridor on either side of the streams,except in areas of development or potential development influence where the corridors are narrowed to 0.4 km (0.25 mile).There is 1.3 km (0.8 mile)of general brown bear habitat along this route. Development and human activity along this route have likely displaced brown bear use of the salmon resources. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose Year-round moose habitat and important moose winter range occur along this route. Winter moose abundance is high for approximately 1.9 km (1.2 miles)and moderate for 1.5 km (0.9 mile). Caribou This route option lies within the range of the KLH.Human development and activity throughout much of this area has degraded the quality of the habitat for caribou in this area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-70 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Enstar to Chickaloon Bay -61.5 km (38.2 miles)(Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this Route Option C intersects 30.3 km (18.9 miles)of closed mixed forest, 17.7 km (11.0 miles)of closed white spruce forest,6.4 km (4.0 miles)of closed black spruce,5.0 km (3.1 miles)of bogs and meadows,1.3 km (0.80 mile)of moist grassland,and 0.6 km (0.4 mile)of riverine habitat.Community types present within 0.8 km (0.50 mile)of the centerline,in order of decreasing commonness,are closed mixed forest,closed white spruce forest,bogs and meadows,riverine,open water,moist grassland,and needleleaf woodland (see Figure MV-3, Alternative C/Panels 1 and 2). Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Anadromous Fish Route Option C crosses seven streams which support runs of anadromous fish.These include East Fork Moose River,Mystery Creek,North Fork Chickaloon River, Chickaloon River,East Fork Chickaloon River (Link E1.3),Big Indian Creek and Little Indian Creek (E2.1).The Chickaloon River system is the largest producer of salmon on the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula,with runs of pink,sockeye,coho,and chum salmon (Table 3-6). Little is known of run size in Big Indian and Little Indian Creeks. Waterfowl Waterfowl are seasonally present along most all of the route.Chickaloon Flats,at the northern end (Links E1.3 and E2.1)of Route C,is a designated concentration area for several species of waterfowl and supports both nesting and staging during spring and fall migration.Link M5S.1 of this route traverses an approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mile)band of saltmarsh on the edge of Chickaloon Bay. Trumpeter Swan Approximately 6.4 km (4.0 miles)of this route traverses a known trumpeter swan nesting area identified prior to the 1998 breeding season (KNWR 1998b,unpublished data).There are 14 historic records of trumpeter swan pairs along Link E1.3.Four of the observed pairs were accompanied by young. Bald Eagle Route Option C passes within 0.4 km (0.25 mile)of a known bald eagle nest which was active during the spring of 1998 (KNWR 1998c,unpublished data).Two other known nesting areas have been identified within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of Route Option C.Both of these nests were active during the spring of 1998.The seven anadromous streams on this route provide feeding habitat for bald eagles from June through September. Wolf Route Option C traverses approximately 29.0 km (18.0 miles)of the traditional home range of the Big Indian wolf pack.Wolf abundance is moderate along the southern 24.3 km (13.9 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-71 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC miles)portion of the route and low for 38.9 km (24.3 miles)along the northern portion of the route option.This route runs along the base of the Kenai Mountains and would be crossed by wolves travelling between upland and lowland areas. Canada Lynx Approximately 38.6 km (24.3 miles)of Route Option C traverse areas where lynx abundance is low.The southern portion of the route,approximately 22.2 km (13.9 miles), lies within areas of moderate abundance of lynx.The 1947 burn area (Link E1.3)provides moderate quality habitat for Canada lynx. , Black Bear This route contains approximately 61.1 km (38.2 miles)of black bear habitat. Approximately 46.6 km (29.1 miles)are in mature forest which may support devil's club,an important food source for black bears. Brown Bear Along this route,the centerline intersects seven anadromous streams which provide feeding areas for brown bear during the summer and fall when salmon are present. Approximately 29.1 km (18.2 miles)of mparian habitat associated with the streams are concentration areas for brown bear.These areas consist of a 1.6-km (1.0-mile)corridor on either side of the streams.The remainder of this route traverses approximately 32.0 km (20.0 miles)of brown bear habitat.Riparian corridors along the Chickaloon River,Big Indian Creek,and Little Indian Creek extend into the saltmarsh habitats within Chickaloon Flats.These stream drainages also provide travel corridors between the Kenai Mountains and the lowlands in the center of the KNWR,as well as foraging areas in spring. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat is traversed along this route.The intertidal habitat adjacent to the north end of the route in Chickaloon Bay does provide summer habitat for belugas. Moose Year-round moose habitat is present along Route Option C.Approximately 3.7 km (2.3 miles)of the route is within areas of high winter moose abundance,about 14.1 km (8.8 miles) contains areas of moderate winter abundance,and about 43.4 km (27.1 miles)are within areas of low winter moose abundance.This route intersects moose calving habitat and medium-to-high quality winter range.The high quality winter range is in areas in the KNWR where mechanical crushing has been utilized to create or maintain early habitats within the 1947 burn area (Link E1.3).Route Option C intersects areas of seasonal moose migration between the uplands and lowlands. Caribou.Approximately 16.9 km (17.0 miles)of this route are within the range of the KLH. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-72 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Biological Resources in Turnagain Arm (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road 18.5 km (11.5 miles)(Link M4.1/Route Option I) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route passes through about 14.4 km (9.0 miles)of estuarine flooded mudflats,3.8 km (2.3 miles)of estuarine open water,and 0.3 km (0.2 mile)of saltmarsh.Of the saltmarsh community types traversed,only a small fringe (<0.2 km [<0.1 mile])are at Chickaloon Bay and the remainder is below the bluff at Klatt Road within the ACWR.The distribution of community types within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline mirrors that along the centerline (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Anadromous Fish This route does not cross any anadromous fish streams. Waterfowl -The shoreline habitats at the Chickaloon Bay landfall and in the ACWR provide habitat for nesting and staging waterfowl. Trumpeter Swan This route traverses no trumpeter swan nesting habitat.The saltmarsh in the ACWR and at the Burnt Island landfall could potentially be used by swans for staging during migration. Bald Eagle A known bald eagle nesting area in the ACWR is within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the route. Wolf/Canada Lynx This route option ode not provide habitat for wolves or lynx. Black Bear The Chickaloon Flats is an important spring feeding area for black bears.Saltmarsh habitat in the ACWR is potential habitat for black bear. Brown Bear Less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat surrounds the landfall at Chickaloon Bay.General brown bear habitat occurs in the band of saltmarsh in the ACWR at the Klatt Road landfall. Beluga Whale This route passes through 12.6 km (7.9 miles)of beluga whale concentration areas in Chickaloon Bay and south of Anchorage.During high water,belugas can also utilize relatively shallow intertidal areas at either end of the route for feeding.The Chickaloon Bay may be an important calving area for beluga whales. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-73 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Moose This route option does not provide habitat for moose. Caribou This route does not pass through any caribou habitat. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park -17.4 km (10.8 miles)(Link MS.4/Route Option J) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route intersects about 12.4 km (7.8 miles)of estuarine flooded mudflats, 3.9 km (2.4 miles)of estuarine open water,1.0 km (0.6 miles)of saltmarsh,and about 0.3 km (0.2 mile)of closed mixed forest and developed lands.Route Option J crosses the widest part of the ACWR,but traverses a relatively narrow band of saltmarsh.The distribution of community types within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline mirrors that along the centerline (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Anadromous Fish No anadromous fish streams are crossed by this route. Waterfowl The shoreline habitats at the Chickaloon Bay landfall and in the ACWR provide habitat for waterfowl nesting and staging during migration. Trumpeter Swan This route traverses no trumpeter swan nesting habitat.The saltmarsh in the ACWR and Chickaloon Bay may be used by swans for staging during migration. Bald Eagle This route does not cross any known bald eagle nesting areas.Bald eagle nesting areas have not been identified within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this route. Wolf This route option does not contain any appreciable amount of wolf habitat. Canada Lynx This route does not provide habitat for lynx. Black Bear The Chickaloon Flats is an important spring feeding area for black bears.The area of saltmarsh habitat in the ACWR is potential habitat for black bear. Brown Bear Less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat surrounds the landfall in Chickaloon Bay landfall.General brown bear habitat occurs in the band of saltmarsh in the ACWR at the Oceanview Park landfall. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-74 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Beluga Whale This route passes through 11.2 km (7.0 miles)of beluga whale concentration areas.These areas are in Chickaloon Bay,and south of Anchorage.During high water,belugas can also utilize relatively shallow intertidal areas for feeding and can be seen throughout the estuarine waters of Turnagain Arm. Moose The fringe of habitat in the ACWR provides very limited year-round habitat for moose. Caribou Route Option J does not pass through any caribou habitat. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek -15.0 km (9.3 miles)(Link M5.3/Route Option K) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route intersects 10.9 km (6.8 miles)of estuarine flooded mudflats,3.9 km (2.4 miles)of estuarine open water,and 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of saltmarsh.The distribution of community types within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline mirrors that along the centerline (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Anadromous Fish No anadromous fish streams are crossed by Route Option K.During low tide,the lower intertidal reach of Rabbit Creek could potentially be traversed by the centerline. Waterfowl -The shoreline habitats at the landfall at Chickaloon Bay and in the ACWR near Rabbit Creek provide some habitat for feeding and staging of waterfowl.The northern end of the route at the Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek landing is also within 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of Potter Marsh,a waterfowl concentration area used for both nesting and staging for migration and which is a very popular waterfowl and wildlife viewing area. Trumpeter Swan Route Option K traverses no trumpeter swan nesting habitat,although the Potters Marsh and the saltmarsh in the ACWR could potentially be used by some swans for staging during migration Bald Eagle The Anchorage landing lies within the periphery of known bald eagle nesting areas. Potters Marsh and the saltmarsh within the ACWR provide foraging areas for bald eagles from June through September. Wolf/Canada Lynx This route does not provide habitat for wolves or lynx. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-75 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Black Bear The Chickaloon Flats is an important spring feeding area for black bears.Black bears may forage within saltmarsh at the ACWR. Brown Bear Less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat surrounds the Chickaloon Bay landfall. Beluga Whale This route passes through approximately 19.2 km (12.0 miles)of beluga whale concentration areas.These areas are in Chickaloon Bay and south of Anchorage. Moose_This route does not provide habitat for moose. Caribou Route Option K does not pass through any caribou habitat. Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell -25.4 km (15.8 miles)(Link M5.5/Route Option L) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route passes through 21.0 km (13.1 miles)of estuarine flooded mudflats, 4.3 km (2.7 miles)of estuarine open water,and less than 0.2 km (<0.1 miles)of saltmarsh. Saltmarsh communities traversed include a narrow fringe along the shoreline at Chickaloon Bay near Burnt Island and a very narrow fringe in the ACWR at Pt.Campbell.The distribution of community types within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline mirrors that along the centerline (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife None of this segment passes through areas influenced by development. Anadromous Fish No anadromous fish streams are crossed by Route Option L. Waterfowl |Waterfowl are generally distributed along the shoreline at both ends of Route Option L.The northern portion of this route is within the ACWR and is used seasonally by waterfowl for feeding and staging for migration.No waterfowl concentration areas have been identified at Pt.Campbell. Trumpeter Swan No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the ACWR;however,there is some potential for use of the area during staging for migration. Bald Eagle Bald eagles forage along the shoreline at both ends of this route.No bald eagle nests have been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-76 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Wolf/Canada Lynx This route does not provide habitat for wolves or lynx. Black Bear The Chickaloon Flats is an important spring feeding area for black bears.There is not black bear habitat at Pt.Campbell. Brown Bear Less than 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of general brown bear habitat surrounds the Chickaloon Bay landfall. Beluga Whale Approximately 19.2 km (12.0 miles)of this route passes through beluga whale concentration areas in Turnagain Arm.Belugas can potentially occur along the entire route. Moose _This route does not provide habitat for moose. Caribou Route Option L does not pass through any caribou habitat. Biological Resources in the Anchorage Bow](Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof -6.4 km (4.0 miles)(Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro route alternatives-While Route Option M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar route or the Tesoro route,it is described as part of the Tesoro route alternatives. Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road -7.72 km (4.8 miles)(Links 14.2,14.3,14.4,15.5/Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V,Z) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this segment traverses about 7.1 km (4.4 miles)of developed lands,0.2 km (0.1 mile)of closed mixed forest,0.1 km (0.1 mile)of bogs and meadows,and 0.30 km (0.20 mile)of riverine community.The following community types are present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of decreasing commonness:developed lands,bogs and meadows,closed mixed forest,closed tall shrub,riverine,and open water (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife This segment passes through areas influenced by development in Anchorage. Anadromous Fish The centerline crosses one anadromous fish stream,Campbell Creek,which supports coho,chinook,and sockeye salmon (Table 3-6). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-77 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Waterfowl Waterfowl habitat is limited along these routes. Trumpeter Swan No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area. Bald Eagle This segment does not cross any known bald eagle nesting areas,nor have nesting areas been identified within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this segment. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear No appreciable habitat occurs along this route for wolf,lynx,black bear,or brown bear.Use of the area is limited by the development in the adjacent areas. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas,with most use occurring during the winter months. Caribou No caribou occur in the Anchorage area. Alaska Railroad Alternatives -8.9 km (5.5 miles)(Links 12.5,12.8,12.6,15.8,15.9, 16.3/Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y,Z) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this segment passes through about 8.5 km (5.3 miles)of developed lands,0.2 km (0.1 mile)of closed mixed forest,0.2 km (0.1 mile)of closed tall shrub,and 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of riverine habitat.Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of most to least common,include developed land,closed mixed forest,bogs and meadows, riverine,closed tall shrub,saltmarsh,and open water (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife This segment passes through areas influenced by development in Anchorage. Anadromous Fish The centerline crosses one anadromous fish stream,Campbell Creek,which supports coho,chinook,and sockeye salmon (Table 3-6). Waterfowl The saltmarsh within the ACWR adjacent to this route provides habitat for waterfowl nesting and staging during migration. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-78 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Trumpeter Swan No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area.The saltmarsh habitat in the Anchorage coastal refuge could potentially support some staging during migration. Bald Eagle This segment does not cross any known bald eagle nesting areas,nor have nesting areas been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this segment. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear No appreciable habitat occurs along this route option for wolf,lynx,black bear,or brown bear.Use of the area is limited by the development in the adjacent areas. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas,with most use occurring during the winter months. Caribou No caribou occur in the Anchorage area. Old Seward Highway/International Airport Road -15.0 km (9.3 miles)(Links 12.4,12.8, 12.7,15.6,16.1,15.7,15.3/Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this segment traverses about 13.4 km (8.3 miles)of developed land,0.2 km (0.1 mile)of closed tall shrub,0.2 km (0.1 mile)of riverine and 0.6 km (0.4 mile)of saltmarsh. Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of decreasing commonness,include developed land,saltmarsh,closed mixed forest,estuarine flooded mudflats,moist grassland,bogs and meadows,riverine closed tall shrub,and open water (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife This segment passes through areas influenced by development in Anchorage. Anadromous Fish The centerline crosses four anadromous fish streams -Little Rabbit Creek, Campbell Creek,South Fork Little Campbell Creek,and North Fork Little Campbell Creek. Rabbit Creek supports all five species of salmon. Waterfowl The saltmarsh within the ACWR provides habitat for waterfowl nesting and staging during migration. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-79 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Trumpeter Swan No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area. Saltmarsh within the ACWR may support some staging swans during migration. Bald Eagle This segment crosses a known bald eagle nesting area in the ACWR. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear No appreciable habitat occurs along this route option for wolf,lynx,black bear,or brown bear.Use of the area is limited by development in the surrounding areas. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas,with most use occurring during winter months. Caribou There are no caribou in the Anchorage area. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive -7.7 km (4.8 miles)(Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline along this route traverses about 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of developed land,0.8 km (0.5 mile)of bogs and meadows,0.3 km (0.2 mile)of closed mixed forest,and 0.02 km (0.01 mile)of saltmarsh.The following community types are present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline in order of decreasing commonness:developed land,bogs and meadows,closed mixed forest, and saltmarsh (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife This route crosses the Klatt Bog wetland area. Anadromous Fish The centerline crosses one anadromous fish stream,Campbell Creek,which supports coho,chinook,and sockeye salmon (Table 3-6). Waterfowl -The saltmarsh within the ACWR adjacent to this route provides habitat for waterfowl nesting and staging during migration. Trumpeter Swan No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area. Saltmarsh within the ACWR may support some staging swans during migration. Bald Eagle No bald eagle nests have been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-80 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3 DOC Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear No appreciable habitat occurs along this route for wolf,lynx,black bear,or brown bear.Use of the area is limited by development in the surrounding areas. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas,with most use occurring during winter months. Caribou There are no caribou in the Anchorage area. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 -8.2 km (5.1 miles)(Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4,15.5/Route Option O) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route passes through about 7.9 km (4.9 miles)of developed land.Small amounts (<0.2 km [<0.1 miles])of closed mixed forest,black spruce muskeg,riverine habitat, and saltmarsh.are also crossed on Route Option O.Community types present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline,in order of most to least common,are developed land,bogs and meadows, closed mixed forest,and saltmarsh (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife This segment passes through areas influenced by development in Anchorage. Anadromous Fish The centerline crosses one anadromous fish stream,Campbell Creek,which supports coho,chinook,and sockeye salmon (Table 3-6). Waterfowl The saltmarsh within the ACWR adjacent to this route provides habitat for waterfowl nesting and staging during migration. Trumpeter Swan No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area. Saltmarsh within the ACWR may support some staging swans during migration. Bald Eagle No bald eagle nests have been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this route. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear No appreciable habitat occurs along this route for wolf,lynx,black bear,or brown bear.Use of the area is limited by development in the surrounding areas. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-81 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas,with most use occurring during winter months. Caribou There are no caribou in the Anchorage area. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad -10.1 km (6.3 miles)(Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9, 16.3/Route Option P) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The centerline of this route traverses about 9.8 km (6.1 miles)of developed land with only a 0.2 km (0.2 mile)of closed mixed forest and less than 0.1 km (0.1 mile)of riverine habitat.The following community types are present within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of the centerline in order of most to least common:developed land,bogs and meadows,closed mixed forest,and saltmarsh (see Figure MV-3,Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Alternatives Panel). Wildlife This segment passes through areas influenced by development in Anchorage. Anadromous Fish The centerline crosses one anadromous fish stream,Campbell Creek,which supports coho,chinook,and sockeye salmon (Table 3-6). Waterfowl -The saltmarsh within the ACWR adjacent to this route provides habitat for waterfowl nesting and staging during migration. Trumpeter Swan No trumpeter swan nesting habitat occurs in the Anchorage area. Saltmarsh within the ACWR may support some staging swans during migration. Bald Eagle No bald eagle nests have been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this route. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear No appreciable habitat occurs along this route for wolf,lynx,black bear,and brown bear.Use of the area is limited by development in the surrounding areas. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs on this route. Moose Moose habitat occurs along most of this route in undeveloped areas,with most use occurring during winter months. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-82 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Caribou There are no caribou in the Anchorage area. Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives Tesoro Alternatives No federally listed threatened or endangered species were identified as being present along the Tesoro alternative routes. Bernice Lake Substation Site Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The existing Bernice Lake Substation site is located in an area of patchy development.The proposed new substation site is an area of closed mixed spruce forest immediately adjacent to the existing Bernice Lake Substation.There are no sensitive vegetation or aquatic resources associated with the site.The site will require approximately 0.4 hectares (1.0 acre)of ground. Wildlife The extent of low density residential and general industrial development around the site precludes use of the area by many wildlife species. Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near the proposed new Bernice Lake substation. Waterfowl Waterfowl are distributed throughout the surrounding area;however,no wetland habitats would be affected by the proposed site. Trumpeter Swans There are no trumpeter swan nesting areas in the vicinity of the proposed substation. Bald Eagle Raptors There are no known bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the site.One of two known osprey nests in the area is in the vicinity of Bernice Lake. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear The immediate area of the new substation does not provide appreciable habitat for wolf,lynx,black bear,or brown bear. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-83 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat is present at this site. Moose Moose habitat at the site is generally considered lower quality. Caribou The site is outside the traditional range of caribou from the KLH. Kenai Lowlands -Transition Facility Sites (Reside Airport Sites 1 and 2,Johnson Airport Sites 1 and 2), Vegetation and Aquatic Resources These proposed transition sites are all located on presently developed lands.There are no natural vegetation or aquatic resources associated with these sites. Wildlife The extent of general development around the site precludes use of the area by many wildlife species. Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near either of these transition facilities. Waterfowl Waterfowl are distributed throughout the surrounding area;however,no wetland habitat would be affected by these proposed sites. Trumpeter Swan There are no trumpeter swan nesting areas in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility sites.| Bald Eagle There are no known bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the sites. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear The immediate area of the proposed transition facilities does not provide appreciable habitat for wolf,lynx,black bear,or brown bear.These species are not expected to be present at these sites,except possibly on rare occasion,due to the proximity of existing development. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat is present at these sites. Moose Moose habitat at the site is generally considered lower quality. Caribou The site is outside the traditional range of caribou from the KLH. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-84 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC North and South Ends of Captain Cook State Recreation Area Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Both proposed transition sites are in closed mixed spruce forest.The area needed for each transition facility is less than 0.4 hectares (1.0 acre)within the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near either of these transition facilities. Waterfowl Waterfowl are distributed throughout the surrounding area;however wetland habitats are not affected by these proposed sites. Trumpeter Swans The proposed transition facility site at the south end of Captain Cook SRA is about 1.6 km (1.0 mile)north of a known trumpeter swan nesting area. Bald Eagle There are no known bald eagle nests in the vicinity of these sites. Wolf/Canada Lynx Wolf and lynx distribution are low at both of these transition facilities. Black Bear Both transition sites are in general black bear habitat. Brown Bear The transition site at the south end of the Captain Cook SRA is located within a developed area,so no brown bear are likely to be there.The northern site is located within the riparian corridor of the Swanson River,which is considered a brown bear concentration area. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs at either transition site. Moose Moose abundance is high at the southern transition facility site and moderate at the northern transition facility site. Caribou These sites are outside the traditional range of the KLH of caribou. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-85 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Pt.Possession Transition Facility Site Vegetation and Aquatic Resources This proposed transition site is located on the top of the bluff in an area characterized by closed mixed spruce forest.The site will require less than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre)of land for the facility within the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near the proposed site. Waterfowl Waterfowl are generally distributed throughout the area surrounding the site; however,wetland habitats are not affected by the proposed site. Trumpeter Swan _This proposed transition site lies within three trumpeter swan nesting areas that were active prior to 1998 (USFWS 1998,unpublished data). Bald Eagle No bald eagle nest have been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the facility. Wolf The proposed transition site is located north of the traditional home range of the Pt. Possession wolf pack. Canada Lynx Lynx habitat is classified as low in this area. Black Bear _This site is located within general black bear habitat. Brown Bear This site is located within general brown bear habitat. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat is present at this proposed site. Moose Moose habitat in this area is classified as low quality because of the mature forest. Caribou The site is outside the traditional range of caribou from the KLH. Fire Island South and North Transition Facility Site Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The proposed Fire Island south site is situated in a transition area between saltmarsh,barren, sandy beach,and mixed closed spruce forest.The site itself is in an open area of mixed sand Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-86 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC dune and grass/shrub cover just south of a small lake.The proposed Fire Island North site is located in closed mixed spruce forest.Both proposed transition facilities will occupy approximately 0.4 hectares (1.0 acre)of land within the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams on Fire Island. Waterfowl Saltmarsh habitats are found at both the north and south ends of the island and are likely high uses areas for waterfowl.The proposed facility sites would not be located within these areas. Trumpeter Swan The north transistion facility is within a known trumpeter swans nesting area. Bald Eagle No bald eagle nests have been reported on Fire Island,but the shoreline areas are likely used for foraging. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear Wolves,lynx,black bear,and brown bears do not occur on the island. Beluga Whale There is no beluga whale habitat at either of the proposed sites. Moose A small population of resident moose live on the island,but no appreciable habitat occurs at the proposed sites for these facilities. Caribou There are not caribou on Fire Island. Enstar Alternatives No federally listed threatened or endangered species were identified as being present along the Enstar alternative routes. Soldotna Substation Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The existing Soldotna Substation is located in an area of relatively intense human development and occupation.Vegetation has previously been cleared from the site.No aquatic resources are within the perimeter of this site. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-87 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Wildlife The extent of human development and occupation of this site precludes use by most wildlife species. Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near the site. Waterfowl Waterfowl habitat is lacking in the immediate vicinity of the site. Trumpeter Swan There are no known trumpeter swan nesting areas within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the site. Bald Eagle No bald eagle nesting sites have been documented within the immediate area of the Site. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear Human activity at the site limits the use of the area by wolves,lynx,black bears,and brown bears. Beluga Whale There is no beluga whale habitat at the site. Moose Moose would be the common wildlife species present in the immediate area of the site. Caribou This site is within the range of the Kenai Lowlands caribou herd.Human development and activity in this area has likely degraded the quality of habitat for caribou. Naptowne Substations Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The proposed Naptowne Substation site,either Route Option B North or Route Option B South, if selected,will be sited in closed mixed forest. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near the proposed sites. Waterfowl Waterfowl habitat is lacking in the immediate vicinity of these sites. Trumpeter Swan There are no known trumpeter swan nesting areas within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the proposed sites. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-88 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Bald Eagle No bald eagle nesting sites have been documented within the immediate area of either site. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear Human activity at both sites limits the use of the area by wolves,lynx,black bears,and brown bears. Beluga Whale There is no beluga whale habitat at the proposed sites. Moose Moose would be the common wildlife species present in the immediate area of either of these proposed sites. Caribou This substation site is within the range of the KLH;however,human development and activity in this area has likely degraded the quality of habitat for caribou. Proposed Transition Facility South of Burnt Island Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The proposed transition site south of Burnt Island is situated in mature,closed mixed forest. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near the proposed site. Waterfowl There is no waterfowl habitat at this proposed site. Trumpeter Swan There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat at this proposed site. Bald Eagle There are no known bald eagle nesting sites at this proposed site. Wolf/Canada Lynx Wolves and lynx are found in relatively low abundance at this proposed site. Black Bear This site is located within general black bear habitat. Brown Bear This site is located within general brown bear habitat. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs at this site.Beluga whales are found in the intertidal habitat adjacent to the proposed transition facility site in Chickaloon Bay during the summer. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-89 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Moose This site is located within an area of relatively low moose abundance. Caribou This site is not within the range of any caribou herd.However,the KMH range extends to within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the proposed site. Anchorage Bow!Transition Facility Sites Pt.Campbell Transition Facility Site Vegetation and Aquatic Resources This proposed site is located in mixed spruce forest wherein the hardwood component is strongly dominant.The facility site itself is an abandoned gravel quarry with very limited vegetation resources present. Wildlife The transition facility site proper has only minimal wildlife value due to past disturbance. Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Waterfowl This site does not provide habitt for waterfowl.Waterfow]nesting habitat is present in the ACWR,west of the facility. Trumpeter Swan There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat in Anchorage.Trumpeter swans may pass through the ACWR,west of the facility,during migration. Bald Eagle The proposed site is within a known bald eagle nesting area. Wolf Wolf habitat within Kincaid Park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Canada Lynx Lynx habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Black Bear Black bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent devleopment and year-round human recreation use in the park. Brown Bear Brown bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park.The absence of Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-90 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 PA09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC anadromous fish streams in the park combined with human disturbance limits use of the area by brown bears. Beluga Whale This proposed site does not contain beluga whale habitat. Moose _Kincaid Park supports a very robust moose population. Caribou Caribou do not occur in Anchorage. Cross Road North Site,120"Avenue Site,Klatt Road Site,Shooting Range Site,and Old Seward Highway Sites Vegetation and Aquatic Resources With the exception of the Klatt Road site,all of these potential transition facility sites are located on developed lands with minimal vegetation resources.The Klatt Road site is located in a relatively sensitive bog and wet meadow wetland. Wildlife None of the selected wildlife resources were identified at any of the sites.The extent and intensity of human development and occupation probably precludes all but infrequent use of these sites by selected wildlife species. Anchorage Bowl Substation Sites International and Pt.Woronzof Sites Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The existing International Substation site is located within the Municipality of Anchorage on developed lands.The Pt.Woronzof site is also located on developed lands but has a minor component of mixed spruce forest that is dominated by hardwoods. Wildlife Moose probably occur near the Pt.Woronzof site and occasional individuals probably occur near the International Substation as well.No other selected wildlife resources were identified for either site. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-91 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-3 BIRD SPECIES OF THE KENAI PENINSULA AND ANCHORAGE AREA SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Loon Gavia immer Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Bonapart's Gull Larus philidelphiensis Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Mew Gull Larus canus Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Herring Gull Larus argentatus Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Greater White-fronted Anser albifrons Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Goose Canada Goose Branta canadensis Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Northern Pintail Anas acuta Downey Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Northern Three-toed Picoides tridactylus Woodpecker American Wigeon Anas americana Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Greater Scaup Aythya marila Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis Tree Swallow Tachycinetra bicolor White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Black Scoter Melanitta nigra Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Black-billed Magpie Pica pica Common Merganser Mergus merganser Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus Osprey Pandion haliaetus Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephaluS Brown Creeper Certhia americana Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus American Robin Turdus migratorius Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Varied Thrush lxoreus naevius Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-92 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-3 BIRD SPECIES OF THE KENAI PENINSULA AND ANCHORAGE AREA SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis harlani Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus American Kestrel Falco sparverius Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Merlin Falco columbarius Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus American Pipit Anthus rubescens Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus Spruce Grouse Canachites canadensis Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus mutus Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica Wilson's Warbier Wilsonia pusilla Black-bellied Plover Pluvialus squatarola American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Red Knot Calidris canutus Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Gray-crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotia Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Rock Sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Dunlin Calidris alpina Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla scolopaceus Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Common Raven Corvus corax Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC 3-93 Chapter 3-Affected Environment TABLE 3-4 TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Vagrant Shrew S.Vagrans Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus _ Black Bear Ursus americanus Brown Bear Ursus arctos Marten Martes americana Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Short-tailed Weasel (Ermine)Mustela erminea Mink Mustela vison River Otter Lutra canadensis Wolverine Gulo gulo Coyote Canis latrans Wolf Canis lupus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Hoary Marmot Marmota caligata Arctic Ground Squirrel Spermophilus parryii Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Beaver Castor canadensis Northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis Northern Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys rutilus Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Tundra Vole Microtus oeconomus Singing Vole Microtus gregalis Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Porcupine Erithizon dorsatum Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Collared Pika Ochotona princaps Moose Alces alces Caribou Rangifer tarandus Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus Dall Sheep Ovis dalli MARINE MAMMALS Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina Beluga Whale Delphinapterus leucas Souther Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC 3-94 Chapter 3-Affected Environment TABLE 3-4 TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Killer Whale Orcinus orca Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus TABLE 3-5 FISH SPECIES OF MARINE AND FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT STUDY AREA Category Common Name Scientific Name Anadromous Fish Arctic Lamprey Lampetra japonica Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus Bering Cisco Coregonus laurettae Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Coho Salmon O.kisutch Pink Salmon O.gorbuscha Chum Salmon O.keta Sockeye Salmon O.nerka Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus Longfin Smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Freshwater Fish Arctic Char Salvelinus alpinus Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus Coastrange Sculpin Cottus aleuticas Round Whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus Northern Pike Esox lucius Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius pungitius Marine Fish Pacific Herring Clupea harengus pallasi Saffron Cod Eleginus gracilis Capelin Mallotus villosus Yellowfin Sole Limanda aspera Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Leptocottus armatus Pacific Sandfish Trichodon trichodon Snailfish Liparis rutteri Pacific Halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis Starry Flounder Platichthys stellatus Lemon or English Sole Parophrys vetueus Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P:\09203\009'\Final\Chapter 3.DOC 3-95 Chapter 3-Affected Environment TABLE 3-6 ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM CROSSINGS Key:S Sockeye Salmon Cu =Chum Salmon Co =Coho Salmon Ch Chinook Salmon P Pink Salmon Anadromous Fish Route Name of Location Present Habitat Type Segment Stream Link km Species No.Spawning |Rearing (Mile) ENSTAR ALTERNATIVE ROUTE Enstar to Burnt |East Fork Moose E13 4.5 (2.8)|S No data S,Co Co Island River Co-No data Mystery Creek E1.3 22.4 S 1,000s S,Co,Ch |}Co,Ch (13.9)Co No data Ch 100s Chickaloon River E1.3 27.7 S 3,000 to 5,000 |Co,Ch,S |}Co,Ch, (17.2)Co 1,000s S P 100,000 Ch 4,000 to 6,000 North Fork E1.3 34.1 S No data Co Co Chickaloon River (21.2)Co No data P No data Ch 100s Big Indian Creek E2.1 0.3(0.2)|S No data S S Co No data P No data Ch 10s Little Indian E2.1 5.6 (3.5)|Ch 10s Co,Ch Co,Ch Creek Co No data P No data Northern Soldotna Creek ShL.1 1.6(1.0)|Co 100s Co Co Soldotna Ch 10s Alternative $.1.3 |11.3 and 12.4 (7.0 and 7.7) Un-named Tributary |$1.3 12.9 Co No data Co Co of Soldotna Creek (8.0) Moose River $1.3 23.7 S 1,000s S,Co,P,|Co,Ch (14.7)Co 1,000s Ch P 10s Ch 10s Southern Kenai River 82.1 6.1 and|S 100,000s S,Co,P,|S,Co, Soldotna Alt.20.0 (3.8 |Co 10,000s Ch Ch and 12.4)|P 10,000s Ch 10,000s Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-96 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-6 ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM CROSSINGS Key:S =Sockeye Salmon Cu =-Chum Salmon Co =Coho Salmon Ch =Chinook Salmon P =Pink Salmon Funny River 82.1 11.4 S No data S,Co,P,|Co,Ch (7.1)Co |No data Ch P No data Ch No data TESORO ALTERNATIVE ROUTE Bernice Lake to Bishop Creek T1.4 0.6 (0.4)|S No data S,Co,P Co Captain Cook Co No data SRA P No data Captain Cook Swanson River 72.1 4.72.9)|S 1,000s 8,Co,Ch |S,Co, SRA to Pt.Co 10,000s Ch Possession P 100s Ch 10s Otter Creek T3.2 |6.6(4.1)|Co No data Co Co Seven Egg Creek 13.2 16.4 Co No data Co Co (10.2) ANCHORAGE ALTERNATIVES Campbell Creek 15.3 0.7 (0.4)|Co 1,000s Co Co 15.5 1.81.1)|Ch 100s Ch Ch 15.7 0.7(0.5)|8 100s S S 15.9 1.0 (0.6) 1.2 (0.8) Rabbit Creek 12.4 0.1 (0.1)|Co 100s Ch 100s P 100s S 10s Cu 10s References:ADF&G 1998;KNWR 1995;Stratton and Cyr 1997. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-97 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-7 MARINE ALGAE AND INVERTEBRATE SPECIES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT STUDY AREA Category Common Name Scientific Name Attached Algae Rock Weed Fuscus gardeneri Green Filimentous Algae Entermorpha spp. Vaucheria longicoulis Infaunal Invertebrates Baltic Macoma Macoma Balthica Eastern Shoftshell Clam Mya arenaria Heart Cockle Clinocardium nutallii Epifaunal Organisms Gammarid Amphipods (sand fleas)Eogammarus confervicolous Isopod (pill bug)Saduria entomon Crangons (sand shrimp)Crangon franciscorum Crangon alaskensis Mycids Neomysis rayii Noemysis mercedis Mysis litoralis Periwinkles Snails Littorina spp. 3.7 LAND USE This section summarizes the land use inventory for the alternative routes,and provides an overview of the study methods used.The inventory includes descriptions of (1)land jurisdiction and ownership,(2)management plans,(3)existing and planned land uses,and (4)transportation and utilities. The alternative routes traverse lands administered by federal,state,borough,and municipal agencies;Native Corporations;and lands privately owned in south-central Alaska.The routes traverse portions of the Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula Borough,along with portions of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR).Urban land uses in Anchorage include park lands,high density residential,commercial,and industrial,while rural land uses in the Kenai Peninsula include primarily dispersed residential,and areas managed for recreation and wildlife purposes. 3.7.1 INVENTORY STUDY METHODS This section describes the land use inventory and analysis conducted to assess the potential sensitivity of identified land uses to the construction,operation,and maintenance of the proposed transmission line and associated facilities.Land use data were collected within 4-mile-wide study corridors,2 miles wide on each side of the assumed centerlines.This was accomplished by reviewing,refining,and updating data accumulated from previous Southern Intertie Route Selection Study (1996)studies.Aerial photography flown in May and August of 1996 at a Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-98 July 1999 Chapter 3-Affected Environment P.\09203\009\F ina\Chapter 3.DOC nominal scale of 1:2,000 (1 inch =2,000 feet)was interpreted for the 4-mile-corridor width. Photography at a scale of 1:500 was used for detailed land use investigations in Anchorage, Soldotna,and Nikiski.All mapped data from aerial photography were verified in the field.Field investigations for land use were conducted from August to September 1996 for all alternative corridors and updated in April 1999.Agency contacts were conducted to obtain and/or confirm specific land use data.Federal,state,regional,and local governmental agencies and organizations were contacted through telephone,letter,or meetings to collect and discuss land use data. Detailed data were collected,compiled,and mapped on U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) 1:25,000-and 1:63,360-scale topographic quadrangles and verified with existing geographic information system (GIS)data obtained from the Municipality of Anchorage,Kenai Peninsula Borough,and Chugach National Forest.Secondary sources provided additional data for this inventory.Data sources included governmental agencies,private enterprises,and special interest groups in the form of maps,pamphlets,brochures,environmental impact statements,and planning reports. The land use inventory section is divided into the following four major components to document surface land uses,legislative designations,and land management policies that occur within the alternative study corridors: land jurisdiction and ownership management plans existing and planned land use transportation and utilities The following figures,located in the Map Volume,should be reviewed along with each of these sections: Figure MV-18,Jurisdiction/Ownership Figure MV-19,Land Use Figure MV-20,Anchorage Area Land Use Figure MV-21,Anchorage Area Proposed Developments Recreation uses are addressed in Section 3.8. 3.7.2 LAND JURISDICTION AND OWNERSHIP Mapping of jurisdictions depicts the lands administered by federal,state,and local agencies; Native Corporations;and lands privately owned.Although inholdings,lease agreements,joint ownership,cooperative agreements,etc.may be present in the study area,they are not depicted on the map.Based on digital GIS information provided by the Municipality of Anchorage and Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-99 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC the Kenai Peninsula Borough,the following categories of land jurisdiction were identified and mapped on Figure MV-18: =Federal -Department of the Interior U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service m State Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Lands Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation -Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities -Alaska Railroad Corporation =Boroughs/Municipalities -Municipality of Anchorage -Kenai Peninsula Borough m Native Corporations -Cook Inlet Regional Corporation -Pt.Possession Group -Salamatof Natives Association -Kenai Natives Association -Tyonek Native Corporation ™Private lands The following is a brief description of each of the jurisdiction categories identified. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),as part of the U.S.Department of the Interior, administers the KNWR.Originally established in 1941 to protect moose populations,the KNWR now encompasses recreational,educational,water quality,wilderness,and scientific values.Two geographically separated sections of the Kenai wilderness are located within the study area, along with the designated Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area and additional special management areas. The original KNWR boundary encompassed 2,058,000 acres.In 1964,settled lands in the vicinity of Sterling,Soldotna,and Kenai,and a strip of land along the shore of the Cook Inlet, about 1,295 square kilometers (km)(500 square miles)in all,were removed from the refuge to Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-100 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P.\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC exclude these privately developed areas.This was accomplished to provide a future corridor for transportation and utility system development and development in general on the Kenai Peninsula.These exclusions reduced the size of the KNWR to approximately 1.73 million acres. In 1980,the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA)expanded the refuge to its present size of 2,007,262 acres,designated 1.35 million acres wilderness,and established the current boundary (KNWR 1994). Alaska Department of Natural Resources The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)manages Alaska's land,water,and surface and subsurface resources for both development and conservation.Two divisional branches of the DNR are present within the study corridors.The Division of Lands is responsible for acquisition, surface use,sale,development,conservation,and protection of the state's land.State lands within the corridors are generally designated as public recreation land,settlement,or general use lands. The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,created in 1970,was developed to manage the Alaska state park system,and provide grants and assistance for recreation and historic preservation.This division alone operates 130 parks,recreation areas,and historic sites in the Alaska state park system and contains 3.3 million acres.State parks in the study area include the Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA),Morgans Landing SRA,Bings Landing State Recreation Site (SRS),Scout Lake SRS,Izaak Walton SRS,Funny River Campground SRS, Nilnunqua State Historic Site (SHS)and Honeymoon Cove SRS.The Kenai River Special Management Area (SMA)also is a unit of the state park system. Alaska Department of Fish and Game The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)manages,protects,maintains,and improves the fish,game,and aquatic plant resources of Alaska.The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR),created in 1988,encompasses the former Potter Point State Game Refuge created in 1971. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF)designs,constructs, operates,and maintains state transportation systems,highways,and other infrastructure facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-101 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Alaska Railroad Corporation The Alaska Railroad Corporation operates and manages the Alaska Railroad,which the federal government sold to the state in 1985.Potentially affected Alaska Railroad lands are located in Anchorage. Borough/Municipalities The study area includes portions of both the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Municipality of Anchorage. Native Corporations Native Corporation lands and selected lands are scattered throughout the study area with concentrations of land occurring along the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula,on Fire Island, and in the KNWR.Cook Inlet Region,Inc.(CIRI),one of thirteen Regional Native Corporations established by Congress under ANCSA holds ownership of Native Corporation lands and selections.Under ANCSA,Native Corporations were allowed to select lands from federal land holdings.These selections were then transferred and conveyed to Native Regional and Village Corporations.Conveyed native lands within the KNWR are subject to Section 22 (g)of ANCSA. Section 22 (g)of ANCSA regulates uses on certain native-owned land within the KNWR,in that they remain subject to the laws and regulations governing the use and development of the refuge. The Village Corporations in CIRI include the villages of Salamat of Native Association,Inc.; Tyonek Native Corporation;the group of Pt.Possession,Inc.;and the historic village of the Kenai Native Association,Inc.CIRI has selected the subsurface estates associated with the surface estates selected by the Village Corporations.The majority of Native Corporation lands remain undeveloped.However,the Pt.Possession group has sold an interest in its property holdings to a private developer. Private Private land holdings are any properties owned by individuals and businesses.These lands are typically under the jurisdiction of the municipality or borough in which they are located.Cities in the study corridors include Municipality of Anchorage,City of Soldotna;and unincorporated towns include Nikiski and Sterling. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-102 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC 3.7.3 LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS KNWR Management of the KNWR is governed by the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and related laws and statutes such as National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and ANILCA.The discussion below identifies management prescriptions and land classifications present on the refuge. Management Prescriptions Management categories on the KNWR were developed as a method for designating areas of the refuge with different resources and uses.The management categories are divided into five classifications-wilderness,minimal,traditional,moderate,and intensive.The categories describe the physical setting,natural processes,and recreational opportunities allowed.The resource management activities,public uses and facilities,means of access,and economic uses also are identified by each management classification.Descriptions of each category are listed in Table 3-8. The management category most prominent in the study corridors is Moderate Management.Of the 61.2 km (38 miles)of route options through the KNWR,52.3 km (32.5 miles)cross through Moderate Management.Minimal Management lands are crossed for the remaining 5.5 miles. Lands identified as Minimal Management are recommended for wilderness designation according to the refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 1985). TABLE 3-8 KNWR MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS Wilderness Management |These are current areas designated as wilderness.Lands are to remain pristine and unmodified with natural fish and wildlife population dynamics and habitats emphasized.Regulated hunting,fishing,and trapping are allowed.Motorized access is permitted in specific areas for traditional activities subject to regulations from the Secretary of Interior protecting natural wilderness values. Minimal Management This category is directed at maintaining the pristine conditions of areas that have important fish and wildlife and wilderness values.Restrictions are placed on motorized access,recreation,and economic uses.Lands in this category represent USFWS recommendations for future wilderness designation. Traditional Management |These are undeveloped areas where habitat and public use are managed to provide a mixture benefits in a natural setting.No roads occur in this category.Forest habitats are managed through natural tools such as prescribed burns with no mechanical manipulation or commercial timber harvesting. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-103 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-8 KNWR MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS Moderate Management |These are areas easily accessible to the public and habitat is manipulated to benefit populations of selected species.From a recreational perspective, these areas provide equal opportunity for either group involvement or isolation. Intensive Management |The least protective category,this encompasses areas of high public and economic use.Natural processes are modified and the influence of human activities is evident.Public facilities,administrative sites,economic development,and transportation systems are allowed in this category. Roadless Areas There are five roadless areas or wilderness review units on the KNWR within the study area-Two Indians,Pipeline Lowland,Chickaloon,Moose River/Mystery Creek,and Skilak Loop/Lake.(The 1985 Comprehensive Conservation Plan specified different wilderness review units different than the 1988 Wilderness Proposal Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For purposes of discussion here,the units from the 1988 study are used.)The roadless areas are part of a wilderness review conducted in 1981 and updated in 1988 in response to the requirements of ANILCA.This review indicated that most lands on the refuge meet the criteria of wilderness according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 and,if planned management does not preclude designation,they could be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. These areas are currently managed within the minimal,moderate,and traditional management classifications as shown on Figure MV-22,Recreation Use and Management Areas,in the Map Volume. Areas potentially affected by the Enstar Route are Two Indians,Pipeline Lowland,and Moose River/Mystery Creek units.A portion of the route is within a Moderate Management corridor that is 0.8 km (0.5 mile)wide,approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mile)on each side of the pipelines, and terminates just north of Big Indian River (USFWS 1999).The remainder of the Enstar route would cross through areas of designated Minimal Management.The Enstar Pipeline right-of-way and access road (an extension of the Mystery Creek Road)serves as the western boundary of the Two Indians Unit.The road is constructed of native materials at the toe of the mountain slope and crosses many drainages that become muddy during wet periods.The Two Indians Unit is remote with limited access opportunities. The Enstar pipelines also form the eastern boundary of the Pipeline Lowlands Unit.Seasonal recreation activities such as waterfowl and moose hunting occur in this area.The Moose River/Mystery Creek Unit is the only roadless area bisected by the Enstar pipelines.The pipeline, access road,and Mystery Creek Road all traverse through the middle of this unit. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-104 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC As stated in the 1988 Final EIS,the fact that the pipelines are in place do not eliminate these units from wilderness consideration.In fact the Enstar Pipeline right-of-way could qualify as wilderness if designated.The Tesoro Pipeline at Pt.Possession used to be within designated wilderness until that area was conveyed to a Native Corporation.The 1988 Final EIS proposed that the wilderness review units be designated as Wilderness by Congress.The designation of additional wilderness areas on the KNWR is pending. Wilderness Congress designated 1.35 million acres or about 69 percent of the entire KNWR as wilderness through ANILCA.The Kenai's wilderness areas adjacent to the Enstar alternative consist of two separate units-the Lowland Unit,which includes Swan Lake and the Swanson River Canoe Routes;and the Mystery Creek Unit,as shown on Figure MV-22. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Management prescriptions for state lands in the Turnagain Arm area are determined in the Turnagain Arm Management Plan.The Turnagain Arm planning area includes approximately 23,000 acres of state-owned and state-selected lands and approximately 25,000 acres of state- owned tidelands (DNR 1994).Only the tidelands in west Turnagain Arm Management Unit 1 near Potter would be affected by the alternative routes.Management emphasis here is focused on protecting scenic values,offering recreation opportunities,and maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat. The Cook Inlet areawide oil and gas lease sale is managed by the Division of Oil and Gas.The lease sale areas potentially affected within the study area include portions of Turnagain Arm.The lease sale phase only authorizes the transfer of mineral interests.There are no site-specific decisions made in regards to future development activities.Those activities will be subject to independent permitting requirements. Management prescriptions for state lands on the Kenai Peninsula are identified in the Draft Kenai Area Plan (1998).The plan identifies goals and guidelines for management of lands within the Kenai Peninsula Borough.State lands in this part of the study area are mainly along the western coast of the peninsula and in the Soldotna and Sterling areas.These lands are designated as general use,settlement,resource management,or public recreation lands.Public recreation lands are managed for a variety of public uses such as camping,hunting and fishing,or as additions to the state park system.Kenai Peninsula Borough has selected several of these state parcels for conveyance. The Chickaloon Flats management area is managed by a cooperative agreement signed by the DNR,ADF&G,and KNWR.The agreement called for ADF&G to develop a management plan Souther Intertie Project EVAL 3-105 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC by 1973,but this was never done.In 1989 ADF&G drafted a revised management agreement,but this was not signed by all parties.The draft agreement called for the DNR to classify lands in the area as fish and wildlife habitat,and manage them to protect snowbirds,marine mammals, waterfowl,and other wildlife habitat and public recreation through the Kenai Area Plan (DNR 1998). Units of the state park system in the study area are primarily managed by direction from the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan.This plan identifies general management intent _for each park unit.All of the upland areas in the Kenai River SMA are zoned as recreational development,natural,or cultural (DNR 1986). Alaska Department of Fish and Game The ADF&G manages ACWR through the ACWR Management Plan.The plan presents goals and policies to determine whether proposed activities within the refuge are compatible with the protection of fish and wildlife,their habitats and public use of the refuge (ADF&G 1991). In 1960,the Alaska State Legislature designated all of the Kenai National Moose Range including land yet to be removed along the coast,as a state game refuge [Alaska Statute 16.20.030 (A)(8)].In 1964 the KNWR boundary was Congressionally changed,removing portions of the refuge from the western coastline.However,the State Legislature never modified their designation of the same lands.State lands in this area are now guided by the Kenai Area Plan and State Game Refuge Designation is essentially a Refacto Classification. Municipality of Anchorage Management direction for the Municipality of Anchorage is derived from the Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps with additional guidance from the Area Wide Trails Plan, Utility Corridor Plan,Transportation Plans,and Coastal Zone Management Plan. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for community development and identifies the desired patterns of land use.Zoning regulates the use of land and is specific to individual properties and uses.The 1996 Area Wide Trails Plan is a planning and policy document for the development of trails in the Municipality of Anchorage.The 1990 Utility Corridor Plan identifies policy and planning guidelines for existing and planned utility systems.The 1982 Coastal Zone Management Plan applies policies to land and water uses and associated activities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-106 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\000\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Kenai Peninsula Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough Management Plan direction is provided by the 1992 Comprehensive Plan.A revised plan is currently under development.Management plan direction also comes from the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program.The program provides policies and guidelines for management of lands and water resources within the coastal zone while maintaining ecological,cultural,historic,and aesthetic values as well as the need for economic development.The coastal zone stretches from the coast up to a 304.8-meter (1,000- foot)elevation contour boundary.In addition,the Kenai Peninsula Borough is in the process of developing more specific plans that apply to Borough-owned and selected lands. 3.7.4 EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USE This portion of the inventory includes classifications developed to categorize various land uses in the study corridors (see Figure MV-19).Land uses within the Municipality of Anchorage are shown on Figure MV-20. The categories inventoried for existing land use include residential,commercial,industrial, agriculture,extraction,institution,and communication facilities.Planned land use categories include the same categories as existing land uses.Transportation and utilities are included in Section 3.7.5. Residential Residential development includes multi-family and single-family dwellings,mobile homes,and cabins.Most residential development occurs in Anchorage,Nikiski,Soldotna,and Sterling. Commercial Commercial land uses are generally located along major arterial roads throughout Anchorage, along the Sterling Highway,and North Kenai Road.These include retail establishments,offices, and warehouses. Industrial Industrial uses are primarily manufacturing facilities,landfills,material processing plants,and oil refineries.In Anchorage,industrial land uses are primarily located along the Alaska Railroad in central and southern Anchorage,and at the International Airport.In other parts of the study area Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-107 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC industrial uses such as processing plants and oil refineries are located near the Bernice Lake Substation in Nikiski. Agriculture Agricultural uses in the study corridors consist of small farms ranging from 4.1 to 64.8 hectares (10 to 160 acres).They are typically small,subsistence operations or hay fields that are limited due to the available growing season., Extraction This category consists of any major active surface mining operations such as sand and gravel operations or gold mining.There are no known mining claims in the study corridors. Institution Land uses inventoried for this classification include public/quasi-public facilities,churches, cemeteries,schools/educational facilities,and government facilities. Communication Facilities Communication facilities inventoried include radio navigation aids,microwave/radio towers,and VHF Omnidirectional Range Tacan (VORTAC)navigation aids associated with airspace. VORTAC facilities are subject to specific Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)standards regarding operations and obstruction.Fire Island contains the greatest concentration of communication facilities in the study corridors.FAA regulations (FAA Order 6820.10)stipulate that transmission lines must be located 365.8 meters (1,200 feet)from VORTACs to reduce electromagnetic interference to navigation communication equipment.Regulations also state that no conductor should extend above the horizontal plane of the antenna. Planned Land Uses The planned land use category identifies general plan and specific proposed land uses not otherwise identified in the preceding components.Projected uses in Municipality of Anchorage- Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan,KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan,Kenai Area Plan,Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program,ACWR Management Plan,Soldotna Comprehensive Plan,and development plans for specific projects were used as sources of future land use information.In Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-108 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P.\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC the Anchorage Bowl,most of the region is expected to develop according to the municipality's comprehensive plan and zoning maps.The rest of the available private land in the study area will probably develop at a rate based on increasing or decreasing population growth. 3.7.55 TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES Transportation facilities are limited within the overall Project area.Essentially one road serves the Kenai Peninsula and connects it to Anchorage.Because of the lack of roads the entire region depends heavily on aircraft for transportation.Items inventoried within the study corridors include primary,secondary,four-wheel drive,and scenic roadways.Airports,airstrips,and floatplanes lakes also were identified. Primary Roads This roadway classification includes multi-lane divided and two-lane paved highways with partially controlled access,and major state routes.Primary roads in the study area include Seward Highway,Sterling Highway,and Minnesota Drive Extension. Secondary Roads Secondary roads within the study area include two-lane paved state routes,as well as other paved local roads.Secondary roads include the North Kenai Road,Swanson River Road,and the network of major arterial roads throughout the Anchorage Bowl. Four-Wheel-Drive-Roads This roadway classification includes dirt and gravel roadways that are not typically passable to passenger cars and require high clearance vehicles. Historic or Scenic Roads The Seward Highway National Scenic Byway begins in Anchorage at the Rabbit Creek Interchange (Milepost 118.5)and ends in Seward.This road was designated by ADOT/PF as an outstanding opportunity to view wildlife and scenic vistas,and to access diverse recreational opportunities.It is currently a candidate All-American Highway,the highest classification in the scenic byway program.If approved,this designation would extend to 5"Avenue in downtown Anchorage.The urban segment of the highway is being considered as a "gateway”portion.The Sterling Highway is a potential state scenic byway from the junction of Seward and Sterling Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-109 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Highways to Mystery Creek Road.In addition,the Alaska Railroad is being proposed as a Scenic Byway from Seward to Fairbanks by ADOT/PF. Planned Roads Proposed roadway projects by the ADOT/PF include a bridge crossing of the Kenai River between Scout Lake Loop Road,on the north side of the river,and Rabbit Run Road,on the south side.Bridge construction is not currently programmed or funded.Widening of the Old Seward Highway from two to five lanes is planned from Huffman to Dowling.North Kenai Road is planned to be extended north from Captain Cook SRA through Gray Cliffs subdivision within the next six years.The alignment would be within the dedicated road right-of-way.The Sterling Highway is proposed for realignment from Cooper Landing to the Mystery Creek Road area. Exact alignments have not been determined at this time.The environmental documentation for this project is still under development. Aviation General aviation airports,airstrips,and floatplane lakes fall within this category.Major airports in the study corridors include the Anchorage International Airport;Merrill Field;and Campbell Lake,Lake Hood,and Soldotna airports.Private airstrips occur throughout the entire study area including lakes and rivers that are used by float planes.A listing of airports was identified through a data file search of airstrips and float plane lakes within the 4-mile-wide study corridors by the Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation and consultation with the Alaska Airmen's Association and FAA. Air traffic in the study area includes air taxi service,commercial sightseeing flights,transport of anglers and hunters to remote areas,search and rescue operations,state and federal wildlife survey flights,commercial air traffic,and the operation of privately owned aircraft.Local communities are dependent on local air travel since the area has few roads. Commercial aircraft,private aircraft,and helicopters generally fly at different altitudes.Low- altitude flying should occur only during periods of severe weather or unforeseen weather changes.Minimum flight altitudes are in effect permanently regardless of weather.Low-level flight activity and landings on the beach occur on the western coast of the Peninsula. Float planes can take off from water bodies shorter than 1.6 km (1 mile)in length.The federal standards for marking obstructions to air navigation away from airports,airstrips,or floatplane lakes require only that an object be marked if it is 61 meters (200 feet)above ground level at the site of the object or if it penetrates the airspace of that respective facility.The FAA recognizes registered public,military,and private airports and airstrips and will make specific determination Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-110 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC of interference of airspace following their receipt of an application for Notice of Intent should the selected route pass near a recognized air facility. Aircraft Safety Many Alaska residents and businesses depend on aircraft for passenger and cargo transportation due to the lack of roads and the large size of the state.According to the FAA,Alaska leads the nation in general aviation use per capita,with approximately 12 times as many aircraft and 6 times as many pilots than the lower 48 states. Because of Alaska terrain and weather,and because many aviators fly to remote destinations that are potentially hazardous (mountains,beaches,sand bars,rivers,lakes,glaciers),safety is a major issue within the aviation industry.Specific safety issues regarding the proposed Project include location in relation to airports,airstrips,navigation facilities,and lakes,and the transmission line's potential to obstruct aircraft operation within the Project area. Local Air Traffic Aircraft use in the study area is highly varied,but typically includes flightseeing,domestic passenger service,private use,cargo transportation,and guiding services.People with remote property on the Kenai Peninsula also may utilize small fixed-wing aircraft that are equipped to land on beaches or nearby lakes to access their land.In addition,hunters are usually transported to remote locations in aircraft typically equipped with floats,skis,or tundra tires (Schommer, personal communication,1998). A minimum flight altitude of 152.4 meters (500 feet)above ground level (AGL)is in effect year- round for non-congested areas.Congested areas,such as Kenai and Anchorage,have a 304.8- meter (1,000-foot)AGL minimum altitude.Undeveloped areas only require a 304.8-meter (1,000-foot)lateral separation between any object,including other aircraft.Violations of these regulations can be punishable by license revocation or fines.However,local pilots often fly at low altitudes during inclement weather or during approaches and departures (FAA 1989). Aviation Accident Data The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)investigates reported aviation accidents to determine their causes.The NTSB database shows 10 aviation/transmission line accidents have occurred in Alaska since January 1987.Nine of the 10 accidents were a result of pilot error, mechanical problems,or weather,and the other accident involved a helicopter that struck a wire. The NTSB (1998)summary that addressed the wire strike states:"The helicopter collided with transmission lines while on pipeline patrol,fatally injuring the pilot and seriously injuring the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-111 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC observer.The observer stated that he and the pilot had been flying towards a burning object on the snow near two snow machines when they struck the wire.The burning object was later discovered to be a hazard warning ball which had apparently ignited on the transmission line and fallen to the ground.” Regulatory Environment A large portion of the airspace within the Project area falls under control of the Anchorage International Airport.Federal regulations governing Anchorage International Airport airspace are promulgated by the FAA in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),Title 14,Chapter I (Parts 1- 199).Section 91.119 of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)states that no person may operate an aircraft below an altitude of 152.4 meters (500 feet)within the Anchorage International Airport control area. The KNWR regulations for operations on refuge lands and waters are specified in CFR 50.30.39. An FAA Altitude Advisory also is published for the KNWR which recommends that pilots make every effort to fly not less than 609.6 meters (2,000 feet)above a national wildlife refuge. Wire Marking Requirements Obstruction marking requirements are specified in 14 CFR Part 77,Standard for Determining Obstruction (FAA 1989).Federal marking standards require an object be marked if it is 500 feet AGL.FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1G (FAA 1991)states that hazard warning balls or lights must be used when obstructions protrude into airspace.The Advisory Circular also states that an object may require marking because of its particular location,even though its height does not exceed FAR 77 standards. Notice to the FAA Administrator must be submitted if the proposed Project falls within or near a public use airport,heliport,sea plane base,or military airport.The notice falls under the provisions of the FAR Part 77.The notice must identify the location of the overhead communications and transmission lines as well as the height of the supporting structures.After the notice has been filed,the FAA also will issue notice to local pilots to obtain comments and to identify any specific concerns.If the FAA finds that the Project will not pose an aviation hazard, the FAA will issue a statement reflecting the finding. Published Safety Information Available to Pilots Known airspace limitations and requirements are shown on aviation charts,and also published as FARs,Airport/Facility Directories,advisory circulars,and sectional aeronautical charts.Most sectional charts are replaced every six months.Once the information has been published,pilots Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-112 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC are responsible for using it to plan their flights.Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs)are another important source of safety information available to pilots.After construction,the proposed Project would be mapped and a NOTAM would be issued. CEA's Policies Regarding Aviation Demarcation Requirements Chugach Electric Association's (CEA's)policy regarding aviation safety is to mark aboveground facilities with hazard warning balls and/or lights if there is any potential for obstruction to aviation use.CEA will mark all transmission lines that cross roadways,canyons,and water bodies.Other hazard warning locations are determined on a case-by-case basis and include consultation with FAA officials. Utilities The utility category identifies transmission lines,major pipelines,and designated utility corridors located within the study corridors. The Municipality of Anchorage has identified certain corridors for planned utilities in the Utility Corridor Plan of 1990.O'Malley Road and Minnesota Drive Extension have been identified as future corridors for new transmission lines.Old Seward Highway is identified as a future transmission line upgrade.The presumed centerline locations of the alternative routes adhere to the guidelines in the plan specifying that lines should be located on the outside edge of an existing road right-of-way,or can be placed within a road right-of-way near the private property line.The planning commission will review route proposals that deviate from the plan in a plan amendment review process.The plan amendment process requires identification of alternatives considered,description of the alternatives,evaluation of environmental,cost,community/land use,and visual impacts of the line.Mitigation for minimizing or eliminating impacts also must be specified. An additional utility corridor in Anchorage is the public right-of-way corridor for surface transportation and utilities established within the ACWR that utilizes state-owned land and water for development of a road,railroad,and utilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-113 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC 3.7.6 ALTERNATIVES Tesoro Route Alternatives Land Uses on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake through Captain Cook SRA (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,T2.1/Route Option A) Jurisdiction and Management Plans The southern segment of this route crosses primarily private,borough,and state land.One state park holding is crossed--Captain Cook SRA. Existing and Planned Land Use In Nikiski,land uses are a mixture of residential,commercial, educational,and industrial along North Kenai Road.This route would potentially cross 170 private parcels.There are 187 residences within a 0.4-km (0.25-mile)study corridor,and two schools,including Nikiski Elementary and Nikiski Junior-Senior High School.The Kenai Peninsula Borough has not zoned lands in the Nikiski area.State lands immediately north of Captain Cook SRA are possible legislative additions to the SRA and are currently designated public recreation lands. Transportation and Utilities |This route parallels the North Kenai Road for 26.9 km (16.7 miles).Two airstrips,a heliport,and four float-plane lakes are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the alternative route in the Nikiski area. The Bernice Lake Substation is served by 115kV and 69kV transmission lines from Soldotna. Bernice Lake distributes power to Nikiski through 25kV distribution lines.Distribution lines are located on the west side of North Kenai Road.Natural gas lines and telephone lines are located on the east and west sides of the road. In Nikiski,aviation facilities within 1.6 km (1 mile)of the assumed centerline include two private airstrips,one heliport,and four lakes accessible to float planes.The two airstrips are located adjacent to,and east of,the proposed alignment of the route (Link T1.3,Mileposts 2.9 and 4.6,respectively).According to the FAA,both airstrips are private and unauthorized for commercial use (Schommer,personal communication,1998).The heliport,located west of Link T1.3 at Milepost 3.7 is approximately 80.8 meters (265 feet)from the proposed alignment.The float plane lakes are located east of the proposed alignment,the closest of which is 152.4 meters (500 feet)from the assumed centerline. Southern Intertie Project EVAL "3-114 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Captain Cook SRA to Pt.Possession (Links T3.1,T3.2,T5.1,T5.2/Route Option A) Jurisdiction and Management Plans North of Captain Cook SRA the route passes through private,borough,state and native lands.The state lands are designated for either legislative additions to Captain Cook SRA or are designated for general use.Several of the state land holdings have been identified for conveyance to the Kenai Peninsula Borough.At the northern end of the route near Pt.Possession there are native allotments and conveyed lands present. There is no development present on the conveyed land,but a private developer has purchased an interest in the property.The 1,813-hectare (4,481-acre)parcel of conveyed land was originally designated as part of the Kenai Lowland Wilderness Unit until recognized as a private land claim.Section 22(g)of ANILCA does apply to these lands. Existing and Planned Land Use North of Captain Cook SRA the route crosses through two platted subdivisions-Gray Cliff and Moose Point.This segment of the route crosses 24 private parcels.There are 79 residences within a 0.4-km (0.25-mile)study corridor.The subdivisions have a planned road and transportation corridor incorporated into their design.This area is zoned for rural development.The 21,000-acre coastal strip between Pt.Possession and Captain Cook SRA is designated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough for a transportation corridor,fish camps, subdivisions,and local timber use.Two future school sites are adjacent to the route in the Gray Cliffs subdivision. Transportation and Utilities North of Captain Cook SRA,only remnants of a four-wheel drive road are evident.There is one airstrip at Moose Point.Aircraft fly at low levels along the coastline and land on the beaches during low tide. The planned North Kenai Road corridor is 30.5 meters (100 feet)wide and the associated transportation corridor is 91.4 meters (300 feet)wide.Typically the two corridors are connected; however,in some instances residential lots separate them by as much as several hundred feet. North Kenai Road is expected to be extended north through Gray Cliffs subdivision within the next six years. A system of oil and natural gas pipelines stem from the refineries,oil rigs,and gas fields of the western edge of the Peninsula.The Tesoro and Phillips Petroleum pipelines branch out from Nikiski.They carry petroleum products and natural gas,respectively.The Tesoro Pipeline connects the Nikiski area to Anchorage by a submarine pipeline from Pt.Possession to Pt. Campbell.Tesoro's right-of-way is 3.1 meters (10 feet).The Phillips Petroleum line parallels Tesoro's from Nikiski to Moose Point where it branches off to oil derricks in the Cook Inlet.The two pipelines have a combined nght-of-way width of approximately 15.2 meters (50 feet). One airstrip is located along the shore at Moose Point.The airstrip is oriented parallel and adjacent to the proposed alignment approximately 365.8 meters (1,200 feet)west of the pipeline right-of-way.In addition,several residents along the bluff utilize aircraft to access their cabins, typically landing on the beach at low tide. . Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-115 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Land Use-related Resources in the Turnagain Arm Area (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route mainly crosses open water managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S.Coast Guard,Army Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries Service,etc.). Existing and Planned Land Use There are no private parcels crossed by this route. Transportation and Utilities This route parallels the Tesoro Pipeline across Turnagain Arm. Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route mainly crosses open water managed by DNR. (In addition to other agencies such as the U.S.Coast Guard,Army Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries,etc.).Fire Island is owned by the Cook Inlet Region,Inc.(CIRI).The submarine cable landings at Pt.Campbell would cross through preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone,in addition to crossing through the ACWR. Existing and Planned Land Use There are three private parcels crossed along this route.On Fire Island,VORTAC and communication facilities are present.These assist the FAA in controlling airspace for International Airport.Several residences and fish camps are situated on the west side of the island. Transportation and Utilities |On Fire Island,the route parallels a dirt road briefly at the north end of the island.An airstrip exists at the north end of the island.CIRI has closed the northern airstrip and it is no longer in use.Between the north end of Fire Island and Pt.Campbell a transportation corridor through the ACWR was established for development of a road,railroad, and utilities. An abandoned airstrip is located on the northern edge of Fire Island at the intersection of Link T4.3,M1.3 and M2.3.Fire Island,owned and manage by CIRI,is closed to access without prior permission.The FAA maintains a secondary navigation facility on Fire Island located east of Link T4.1 at Milepost 2.7.The facility includes a VORTAC and related communications facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-116 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) Jurisdiction and Management Plans _This route is similar to Route Option E except it has a submarine landing at Pt.Woronzof from Fire Island. Existing and Planned Land Use This route is similar to Route Option E except it has a submarine landing at Pt.Woronzof from Fire Island. Transportation and Utilities This route is similar to Route Option E except it has a submarine landing at Pt.Woronzof from Fire Island. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof Submarine (Link M2.4/Route Option G) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route crosses open water managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S.Coast Guard,Army Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries Service,etc.),ACWR,and lands within the Municipality of Anchorage. Existing and Planned Land Use There are no private parcels crossed by this route. Transportation and Utilities This route does not affect any transportation uses,and parallels the Tesoro Pipeline for 6.1 km (3.8 miles)under water. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route crosses open water managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S.Coast Guard,Army Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries Service,etc.),until its submarine landing within the Municipality of Anchorage.The landing at Victor Road would cross through preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone,in addition to crossing through the ACWR. Existing and Planned Land Use There are no private parcels crossed by this route. Transportation and Utilities This route does not affect any transportation uses,and parallels the Tesoro Pipeline for 6.1 km (3.8 miles)under water. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-117 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Land Uses in the Anchorage Bowl (Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This alternative crosses a combination of private and municipal lands. Existing and Planned Land Uses This route crosses through Kincaid Park and past the Anchorage International Airport.An Airport Master Plan Update was last completed in the fall of 1995.Future developments associated with this plan include building a west airpark with airport support facilities.Associated developments would include the realignment of Pt. Woronzof Drive and another north-south runway.Infrastructure and realignment of Pt.Woronzof Drive are planned for construction within 6 to 10 years for the West Airpark.The transmission line along this route would be underground past the International Airport between Pt.Campbell and Pt.Woronzof,avoiding conflict with airspace and navigation aids. Transportation and Utilities The Tesoro Pipeline is paralleled from its landing at Pt.Campbell through Kincaid Park and past the airport.Pt.Woronzof Substation is served by two 138kV transmission lines from the Beluga Power Plant by way of submarine cables from Pt. MacKenzie. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,I15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,1.59,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-118 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Enstar Route Alternatives Land Uses on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldonta Alternative (Links $1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route segment crosses a mosaic of state,borough, native,private and KNWR lands.A Congressionally approved land exchange has conveyed lands to the Kenai Native Associations.These lands are subject to Section 22(g)restrictions and are identified as "West Swanson River Road”and "East Swanson River Road.”Salamatof Native Association lands in this area are not subject to Section 22 (g).Their parcel is identified as "Spirit Lake.” Existing and Planned Land Use This route crosses 120 private parcels and passes through residential and vacant undeveloped lands.There are 167 residences within a 0.4-km (0.25-mile) study corridor.It borders the southern edge of the KNWR.One small farm is adjacent to the route at the Moose River crossing.Future land use in the Sterling area is predicted to occur as small developments,typically second-home construction.Salamatof lands,with no Section 22(g) restrictions,have a high probability for development compared to other Native Corporation surface lands. Transportation and Utilities |This route crosses several secondary roads in the Soldotna and Sterling areas.Three float plane lakes and 11 private airstrips are within 1.6 km (1 mile)of the alternative route.The Moose River is used by float planes as well.The Soldotna Substation is served by four 115kV and two 69kV lines.Three lines travel north from the substation towards the Mackey's Lake area.One 115kV line traverses the KNWR boundary north of the Sterling area. Three float plane lakes and 11 private airstrips are located within 1.6 km (1 mile)of the assumed centerline.Moose River is also used by float planes.Approaches and departures to Moose River require that the aircraft cross the existing line and proposed route perpendicularly. Southern Soldotna Alternative (Links S2.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route segment crosses a mosaic of state,borough, native,private and KNWR lands.Bings Landing SRS is crossed.Salamatof Native Association owns a conveyed parcel "Kenai River East 2/3,"which is governed by Section 22(g). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-119 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Existing and Planned Land Use This route crosses 129 private parcels and passes through residential and vacant undeveloped lands.There are 189 residences within a 0.4-km (0.25-mile) study corridor.Small farms are along this route as well.The Funny River subdivision area is crossed near the Kenai River.Future land use in the Sterling area is predicted to occur as small developments,typically second-home construction.Development pressure for housing and recreational facilities such as cabins and lodges will likely increase as populations on the Kenai Peninsula increase. Transportation and Utilities |This route crosses several secondary roads in the Soldotna and Funny River areas along with the Sterling Highway once.A proposed bridge and associated roadway crossing the Kenai River is planned between Scout Lake Loop Road on the north side of the river,and Rabbit Run Road on the south side.Bridge construction is not yet programmed. Seven private airstrips and three floatplane lakes are within one mile to the assumed centerline. Two lines,a 115kV and 69kV,travel south from the Soldotna Substation,with the 69kV line traversing through the Funny River area south of the Kenai River. Seven private airstrips and three float plane lakes are within 1.6 km (1 mile)of the assumed centerline. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) Jurisdiction and Management Plans_This route crosses lands designated moderate and minimal management in the KNWR. Existing and Planned Land Use This route crosses through the KNWR. Transportation and Utilities ©Two Enstar natural gas pipelines traverse the KNWR in a 15.2- meter (50-foot)-wide right-of-way from Soldotna to Chickaloon Bay.This route would parallel the pipelines and its associated access road,the Mystery Creek Road,for 59.1 km (36.7 miles). The Mystery Creek Road is open typically between late August and September for moose and waterfowl hunting and December 1 to April 30 for snowmobile use depending on snow depth.In the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan the seasonal road is considered a transportation corridor. Three landing strips are located along the pipeline right-of-way.Two of these airstrips are closed to aircraft use except in the event of an emergency;the third,named Big Indian Creek,is open consistent with refuge regulations. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-120 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Land Use-related Resources in the Turnagain Arm Area (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I) Jurisdiction and Management Plans Upon crossing the Turnagain Arm the route lands at Victor Road.The submarine cable landings at Victor Road would cross through preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone,in addition to crossing through the ACWR.Open water areas are managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S.Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries Service,etc.)© Existing and Planned Land Use There are no private parcels crossed by this route. Transportation and Utilities This route does not affect any transportation uses or utilities. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J) Jurisdiction and Management Plans Upon crossing the Turnagain Arm the submarine cable landing would be on Alaska Railroad holdings within Anchorage.The landing at the railroad would cross through preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone,in addition to crossing through the ACWR.Open water areas are managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S.Coast Guard,Army Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries Service,etc.).; Existing and Planned Land Use There are no private parcels crossed by this route. Transportation and Utilities This route does not affect any transportation uses or utilities. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K) Jurisdiction and Management Plans Upon crossing the Turnagain Arm,preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone and the ACWR are crossed by alternative route.This submarine cable then would enter the Alaska Railroad right-of-way.Open water areas are managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S.Coast Guard,Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries Service,etc.). Existing and Planned Land Use There are no private parcels crossed by this route. Transportation and Utilities This route does not affect any transportation uses or utilities.The Enstar Pipelines have a submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm from Burnt Island to Potter. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-121 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P.\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route crosses open water,the ACWR,and preservation areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone.Open water areas are managed by DNR (in addition to other agencies such as the U.S.Coast Guard,Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries Service,etc.). Existing and Planned Land Use There are no private parcels crossed by this route. Transportation and Utilities This route does not affect any transportation uses or utilities. Land Uses in the Anchorage Bowl (Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro route alternatives-While Route Option M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar route or the Tesoro route it is described as part of the Tesoro route alternatives. Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road Alternatives (Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V,Z) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route crosses a combination of private and municipal lands. Existing and Planned Land Use This route crosses 50 private parcels.It parallels O'Malley and Minnesota Drive all the way to International Substation.Land uses adjacent to the route include residential,commercial,industrial,extraction,institution,vacant land,and parks.There are 131 residences within a 201.2-meter (660-foot)-wide study corridor along Link I5.5.The Campbell Creek Greenbelt is crossed as well. Transportation and Utilities |Minnesota Drive Extension is a primary road.Along Minnesota Drive most utilities such as telephone,cable,sewer,and water lines are located on the eastern edge of the road right-of-way. Alaska Railroad Alternatives (Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y,Z) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route crosses a combination of private and municipal lands. Existing and Planned Land Use This route does not cross any private parcels.It parallels the Alaska Railroad all the way to International Substation.Land uses adjacent to the railroad tracks Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-122 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC include residential,commercial,industrial,extraction,institution,vacant land,and parks.There are 305 residences within a 201.2-meter (660-foot)-wide study corridor.The Campbell Creek Greenbelt is crossed.The submarine cable landing would cross the picnic area in Oceanview Bluff Park. Transportation and Utilities The Alaska Railroad has a 61-meter (200-foot)-wide right-of-way. The Alaska Railroad plans to double track the railroad through town at some point in the future. One airstrip is adjacent to the tracks in Oceanview.Utilities such as gas lines and fiber optic lines are located in the right-of-way., The Flying Crown private airstrip is located adjacent to the tracks within the Oceanview subdivision.This airstrip is parallel to the assumed centerline.The proposed Project would be buried underground along this portion of the link. Old Seward Highway/International Road Alternatives (Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y, Z) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route crosses a combination of private and municipal lands. Existing and Planned Land Use This route crosses 265 private parcels.It parallels the Alaska Railroad,Old Seward Highway,and International Airport Road to International Substation.Land uses adjacent to the route include residential,commercial,industrial,institution,vacant lands, and parks.There are 750 residences within a 201.1-meter (660-foot)-wide study corridor.The Campbell Creek Greenbelt is crossed. Transportation and Utilities |Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road are major arterials in Anchorage.ADOT/PF plans to widen and upgrade Old Seward Highway to five lanes from Huffman to Dowling in the year 2000/2001.From Huffman north,an existing distribution and subtransmission line parallels the east edge of the roadway to Dowling Road.Along International Airport Road,there is a 138kV line on the north side of the road from Arctic Boulevard to International Substation. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) Jurisdiction and Management Plans _'This alternative route crosses through conservation and utilization areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone. Existing and Planned Land Use This route crosses two private parcels.Land uses along this route are residential,vacant and parks,along with the crossing of the Campbell Greenbelt.There Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-123 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC are 73 residences within a 201.2-meter (660-foot)-wide study corridor.Three planned residential subdivisions are adjacent to the proposed alternative centerline along Victor and Klatt roads. Transportation and Utilities |Secondary roads such as Victor and Klatt roads are paralleled. Water and sewer lines are present along these roadways. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.3,I3.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) Jurisdiction and Management Plans _This route crosses through conservation and utilization areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone. Existing and Planned Land Use This route is similar to the previous one.It crosses two private parcels.There are 77 residences within a 201.2-meter (660-foot)-wide study corridor. Transportation and Utilities |Secondary roads such as Victor and Klatt roads are paralleled. Water and sewer lines are present along these roadways. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) Jurisdiction and Management Plans This route crosses through conservation and utilization areas of the Anchorage Coastal Management Zone. Existing and Planned Land Use_This route crosses 14 private parcels.There are 154 residences within a 201.2-meter (660-foot)-wide study corridor.It parallels O'Malley Road to the Alaska Railroad.Land uses adjacent to the route include residential,commercial,industrial,extraction, vacant land,and parks. Transportation and Utilities |Secondary roads such as Victor and Klatt roads are paralleled. Water and sewer lines are present along these roadways. Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives Tesoro Alternatives A 1.0-acre addition would be added to the Bernice Lake Substation.This expansion to the existing substation would be located on private land.The riser pole locations on Links T1.3, T1.4,and T2.1 would be located on either private or state land.The transition facility on Link Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-124 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC T5.1 near Pt.Possession would be located on state land designated for general use.The facility would require 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre). On Fire Island two transition facility sites would be required,one at the south end of the island and one at the north end.Each facility would be 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre)and located on CIRI land. Enstar Alternatives An expansion of the existing Soldotna substation would require an additional 0.2 hectare (0.4 acre)to the south.This facility would be located on private land.A new substation,Naptowne, would be located at the junction of Links $2.1 and S1.5.This facility would be located on private land and require 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres). A transition facility site would be required at the end of Link M5.1 in the KNWR.This 0.08- hectare (0.2-acre)facility would be located on lands designated Minimal Management. Anchorage Bow]Alternatives The transition facility site at Pt.Woronzof would be located within the existing substation.The transition facility at Pt.Campbell would be located in an existing gravel pit within Kincaid Park and require 0.08 hectare (0.2 acre).The transition facility site at Klatt Road would be located on private land zoned residential and require 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre).The transition facility site located north of Cross Road would be located in a light industrial area and require a 9.1-meter by 9.1-meter (20-foot by 30-foot)site.The riser pole location at 120"Avenue and along Old Seward Highway would be located in areas zoned light industrial and residential,respectively.The transition site near Rabbit Creek Rifle Range would be located on private land that is zoned residential,on the east side of New Seward Highway. The Pt.Woronzof substation would require a 0.6-hectare (1.4-acre)addition to the north of the existing facility.This addition would be located on Municipal land that is zoned as a transition district.International Substation would require a 0.08-hectare (0.2-acre)addition to the west of the existing facility.This addition would be located on private land zoned light industrial. Dave's Creek Substation The existing Dave's Creek substation is located on state land designated for recreation use.The land has high public values associated with it due to its proximity to the Sterling Highway.The expansion of the substation would require 0.3 hectare (0.7 acre). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-125 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC 3.8 RECREATION AND TOURISM This section summarizes the methods used to develop the inventory for recreation and tourism, provides an overview of recreation and tourism uses in the study area,and describes data inventoried within the alternative study corridors. Recreational choices range from passive to active recreation and occur throughout the study area during all seasons of the year.In the spring,summer,and fall,recreation consists of freshwater and saltwater sport fishing,big game and waterfowl hunting,sightseeing,wildlife viewing, rafting,camping,and hiking.During the winter,recreation activities include cross-country skiing,snowshoeing,snowmobiling,and dog mushing.Commercial recreation plays a large part as well,with guides,outfitters,float planes,and air/water taxiing providing services to tourists and residents alike.The Project area is one of the most visited in the state. 3.8.1 INVENTORY STUDY METHODS The recreation resources inventory and analysis were conducted to assess the potential sensitivity of identified recreation uses to the construction,operation,and maintenance of the proposed transmission line.Inventory data were collected within study corridors 2 miles wide on either side of the alternative route centerlines.This was accomplished by reviewing,refining,and updating data accumulated from the Southern Intertie Route Selection Study (1996).Field investigations for recreation resources were conducted from August to September 1996 for all alternative routes and updated in April 1999.Agency contacts were conducted to obtain and/or confirm specific recreation data.Federal,state,regional,and local governmental agencies and special interest organizations were contacted through telephone,letter,or meetings to collect and discuss recreation data.A comprehensive listing of all data sources is provided in the references section of this report. Detailed data were collected,compiled,and mapped on U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) 1:25,000-and 1:63,360-scale topographic quadrangles and verified through existing geographic information system (GIS)coverages obtained from the Municipality of Anchorage,Kenai Peninsula Borough,and Chugach National Forest.Secondary data sources included government agencies,state agencies,local municipalities,private enterprises,and special interest groups. Information collected included maps,pamphlets,and brochures to environmental impacts statements and planning reports. Following a general description of tourism,the recreation inventory is described by jurisdiction. The jurisdictions managing recreation activities are as follows: m™Kenai National Wildlife Refuge ™state parks ™state lands Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-126 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC #Municipality of Anchorage =Kenai Peninsula Borough Each jurisdiction is described in detail by their recreation management prescriptions,recreation activities and sites,and planned recreation facilities. The following figures,located in the Map Volume,should be reviewed along with the following sections: m=Figure MV-22,Recreation Use and Management Areas m=Figure MV-23,Anchorage Area Recreation Facilities 3.8.2 TOURISM Tourism is an important industry to the Project area,and especially to the Kenai Peninsula, providing income to residents and an economy to the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB)during winter and summer.South-central Alaska draws 68 percent of the total visitors to the state every summer because of the scenery and recreational opportunities.Other interests on the peninsula include museums,libraries,visitor centers,chambers of commerce,and historical and cultural sites (KPB 1997). The Kenai Peninsula's natural resources-lakes,rivers,coastal waters,mountains,and glaciers-attract visitors primarily from out-of-state and Anchorage.The natural resources provide recreational opportunities such as beachcombing,canoeing/kayaking,clam digging, fishing,wildlife and marine life observation,power boating,windsurfing,backpacking/hiking, camping,cross-country skiing,hunting,rafting,picnicking,road and mountain biking, snowmobiling,horseback riding,sightseeing,mountain climbing,and berry picking (KPB1990). The most popular activities are fishing and sightseeing.The Kenai River is both scenic and one of the most famous fishing rivers in the world.According to a survey by the Alaska Visitors Association,the Kenai River is the fourteenth most visited attraction in Alaska. According to the Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau,well over half of all annual visitors to the Kenai Peninsula are from Anchorage,and of those visitors,most go to the peninsula for recreation purposes.According to peninsula destination marketing organizations,more than 180,500 Anchorage residents visit the peninsula annually,each making an average of 4.34 trips. The overall most popular summer recreation activity for both residents and non-residents is fishing (KPB 1997). The number of non-resident visitors to the Kenai Peninsula is difficult to determine because they often arrive by one mode of transportation and depart by another.For instance,they may arrive and/or leave by highway,cruise ship,train,or airplane.However,one marketing study determined 185,000 non-residents visited the peninsula during the summer of 1994 (KPB 1997). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-127 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Between May and September,visitor centers and chambers of commerce provide tourists with informational services and direction.During the summer of 1996,the Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau recorded that 53,143 people visited the City of Kenai and 45,807 visited the City of Soldotna.In addition,a July 1996 survey counted the number of visits by tourists to Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)at 12,500;Bing's Landing State Recreation Site (SRS)at 33,811;Kenai River Flats at 6,696;and Middle Kenai River at 10,352 (KPB 1997). Tourism is an important industry on the Kenai Peninsula,representing approximately 7 percent of KPB's gross revenues,and contributing 2,019 jobs,or 12.3 percent,to the peninsula workforce.However,employment in the visitor industry is difficult to quantify because it involves a variety of other industries and is seasonally dependent.Some businesses,such as guiding and lodge operations,have a direct correlation to tourism,while other businesses,such as restaurants and grocery stores,benefit year-round from local customers,and enjoy an influx of business during summer from tourist sales (KPB 1992). Charter and guiding operations exist solely because of tourism.The number of guides registered to operate on the Kenai River in 1996 was 375,and guides registered to operate on waters within the KPB numbered 1,019.Yearly earnings for lodge operations were estimated at $6.7 million for 1996,while recreational services were estimated at $3.2 million for the same year (KPB 1997). The Project area falls within Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)Game Management units 15A and 7.In 1941,Franklin D.Roosevelt established the Kenai National Moose Range to protect the habitat and breeding grounds of the "giant Kenai moose”(EO 8979, USS.Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]1985).With the passage of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA),the conservation and protection purposes for the moose range grew to include resident fish and wildlife and their habitat.ANILCA changed the range name to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR)and broadened the boundaries of the range by almost 250,000 acres,bringing the total acreage to approximately 2 million.The act also authorizes public education and recreation opportunities,as well as economic uses,such as oil and gas exploration,subsistence opportunities,and transportation and utility systems (USFWS 1985). Beginning in the summer of 1998,the cruise ships Harmony of Crystal Cruises,and the Island Princess of Princess Cruises began bringing sea-going travelers to Anchorage from Vancouver, British Columbia.The Harmony can accommodate 960 passengers,and the Island Princess can accommodate 600.Each vessel docks at the Port of Anchorage five times between June 3 and September 3,for a total of 10 trips.From Vancouver,the vessels travel the Inside Passage, stopping at ports frequented by cruiseliners.Another 600-passenger cruiseliner,the Asuka, docked at the Port of Anchorage once in July 1998 (Anderson,personal communication,1998). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-128 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 FADATA\PROJ09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Recreation facilities within the KNWR include KNWR headquarters and 47 recreational sites that include campgrounds,access areas,waysides,and trailheads.More than 200 miles of trails and roads are available for recreators,including the Swan Lake and Swanson River Canoe routes, which are designated National Recreation Trails.In addition,the KNWR maintains several remote shelters and cabins in the northern portion of the refuge that are for public use.The USFWS also maintains an environmental education site on Swan Lake Road consisting of a cook house,six cabins,and study areas (USFWS 1985). 3.8.3 KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE The KNWR is unique in that it is the only refuge in Alaska with a major purpose to provide opportunities for compatible fish-and-wildlife-oriented recreation.Recreation opportunities in the KNWR include the salmon fishery of the Kenai River and its tributaries;waterfowl hunting in the Chickaloon Bay area;the canoe system on the Swanson River,Moose River,and Swan Lake area;and the Skilak Lake Wildlife Recreation Area,which provides an opportunity for education and interpretation of wildlife and recreation on the refuge.Because of its proximity to the Anchorage Bowl the KNWR supports more recreational use than any other refuge in Alaska (USFWS 1985). Recreation Activities Recreation activities allowed on the KNWR are based on the management categories previously discussed in the land use section.Developed recreation includes campgrounds,interpretive sites, fishing sites,hiking trails,and scenic overlooks.Dispersed recreation uses include aerial flight seeing,hiking,cross-country skiing,snowmobiling,dog mushing,boating,fishing,trapping, canoeing,and hunting.Seasonal moose and water-fowl hunting occur in the Pipeline Lowlands and Chickaloon Flats areas.The Mystery Creek Road is typically open to snowmobile use from December |to April 30,depending on whether there is sufficient snow depth.The KNWR experiences heavy fishing pressure during salmon runs on the Russian and Kenai rivers.Table 3-9 shows recreation visitor counts. TABLE 3-9 KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RECREATION VISITOR COUNTS 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Hunters __9,170 6,975 9,870 Fishing -38,750 97,975 80,100 96,750 Total Recreation _112,040 123,324 101,275 124,155 Total Visitor 500,000 283,368 306,737 250,137 308,305 Count Source:KNWR 1995,1999 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-129 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 FADATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Outfitters and Guides All commercial and special use activities including but not limited to outfitting,guiding, collecting of firewood,camping,and air taxi services are permitted by special-use permit on the KNWR.Sixty-six outfitter/guide operations are located within the study corridors (USFWS 1997). 3.8.4 STATE PARKS Captain Cook SRA is on the western edge of the Kenai Peninsula and was established in 1971 to provide a variety of recreational opportunities including hiking,fishing,boating,camping,scenic viewing,and the pullout point for the Swanson River Canoe Route (a National Recreation Trail). The Bishop Creek Campground has 12 camping sites and the Discovery Campground has 53 sites.Proposed recreation facilities include two public use cabins on the southeast side of Stormy Lake,and a camp shelter at Discovery Campground.The 1,403-hectare (3,466-acre)park was funded with assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act,which was used to purchase facilities within the park.Table 3-9 lists recreation visitor counts. Funny River SRS is located at river milepost 30 along the Kenai River.The northern most portion of the 136-hectare (336-acre)site is used for picnicking.The southern half of the site is to be retained as a general habitat area with no new developments.The addition of an adjacent parcel to the existing site is under consideration.This transfer would be with the KPB and would occur within the next 10 years. Bings Landing SRS is a 130-acre parcel with boat launch facilities and includes a 30-site campground,river front trail,and picnic area.The campground facilities are located south of Sterling Highway near the middle of the park and include camping sites and associated facilities. Table 3-10 lists recreation visitor counts. TABLE 3-10 STATE PARK RECREATION VISITOR COUNTS 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Captain Cook SRA 54,307 62,591 54,454 48,535 24,491 Bings Landing SRS 42,141 34,256 39,340 32,543 43,337 Source:DNR,Division of Parks 1996,1999 Honeymoon Cove SRS,Scout Lake SRS,Izaak Walton SRS,Nilnunga SHS,and Morgans Landing SRA are within the study corridors but are not directly crossed by the alternative routes. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-130 July 1999 Chapter 3-Affected Environment F.\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Special Management Areas The Kenai River SMA was established in 1984 to recognize the importance of the Kenai River and its fish and wildlife resources.The special management area is one of the highest use areas within the state park system.Typical activities include fishing,hiking,and sightseeing.The Kenai River SMA includes the tributaries and lakes within the Kenai River drainage basin between Kenai Lake and the Cook Inlet.The state recreation areas and sites such as Honeymoon Cove,Scout Lake,Bings Landing,Izaak Walton,Nilnunga,Funny River,and Morgans Landing are a part of the Kenai River SMA., 3.8.5 STATE LANDS The state land category includes recreation activities occurring on lands under state of Alaska jurisdiction not within the state park system. State Refuges The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR)is managed by the ADF&G.The ACWR borders the coast from Pt.Woronzof to Potter Marsh.The refuge includes 13,143 hectares (32,476 acres)and the former Potter Point State Game Refuge.The refuge was established to protect natural habitats and game populations,especially waterfowl.The refuge also is used for seasonal recreation activities such as waterfowl hunting (from September 1 to March 31),cross country skiing,and hiking by residents and visitors to the Anchorage Bowl.Major public access points to the refuge include Pt.Woronzof,the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail between Pt. Woronzof and Pt.Campbell,Oceanview Bluff Park,Rabbit Creek Rifle Range,and Potter Marsh. The Potter Marsh Wildlife Viewing Boardwalk is a heavily visited attraction for birdwatching, wildlife viewing,and education.From April to September 1996 approximately 40,000 to 60,000 people visited the boardwalk (Sinnot 1997). The Rabbit Creek Rifle Range is managed by ADF&G and provides shooting ranges and hunter education facilities for Anchorage residents.Planned facilities include expansion of the ranges at the north and south ends of the property. 3.8.6 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE The Municipality of Anchorage has a developed parks and recreation program for passive and active recreation activities.Several types of parks exist in the study corridors including school playgrounds,neighborhood parks,community parks,large urban parks,and regional parks.The Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-131 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC municipality also has a system of greenbelts and conservation areas that act as buffers between land uses and link recreation resources.A trail system within the greenbelt provides opportunities for walking,hiking,jogging,biking,cross country skiing,and equestrian use. The largest park within the study corridors is Kincaid Park.Kincaid Park offers summer and winter recreation trails systems for walking,hiking,jogging,biking,cross-country skiing,dog mushing,and equestrian use.The Tony Knowles Coastal Trail parallels the bluff overlooking Knik Arm and currently terminates at the park's outdoor center.There is a proposal to extend the trail from Pt.Campbell south to Potter Marsh.A portion of this trail would go through the ACWR (Municipality of Anchorage 1996a). Other parks in the study corridors include Campbell Creek Greenbelt,Taku Lake Park,Javier De La Vega Park,Pioneer Park,Oceanview Park,and Oceanview Bluff Park.Campbell Creek Greenbelt,Oceanview Bluff Park,and Kincaid Park are crossed by the alternative routes. 3.8.7 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH The Kenai Peninsula Borough does not have any developed parks or associated recreation facilities within the study corridors. 3.8.8 ALTERNATIVES Tesoro Route Alternatives Recreation and Tourism on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake through Captain Cook SRA (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,T2.1/Route Option A) This route segment would cross underground through Captain Cook SRA along the east side of the road edge.State lands immediately north of Captain Cook SRA are possible legislative additions to the SRA and are currently designated recreation lands. Captain Cook SRA to Pt.Possession (Links T3.1,T3.2,T5.1,T5.2/Route Option A) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route.State lands crossed near Prt. Possession have a multiple use designation.Dispersed hunting activities occur in this area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-132 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 F ADATA\PROJ09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Recreation and Tourism in Turnagain Arm (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route. Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E), There are no developed recreation facilities along this route. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof Submarine (Link M2.4/Route Option G) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route.Dispersed activities occur in the ACWR. Recreation and Tourism in the Anchorage Bowl (Tosoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) This route crosses Kincaid Park for 1.0 kilometer (km)(0.6 mile).Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and the Alex Sisson Loop cross-country ski trail are crossed in the park. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,I3.2,15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-133 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 F ADATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Enstar Route Alternatives Recreation and Tourism on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldotna Alternative (Links $1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route.The Moose River is used for canoeing and the route crosses the river parallel to an existing 115kV transmission line. Southern Soldotna Alternative (Links 82.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) This route parallels the Birch Ridge golf course and crosses the Kenai River Special Management Area (SMA)twice.Bings Landing SRS is crossed by the route at the existing 69kV river crossing. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) This route passes through Moderate Management designations within the KNWR.This route passes in proximity to Trapper Joe Lake and a recreation cabin.Dispersed moose and waterfowl hunting occurs off the Mystery Creek Road from late August through September,as well as snowmobiling in the winter. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-134 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Recreation and Tourism in Turnagain Arm (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route.Dispersed activities occur in the ACWR. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route.Oceanview Bluff Park and Oceanview Park are adjacent to the submarine cable landing at the railroad.A picnic area is planned for Oceanview Bluff Park adjacent to the railroad tracks,south of Reef Road.Dispersed activities occur in the ACWR. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link MS5.3/Route Option K) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route.Dispersed activities occur in the ACWR. Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) There are no developed recreation facilities along this route.Dispersed activities occur in the ACWR. Recreation and Tourism in the Anchorage Bowl (Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro route alternatives-While Route Option M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar route or the Tesoro route it is described as part of the Tesoro route alternatives. Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road Alternatives (Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V,Z) This route crosses the Campbell Creek Greenbelt and municipal open space.Javier De La Vega Park is adjacent to the route. Southem Intertie Project EVAL 3-135 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009'\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Alaska Railroad Alternatives (Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y,Z) The railroad corridor is proposed as a Scenic Byway.Oceanview Bluff Park and Campbell Creek Greenbelt are crossed.Oceanview Park is adjacent to the route. Old Seward Highway/International Road Alternatives (Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y, Z) This route crosses through the parking lot of Rabbit Creek Rifle Range.Campbell Creek Greenbelt is crossed. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) There are no recreation facilities crossed by this route. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,13.1,I3.3,14.4,15.5/Route Option O) There are no recreation facilities crossed by this route. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) The Campbell Creek Greenbelt is crossed by this route. Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives Tesoro Alternatives A 0.4-hectare (1.0-acre)addition would be added to the Bernice Lake Substation.This expansion to the existing substation would be located on private land.The riser pole locations on Links T1.3,T1.4,and T2.1 would be located on either private or state land.The transition facility on Link T5.1 near Pt.Possession would be located on state land designated for multiple use.The facility would require 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre). On Fire Island two transition facility sites would be required,one at the south end of the island and one at the north end.Each facility would be 0.3 acre and located on Cook Inlet Region,Inc. land. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-136 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Enstar Alternatives An expansion of the existing Soldotna substation would require an additional 0.2 hectare (0.4 acre)to the south.This facility would be located on private land.A new substation,Naptowne, would be located at the junction of Links $2.1 and $1.5.This facility would be located on private land and require 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres). A transition facility site would be required at the end of link M5.1 in the KNWR.This 0.08- hectare (0.2-acre)facility would be located on lands designated moderate management. Anchorage Bow!Alternatives The transition facility site at Pt.Woronzof would be located within the existing substation.The transition facility at Pt.Campbell would be located in an existing gravel pit within Kincaid Park and require 0.08 hectare (0.2 acre).The transition facility site at Klatt Road would be located on private land zoned residential and require 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre).The transition facility site located north of Cross Road would be located in a light industrial area and require a 9.1-by 9.1- meter (30-by 30-foot)site.The riser pole location at 120"Avenue and along Old Seward Highway would be located in areas zoned light industrial and residential,respectively.The transition site near Rabbit Creek Rifle Range would be located on private land that is zoned residential,on the east side of New Seward Highway. The Pt.Woronzof substation would require a 0.6-hectare (1.4-acre)addition to the north of the existing facility.This addition would be located on Municipal land that is zoned as a transition district.International Substation would require a 0.08-hectare (0.2-acre)addition to the west of the existing facility.This addition would be located on private land zoned light industrial. Dave's Creek Substation The existing Dave's Creek substation is located on state land designated for recreation use.The land has high public values associated with it due to its proximity to the Sterling Highway.The expansion of the substation would require 0.3 hectare (0.7 acre). 3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS The demographic,economic,and fiscal attributes of the study area were inventoried and characterized for use in evaluating potential socioeconomic effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project.Potential socioeconomic effects include temporary increases in population,employment,and income during construction,and longer-term changes in or impacts on existing economic activities or land uses.Socioeconomic resources tend to be Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-137 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC characterized within the borough and municipality geographic units,as opposed to corridor- specific characteristics.For the proposed Project,the relevant areas and towns in terms of socioeconomic resources include the following: =Municipality of Anchorage ®Kenai Peninsula Borough -Nikiski -Kenai -Soldotna The Project study area includes portions of the Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB),as shown on Figure MV-13,Jurisdiction/Ownership,in the Map Volume.Within the KPB,there are two cities and one unincorporated community.Demographic and economic information for these areas are described following a brief discussion of inventory study methods. 3.9.1 INVENTORY STUDY METHODS Demographic and economic information for the study area was gathered primarily from secondary sources including state land use plans,local government comprehensive plans, community profiles,and other statistical reports,including the following: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Community Profiles Alaska Department of Labor Population Reports Alaska Department of Labor Economic Reports Municipality of Anchorage,Anchorage Indicators 1996 and 1997 Municipality of Anchorage Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 1996 Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 1995 Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program Final Document 1990 1990 U.S.Census Data 3.9.2 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH The KPB incorporates the Kenai Peninsula,portions of Cook Inlet,and a large unpopulated area of the Alaska Peninsula.KPB communities within the study area for this Project include the cities of Kenai and Soldotna,as well as the unincorporated community of Nikiski.The amount of socioeconomic data on the KPB is limited,compared to the Municipality of Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-138 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Demographic Summary The population of the KPB has increased 46 percent since 1980,reaching 46,790 in 1996 (see Table 3-11).Since 1990,the rate has been approximately 2.6 percent per year.Population estimates for the borough are broken into two census subareas,the Kenai-Cook Inlet subarea and the Seward subarea,with the Kenai-Cook Inlet subarea accounting for 98 percent of the borough population in 1996.Major population concentrations within the borough occur in the City of Kenai (6,950),community of Sterling (5,378),City of Homer (4,064),City of Soldotna (3,968) and Nikiski (3,013).The City of Kenai is the largest community in the KPB. The population of Kenai has increased 10 percent since 1990,with an average annual growth rate of 1.6 percent.The City of Soldotna is the fourth largest community in the KPB,after Kenai, Sterling,and Homer.The population has increased steadily from 3,482 in 1990 to 3,968 in 1996. The community of Nikiski had a 1995 population of 3,013,up 10 percent from 1980. In 1990,the KPB had a total population of 40,802 of which 91 percent were white and seven percent were American Indian,Eskimo,and Aleut (Table 3-11).Approximately 7.5 percent of the population were below the poverty level.The KPB had a total of 14,323 households with a median income of $42,403.Of the total households,1,206 were receiving public assistance income (Table 3-12)(U.S.Census Bureau 1990).For the towns of Kenai,Nikiski,and Soldonta, specific data on racial composition are in Table 3-11 and the poverty level of individuals and economic status of households are in Table 3-12. TABLE 3-11 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH AND COMMUNITIES WITHIN PROJECT AREA RACIAL COMPOSITION,1990 KPB Kenai Nikiski Soldotna Total Population 40,802 6,327 2,710 3,456 White 37,258 5,660 2,523 3,285 Black 248 47 0 0 American Indian,Eskimo,Aleut 2,894 535 168 140 Asian or Pacific Islander 338 70 19 31 Other 64 15 0 0 Source:U.S.Census Bureau."1990 U.S.Census of Population and Housing,Summary Tape File 3A,”(October 1997). Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC 3-139 Chapter 3-Affected Environment TABLE 3-12 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH AND COMMUNITIES WITHIN PROJECT AREA INCOME/POVERTY LEVEL,1990 KPB Kenai Nikiski Soldotna Median household income $42,403 $42,889 $44,242 $38,004 Total number of households 14,323 2,337 899 1,269 Households with public assistance income 1,206 191 65 126 %households with public assistance income 8.4 8.2 7.2 9.9 Total population 40,802 6,327 2,710 3,456 Persons below poverty level 3,076 461 186 196 %population below poverty level 7.5 7.3 6.9 5.7 Source:U.S.Census Bureau."1990 U.S.Census of Population and Housing,Summary Tape File 3A,”(October 1997). Economic Summary The KPB has a diverse economy with the contribution of oil and gas,tourism,fishing and fish processing,transportation,timber,retail,and government sectors (Department of Community and Regional Affairs [DCRA]1997).Total employment in the KPB was estimated at 17,137 in the 1990 U.S.Census (Table 3-13).The largest industries in terms of employment were trade (wholesale and retail)and professional services,which include health and education services. These two industries accounted for almost 38 percent of total employment in the KPB.The cities of Kenai and Soldotna showed the same pattern,with trade and professional services accounting for the most employment.Nikiski was different in that mining accounted for the greatest employment,followed by trade and manufacturing. Tourism provides employment primarily in the retail,transportation,and service sectors.There were over 185,000 visitors to the Kenai Peninsula in 1994,according to the KPB Economic Development District (KPBEDD 1997).The economic importance of tourism in the Kenai Peninsula was noted in the results of two studies reported in the Coastal Management Program document (KPB 1990).One study completed in 1985 found that tourism accounted for about 7.7 percent of average annual employment,increasing to about 16.8 percent during the summer season.A study by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game attributed expenditures of $31 million to sport fishing by both resident and non-resident anglers in 1986,primarily for retail and guiding services. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-140 July 1999 Chapter 3-Affected Environment P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-13 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH COMMUNITIES EMPLOYMENT 1990 U.S.CENSUS DATA Kenai Peninsula Industry Borough Kenai Soldotna |Nikiski Agriculture,forestry,fisheries 1174 100 35 67 Mining 1401 367 114 767 Construction 1350, *+129 85 81 Manufacturing 1585 321 73 158 Transportation 891 96 21 68 Communications and public utilities 399 41 39 4 Wholesale and retail trade 3631 640 431 224 Finance,insurance,real estate 454 88 6l 29 Business and repair services 650 123 104 83 Personal services 472 101 45 6 Entertainment and recreation services 227 33 13 9 Professional services 3513 474 424 101 Public administration 1390 205 151 68 Total employment 17,137 2738 1596 1059 Source:1990 U.S.Census The Alaska Department of Labor (ADOL)employment estimates for 1990 through 1995 are presented in Table 3-14.ADOL estimates that total nonagricultural employment in the KPB has increased from 13,693 to 15,269 over a six-year period,an increase of 12 percent.ADOL has also prepared employment estimates for the "Kenai Soldotna Area”within the KPB (Table 3-15). According to the ADOL,this area includes most of the KPB,excluding Homer and Seward (Fried,personal communication,1997).Based on the ADOL data,the top five industries in terms of employment over the last six years have been government,trade,services,and manufacturing. Total employment over the last six years has increased from 8,671 to 10,698,an increase of 23 percent.Total government employment has increased at an average annual rate of 4.8 percent over the same period,trade at 5.8 percent,services at 4.1 percent,and manufacturing at 5.1 percent.Industries that have decreased employment over this period include transportation,food and kindred products,and state government. The total wage and salary income for the KPB in 1989 was estimated at $528 million,according to the 1990 U.S.Census.Approximately 32 percent of households had incomes greater than $60,000 in 1989.Per capita income was estimated at $18,173 for the KPB in 1989. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-141 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-14 KPB WAGE &SALARY EMPLOYMENT %Change Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1990-95 Nonagriculture Wage and Salary Employment Mining 1,174 1,155 1,043 1,063 1,146 1,106 -6 Construction 117 713 623 689 |.813 846 18 Manufacturing 1,861 2,066 1,848 1,833 1,799 1,804 3 Transportation 995 1,066 967 1,001 1,059 1,052 6 Trade 2,556 2,708 2,936 3,194 3,414 3,432 34 Finance,insurance 281 277 300 323 352 366 30 and real estate Services and 2,688 2,808 2,823 3,163 3,362 3,241 21 miscellaneous Government 3,421 3,398 3,479 3,729 3,788 4,182 22 Total all industries 13,693 14,191 14,019 14,995 15,733 15,269 12 Source:ADOL 1995;Alaska Economic Trends,February 1995;Employment and Earnings Summary Report 1994 and 1995 The City of Kenai was incorporated as a home rule city in 1960,shortly after oil was discovered in the nearby Swanson River area (DCRA 1997c).Kenai's economy is based primarily on oil and gas services and supplies and tourism.Fishing and fish processing,timber and lumber, agriculture,and other industries also are represented.Aggregate wage and salary income in 1989 in Kenai was 89 million dollars,according to the U.S.Census.About 29 percent of the households in the city had incomes greater than $60,000 in 1989.Per capita income was estimated at $17,877. Soldotna,located at the junction of the Sterling and Kenai Spur highways,was incorporated in 1967 (DCRA 1997e).Its economy,like that of Kenai,is heavily dependent on oil and gas, tourism,and fishing,as well as timber and lumber,agriculture,and other industries.Aggregate wage and salary income in 1989 was reported at $41 million.About 28 percent of the households in the City had incomes greater than $60,000 in 1989.Per capita income was estimated at $15,800. Several oil refineries are located in Nikiski,representing the major local industry (DCRA 1997d).Other employment includes timber,commercial and sport fishing,retail,and touism. Aggregate wage and salary income in 1989 was reported at $40 million.More than 31 percent of the households in the Nikiski area had incomes greater than $60,000 in 1989.Per capita income was estimated at $18,823. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-142 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-15 KENAI SOLDOTNA AREA EMPLOYMENT:1990-1995 "%Change Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1990-1995 Mining 1,034 1,036 1,047 1,068 1,141 1,100 6 Construction 327 490 489 543 619 595 82 Manufacturing 961 1,310 1,294 1,258 1,219 1,256 31 Food and kindred **733 707 637 627 - Transportation 560 598 557 548 565 524 -6 Trade 1,652 1,722 1,939 2,201 2,348 2,226 35 Wholesale 303 288 312 373 398 36]19 Retail 1,349 1,434 1,627 1,829 1,951 1,865 38 Finance 174 176 194 203 218 222 28 Services and 1,862 1,974 1,965 2,176 2,315 2,147 15 miscellaneous Government 2,039 1,966 2,089 2,274 2,282 2,628 29 Federal 140 150 155 196 214 223 59 State 611 529 529 545 540 544 -11 Local 1,355 1,287 1,405 1,533 1,528 1,861 37 Total all industries 8,671 9,279 9,574 10,272 10,708 10,698 23 Source:Alaska Department of Labor,Research and Analysis Section 1996 Housing Summary According to the 1990 U.S.Census,the KPB had a total of 19,364 housing units.Single-family homes made up 70 percent of the total,with multi-family homes accounting for 15 percent,and mobile homes accounting for another 15 percent.Approximately 47 percent of the housing units have been built since 1980. The City of Kenai accounted for 2,681 of the KPB's housing units.Single-family units made up 54 percent of the housing units in Kenai,multi-family units accounted for 36 percent,and mobile homes accounted for the remaining 10 percent.Forty-three percent of all housing units were constructed since 1980. Soldotna had a total of 1,457 housing units,of which almost 60 percent are single-family units and 34 percent were multi-family units.Mobile homes made up only six percent of the housing units.Forty-seven percent of the housing units were constructed between 1980 and 1990. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-143 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRONA09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC The 1990 Census reported 1,009 housing units in the community of Nikiski.Single-family homes accounted for 68 percent of the units,with multi-family units making up seven percent, and mobile homes making up the remaining 25 percent.Units constructed since 1980 accounted for 46 percent of total units in this area. Community Services and Facilities The KPB provides education,solid waste,health care,recreation,road maintenance,fire protection,and emergency services (KPB 1995).Public water and wastewater services are provided within some municipalities,such as Kenai and Soldotna;areas outside of the municipalities primarily rely on wells and septic systems.Police services also are provided by municipalities;the Alaska State Troopers provide public safety services in unincorporated areas of the borough.There are five fire service areas within the KPB,including the Ridgeway-Sterling fire service area,which covers Soldotna,and the Nikiski fire service area.In addition,there are local volunteer fire departments within some communities,including Kenai.The borough is divided into two hospital service areas.The central hospital service area covers an area including Kenai,Soldotna,and Nikiski.Health services for this area are provided at the Central Peninsula General Hospital,located in Soldotna.A Senior Citizen Service Area was set up in Nikiski in 1995 to provide services,including a Senior Center,in this area.The Borough School District operated 39 schools in 1995,serving 10,226 students (KPB 1995). The City of Kenai provided water and wastewater service to approximately 75 percent of the housing units in the City in 1990,according to the U.S.Census.The city provides police services within its boundaries and has a local volunteer fire department. The 1990 U.S.Census reported that the City of Soldotna provided water and wastewater service to approximately 80 percent of the housing units within the city.The city also provides police service within its boundaries.Fire and emergency services are provided by the KPB. Nikiski is not an incorporated community;therefore,community services in the area are provided by the KPB,as described above. Fiscal Summary The KPB has three primary sources of general government revenues:intergovernmental revenues,general property taxes,and sales taxes.Total general government revenues totaled $118 million in 1995 (KPB 1995).Intergovernmental revenues accounted for 55 percent of total revenues,property taxes accounted for 30 percent,and sales taxes accounted for another 9 percent.General fund expenditures totaled $114 million in 1995 with 72 percent of these expenditures related to education costs.Other major expenditures included debt service (13 percent),general government (6 percent),and fire and emergency medical expenses. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-144 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Total taxable property was valued at $3.1 billion in 1995,with 16 percent of the property reported as oil related (KPB 1995).The borough also has a two percent sales tax on purchases. The cities of Kenai and Soldotna each have a three percent sales tax. \ 3.9.33 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE The Municipality of Anchorage is a unified city/oorough home rule municipality and is the largest city in Alaska.The Municipality of Anchorage encompasses 4,398 square kilometers (km)(1,698 square miles)of land,from Chugiak in the north to Girdwood in the south,and includes 684 square km (264 square miles)of water (DCRA 1997b).The majority of the population in Anchorage resides within the Anchorage Bowl,which consists of the areas east of the Chugach Mountains,from Fort Richardson in the north to the Potter Marsh area in the south. The areas north of the Anchorage Bowl are typically referred to as the Eagle River-Chugiak area, while the areas south of the Anchorage Bow]are referred to as the Turnagain Arm area. Demographic Summary The population of Anchorage has grown by 45 percent since 1980,reaching 254,269 in 1996 (Table 3-16).Since 1990,the rate of growth has been approximately two percent per year based on estimates from ADOL (1997).Municipality of Anchorage population estimates differ slightly, but show a similar increase (Table 3-17).The Municipality of Anchorage estimates population for more than 30 community council or planning areas within the borough.The largest concentration of population within the borough is in northeast Anchorage,which makes up 31 percent of the total Municipality of Anchorage population.The Turnagain Arm area currently has the lowest total population,2,269,but is growing at the fastest rate.The population in this area increased 66 percent between 1990 and 1996.South Anchorage is seeing the greatest growth within the Anchorage Bowl,with population increases of 19 percent between 1990 and 1996 in both southeast and southwest Anchorage.There are a few areas,primarily in downtown and north Anchorage,that show a loss of population since 1990.The area with the greatest decrease in population is the military base area,including both Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson Military Reservation. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-145 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\F ina!\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-16 HISTORICAL POPULATION ESTIMATES ANCHORAGE AND KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH %Increase '%Increase Area 1980 1990 1996 1980-1990 1990-1996 Municipality of 174,431 226,338 254,269 22.9 11.0 Anchorage KPB 25,282 40,802 46,790 38.0 12.8 Kenai 4,324 6,327 6,950 31.7 9.0 Nikiski 1,109 2,743 3,013 59.6 9.0 Soldonta 2,320 3,482 3,968 33.4 12.3 Sources:Alaska Department of Labor,Research and Analysis Section,Demographics Unit 1997 U.S.Census Bureau,Census of Population and Housing 1980 TABLE 3-17 ANCHORAGE POPULATION BY PLANNING AREAS -1990 TO 1996 Planning Areas Population and Community %Change Councils 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 90-96 Eagle River-Chugiak 25,324 26,342 26,869 27,880 28,632 29,199 15 Southeast Anchorage 32,703 33,942 34,916 36,987 37,739 38,803 19 Northeast Anchorage 68,931 72,127 72,716 75,145 75,324 78,146 13 Northwest Anchorage 42,253 43,570 44,013 45,825 46,190 47,677 13 Southwest Anchorage 40,664 44,654 45,075 45,594 46,154 48,453 19 Turnagain Arm 1,366 1,391 1,465 1,542 1,689 2,269 66 Military bases 15,097 14,441 13,823 13,770 12,467 9,557 -37 Remainder of area *1,443 1,381 1,552 1,810 *-- Total 226,338 |237,907 |240,258 |248,296 |250,006 |254,105 12 *Included in estimates above.Note:All numbers do not add exactly to totals due to rounding. Source:Anchorage Indicators 1997,Volume 1;Municipality of Anchorage 1997 According to the U.S.Census Bureau,Anchorage had a total population 226,338 in 1990 of which 80 percent were white,6 percent black,7 percent American Indian,Eskimo or Aleut,5 percent Asian or Pacific Islander,and 2 percent other (Table 3-18).Of the total population,6.9 percent were below the poverty level.There were a total of 83,043 households within the Municipality of Anchorage with a median income of $43,946.Of these households 5,297 (6.4 percent)were receiving public assistance income (Table 3-19)(U.S.Census Bureau 1990). Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC 3-146 Chapter 3-Affected Environment TABLE 3-18 ANCHORAGE -MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE RACIAL COMPOSITION,1990 Total Population 226,338 White 182,867 Black 14,411 American Indian,Eskimo,Aleut 14,910 Asian or Pacific Islander 10,764 Other 3,386 Source:U.S.Census Bureau."1990 U.S.Census of Population and Housing,Summary Tape File 3A,”(October 1997). TABLE 3-19 ANCHORAGE -MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE INCOME/POVERTY LEVEL,1990 Median household income $43,946 Total number of households 83,043 Households with public assistance income 5,297 %households with public assistance income 6.4 Total population 226,338 Persons below poverty level 15,614 %population below poverty level 6.9 Source:U.S.Census Bureau."1990 U.S.Census of Population and Housing,Summary Tape File 3A,”(October 1997). Economic Summary As mentioned above,Anchorage is the state's largest city and is the center of commerce for the state.The city has a diverse economy with oil and gas,finance and real estate,transportation, retail,services,communications,and government sectors represented.Government and military employment makes up significant portions of total employment in Anchorage compared to other areas of the United States.Recent cutbacks in both government and military employment are reducing the importance of these sectors in the economy.Government employment has decreased from 26 percent of the workforce to 23 percent of the work force over the last 20 years,while military employment has decreased more dramatically,from 24 percent to 9 percent.Private sector employment has become a more significant sector of the economy over this period, increasing from 44 percent to 62 percent. Historical data on Anchorage employment are presented in Table 3-20.Employment has increased steadily from 1990 to 1996 at an average annual rate of approximately 1.4 percent. Over that time period,employment has increased primarily in services and trade while decreasing in manufacturing,federal employment,and mining.Unemployment in Anchorage Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-147 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC was estimated at 5.5 percent in 1996,slightly higher than the U.S.average rate of 5.4 percent. Between 1990 and 1995,the Anchorage rate was consistently lower than the U.S.average,after recovering from high unemployment during the late 1980s (Table 3-21). TABLE 3-20 ANCHORAGE EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY "Change Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1990-96 Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment Mining 3,800 4,000 3,400 3,400 3,200 2,700 2,500 -34 Construction 5,800 5,600 5,400 6,200 6,400 6,400 6,300 9 Manufacturing 2,400 2,600 2,000 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,000 -17 Transportation 11,100 11,900 12,000 12,400 12,600 12,000 11,800 6 Trade 26,200 26,000 26,200 26,400 28,700 29,700 29,700 13 Finance,insurance,6,500 6,600 6,500 6,800 7,200 7,200 7,100 9 and real estate Services and 28,800 28,700 29,900 31,100 31,300 32,400 33,500 16 miscellaneous Government 26,900 27,300 28,400 29,400 28,800 28,100 27,800 Total all industries 111,500 112,700 113,800 117,600 120,200 120,600 120,700 8 Source:Anchorage Indicators 1997,Volume 1.;Municipality of Anchorage 1997 TABLE 3-21 ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE U.S.,ALASKA,AND ANCHORAGE 1980-1996 Year US.Alaska Anchorage 1980 7.1%9.7%7.0% 1981 7.6%9.3%6.6% 1982 9.7%9.9%7.3% 1983 9.6%10.3%7.3% 1984 7.5%10.0%7.5% 1985 7.2%9.7%7.2% 1986 7.0%10.8%8.4% 1987 6.2%10.8%8.4% 1988 5.5%9.3%74% 1989 5.3%6.7%5.1% 1990 5.6%7.0%3.1% 199]6.8%8.7%6.8% 1992 7.5%9.2%7.3% 1993 6.9%7.7%5.9% 1994 6.1%7.8%5.6% Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC 3-148 Chapter 3-Affected Environment TABLE 3-21 ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE U.S.,ALASKA,AND ANCHORAGE 1980-1996 Year U.S.Alaska Anchorage 1995 5.6%7.3%5.2% 1996 5.4%7.8%5.5% Source:Anchorage Indicators 1997,Volume 1;Municipality of Anchorage 1997 Total earnings in Anchorage in 1995 was four billion dollars,with 28 percent from government employment (Municipality of Anchorage 1997).The mining industry,including oil and gas,had the highest average monthly wage at $7,199,and retail trade had the lowest average monthly wage at $1,507.The average monthly wage for all industries was $2,789.Table 3-22 lists historical wage information for Anchorage from 1990 to 1995. TABLE 3-22 ANCHORAGE AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE BY INDUSTRY -1990 TO 1995 Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Private Sector 2,446 2,496 2,565 2,611 2,633 2,595 Agriculture,forestry,fish and other 1,483 1,609 1,591 1,710 1,653 1,744 Mining 6,239 6,331 7,093 6,762 7,105 7,199 Construction 3,843 3,664 3,493 3,808 3,899 3,885 Manufacturing 2,037 2,273 2,511 2,457 2,475 2,472 Transportation and public utilities 2,940 3,034 3,244 3,349 3,467 3,459 Wholesale trade 2,780 2,864 2,914 2,863 2,879 2,843 Retail trade 1,457 1,494 1,558 1,517 1,505 1,507 Finance,insurance and real estate 2,404 2,469 2,610 2,757 2,688 2,785 Services 1,935 1,954 2,034 2,091 2,146 2,177 Government Sector 2,960 3,085 3,245 3,371 3,452 3,443 Federal 2,820 2,944 3,145 3,293 3,281 3,380 State 2,911 3,100 3,187 3,259 3,321 3,366 Local 3,182 3,251 3,423 3,580 3,798 3,588 All Industries 2,568 2,636 2,733 2,797 2,824 2,789 Source:Anchorage Indicators 1997,Volume 1;Municipality of Anchorage 1997 Alaska had the highest median household income in the United States in 1995,according to the Alaska Department of Labor (ADOL 1996a).Similarly,Anchorage's per capita income has consistently exceeded the national average.Per capita income in Anchorage in 1994 was estimated at $27,026,and the city ranked sixteenth overall in per capita income for metropolitan areas of the United States (Municipality of Anchorage 1997). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-149 July 1999 Chapter 3-Affected Environment P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Compared to all Alaskan communities,Anchorage had the largest number of visitors (543,600) during the summer of 1993.Of the 543,600 visitors,387,100 were visiting for vacation or pleasure (Alaska Division of Tourism 1997). Housing Summary There were approximately 92,000 housing units within the Municipality of Anchorage in 1996, based on Municipality of Anchorage estimates (Municipality of Anchorage 1997).Single-family housing units made up 46 percent of the total,with multi-family units accounting for 47 percent, and mobile homes making up the remaining 7 percent.More than 88 percent of the total housing units were located within the Anchorage Bowl (81,461 units).The Municipality of Anchorage estimates that 95 percent of the housing units are in average to very good condition,with 4 percent in poor condition,and 1 percent in very poor condition. Community Services The Municipality of Anchorage provides water and wastewater service to the majority of households within its boundaries (DCRA 1997b;Municipality of Anchorage 1996).The Municipality of Anchorage water system includes both surface and ground water sources.The surface water sources are the Ship Creek Reservoir and Eklutna Lake.Ground water is supplied through wells located in the Anchorage Bowl,Eagle River,and near Girdwood.The Municipality of Anchorage's wastewater treatment system consists of three wastewater treatment plants,one in the Anchorage Bowl,one in Eagle River,and one in Girdwood.Although the 1990 U.S.Census reported that the Municipality of Anchorage provided utility services to the majority (86 to 87 percent)of the housing units within the KPB,there are areas that still rely on private water wells and septic systems.Most of these areas are located in the Eagle River-Chugiak area, smaller communities along Turnagain Arm,and the Hillside area of the Anchorage Bowl. Electrical service in the Municipality of Anchorage is provided by the publicly owned Anchorage Municipal Light and Power and Chugach Electric Association.Both utilities purchase power from federally and state-owned hydroelectric facilities located at Bradley Lake and Eklutna Lake,as well as owning and operating smaller generating facilities locally.Local telephone service is provided by the publicly owned Anchorage Telephone Utility. The Anchorage School District includes 76 schools within the Municipality of Anchorage, serving approximately 46,000 students (Municipality of Anchorage 1996).There are 56 elementary schools,10 junior high schools,and 12 senior high schools.Higher education is provided by the University of Alaska -Anchorage and Alaska Pacific University. Health-care services within the community are provided by three major hospitals:Alaska Regional Hospital,Providence Medical Center,and Alaska Native Hospital.Alaska Regional and Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-150 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Providence are operated by private companies.The Alaska Native Hospital is operated by the Indian Health Service.There also are medical facilities that provide service to military families in the area including a hospital on Elmendorf Air Force Base and a medical clinic at Fort Richardson.Numerous smaller emergency clinics and specialty clinics also are located within the Municipality of Anchorage,operated by private companies.Psychiatric care is available at the Alaska Psychiatric Hospital,a state facility,and Charter Center,a private facility. Public safety and emergency services are provided primarily by the Municipality of Anchorage within Municipality of Anchorage boundaries (Municipality of Anchorage 1996).There are 11 police stations throughout the Municipality of Anchorage;areas not within the police service area rely on the Alaska State Troopers for police protection.There are 11 staffed fire stations and an additional 6 volunteer-staffed stations. Fiscal Summary The Municipality of Anchorage's primary sources of general government revenues are taxes and intergovernmental revenues (including federal and state grants,state revenue sharing,and municipal assistance).Property taxes provide the largest revenue source for the Municipality of Anchorage,making up approximately 82 percent of total government revenues. Intergovernmental revenues accounted for eight percent.Other revenue sources include license and permit fees,charges for services,fines and forfeitures,interest on assets,and other miscellaneous income.Total general-fund revenues were estimated at $292 million for 1996 (Municipality of Anchorage 1996).General-fund expenditures totaled $292 million in 1996 with 30 percent of these expenditures related to the Anchorage School District and 21 percent of total expenditures on public safety services. The total assessed value of taxable property in 1996 was reported as $11.8 billion,with 87 percent of this total associated with real property and 13 percent in personal property (Municipality of Anchorage 1996).There are no sales taxes in the Municipality of Anchorage. 3.10 SUBSISTENCE Section 801(1)of the 1980 Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA)provides for "the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives,on the public lands.”Section 803 of the Act defines subsistence as "the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild,renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food,shelter,fuel,clothing,tools,or transportation;for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption;and for customary trade.” Section 810 of the ANILCA requires evaluation of the effects of the proposed Project on subsistence uses or access to subsistence resources in an area.If the proposed project were to Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-151 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC significantly restrict subsistence uses,the agency must (1)notify appropriate state agencies, regional councils,and local committees,and (2)notice and hold a hearing in the vicinity of the Project.The agency also must determine that any significant restriction of subsistence uses is consistent with sound management of public lands,will involve the minimum of public lands needed for the proposed use,and reasonable measures will be implemented to minimize adverse effects.In compliance with ANILCA,the Federal Subsistence Board manages the subsistence use of fish and wildlife resources on federal lands,which includes the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR)within the Project area. Under state law,the Subsistence Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) also can designate subsistence areas on nonfederal lands.None of the stidy area is used for subsistence by any state designated subsistence communities. The Federal Subsistence Board implements provisions of ANILCA by designating rural areas and certifying customary and traditional resource use patterns.There are no designated rural communities in the Anchorage Bowl portion of the study area.Communities within and closest to the Kenai Peninsula portion of the Project area,including Kenai,Soldotna,Sterling,Nikiski, Salamatof,Kalifornsky,Kasilof,and Clam Gulch,are designated as non-rural. The subsistence analysis conducted for this environmental evaluation focused on three communities near the study area which were designated rural by the Federal Subsistence Board and whose residents do some subsistence harvesting within the study area:(1)Ninilchik,located about 38 miles southwest of the study area;(2)Cooper Landing,located about 19 miles southeast of the study area;and (3)Hope,located about 9 miles east of the study area.Subsistence use by these communities,documented primarily by data compiled by the ADF&G (Reed 1985)and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)Office of Subsistence Management (1993)for Game Management Unit 15A,is summarized in this section.The Kenai Peninsula portion of the Project area is almost entirely in Unit 15A. Other Kenai Peninsula communities designated as rural include China Poot Cove,Halibut Cove, Homer Rural Area (including Fox River and Nikolaevsk),Nanwalek,Port Graham,and Seldovia. All of these communities are located some 80.5 to 128.7 kilometers (km)(50 to 80 miles)to the southwest of the study area.There is no documentation that residents of these communities use the study area for subsistence.Residents of Whittier,another federally designated rural community located about 40 miles east of the study area,may undertake some subsistence hunting near the eastern end of Chickaloon Bay,but use within the study area is so limited that it does not warrant consideration. No specific designation has been made by the Federal Subsistence Board providing a priority to a particular group having customary and traditional subsistence practices in Unit 15A.The Federal Subsistence Board has given all rural residents subsistence priorities over non-rural residents for hunting and trapping for the following species within Game Management Unit 15A:coyote, hare,wolf,wolverine,spruce grouse,ptarmigan,beaver,red fox,lynx,mink and weasel, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-152 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC muskrat,and otter.In addition,federal subsistence priorities have been established for all rural residents in this same area for goat and ruffed grouse,but there is no open hunting season.The Board also has determined that the residents of Ninilchik,Nanwalek,Port Graham,and Seldovia customarily and traditionally hunted moose and has established federal subsistence priorities for these communities to hunt moose within Game Management Unit 15. 3.10.1 NINILCHIK Employees of the Russian American Company,some of whom married Native women,founded the original village at the mouth of the Ninilchik River around 1835 (Braund and Benke 1980). The original community focused on agricultural pursuits and became a focus of education, trading,and Russian Orthodox missionary efforts in the Cook Inlet region.Fishing emerged as a commercial industry in 1882 with the establishment of a cannery in Kasilof (Cobb 1911). Construction of the Sterling Highway into the area in the 1950s spurred an influx of some homesteaders,but the population of Ninilchik was only 50 to 170 residents from its founding into the 1970s.Subsequent economic growth,related primarily to tourism and recreation,has increased population to almost 650 by 1996 (Alaska Department of Labor 1991,1997).About 20 percent of the residents are Alaska Natives.Nonsubsistence activities include retail and service industries related to tourism (focused especially on the historic Russian Orthodox church that continues to be used),commercial fishing,timber harvests on Native lands,school and public sector jobs,and non-local employment in the oil industry on the Kenai Peninsula and the North Slope (Alaska Department of Regional and Community Affairs 1996;Reed 1985;USFWS 1993).Average household income in 1990 was about $31,000 (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1997). . Data compiled in 1982 indicated that 92 percent of all Ninilchik households participated in subsistence harvests (Reed 1985).About one-third of the households indicated that most (50 to 89 percent)of the meat and fish they consumed was from wild resources,and another half of the households reported that some (10 to 49 percent)of their fish and meat consumption was based on wild resources.A small sample survey in 1992 indicated that more than three-fourths of the households in Ninilchik continued to derive more than half of their food supply from subsistence harvests (Alaska Legal Services 1992;USFWS 1993). In 1982 an average of 86 pounds of subsistence resources per person was consumed (an aggregate of approximately 56,000 pounds for the community).About 56 percent of these resources were fish,23 percent land mammals,16 percent marine invertebrates,3 percent vegetation,and 2 percent birds and eggs.The hunting of land mammals focused on moose. Information about where Ninilchik residents hunted is limited,but harvest ticket reports from 1983 to 1992 indicate that 95 percent of the moose were taken in Game Management Unit 15C, where Ninilchik is located.Only 5 percent were taken in Units 15A and 15B located farther to the north (the Kenai Peninsula portion of the Project area is almost entirely in Unit 15A). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-153 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P.\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Caribou were absent from the Kenai Peninsula from 1912 to the 1960s.Hunting of the introduced Kenai Lowland herd has been very limited,but Nilnilchik residents have expressed interest in gaining more access to caribou.Hunting of black bear and brown bear by Ninilchik residents is limited.Ninilchik residents harvested only three black bears from Unit 15 in 1982, and only six brown bears from 1962 through 1992 (USFWS 1993). 3.10.2 COOPER LANDING Cooper Landing is a small,unincorporated community on the banks of the Kenai River and Kenai Lake in the Chugach Mountains near the western edge of the Chugach National Forest. The area was settled by Dena'ina Athabaskan Natives before Russian explorers of the Russian American Company came in the 1800s (USFWS 1993).Because of diseases,forest fires,reduced salmon runs,and declining fur prices,virtually all Dena'ina left the area by 1919.Before 1980, the population of Cooper Landing was approximately 100 or fewer residents (Rollins 1978). Subsequent growth triggered by tourism increased the population to 243 residents living in 100 households by 1990.By 1996,population had increased somewhat more but was still less than 300.Alaska Natives constitute only about one percent of the current population (Alaska Department of Labor 1991). The location of Cooper Landing along the Sterling Highway and the Kenai River has promoted tourism,and a number of fishing and hunting guides have operated out of the village since the 1930s.Service industries,retail trades,and government jobs are the primary sectors of the local economy.A half dozen residents also hold commercial fishing permits.Average annual income is about $40,100 per household.(Seitz and others 1994). Sample data compiled for 1990 to 1991 indicate that all households used subsistence resources and average consumption was about 92 pounds per person for an aggregate of almost 24,000 pounds for the community (Seitz and others 1994).More than 40 percent of the households indicated their reliance on subsistence resources was decreasing (because of reduced time to hunt and fish,a choice not to use wild resources,and reduction in numbers of certain species),while 8 percent of the households said their use of subsistence resources was increasing (Braund 1994). About 59 percent of the subsistence resources used were fish,32 percent land mammals,4 percent vegetation,3 percent marine invertebrates,and 3 percent birds and eggs (ADF&G 1997). Fishing focused on the Russian and Kenai rivers,Cook Inlet,and Hidden,Resurrection,and Sixmile creeks (Seitz and others 1994).The land mammals hunted most intensively by residents of Cooper Landing include moose (used by 50 percent of households),deer (13 percent),caribou (10 percent),and black bear (8 percent)(ADF&G 1997).Deer do not occur on the Kenai Peninsula so they would have been hunted elsewhere.Virtually all of Game Management Unit 15A,which includes most of the Kenai Peninsula portion of the study area,is among the areas hunted for moose.Caribou hunting focuses on the Kenai Mountain herd,which may range into the eastern portion of the Project area,but is mostly to the east (USFWS 1993).Four black bears Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-154 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC were harvested in Game Management Unit 15 in a broad area along the road system from Turnagain Arm to Seward and down to the east of Homer,which includes little if any of the study area (USFWS 1993). Other minor species of the subsistence system include sheep,mountain goats,brown bear, furbearers (beaver,coyote,hare,river otter,marmot,marten,and squirrel),upland game birds, and migratory birds,as well as edible plants (primarily berries).These resources were harvested in various locations,some of which may be within the study area (Seitz and others 1994). 3.10.3 HOPE The small community of Hope is situated within the Chugach National Forest near the mouth of Resurrection Creek where it flows into Turnagain Arm.Dena'ina Athabaskan Natives reportedly lived in the area in the 1800s and early 1900s (USFWS 1993).The arrival of gold miners who founded Hope in the 1880s resulted in a decrease in the local Alaska Native population because of increased disease and out-migration. The population of Hope has always been small.In 1975 there were fewer than 175 residents, with only about 3 percent being Alaska Natives (Rollins 1978;Alaska Department of Labor 1991,1997).Some minimal mining activities are still pursued in the region,but employment is dominated by services mainly related to tourism,retail trade,and government jobs.Local residents use a sawmill and one person holds a commercial fishing permit (Alaska Department of Regional and Community Affairs 1996).Average annual household income is about $31,000 (Seitz and others 1992). Sample data compiled in 1990-1991 indicate that all households of Hope used subsistence resources and an average of 111 pounds per person were consumed annually for an aggregate of about 17,000 pounds for the community (Seitz and others 1994).Approximately 60 percent of these resources were fish,30 percent land mammals,5 percent vegetation,4 percent marine invertebrates,and 2 percent birds and eggs (ADF&G 1997). . Some of the places fished include Cook Inlet,and Hidden,Resurrection,and Sixmile creeks (Seitz 1994).Hunting focused on moose (used by 68 percent of households),caribou (20 percent),and black bear (15 percent).Less emphasis was placed on sheep (2 percent),goat (5 percent),and deer (5 percent),which do not occur on the Kenai Peninsula and obviously were hunted elsewhere.Although Hope is within Game Management Unit 7,the hunting territory of Hope residents extends into Game Management Unit 15SA (USFWS 1993).The areas hunted for moose include the eastern side of Game Management Unit 15A and an area near Sterling,which are at the eastern and southern margins of the Kenai Peninsula section of the study area, respectively.Hope residents also hunted caribou,sheep,goats,furbearers,and birds along the eastern margin of Unit 15A,in areas that may be partially within the study area.Bear were hunted in the northeastern corner of Unit 15A,which is within the study area,and along the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-155 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 oO P.\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Kenai River east of Sterling,which would be mostly outside the study area.Plant resources, mostly berries,were harvested primarily in the vicinity of Cooper Landing,which is outside the study area. 3.10.4 SUMMARY No federal or state designated rural subsistence communities reside within the study area.The federal land within the study area,the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,is designated as the customary and traditional use area for residents of Nilnilchik.No State of Alaska subsistence designations occur within the study area. The analysis conducted for this environmental evaluation identified three federally designated rural communities-Ninilchik,Cooper Landing,and Hope-whose residents do some subsistence harvesting within the study area.These small communities,with populations of about 175 to 650 residents,are located approximately 10 to 40 miles from the Kenai Peninsula portion of the study area.Each of these communities has experienced some population growth during the last two decades due primarily to developing tourism and recreation industries. Reliance on subsistence resources is decreasing in at least one of these communities. The available data,mostly some 5 to 15 years old,indicate that residents of these communities annually consumed an average of about 38.6 to 49.9 kilograms (85 to 110 pounds)of subsistence resources per person.About 55 to 60 percent of these subsistence resources were fish,and 20 to 30 percent were land mammals,primarily moose.Marine invertebrates,birds and eggs,and vegetation (primarily berries)each constituted about 1 to 15 percent of the harvested subsistence resources in each of these communities. .Detailed information about where residents of these subsistence communities hunted,fished,and collected is unavailable.It appears that few fishing areas are within the study area.Moose hunting appears to be the most substantial subsistence use within the study area.Ninety-five percent of the moose hunted by residents of Ninilchik are taken in areas closer to their community and outside the study area.Residents of Cooper Landing apparently hunt moose throughout much of the study area,but there is no documentation about how many moose are harvested within the study area.The territory hunted by residents of Hope includes the eastern margins of the study area,but again there are no data about the percentage of game they take in this area.In sum,the communities within the study area itself are not rural subsistence communities,and the subsistence resources harvested within the study area by residents of rural communities in other parts of the Kenai Peninsula are a small percentage of their annual harvests. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-156 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC 3.11 VISUAL RESOURCES The study area encompasses a region in south-central Alaska with significant scenery,most of which is under state and federal management.Visual resources were identified as one of the primary concerns about the Project by the public as well as land-management agencies contacted, including the Forest Service,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,Kenai Peninsula Borough,and the Municipality of Anchorage. The following considerations regarding visual resources were identified through public and agency scoping: maintaining scenic landscapes in a region recognized for its significant aesthetic values protecting views from residences/communities,recreation areas,and travelways enhancing urban streetscapes and view corridors within Anchorage complying with agency visual management objectives and/or land management plans The visual resources inventory focused on landscape scenery and views within the study area. The following sections describe the methods used for the inventory,an overview of the study area setting,and a description of the visual resources within the study area. The following figures,located in the Map Volume,should be reviewed along with this section: Figure MV-24,Views from Residences Figure MV-25,Anchorage Area Views from Residences Figure MV-26,Views from Recreation Areas and Travelways Figure MV-27,Anchorage Area Views from Recreation Areas and Travelways Figure MV-28,Landscape Scenery Figure MV-29,Anchorage Area Landscape Scenery 3.11.1 INVENTORY STUDY METHODS The visual resources inventory consisted of a regional overview and a detailed evaluation of the alternative routes within the study area.The inventory is consistent with the principles of the Scenery Management System established by the U.S.Forest Service (1995). The inventory was conducted over a span of a year from 1996 to 1997 by a team of landscape architects specializing in visual resources assessment.The Southern Intertie Route Selection Study (1996)provided an initial basis for the visual resources inventory.Studies included field observations during all four seasons of the year,and the team met with the public and agencies to review key issues,management strategies,and inventory requirements as well.Data were collected through agency contacts,public and community working group meetings,analysis of Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-157 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC tourism information,existing mapped data,and aerial photography interpretation.In addition, extensive ground and air reconnaissance were conducted in support of these efforts. The purpose of the visual resources inventory was to identify and document landscape scenery and views along the alternative routes.The majority of the Project area outside of Anchorage is rural and undeveloped,including the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR),portions of the Chugach National Forest,coastal edges of the Cook Inlet,and Turnagain Arm.Urban settings include the Anchorage area and the communities of Soldotna,Sterling,and Nikiski.Since the study area includes both rural and urban settings,the inventory was designed to respond to both. Outside of Anchorage,a 4-mile-wide corridor,2 miles on each side of an assumed route centerline,was inventoried.Within Anchorage,characterization of alternative routes was based on a general study of the urban setting and a detailed study within a 0.4-kilometer (km)(0.25- mile)-wide corridor (201.2 meters [660 feet]on each side of an assumed route). Landscape Scenery The inventory of rural areas was based on the premise that each characteristic landscape (i.e., mountains,lowlands,coastal areas,and water)exhibits its own type of scenic quality.Landscape scenery within the rural settings of the Anchorage Bowl,Chugach Mountains,Kenai Lowlands, Cook Inlet,and Turnagain Arm is defined by the landscape character and levels of scenic quality inherent to each area.Within the urban settings of Anchorage,Soldotna,Sterling,and Nikiski, landscape scenery is based primarily upon the visual image of the built environment.Existing visual conditions (e.g.,the presence of existing transmission lines)that may affect the scenic quality or visual image of an area also were considered in the evaluation of landscape scenery. The landscape character type of each rural and urban setting of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula consists of distinct elements that create a visual and cultural image both individually and as a region.This image or "sense of place”for the region is a combination of physical, biological,climatic,and cultural attributes that make the area identifiable and unique. The Anchorage Bowl is a relatively flat alluvial plain,surrounded on one side by the foothills of the Chugach Mountains and on the other by the Cook Inlet,including the Knik and Turnagain Arms.It is the largest developed area within the state of Alaska.The Chugach Mountains include diverse landforms with rugged topography,steep jagged slopes,and peaks that dominate the landscape setting.The Kenai Lowlands are relatively flat,consisting of coastal marshes,forested wetlands,shrub bogs,muskegs,upland spruce hardwoods forests,and bottomland spruce poplar forests.The Cook Inlet and Turnagain Arm are vast landscapes in continuous motion due to the influence of tides.The coastal zones in these areas are characterized by bluffs,marshes,forests, tidal mudflats,and boulders in select locations.Seasonal changes are dramatic between summer and winter when lush green vegetation and open water give way to ice and snow.Continued changes in atmospheric conditions throughout most of each day are common.Northern lights also may be viewed at certain times of the year. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-158 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Scenic Quality In the rural setting,scenic quality was determined by evaluating landscape character type based upon the uniqueness and diversity of landform,water,vegetation,cultural features,and influence of adjacent scenery.Higher scenic quality occurs in landscapes with a greater degree of naturalness,diversity of features,and uniqueness.Ground surveys and overflights of the study area were conducted to document conditions and determine levels of scenic quality including Class A,lands of outstanding or distinctive scenic quality;Class B,typical scenic quality;and Class C,indistinctive scenic quality., The majority of the study area is represented by Class A and B scenery as shown on the Landscape Scenery map (see Figure MV-25 in the Map Volume).Examples of Class A scenery include the Kenai River,the coastal zones of the Cook Inlet,coastal zones of the Turnagain Arm, foothills and valleys of the Chugach Mountains,and forested wetlands,lakes,and extensive bogs of the Kenai Lowlands.Class B scenery includes the bottomlands and isolated muskeg bogs of the KNWR,and rolling forests adjacent to the western edge of the Chugach Mountain foothills. Class C scenery in the Project area is limited and consists primarily of previously disturbed landscapes and dispersed grasslands near Soldotna and Sterling. Visual Image Types In urban areas (i.e.,Anchorage and portions of Soldotna,Sterling,and Nikiski)landscape scenery was defined by visual image types.The purpose of characterizing the types of existing and planned visual images in proximity to the alternative routes was to determine the compatibility of the proposed transmission line in these urban settings.Anchorage,in particular, is rapidly changing and evolving.Urban patterns once associated with past development are now being replaced through comprehensive planning efforts that focus on aesthetics as evidenced by the "visioning”process in Anchorage (1997). Image types consist of development patterns that are defined by planning concepts (circulation and building types),visual character (landscape design and architecture),and viewer orientation (viewer position relative to the location of the proposed Project).Four major image types were identified based upon the review of aerial photographs,existing and proposed land use information,and field studies.These image types included residential,park-like,commercial, and industrial areas as illustrated on the Anchorage Area Landscape Scenery map (see Figure MV-26 in the Map Volume). A residential image type often is influenced by landscape design and contemporary architectural elements (e.g.,Oceanview Subdivision).Park-like image types may be from natural,vacant,or developed recreational areas and landscaped areas including streetscapes that separate the built environment (e.g.,Campbell Creek Greenbelt).Commercial image types often include clustered development patterns where the landscape design and architectural treatments are highly unified Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-159 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC (e.g.,Dimond Center convenience stores,gas stations,and strip malls).Industrial image types consist of one-or two-story buildings that often are large scale with open space,if present, limited primarily to the perimeter of the development. Existing Visual Conditions The scenic quality of rural areas and the visual image of urban settings may be modified locally by the presence of facilities including transmission lines,overhead lighting,signage,pipelines, and other features that affect landscape scenery.The existing visual conditions for each alternative were evaluated through field review in order to determine those locations where modifications would influence scenery.Examples of these locations include the Old Seward Highway and North Kenai Road,where the setting has been modified by the presence of existing transmission line(s),among other discordant modifications. Views The inventory of views included three components:(1)the identification of key viewpoints and viewing areas,(2)viewer sensitivity,and (3)the viewsheds from these locations including distance and screening potential from sensitive viewing areas. Key Viewpoints and Viewing Areas Numerous key viewpoints and viewing areas were identified and mapped in coordination with land use investigations,including individual residences and communities,recreational areas (e.g., parks,visitor centers,campgrounds,picnic grounds,trailheads,marinas,and resorts),and travelways (e.g.,highways,roads,railroads,and trails).Of particular importance were those locations where dominant regional landscape features could be viewed in the context of the larger setting,such as views from areas along the coastline of the Cook Inlet including Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA),Pt.Woronzof,and Kincaid Park on Pt.Campbell as shown on Figure 3-2.More localized views of importance,within the KNWR,include views along the Moose River,Afonasi Lake,and along the Mystery Creek Road and the Enstar pipeline.These areas are often views in context of the regional setting from flights both for recreational purposes and sightseeing. Viewer Sensitivity Viewer sensitivity is a measure of the degree of concern for change in the scenic quality of the rural landscape or to the visual image of an urban setting.Viewer sensitivity was determined Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-160 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC through discussions with the public,the community working group,agency contacts,and field observations. In general,the visual resources investigation concluded that a majority of the viewers are highly sensitive to change.This was particularly true for views from residential areas (Anchorage, Soldotna,Sterling,and Nikiski,as well as dispersed locations),recreational areas (Campbell Creek Greenbelt,Bings Landing State Recreation Site (SRS),Tony Knowles Coastal Trail, Captain Cook SRA,etc.)and primary travelways (Seward Highway,Sterling Highway, Minnesota Drive,etc.).Moderate sensitivity views include commercial areas and public facilities (Dimond Center),and low sensitivity views include industrial areas. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge The KNWR is the only refuge in Alaska that was established to provide for compatible fish and wildlife-oriented recreation,including wildlife viewing.In addition to wilderness and minimum management lands which are inherently sensitive to visual intrusions,the Swan Lake and Swanson River canoe routes located within the vast interior wilderness system with lakes, waterways,and trails are highly sensitive visual resources.Collectively referred to as the Kenai Canoe Trails,this is one of only three wilderness canoe systems established in the United States (Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota,Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Canoe System in Georgia,are the other two).The Swan Lake system is the most visited.An estimated 4,200 canoeists use the area annually.There are 30 lakes that are linked with the main branch and west fork of the Moose River,the topography is gently undulating with lakes located between forests,shrubs,and bogs.Mystery Creek Road and Chikaloon Flats provide unobstructed refuge views.The Enstar Pipeline is not evident along Myster Creek Road. Viewsheds Viewsheds consist of two components-distance zones and screening.A viewshed is the visible portion of the landscape seen from a viewpoint or viewing area.Viewpoints and viewing areas mapped within the study area were modeled using digital terrain data obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). t Distance Zones Distance zones were mapped 'for each viewpoint or viewing area.Typically,in the foreground (0 to 0.4 km [0 to 0.25 mile]),individual objects are seen in detail,whereas the middleground (0.4 to 4.8 km [0.25 to 3 miles])is an area where objects are typically viewed in relationship to patterns rather than emphasizing individual features.In background areas (4.8 to 24.1 km [3 to 15 miles],or further)landscapés are viewed as horizon lines and tones where atmospheric conditions often dominate. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-161 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Lv)+o M +UNQURYEY ve = A See Ayontes Aya)_&\Rada">Nehase4ARNESageoye-”reeESTEAPsmedfied3UePESCBNY,2"Sterling Hi Bet!Island eos Dominant Regional Landscape Features and Views ",tee jane>ey Neher wy,Hoa”SSDIRany *k Mountains/Glacier \\ ¢™Scenic Byways and Roads ©*e Kenai River Ranges Bordering Flats, A_A Lowlands and Inlet/Arms Cook Inlet/Turnagain Arm/Knik Arm ty Panoramic Views from Study Area x NNMewes 4 :;- Ra IOING HCE mao ¢ahrayShedGICEFIELD, We (en ee eets:}feetsieSianraeae:i AN vy a ia ae stsmaeeraieied) ES \t ”Nod.rey\one : a;VineROE »Mow teovh ™peel z \eeehie)a cjounrain:re "AnthraciteSueh .a A "a"aan napaOeaaas ROS|HORAGE® 0comnts 75 ay(cen {we We €{'p tae eos:ortage'WHIT7 eaeANEae ae8lL%ont-)hel Lind InforKany +eeie *¢meee oebas fa ore a)(oplgee if paitg %bins : hak DART .aff {im tslond a;eeaenicHighway ciare¥fy dotoC kannPeaks «od on A a aaSewardSc LEP NS TY aad (ole eCcoeseed ;ne AM yy ;Lye eg,"heHkFrans.Wea al Geooul aPa aii SoyeeaayCOENRES:che esPANtlCMNOESLoLATO ARrylaroucnt INFLUENCE OF REGIONAL LANDSCAPES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line "ae,wid Figure 3-2 Viewsheds within the study area often are limited in the interior of the Kenai Lowlands by trees and local terrain.Extended views of distant mountains occur at the coastal edge or at selected locations where view corridors occur due to break in tree cover or local terrain.Viewsheds in Anchorage are quite variable due to the mix of urbanization combined with open space,forested areas,and local terrain.The Chugach Mountains are a dominant landscape feature from most of Anchorage to the east,while coastal vistas across Turnagain Arm occur to the south and west.As a result,both local viewsheds with limited views,as well as extended viewsheds with virtually unlimited views surrounding ranges,occur throughout the study area. Both local and extended views have been incorporated into the viewshed analysis.In order to display local views,a limit of 1 mile was placed on the extent of the middleground computer viewshed analysis for both the views from residences (see Figures MV-24 and MV-25 in the Map Volume)and views from recreation areas (see Figures MV-26 and MV-27 in the Map Volume).In addition,areas where the alternative route may be viewed from distant residences were determined through field review and are illustrated on Figures MV-24 and MV-25.Key viewing locations along alternative routes within Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula are identified in Table 3-23 and illustrated on Figures 3-4 and 3-5. Foreground viewsheds have been grouped into two zones:immediate foreground (0 to 91 meters [0 to 300 feet])and foreground (91.4 meters to 0.4 km [300 feet to 0.25 mile])in order to differentiate the degree of influence of the proposed transmission line structures.In the immediate foreground,structures would be most dominant,and would continue to dominate up to 0.4 km (0.25 mile).In summary,distance zones for local viewsheds include the following: immediate foreground (IFg):0 to 91.4 meters (0 to 300 feet) middleground (Mg):0.4 to 1.6 km (0.25 to 1 mile) foreground (Fg):91.4 meters to 0.4 km (300 feet to 0.25 mile) background (Bg):beyond 1.6 km (1 mile) Screening Potential There are certain cases where discrete terrain conditions create additional screening that is not accounted for in viewshed modeling due to the level of terrain data available from the USGS.These cases along with areas screened by vegetation and buildings were identified and documented based on field observation and used to determine where visibility from sensitive viewpoints and viewing areas within the alternative routes would be modified. There are three levels of screening.Open viewing conditions exhibit minimal to no screening; partially screened views include areas where viewing opportunities are intermittent;screened views include areas where terrain,vegetation,or buildings obscure views. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-163 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P \09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-23 RECREATION AREAS AND TRAVELWAYS VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING AREAS Views Feature Landscapes Photo Loca-Toward Orientation Viewed From Viewpoint Name Number tion Route With Route Viewpoint TESORO ROUTE OPTIONS Figure 3-3 North Kenai Road none Links open parallel Swanson River,Stormy T1.2,T1.3,Lake,other lakes T1.4,T2.1 North Kenai Road Scenic Overlook #1 |1 T14 open perpendicular lake/wetlands North Kenai Road Scenic Overlook #2 |none T2.1 open perpendicular Stormy Lake Bishop Creek Campground none T2.1 screened perpendicular Bishop Creek,Cook Inlet Stormy Lake Picnic Area #1 none T2.1 screened perpendicular Stormy Lake Stormy Lake Picnic Area #2 and Boat |none T2.1 screened ©perpendicular Stormy Lake Ramp Stormy Lake Primitive Tent none T2.1 screened perpendicular Stormy Lake Campground Stormy Lake Swimming Beach Area 2 T2.1 screened away Stormy Lake Discovery Campground none T2.1 screened perpendicular Swanson River,Cook Inlet,Mt.Redoubt Discovery Campground Scenic none T2.1 screened away Swanson River,Cook Overlook Inlet.Mt.Redoubt Swanson River Trailhead 3 T2.1 open perpendicular Swanson River Swanson River Canoe Trail 3 T2.1 open perpendicular Swanson River Tesoro Pipeline 3b T3.2 screening from internal views/ lots parallel and perpendicular Moose Point 3a 73.2 screened from general area Cook Inlet-Alaska Range ground open- aerial views ENSTAR TOUE OPTIONS Figure 3-4 Birch Ridge Golf Course none S11,$2.1 |partially screened |perpendicular none Morgans Landing State Recreation hone $2.1 screened perpendicular Kenai River Area Kenai River 4 $2.1 open perpendicular Kenai River Winter Use Trails none $1.3 screened perpendicular/{|KNWR parallel Typical Residential Views 5,6 S13 partially screened |perpendicular/|none parallel Scout Lake State Recreation Site none $1.3.$2.1 |screened perpendicular Scout Lake Bottenintnin Lake Campground none $1.5 screened perpendicular Bottenintnin Lake Bings Landing State Recreation Site 4 $2.1 open perpendicular Kenai River Funny River State Recreation Site none $2.1 screened perpendicular Funny River,Kenai River Funny River Road Scenic Overlook none $2.1 screened perpendicular Funny River,Kenai River Sterling Highway 7,8 $2.1 open perpendicular/|KNWR,Chugach parallel Mountains Swan Lake 8a E13 screened perpendicular Chugach Mountains Mystery Creek Road none E13 open perpendicular/KNWR,Mystery Creek parallel Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-164 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC TABLE 3-23 RECREATION AREAS AND TRAVELWAYS VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING AREAS Views Feature Landscapes Photo Loca-Toward Orientation Viewed From Viewpoint Name Number tion Route With Route Viewpoint Swanson River Road none $1.3 open perpendicular KNWR,Chugach Mountains Trapper Joe Lake and Cabin 8b,8c E1.3 partially screened |perpendicular Trapper Joe Lake, from lake open-Chugach Mountains aerial views Gull Rock Trail none E2.1,open perpendicular KNWR,Chugach MS.I Mountains Chickaloon River Trail none E13 open perpendicular KNWR,Chugach Mountains,Chickaloon River Aerial Vantage Point from Chickaloon |8c M5.1,open perpendicular/Chickallon Flats,Chugach Bay and Chickaloon Flats E2.1 parallel Mountains Burnt Isiand Cabin none M5.1,screened parallel Turnagain Arm,Chugach E2.1 Mountains,Chickaloon Bay Enstar -Mystery Creek Road 8c E13 open parallel views Chugach Mountains Afonasi Lake/East Fork Moose River none E13 open perpendicular Moose River corridor & to partially Afonasi Lake screened ANCHORAGE BOWL ROUTE OPTIONS Figure 3-5 Conners Lake Park none 15.5 screened perpendicular park Javier Dela Vega Park none 15.5 screened perpendicular park,Chugach Mountains Wolverine Park none 15.5 screened perpendicular park Papago Park none 15.5 screened perpendicular park Campbell Creek Greenbelt none 15.3,15.5.|open to screened |perpendicular Campbell Creek 15.9 Taku Lake Park none 15.8 screened perpendicular Taku Lake Emerald Hills Park none 15.5 open to screened |perpendicular Campbell Creek Pop Carr Park none 15.3 screened perpendicular park Northwood Park none 15.3 screened perpendicular park Lore Road Park none 15.7 screened perpendicular park Potter Marsh none 12.4 open to partially }parallel Turnagain Arm,Chugach screened Mountains,wetlands Rabbit Creek Rifle Range none 12.4 screened parallel Turnagain Arm,Chugach Mountains,Potter Marsh Oceanview Park none 12.5 open to screened |perpendicular/|Cook Inlet,ChugachparallelMountains,Turnagain Arm,Mt.Redoubt Timberline Park none 13.3 screened perpendicular park Golf Course Driving Range none 13.2,13.3 open perpendicular golf course McHugh/Rabbit Lakes Trail none all open to screened |panoramic Anchorage,Chugach Anchorage Mountains,Powerline Pass,Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm,Mt. McKinley,Mt.Redoubt Airport International Road 9 15.3 open parallel Chugach Mountains Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 P:\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC 3-165 Chapter 3-Affected Environment TABLE 3-23 RECREATION AREAS AND TRAVELWAYS VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING AREAS Views Feature Landscapes Photo Loca-Toward Orientation Viewed From Viewpoint Name Number tion Route With Route Viewpoint Minnesota Drive 10 15.5 open parallel Chugach Mountains O'Malley Road 11 14.2,14.3,|open parallel Chugach Mountains 14.4 Old Seward Highway 12,13 12.4,12.7,|open parallel Chugach Mountains, 15.6,15.7 Turnagain Arm Klatt Road none 13.2,13.3 open parallel Chugach Mountains Dimond Boulevard none 15,8,15.9,|open parallel Chugach Mountains 16.1 Pt.Wornzof Scenic Overlook none PW1.1 screened away Fire Island,Mt. McKinley,Mt.Susitna, Mt.Redoubt,Cook Inlet Flattop Mountain Trail 14 all open to screened |panoramic Anchorage,Chugach Anchorage Mountains,Powerline Pass,Cook Inlet, Turnagain Arm,Mt. McKinley,Mt.Redoubt Tony Knowles Coastal Trail 15,16 PWI.1 open to screened |parallel Fire Island,Mt.Susitna, Mt.Redoubt,Cook Inlet Kincaid Park none PWi.1 screened perpendicular Fire Island,Mt.Susitna, Mt.Redoubt,Cook Inlet, Tumagain Arm 3.11.2 AESTHETIC INFLUENCE OF REGIONAL LANDSCAPES South-central Alaska consists of several significant regional landscapes.These landscapes are highly scenic and contribute to the aesthetic appeal of the study area.The influence of regional features on scenic values of the study area is illustrated on Figures 3-3,3-4,and 3-5.Additional photos illustrating alternative routes are provided on Figure 3-6.Figures 3-7 and 3-8 located at the end of this chapter are maps illustrating the locations of photographs. Mt.McKinley is 6,193.5 meters (20,320 feet)tall with steep jagged slopes,glaciers,and snow- covered peaks that dominate the skyline to the north of the study area.This prominent landform is part of the Alaska Range and is located in Denali National Park and Preserve approximately 381.4 km (237 miles)north of Anchorage.Mt.McKinley is visible from Anchorage as well as the Kenai Peninsula on clear days (estimated to be 35 percent of the time). Mt.Susitna is approximately 64.4 km (40 miles)northwest of Anchorage.Mt.Susitna also is known as the "Sleeping Lady”because the mountain silhouette resembles a woman lying down. This landscape is visible from several locations in Anchorage and is especially impressive on clear days at sunset. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-166 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 P-\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC _aRaisesCORBSTAT EN we ee "_mins ie aa Pa on evr Photo location:North Kenai Road pulloff overlooking lake viewing east towards the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Orientation:Views are parallel with roadway along east side. eae hl ated eet ae eeeeeeee Tr . i ce Vewrer Photo location:Captain Cook State Recreation Area at Stormy Lake viewing east towards the Kenai Mountains (route would be underground through recreation area). Orientation:Views are away from route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-3 Photo location:Captain Cook State Recreation Area at the mouth of the Swanson River viewing west towards the Aleutian Range (route would be underground through park). Orientation:Views are away from route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-3 3a Photo location:Aerial photo from above Moose Point viewing south. Orientation:Views are panoramic and above route. # * : F:J ag D ' ae ole Fee a ee Ae iaaee:-trig Tete bootaASalycoefWigangeBefie eee Photo location:Tesoro Pipeline access road viewing north. Orientation:Views of the route are parallel with the east side of the pipeline. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-3 to"th BoeiaeaACpe + as *a fe «| (dive:aEe 1 LS ete | Photo location:Bings Landing State Recreation Site viewing west along the Kenai River Valley. Orientation:Views are perpendicular to the route crossing the Kenai River. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-4 -i at ae 7 utyesNSSomesBe Photo location:Kenai Peninsula viewing southeast from a typical residential setting north of Soldotna. Orientation:Views are perpendicular to the route. north of Sterling. Orientation:Views are perpendicular to the route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-4 -i,pt iA OT :Sh 9k de lag rn!RTOETSPMT 1 :healtetseSnaian ath Photo location:Sterling Highway viewing north towards the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Orientation:Views are parallel with the north side of roadway. Photo location:Sterling Highway viewing east towards the Kenai Mountains. Orientation:Views are perpendicular to the crossing of the roadway. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-4 Photo location:Swan Lake viewing east towards Kenai Mountains. Orientation:Views are perpendicular to the route. 8b Photo location:Trapper Joe Lake viewing northeast towards Kenai Mountains. Orientation:Views are perpendicular to the route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-4 8c 8d Photo location:Aerial photo from above Trapper Joe Lake viewing north towards Chickaloon Bay. Orientation:Views are panoramic and above route. Po;Oe Fe, southeast towards Kenai Mountains. Orientation:Views are perpendicular to the route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-4 Se viewing north Orientation:Views of the route are parallel with the east side of the pipeline. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-4 Photo location:International Airport Road viewing east towards Chugach Mountains. Orientation:Views of the route are parallel with the north side of the roadway. 10 Photo location:Minnesota Drive viewing southeast towards Chugach Mountains. Orientation:Views of the route are parallel with the west side of the roadway. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-5 Orientation:Views of the route are parallel with the south side of the roadway. 12 ee ae Photo location:Old Seward Highway viewing southeast towards the Kenai Mountains and Turnagain Arm (route would transition from underground to above ground directly behind this viewpoint). Orientation:Views are away from the route. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-5 14 Old Seward Highway. Orientation:Views from rear of lots are directly perpendicular to the route. can RR de.SectRRMAAAIBS oe ae ade apn Ae a eaeeg ial Photo location:Flattop Mountain Trailhead viewing west towards Fire Island,the Aleutian Range,and overlooking Anchorage. Orientation:Views are panoramic and above the routes and transition facilities. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-5 15 eevotaeieee9rebai<- aberey'em Photo location:Tony Knowles Coastal Trail on the western edge of Anchorage viewing south towards Kincaid Park. Orientation:Views of the route are parallel with the east side of the trail. 16 POR|OSTOSS ET a EN Rt 2 en RaeTO OE ee,Nampa amet ey TeweeectsmeerahITEEAT” .-View Photo location:Tony Knowles Coastal Trail on the western edge of Anchorage viewing southwest towards the Cook Inlet,Aleutian Range, and Fire Island. Orientation:Views are away from the marine landing and transition facility. VIEWPOINTS AND VIEWING LOCATIONS ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-5 Z a v ' Photo location:Link T1.3,North Kenai Road View direction:South;Applicable routes:Route A Description:Link T1.3 would be located on left (east)side of road right-of-way. 3. Photo location:Link T1.3,North Kenai Road View direction:South (aerial photo);Applicable routes:Route A Description:Link T1.3 would be located on left (east)side of road right-of-way. TESORO ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 View direction:North;Applicable routes:Route A Description:Link T2.1 would be buried underground on right (east) shoulder of roadway. on a Photo location:Link T2.1,North of Captain Cook SRA View direction:North;Applicable routes:Route A Description:Link T2.1 parallels right (east)side of Tesoro Pipeline north of Captain Cook SRA. TESORO ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 rw .Possession View direction:South (aerial photo);Applicable routes:Route A Description:Link T3.2 parallels left (east)side of Tesoro Pipeline. Photo location:Link T5.2,Pt.Possession View direction:East (aerial photo);Applicable routes:Route A Description:Link T5.2 would cross conveyed native lands with underground cable parallel to the Tesoro Pipeline. TESORO ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 a Rt eeoxath rary 'rain3)eedfar"5 ie ekvi'iindsistaaifa3« a ey wadone3 7 * a eeea re "y at pee eeeaCeaefoneeu Photo location:Link S1.1,North of Soldotna Substation View direction:North;Applicable routes:Route B Description:Link $1.1 would be located to the left (west)of the existing 115kV and 69kV lines. Photo location:Link $1.3,Swanson River Road View direction:East;Applicable routes:Route B Description:Link $1.3 would be located parallel to the existing 115kV line on the left (north)side. SOLDOTNA NORTH AND SOUTH ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 10 PL ee 'apeeENTPOTSMowryrantWadeohwe-caCaeiS:an,se)NESSaGedspe !cysia+esa)psa 1,Funny River Road View direction:West;Applicable routes:Route C Description:Link $2.1 would replace the existing 69kV line. on Sa)ATs aad Selatan SSCP cabins)esSpeeagTNAabitceMOPRREEoa es”ERty BE ita ELStout |Neigh: View direction:East;Applicable routes:Route C Description:Link S2.1 would replace the existing 69kV line. SOLDOTNA NORTH AND SOUTH ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 NSS nn,eeee Photo location:Link E1.3,Enstar Pipeline corridor View direction:North;Applicable routes:Routes B,C Description:Link E1.3 would parallel the Enstar Pipeline on the right (east)side. Photo location:Link E1.3,Enstar Pipeline corridor near east fork of Seven Lakes View direction:Northeast;Applicable routes:Routes B,C Description:Link E1.3 would parallel the Enstar Pipeline on the right (east)side. ENSTAR ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 14 Photo location:Link E1.3,Enstar Pipeline corridor north of Chickaloon River crossing View direction:South (aerial photo);Applicable routes:Routes B,C Description:Link E1.3 would parallel the Enstar Pipeline on the left (east)side. a Cor ee es rer .i a paraookOTes wae Poy ."ak.'awe as,shah y Photo location:Link E2.1,M5.1 Enstar Pipeline corridor near Chickaloon Flats View direction:North (aerial photo);Applicable routes:Routes B,C Description:View towards Burnt Island and Turnagain Arm.Links E2.1 and MS.1 would parallel the Enstar Pipeline on the right (east)side. ENSTAR ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 fee th wwe cag EP ; -<-ae go Agama.rier ner OES eg msoy: nenFe ag, enoTgoer"ia ay cePrete ”as Sadhand Photo location:Link PW1.1,Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof View direction:North (aerial photo);Applicable routes:Route M Description:View of Kincaid Park,International Airport and Knik Arm. Link PW1.1 would parallel the Tesoro Pipeline. a4 Tene ne ee Photo location:Link 15.5,Minnesota Drive View direction:South;Applicable routes:Routes N,O,R,T,U,V,Z Description:Link I5.5 would be located on right (west)side of highway right-of-way. ANCHORAGE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 18 Photo location:Link 14.3,O'Malley Road View direction:East;Applicable routes:Routes P,R,T,U,V,Z Description:Link 14.3 would be located on right (south)side of road right-of-way. ae cj oy Peppa teatearty Soe Te Photo location:Link I2.5,Alaska Railroad,Oceanview area View direction:North;Applicable routes:Routes Q,R,S,T Description:Link 12.5 would be buried along right (east)side of railroad right-of-way.Flying Crown airstrip is on the left. ANCHORAGE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 20 Sate Photo location:Link I2.4,Old Seward Highway View direction:Northeast;Applicable routes:Routes U,V,W,X,Y,Z Description:Link 12.4 would transition from underground cable to overhead on the right (east)side of the roadway. i'oo ee fy a 7 Se Photo location:Link I5.6,Old Seward Highway south of Dimond Road View direction:North;Applicable routes:Routes S,T,W,X Description:Link I5.6 would rebuild the existing line. ANCHORAGE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 21 22 Elgin sited>Photo location:Link 15.3,International Airport Road View direction:West;Applicable routes:Routes S,T,X Description:Link I5.3 would parallel the road on the right (north)side. Photo location:Link I3.1,Klatt Road View direction:East;Applicable routes:Routes N,O,P Description:Link I3.1 would be buried along the left (north)side of the roadway. ANCHORAGE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 a w.i re gg ty:"a A ae ste Me 40 if RS xewoneed_eee Photo location:Link PW1.1,Pt.Campbell View direction:South;Applicable routes:Route M Description:Link PW1.1 would parallel the Tesoro Pipeline through the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge and Kincaid Park. View direction:South;Applicable routes:Route I Description:View of Turnagain Arm and Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge.Submarine cable would be directionally drilled to cross the refuge. ANCHORAGE SUBMARINE LANDINGS ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 25 26 Photo location:Link 12.5,Alaska Railroad,Oceanview area View direction:South;Applicable routes:Routes Q,R,S,T Description:Link M5.4 would be directionally drilled to cross the Coastal Wildlife Refuge.Link I2.5 would be submarine cable buried next to the tracks. View direction:South;Applicable routes:Routes U,V,W,X,Y,Z Description:View of Rabbit Creek Rifle Range and Potter Marsh.Link 12.4 would be buried parallel to the railroad tracks. ANCHORAGE SUBMARINE LANDINGS ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PHOTOGRAPHS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 3-6 Redoubt Volcano is located approximately 80.5 km (50 miles)west of Kenai.This 3,108.1-meter (10,197-foot)-high active volcano is characterized by steep,jagged slopes,and a snow-covered peak.The volcano is a dominant landscape feature of the Aleutian Range visible on clear days from both Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. 3.11.3 AESTHETIC INFLUENCE OF LOCAL LANDSCAPES Landscapes within the study area exhibit unique characteristics that contribute to the dramatic scenery,and influence views. Kenai Peninsula The Kenai Peninsula is a large relatively flat landscape bound by the Cook Inlet to the west, Chikaloon Bay of the Turnagain Arm to the north,and the Chugach National Forest to the east. Within the study area,the Kenai Peninsula is a heavily vegetated landscape consisting of coastal marshes,forested wetlands,shrub bogs,muskegs,upland spruce hardwoods forests,and bottomland spruce poplar forests.It consists of a diverse range of largely natural and wilderness landscapes,including the KNWR.This unique combination of vegetation and water provide dynamic viewing conditions throughout the Kenai Peninsula.The range of colors and textures characteristic of the vegetation is complemented by the unique form and line defined by ponds, lakes,streams,rivers,and marsh edges. Scenic areas within the Kenai Peninsula include the Captain Cook SRA,Swan Lake Complex, Swanson River,Kenai River,Chikaloon River,and Mystery Creek.The Kenai River is characterized by relatively shallow watercourses meandering through heavily forested valley bottoms.The Kenai River exhibits a turquoise blue color due to the glacial silt it carries.Several species of fish and wildlife inhabit these river corridors and it is a popular activity area for people from around the world. The Swanson River is located in the northern portion of the Kenai Peninsula in the KNWR.This river flows from the Swanson Lakes and drains into the Cook Inlet near Captain Cook SRA.This river is relatively narrow and meanders through a series of forested wetlands,shrub bogs,and muskegs. The Chickaloon River and Mystery Creek are located in the northeastern area of the KNWR. These watercourses are narrow and meander through heavily forested rolling terrain. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-193 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Kenai National Wildlife Refuge The KNWR is the only refuge in Alaska that was established to provide compatible for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation,including wildlife viewing.The Swan Lake and Swanson River canoe routes are located with the vast interior wilderness system with lakes,waterways,and trails.Collectively referred to as the Kenai Canoe Trails,this is one of only three wilderness canoe systems established in the United States (Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota,and Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Canoe System in Georgia,are the other two).The Swan Lake system is the most visited.Estimated 4,200 canoeists use the area annually.There are 30 lakes that are linked with the main branch,and west fork of the Moose River.The topography is gently undulating with lake located between forests,shrubs,and bogs. Turnagain Arm Turnagain Arm appears vast and wild.It is characterized by steep jagged mountain slopes rising from sea level to 1,981.2 meters (6,500 feet)capped with glaciers in the northern and eastern areas.Dense stands of spruce and hemlock forests cover the mountain slopes at lower elevations along Turnagain Arm and in tributary valleys.Hardwoods such as birch and cottonwood grow along the shores of Turnagain Arm. Naturally occurring events such as avalanches,windstorms,and tides represent continuous agents of change throughout this landscape that dramatically change the appearance of the mountain landscape on a localized basis in a very short period of time.Turnagain Arm undergoes tidal fluctuations that turn the inlet into a large mudflat and create unique bore tides.In the winter,the water is covered with ice that flows with tidal movements.These naturally occurring events highlight the dynamics of this unique landscape.Human activity is evident throughout this landscape,but is largely concentrated in easily accessible areas. Scenic areas within the Turnagain Arm include Chickaloon Bay,Chugach State Park,and Chugach National Forest. Anchorage Bow] The Anchorage Bowl is a relatively flat peninsula bound by Knik Arm to the north,Cook Inlet to the west,Turnagain Arm to the south,and Chugach Mountains to the east.The Anchorage Bowl includes the largest developed area within the state of Alaska.The area is dominated largely by the Municipality of Anchorage.Anchorage is a community composed of heavily developed areas interspersed with natural features. Scenic areas within the Anchorage Bowl include Lake Hood,Jewel Lake,Campbell Creek,Ship Creek,Rabbit Creek,Kincaid Park,Tony Knowles Coastal Trail,Potter Marsh,and others.In Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-194 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 WDM_PHXISYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC addition,views and vistas of adjacent landscapes such as the Cook Inlet,Fire Island,Mount McKinley (Alaska Range),the "Sleeping Lady”(Mount Susitna),Redoubt Volcano (Aleutian Range),and Chugach State Park (Chugach Mountains)are characteristic elements of this landscape. 3.11.4 ALTERNATIVES The visual resources inventory results are summarized in the following sections for the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives.Descriptions of landscape scenery and viewers found along each of the alternative routes are provided in the following sections. Tesoro Route Alternatives Visual Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake through Captain Cook SRA (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,T2.1/Route Option A) Landscape__Scenery The majority of lands crossed by this route fall into three classifications-scenic quality Class B,residential,and commercial.The Class B landscapes are densely forested lowlands interspersed with small wetlands and drainages typical of the Kenai Peninsula (Links T1.3,T1.4,and T2.1).In addition,there are areas of scenic quality Class A landscapes consisting of large lakes,streams,and wetland complexes located along this route (Links T1.4 and T2.1).Examples of Class A landscapes include Daniels Lake and Stormy Lake. Residential areas occur in random patterns defined by local access roads and are dispersed throughout the forested lowlands (Link T1.3 and T1.4).These residential areas are characterized by low density single-family detached houses.The setting is extremely diverse with a variety of architectural styles. Commercial and industrial facilities are located adjacent to the North Kenai Road (Links T1.1, T1.2,and T1.3).These facilities are dominant features in these areas and detract from the overall landscape setting. This route parallels an existing electrical distribution line from the Bernice Lake Substation to Nikiski along the North Kenai Road (Links T1.1,T1.2,and T1.3).Other modifications include several local access roads and signage. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-195 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Viewers Residential areas occur along this route adjacent to the North Kenai Road (Links T1.3 and T1.4).Immediate foreground and foreground views predominate in this relatively flat terrain. Dense vegetation provides partial-to-full screening of views from most residences throughout this route.However,there are some residences immediately adjacent to the route with open views,including the community of Nikiski (Link T1.3). Views from recreation areas (e.g.,campgrounds,picnic areas)are primarily concentrated within the Captain Cook SRA (Link T2.1).These immediate foreground and foreground views are primarily screened by the dense vegetative cover.However,there are open to partially screened immediate foreground views of the route near the Swanson River.A bicycle/pedestrian trail located adjacent to the North Kenai Road (Links T1.2 and T1.3)would have open views along this route.Dispersed recreational users potentially would have open-to-partially screened immediate foreground views throughout this route,dependent upon specific location.These views would be expected to be intermittent and short term. Views from the North Kenai Road would be open where an existing electrical line along this route would cross overhead (Link T1.2)in the immediate foreground,and open to screened due to dense vegetation where the route parallels the travelway in the immediate foreground and foreground (Links T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,and T2.1)including two pull-offs. As discussed in Section 3.7.5,there is considerable daily air traffic year-round over the Kenai Peninsula.Flights occur between Anchorage and Kenai several times a day with views of the Tosoro route. Captain Cook SRA to Pt.Possession (Links T3.1,T3.2,T5.1,T5.2/Route Option A) Landscape Scenery -Lands crossed by this route consist of scenic quality Class A and B landscapes.Class A landscapes (Links T3.1,T3.2,T5.1,and T5.2)consist of rolling forested terrain interspersed with large lakes wetland complexes;the dynamic coastline of the Cook Inlet; and large drainages such as the Miller,Otter,and Seven Egg creeks.Class B landscapes (Links T3.1,T3.2,T5.1,and T5.2)consist of relatively flat terrain with a moderately dense cover of upland spruce hardwoods,grasslands,and muskeg bogs. This route parallels an existing buried pipeline from Captain Cook SRA to Pt.Possession (Links T3.1,13.2,T5.1,and T5.2).There is extensive vegetation clearing for the pipeline right-of-way, as well as an access road.Other modifications include above-ground pipeline facilities near Pt. Possession (Link T5.2). Viewers Views from dispersed residences (Links T3.1,T3.2,and T5.1)along this route range from open to partially screened in the immediate foreground and from partially screened to fully screened due to dense vegetation in the foreground and middleground. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-196 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PRON09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Dispersed recreation users (Links T3.1,T3.2,T5.1,and T5.2)have open to screened views due to the presence of vegetation throughout this route. There is concentrated use on the unmaintained road that follows the existing pipeline (Links T3.1,T3.2,T5.1,and T5.2)by local residents and recreational users.Views along this access road are open to partially screened in the immediate foreground. Aerial Views As discussed in Section 3.7.5,there is considerable daily air traffic year-round over the Kenai Peninsula.Flights between Anchorage and Kenai occur several times a day with views of the Tesoro route. Visual Resources in the Turnagain Arm Area (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) Landscape Scenery Pt.Campbell consists of scenic quality Class B tidal mudflats and coastal bluffs (Links M2.1 and M2.2)and a park-like image type (Link M2.2). Viewers Viewers are concentrated along the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (Link M2.2).Views of Cook Inlet and Fire Island are open to partially screened due to vegetation. Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) Landscape Scenery The Fire Island route (Links T4.1 and T4.2)crosses predominantly scenic quality Class B landscapes consisting of relatively flat,mixed conifer forests.The steep cliffs and tidal mud flats making up the island coastline (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.3,and M2.3)as well as Pt. Possession (Link M1.1)are scenic quality Class A landscapes. The coastal marshes south of the Pt.Campbell (Link M2.3)are Class A landscapes consisting of dense grasslands interspersed with areas of wetlands. Modifications on Fire Island include dispersed buildings,a communications facility,local access roads,and helicopter/airplane landing areas. Viewers Foreground views of the route (oriented towards the Cook Inlet,the Fire Island,and the Alaska Range)from the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (Link M2.3)are open to partially screened due to the presence of vegetation. Dispersed-recreation viewers located on Fire Island (Links T4.2 and T4.3)would have short-term and intermittent views of the route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-197 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXISYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) Landscape Scenery The Fire Island route (Links T4.1 and T4.2)crosses predominantly scenic quality Class B landscapes consisting of relatively flat,mixed conifer forests.The steep cliffs and tidal mud flats making up the island coastline are scenic quality Class A landscapes (Links T4.1 and T4.3).The route crosses scenic quality Class A landscapes (Link M1.3)near Pt.Woronzof. Modifications on Fire Island include dispersed buildings,a communications facility,local access roads,and helicopter/airplane landing areas.Modifications at Pt.Woronzof include existing transmission lines and a substation (Link M1.3). Viewers Middleground views of the route from seasonal residences along the north and south coastline of Fire Island (Links M1.1 and M1.3)coast are open to partially screened due to terrain. Dispersed-recreation viewers located on the Fire Island (Links T4.2 and T4.3)would have short- term and intermittent views of the route. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof Submarine (Link M2.4/Route Option G) Landscape Scenery The route crosses scenic quality Class A landscapes near Pt.Woronzof (Link M2.4). Viewers Views of this route from the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (Link PW1.1)would be open in the immediate foreground near the existing substation. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) Landscape Scenery The coastal marshes south of the Klatt Road route (Link M3.1)are Class A landscapes consisting of dense grasslands interspersed with areas of wetlands. Viewers Foreground views of the proposed route (oriented towards the Turnagain Arm,Kenai Peninsula,and Alaska Range)from residences along the coast in the Oceanview Subdivision (Link M3.1)are open to partially screened due to the presence of vegetation. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-198 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Visual Resources in the Anchorage Bow!(Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Links PW1.1/Route Option M) Landscape Scenery The area from Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1)consists primarily of park-like image types,as well as industrial.The park-like image types are natural appearing,relatively flat landscapes with a dense cover of upland spruce hardwoods.There are developed trail systems and facilities,including the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and Kincaid Park. The Anchorage International Airport and industrial areas are heavily modified landscapes occurring near the central portion of Link PW1.1.This development detracts from the adjacent natural appearing landscape of the coastline. Modifications from Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof include an underground pipeline with the vegetation cleared from the right-of-way,electrical facilities,chain link fences surrounding Anchorage International Airport,sewage treatment facilities,and local access roads. Viewers Recreational users would have.views of the transmission line along this alternative route along Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and from Kincaid Park.Immediate foreground views from these areas are partially to fully screened due the presence of dense vegetation.However, there are isolated areas of relatively flat grasslands where views of the route are open in the immediate foreground and foreground.There are several locations along the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail where there are views of the Cook Inlet and Mt.Susitna. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.2,I15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4,15.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-199 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Enstar Route Alternatives Visual Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldotna Alternative (Links 81.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) Landscape Scenery The majority of lands crossed by this route fall into three classifications: scenic quality Classes B and C,as well as residential areas.The Class B landscapes (Links $1.3 and E1.1)are moderate to densely forested lowlands interspersed with areas of open bottomland and muskeg bogs.Class C (Link $1.3),landscapes along this route consists of relatively flat grasslands and disturbed areas.There are two Class A landscapes located along this route-Soldotna Creek (Links S1.1 and S1.3),a relatively small drainage with meandering curves flowing through a series of wetlands;and the Moose River (Link $1.3),a broad straight drainage flowing through bottomlands opening into the Kenai River. Residential areas are found north of the Soldotna Substation (Links $1.1 and $1.2)and near Mackeys Lakes,Sport Lake,Sevena Lake,Cisca Lake and Tree Lake (Links $1.2 and $1.3).The residences occur in random patterns defined by local access roads and are located within the moderate to densely forested areas. There is one area of disturbance located along this route adjacent to the east side of the Moose River (Link S1.3).This area has been cleared of vegetation and detracts from the immediate landscape setting. This route parallels two 115kV transmission lines and a 69kV distribution line (Links $1.1 and $1.2)from the Soldotna Substation to an area approximately one mile north of Sport Lake and one 115kV transmission line from one mile northwest of Mackeys Lakes east adjacent to the KNWR boundary.There is extensive,and some unauthorized vegetation clearing within the existing right-of-way,as well as local access roads following the transmission line. Viewers Immediate foreground and foreground views from residences predominate in this relatively flat terrain.However,dense vegetation provides partial to full screening of views from most residences throughout the majority of the route.Open views of the route in the immediate foreground and foreground exist north of the Soldotna Substation (Link $1.1),northeast of Sport Lake (Link $1.3),east of Sevena Lake (Link S1.3),and east of the Moose River (Link S1.3). The Moose River canoe route (Link $1.3)is the only recreation site crossed by this route.Views along the river where the route crosses would be open ranging from the immediate foreground to foreground.Other immediate foreground to foreground views of the route would be from Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-200 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\DM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC dispersed-recreational users along the existing access road and from adjacent lakes.These views would range from open to partially screened and are expected to be intermittent and short term. Views from Swanson River Road (Link S1.3)would be open where the transmission line in this alternative route would cross overhead in the immediate foreground;and open to screened due the presence of vegetation where the route is viewed short term,in the immediate foreground and foreground.Other travelways include local access roads within residential areas (Links S1.1, $1.2,and S1.3).Views from these roads are expected to be similar to the previous description, except where the roads parallel the route in the immediate foreground and foreground for short distances.In this case,there would be longer duration of views in open to partially screened conditions. Southern Soldotna Alternative (Links S2.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) Landscape Scenery The lands crossed by this route fall into four classifications:scenic quality Classes A,B and C,as well as residential areas.Class A landscapes occur where the route crosses the Kenai River.Class B landscapes are moderate to densely forested lowlands interspersed with small areas of open grasslands and bogs (Links $2.1 and 81.5).In addition,the Class C landscapes located along this route consists of a combination of grasslands interspersed with small spruce vegetation (Link $2.1),as well as disturbed areas along the Funny River and adjacent to the Sterling Highway east of Bings Landing. Residential areas are found near the Soldotna Substation (Link $2.1);near the crossing of the Funny River (Link S2.1);along the Kenai River south of Sterling (Link $2.1);and southeast and east of Sterling (Links $2.1 and $1.5).The residences occur in random patterns defined by local access roads and are located within the moderately to densely forested areas. This route parallels two 115kV transmission lines and a 69kV distribution line from the Soldotna Substation to an area where the Kenai River enters the KNWR (Link S2.1);one 69kV and 12kV distribution line from this point to an area five miles east of Sterling (Link $2.1);and one 115kV transmission line from this point one mile north to the Enstar Pipeline (Link $1.5).Other modifications include extensive vegetation clearing within the existing right-of-way,several local access roads,signage,airport,and extraction areas. Viewers Views from residences along this route are partially to fully screened throughout the majority of the route.However,there are open to partially screened views of the route in the immediate foreground and foreground south of the Soldotna Substation (Link $1.1)where the route would be viewed from residences overlooking a valley;adjacent to the Funny River (Link $2.1);at the Kenai River crossing near Bings Landing (Link $2.1);and east of the Sterling (Links $2.1,$1.5,and E1.2). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-201 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Major recreation sites along this route include a golf course,campgrounds,and Bings Landing SRS.Views of the route overlooking a valley setting from Birch Ridge Golf Course west of the Soldotna Substation (Link $2.1)would be partially to fully screened due to the presence of vegetation in the foreground and middleground.Middleground views from the Funny River Campground (Link S2.1)would be screened due to the presence of dense vegetation.Immediate foreground and foreground views from Bings Landing SRA are open at the crossing of the Kenai River and partially to fully screened due to the presence of vegetation adjacent to the river. Major travelways along this route include the Funny River Road (Link S2.1)and the Sterling Highway (Links $2.1,$1.5,and E1.2).Views from these roads would be open where the route crosses overhead (Link $1.3)in the immediate foreground.Other travelways include local access roads serving residential and recreation areas (Links $2.1,$1.5,and E1.2).Views from these roads are expected to be similar to the previous description,except where the roads parallel the route in the immediate foreground and foreground for short distances.In this case,there would be longer duration of views in open to partially screened conditions. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) Landscape Scenery The majority of areas crossed by this route are scenic quality Class A and B landscapes.Class A landscapes occurring along this route include the foothills of the Central Kenai Mountains (Links E1.3 and E2.1)located along the east edge of the route;the Chickaloon Bay tidal estuary (Link MS5.1)at the north end of this route;and several major wetlands/drainages interspersed throughout the route (Links E1.3 and E2.1). The Class B landscapes are areas of gently rolling terrain covered with densely forested upland spruce hardwoods interspersed with small drainages (Link E1.3 and E2.1). There is one Class C landscape (Link E1.3)crossed near the south end of this route,an area of disturbance where vegetation has been cleared. This route parallels the Enstar Pipeline.There is minor vegetation clearing within the pipeline corridor.Other modifications include the access road and above ground pipeline structures (Link MS.1)at the north end of the route. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Viewers A field investigation was conducted by helicopter with the FWS on April 22,1998 to verify viewing conditions from selected locations of concern within the KNWR.The following locations were observed and photographed in order to assess the potential for visual impacts from Alternative Route C. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-202 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXISYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Skyline Trail and Fuller Lakes Trail System Mystery Creek Moosehorn Lake Swan Lake Moose Lake Scenic Lake Trapper Joe Lake Moose Pasture Lake Indian Valley Chickaloon Bay Pt.Possession Moose Point East Fork of the Moose River Afonasi Lake Mystery Creek Road In summary,the field observations established that Alternative Route C would be unseen from the majority of lakes within the KNWR Wilderness area due to distance and screening.The Enstar Pipeline right-of-way is not visible from ground elevations other than at Trapper Joe Lake &cabin,Mystery Creek Access Trail (including the Enstar Pipeline),East Fork of the Moose River,Afonasi Lake,and Chickaloon Bay.The Mystery Creek Access Trail is a dispersed recreation route that runs parallel,and in close proximity to,the proposed route.The majority of the views are perpendicular to the route from distant lakes and in most cases obscured by vegetation and topography. Views from Skyline Trail and Fuller _Lakes Trail Systems The viewing elevation is approximately 2,800 feet in a westerly direction from the trail to Route C.The route is perpendicular to the view and would not be distinguishable from the ridges adjacent to the trail system,due to distance and screening from topography and trees.Route C would be approximately 8 miles from the viewpoint.Parallel views of clearings for both the Enstar Pipeline and the Quartz Creek transmission line are visible in the distance near Sterling (distance to nearest edge of clearing is approximately 16 miles). View from Mystery Creek Road/Enstar Pipeline |Views from the pipeline road would be parallel to Route C.The estimated tree height range from 10-20 to 60 feet along the route. Views from Interior Lakes There are distant views in an easterly direction towards the Kenai Mountains from the interior lakes associated with the Swan Lake area.The Enstar right-of-way is completely obscured from view by vegetation and topographic screening.These lakes offer the most open views towards the mountains in this part of the KNWR. View from Moose Lake enroute to Trapper Joe Lake There are distant views from the Moose Lake in an easterly direction towards the Kenai Mountains.Based on observation of views from Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-203 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC the helicopter hovering over water,the Enstar Pipeline would be completely obscured from view from Moose Lake.Vegetation and topography would provide some partial screening to Route C from Scenic Lake. The right-of-way is not visible from Lake Surface,obscured by trees and topography.Several low-lying ridges screen the route from a direct view from the lake.It was agreed that the clearing for the Southern Intertie would not be visible from the lake. Views from Trapper Joe Lake The right-of-way will be visible as a break in the trees, especially at the southern end of the lake.The Enstar Pipeline clearing is located on a side at the base of a hill.Views to the south (from the cabin)are somewhat parallel to the route,additional clearing will be visible from the southern portion of the lake. Views from Indian Valleys Additional right-of-way clearing would be visible from the high elevation views from either the ridgeline or from an airplane. There is a one square mile area in the mudflats of Chickaloon Bay,which is open to airplane landing.This area is located approximately 6 to 8 miles from the Enstar Pipeline right-of-way.A portion of the existing right-of-way is visible in the distance Aerial Views over Pt.Possession Aerial views over Pt.Possession in-line with the right-of-way would showa substantial change as a result of clearing,even for a buried section of the project. Visual Resources in the Turnagain Arm Area (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I);Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J);Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K);Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link MS5.5/Route Option L) Landscape Scenery Links M4.1,M5.3,M5.4 and M5.5 are mostly submarine.However,there are areas of scenic quality Class A landscape located at Chickaloon Bay and on the southern edge of Anchorage.These landscapes are large coastal marshes interspersed with numerous small drainages,wetlands,and tidal mudflats.Seasonal changes result in bright green cover of mosses and grass on the tidal mudflats.These coastal marshes are natural appearing landscapes with little or no disturbance evident. Viewers Portions of Link M4.1 are within foreground views from residences along the coastline.Views of the proposed route from these residences are open to partially screened due to the presence of vegetation towards the Turnagain Arm,the Kenai Peninsula,Redoubt Volcano, and the Chugach Mountains. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-204 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXISYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC Portions of Links M5.3 and M5.4 are within immediate foreground views from the Alaska Railroad.Views of the proposed route along this portion of the Alaska Railroad are open and towards the towards the Turnagain Arm,the Kenai Peninsula,Redoubt Volcano,and the Chugach Mountains.Foreground and middleground views from the Old Seward and New Seward Highways are open towards the Turnagain Arm and Chugach Mountains. Visual Resources in the Anchorage Bow!(Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro Route alternatives-While Route M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar Route or the Tesoro Route,it is described as part of the Tesoro Route alternatives. Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road (Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V,Z) Landscape Scenery Lands along O'Malley Road are primarily industrial and commercial areas, as well as undeveloped lands.The commercial areas (Link 14.3)include a large nursery facility with randomly spaced buildings on the south side of O'Malley Road and retail facilities at the intersection of O'Malley Road and Old Seward Highway. An industrial area consisting of large sand and gravel operation is located along the south side of O'Malley Road (Link 14.3).A large electrical facility is located southeast of the intersection of Airport International Road and Minnesota Drive (Link I5.5).In addition,there are several other light industrial areas on the north side of O'Malley Road that have large buildings and storage lots.These areas appear heavily disturbed and detract from the landscape setting. The majority of Link 15.5 crosses undeveloped land.In addition,there are areas of residential and park-like lands occurring along Minnesota Drive.The undeveloped lands consist of natural to slightly disturbed conditions.Vegetation types and patterns consist of sparse to dense covers of coniferous and deciduous trees interspersed with areas of grasslands.There are occasional wetlands found within the open areas adding moderate visual interest to the landscape setting. The residential image types along Minnesota Drive (Link 15.5)are characterized by mixed height,moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation and high density,small lot,trailer parks. Park-like lands along Link 15.5 include Campbell Creek Greenbelt,located north of the intersection of Minnesota Drive and Dimond Boulevard.This area is a natural appearing landscape with a dense cover of vegetation following along the edges of the creek.Included in this greenbelt is a bike/pedestrian trail adjacent to the creek. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-205 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DAT A\PRONJ\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Each of these links parallels multi-lane roadways.There are extensive modifications including bridges,signage,and overhead lighting.In addition,this route parallels a 138kV transmission line as well as three distribution lines near the International Substation (Link I5.5). Viewers Views from commercial and industrial areas along Links 14.3 and 14.4 are open in the immediate foreground and open to fully screened due to vegetation and man-made structures in the foreground. Residents near the intersection of O'Malley Road and Minnesota Drive (Link 14.4)have open immediate foreground views toward the Chugach Mountains in an area currently being further developed.Residents along the western side of Minnesota Drive (Link I5.5)also have open to partially screened immediate foreground and foreground views that are open toward the Chugach Mountains.Residents along the east side of Minnesota drive have open to partially screened immediate foreground and middleground views toward the Chugach Mountains. Views from the trail within Campbell Creek Greenbelt are open in the immediate foreground for a short distance.Portions of these views are screened by the bridge crossings along Minnesota Drive.Foreground views from the Javier Delavega Recreation Complex on the southeast corner of Minnesota Drive and International Road would be open to partially screened due to the presence of vegetation. Travelways located along these links include O'Malley Road (Links 14.2,14.3 and 14.4), Minnesota Drive (Links 15.5).O'Malley Road is characterized by intermittent views to distant natural features.Development patterns along O'Malley have a fairly disorganized image,and adjacent roadway features start to dominate the setting.Minnesota Drive is characterized by open visibility,offering scenic views to the Chugach Mountains and local natural features such as Campbell Creek Greenbelt,streams,wetlands and bogs. Alaska Railroad (Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y,Z) Landscape_Scenery Lands crossed by Links 12.5,12.6,15.8,and I5.9 include residential, commercial and industrial areas.Residential areas (Link 12.5)are characterized by mixed height, moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation near the southern edge of the city of Anchorage.The residential image types near the north end of this route are characterized by mixed height,moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation near Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.9)and south of International Airport Road (Link 16.3). Park-like image types includes Oceanview Park (Link 12.5),a heavily vegetated,natural appearing park including trails,tennis courts,and other recreation facilities. The majority of lands surrounding Links I2.6,I5.8,and IS.9 consist of commercial and industrial image types.The commercial areas vary from buildings organized along arterial corridors with a Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-206 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC variety of architectural facades and signage,to strip malls housing several offices or retail facilities with a more unified architectural theme. The industrial image types along these links range from large sand-and-gravel operations to light-industrial development.The industrial images are characterized by chain link fencing, disturbed areas,and machinery and storage facilities.These areas lack any natural appearing areas and detract from the landscape setting. Existing modifications to this setting include the railroad,an electrical distribution line,and several areas of industrial development. Viewers Views from residences along Links I2.5 are within the immediate foreground.Most of the residences along Link 12.5 have open immediate foreground and foreground views toward the Alaska Railroad,although views from several residences at the southern end of this link are partially confined by vegetation.Link I2.6 has foreground-to-middleground views from residences.Foreground views from residences near Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.9)are partially screened.Residents on the south side of International Airport Road (Link 16.3)have immediate foreground and foreground views that range from open to partially screened within an area of extensive industrial development. Commercial and industrial developments (Links 12.5,12.6,and 1 2.8)have foreground views with little or no screening between them. Links 12.5,12.6,15.8,15.9,and 16.3 parallel the Alaska Railroad.Views along the Alaska Railroad are open and dominated by various small structures,signs,and utilities located along the railroad with a wide variety of architectural facades and signage treatments.This setting lacks any cohesiveness as a result of the many discordant elements that characterize it. Old Seward Highway/International Road (Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) Landscape Scenery Lands along Links 12.4,12.8,12.7,15.6,16.1,15.7,and 15.3 are comprised of residential,park-like,commercial,and industrial areas.Residential image types (Links 12.4, 15.6,15.7 and 5.3)throughout this area consist of high-and medium-density residential units, with some low-density residential units near Rabbit Creek Interchange.Development patterns are organized around a hierarchy of streets,which include a central collector road with access to secondary streets and cul-de-sacs. Park-like areas along this route include the recreation complex located at the northeast corner of the O'Malley and Old Seward Highway intersection (Link I5.6)and Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.3),located south of the intersection at Airport International Road and Old Seward Highway.Campbell Creek Greenbelt is a natural appearing landscape with a dense cover of vegetation following along the edges of the creek.Included in this greenbelt is a bike/pedestrian Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-207 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC trail adjacent to the creek.In addition,there are several natural areas and/or vacant open space (Links 12.7,12.8,15.6,15.7,and 15.3)occurring along this route. Commercial areas crossed by Links 12.4,12.7,12.8,15.6,16.1,15.7,and I5.3 include office and retail developments located along Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road.The commercial areas vary from single buildings with a variety of architectural facades to strip malls housing several offices and/or retail facilities.This combination of development along with multiple signs and overhead light structures create a chaotic visual setting. Industrial areas consist of a sawmill/lumberyard (Link I5.7),heavy equipment storage areas (Links 12.4,12.7,15.6,15.7,15.3),several small manufacturing facilities (Links I2.4,12.7,15.6, 15.7,15.3),and an electrical facility (Link I5.3). Link 12.4 parallels the Alaska Railroad for approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mile),beyond which it parallels Old Seward Highway from the Rabbit Creek Interchange to O'Malley Road.The majority of Link 12.4 and all of Link I2.7 would replace an existing distribution line.Many modifications have occurred along Old Seward Highway including residential,commercial, recreational,and industrial development.Links I5.6,15.7 and 15.3 parallel multi-lane roadways. Links 15.6 and I5.7 would replace an existing distribution line.A portion of Link I5.3 parallels an existing 138kV transmission line and two distribution lines,near International Substation.Many modifications.have occurred along Old Seward Highway and International Airport Road, including residential,commercial,recreational and industrial development. Viewers Views from residences along Old Seward Highway (Links 12.4,I 2.7,12.8,15.6 and 15.7)and International Airport Road (Link 15.3)range from immediate foreground to middleground.Views from residences along Old Seward Highway range from open to partially screened due to adjacent vegetation.Residential views along International Airport Road range from open views within immediate foreground distance zones to middleground views that are screened by vegetation and other residential development. Views from parks and recreation areas including a recreation complex (Link 15.6),Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.3),and several natural areas and/or open space (Links 12.7,12.8,15.6, 15.7,and 15.3)range from open to fully screened due to vegetation and adjacent development. Views from the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range are partially screened (Link 12.4). Views from commercial developments include office and retail developments located along Old Seward Highway (Links 12.4,I 2.7,12.8,15.6 and I5.7)and International Airport Road (Link 15.3).Views from these facilities range from open to screened due to adjacent development, signage,and lighting. Views from the historic Alaska Railroad (Link I2.4)and the Old Seward Highway (Links 12.4 and 12.7)are open to partially screened towards the Chugach Mountains,Turnagain Arm,and local natural features including coastal marshes,wetlands,and streams.Views of the proposed Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-208 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Project along Old Seward Highway (Links 15.6 and 15.7)from O'Malley Road to International Airport Road (Link I5.3).Views of the proposed Project from Dimond Boulevard (Links 15.6) towards the Chugach Mountains to the east would be open in the immediate foreground to foreground. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) Landscape Scenery Lands along these route are predominantly residential interspersed with undeveloped natural areas.The residential areas (Links M3.2,13.1,and 13.3)are characterized by mixed height,moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation. The undeveloped natural areas (Links I3.1,13.2,and I3.3)are characterized by a moderate to dense cover of vegetation interspersed with grasslands and small muskeg bogs. Existing modifications include local access roads,signage,overhead lighting,and a radio tower. Viewers Views from residences near North Klatt Road and Klatt Road (Links 13.1 and 13.3) range from open in the immediate foreground and open to fully screened due to vegetation in the foreground and middleground. Foreground views of the route from the golf driving range are open across flat grasslands.Views of the link paralleling north Klatt Road and other local access roads are open in the immediate foreground. Views from the undeveloped natural areas (Links I3.1 and I3.2)range from open to screened due to vegetation in the immediate foreground and foreground.These views are not fixed and would be short in duration. Views from a commercial area along O'Malley Road are partially screened in the immediate foreground to foreground.Low sensitivity views from an extraction area along O'Malley Road would be in the foreground. Views of the proposed Project paralleling North Klatt Road (Link I3.3)would be open in the immediate foreground and open to partially screened where the proposed Project would be adjacent to North Klatt Road (Links 13.2 and I 3.3). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-209 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4,15.5/Route Option O) Landscape Scenery Lands along these route are predominantly residential interspersed with undeveloped natural areas.The residential areas (Links M3.2,13.1,and 13.3)are characterized by mixed height,moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation. The undeveloped natural areas (Links I3.1,13.2,and 13.3)are characterized by a moderate to dense cover of vegetation interspersed with grasslands and small muskeg bogs. Existing modifications include local access roads,signage,overhead lighting,and a radio tower. Viewers Views from residences near North Klatt Road and Klatt Road (Links I3.1 and 13.3) range from open in the immediate foreground and open to fully screened due to vegetation in theforegroundandmiddleground. Foreground views of the route from the golf driving range are open across flat grasslands.ViewsofthelinkparallelingnorthKlattRoadandotherlocalaccessroadsareopenintheimmediate foreground. Views from the undeveloped natural areas (Links 13.1 and 13.2)range from open to screened due to vegetation in the immediate foreground and foreground.These views are not fixed and would be short in duration. Views from a commercial area along O'Malley Road are partially screened in the immediate foreground to foreground.Low sensitivity views from an extraction area along O'Malley Road would be in the foreground. Views of the proposed Project paralleling North Klatt Road (Link 13.3)would be open in the immediate foreground and open to partially screened where the proposed Project would be adjacent to North Klatt Road (Links [3.2 and I 3.3). Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) Landscape Scenery Lands along these route are predominantly residential interspersed with undeveloped natural areas.The residential areas (Links M3.2,13.1,and I3.3)are characterized by mixed height,moderate density homes with curvilinear or cul-de-sac circulation. The undeveloped natural areas (Links 13.1,13.2,and I3.3)are characterized by a moderate to dense cover of vegetation interspersed with grasslands and small muskeg bogs. Existing modifications include local access roads,signage,overhead lighting,and a radio tower. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-210 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC Viewers Views from residences near North Klatt Road and Klatt Road (Links [3.1 and 13.3) range from open in the immediate foreground and open to fully screened due to vegetation in the foreground and middleground. Foreground views of the route from the golf driving range are open across flat grasslands.Views of the link paralleling north Klatt Road and other local access roads are open in the immediate foreground. Views from the undeveloped natural areas (Links I3.1 and 13.2)range from open to screened due to vegetation in the immediate foreground and foreground.These views are not fixed and would be short in duration. Views from a commercial area along O'Malley Road are partially screened in the immediate foreground to foreground.Low sensitivity views from an extraction area along O'Malley Road would be in the foreground. Views of the proposed Project paralleling North Klatt Road (Link I3.3)would be open in the immediate foreground and open to partially screened where the proposed Project would be adjacent to North Klatt Road (Links 13.2 and I 3.3). Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives Kenai Lowlands Landscape Scenery The Bernice Lake substation site is an existing electrical facility (including 115kV and 69kV transmission lines)located in a scenic quality Class C landscape characterized by relatively flat,heavily vegetated terrain.There are several existing modifications located throughout this area including large commercial buildings,residential development,and roadways.There is extensive vegetation clearing for the existing transmission line right-of-way. The Soldotna substation site is an existing electrical facility (including 115kV and 69kV transmission lines)located in a predominantly residential landscape characterized by large lot development and curvilinear circulation situated in heavily vegetated,rolling terrain.There is extensive,and some unauthorized vegetation clearing for the existing transmission line right-of- way. The Naptowne substation site will be a new facility located in a scenic quality Class B landscape characterized by heavily vegetated,rolling terrain.There is dispersed residential development located to the west of this site.Other modifications include an existing 115kV transmission line Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-211 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC and local access roads.There is extensive,and some unauthorized vegetation clearing for the existing transmission line right-of-way. Viewers Middleground views from residences to the east of the Bernice Lake substation site are entirely screened due to the presence adjacent dense vegetation.Foreground views from the North Kenai Road are limited to a relatively small clearing of vegetation for the access road.This view is very short term and is not prominent. Foreground and middleground views from residences near thé Soldotna substation site are open to fully screened due to dense vegetation.Immediate foreground views from the Sterling Highway are open due to the vegetation clearing.Immediate foreground and foreground views from the Birch Ridge Golf Course to the west would be partially screened due to vegetation. Immediate foreground and foreground views from residences to the west of the Naptowne substation site would be open to partially screened and middleground views would be fully screened due to the presence of vegetation. Chugach Mountains Landscape Scenery Dave's Creek Substation is an existing electrical facility located within the Chugach National Forest in a scenic quality Class A landscape.This area is characterized by a dense cover of vegetation along Quartz Creek.Other modifications in this area include a 115kV transmission line and the Sterling Highway.There is extensive vegetation clearing for the existing transmission line right-of-way. Viewers Open to partially screened immediate foreground and foreground views of Dave's Creek substation site from dispersed recreation users would be short term and intermittent. Foreground views from the Sterling Highway would be screened due to the presence of vegetation. Anchorage Bowl Landscape Scenery International substation is an existing electrical facility located adjacent to the Alaska Railroad,Airport International Road,and Minnesota Drive in an area characterized by industrial and commercial development.There are several 115kV and 69kV transmission lines and distribution lines located in this area. Pt.Woronzof substation is an existing electrical facility located in a relatively flat,moderately vegetated area adjacent to the coastal bluffs of the Cook Inlet.The Tony Knowles Coastal Trail and a parking lot near the trailhead are located adjacent to the substation site.There are several existing transmission lines coming into the substation along the edge of the coastline. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-212 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC Viewers Immediate foreground and foreground views of International Substation from Minnesota Drive and Airport International Road are open to fully screened due to the presence of adjacent vegetation and development.Middleground views from residences and recreation areas would be partially to fully screened due to the presence of adjacent vegetation and development. Immediate foreground views of Pt.Woronzof substation from the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail are open. Transition Sites Landscape Scenery Transition facilities would be located along alternatives that begin or end underground,as well as submarine routes.The transition facilities vary in terms of type and size. Therefore,the effects would be slightly different in terms of disturbance to the landscape. Because the transition facilities are to be located along with the transmission line see the previous alternative route discussions for descriptions of landscapes that would be affected by their presence. Viewers The transition facilities would be located in-line with the transmission line.However, the facilities would be slightly larger where they transition to underground routes and significantly larger (include a separate building)where they transition to submarine routes.The transition facilities would be more visible due to there size and the required vegetation clearing. Because the transition facilities are to be located along with the transmission line see the previous alternative route discussions for descriptions of views that would be affected by their presence. 3.12.CULTURAL RESOURCES By passing the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)of 1966,the U.S.Congress declared that "the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved...”and that "the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest....”The NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior "to expand and maintain a National Register of districts,sites,buildings, structures,and objects significant in American history,architecture,archaeology,engineering, and culture”(36 CFR 60.1).The significance of cultural resources is evaluated according to criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior for use in determining the eligibility of properties for inclusion in the National Register (36 CFR part 60).The cultural resource inventory for this Project considered archaeological and historic sites,buildings,structures, districts,and objects in the Project area that are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that the possible effects of federal undertakings on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places be considered.Section 110 of the Act requires that federal agency heads take steps to minimize harm to National Historic Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-213 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHX ]\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\Final\Chapter 3 DOC Landmarks (properties designated by the Secretary of the Interior as Landmarks)that could be directly and adversely affected by their undertakings. The intent of the cultural resource studies conducted for this environmental analyis was to begin addressing the requirements of NHPA and identify any potential conflicts between the proposed Project and preservation of major known cultural resources.The inventory of recorded cultural resources proved to be quite limited,and therefore a sensitivity model was developed to characterize the cultural resources of the Project area and to provide a basis for evaluation and comparison of alternatives.The compiled inventory information is described along with the sensitivity model after the cultural history of the region is briefly summarized to provide an evaluation context. 3.12.1 CULTURAL HISTORY Aboriginal Settlement The earliest archeological sites in the Upper Cook Inlet region have been found at Beluga Point on Turnagain Arm and along the upper Kenai River.These sites,dating to the early Holocene (several thousand years ago),have characteristic core and blade assemblages (Reger 1996).Other components at Beluga Point and sites along the Kenai River contain artifacts that are reminiscent of pieces found on the Alaska Peninsula 3,500 to 4,500 years ago (Reger 1996). There is a gap separating the early to middle Holocene occupations of the region and later cultures.However,during the last millennium BC and first millennium AD,the interior of the Kenai Peninsula was inhabited by Pacific Eskimos who were taking advantage of the area's rich salmon resources (Reger 1996).Reger (1996)concludes that these people,who he labels "Riverine Kachemak,”were related to coastal groups of Cook Inlet and had ties to the Norton culture of the Bristol Bay region. ) During the second millennium AD,the Eskimos were replaced by Dena'ina Athapaskans (Dumond and Mace 1968).Late prehistoric Dena'ina sites "are numerous and scattered widely over the area”(Reger 1996).According to Osgood (1966),Dena'ina activities were concentrated along streams,although the use of land mammals also was important. Ethnography Ethnographic information compiled by European explorers and researchers documents aspects of the aboriginal occupation of the region.According to de Laguna (1975): Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-214 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \DM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC The Cook Inlet region is at present [1930s]inhabited by the Kenai Indians...Their territory extends down the Inlet as far as Seldovia on the south shore of Kachemak Bay,and the south shore of Kamishak Bay on the west side of the inlet. At the time of Russian contact,Knik Arm and its tributaries were inhabited by a subgroup of the Dena'ina (Osgood 1966).Unique among northern Athapaskans,the Dena'ina used both inland and marine resources.Although the Dena'ina of upper Cook Inlet and the Susitna River depended on the sea to a lesser degree than did the people on the Kenai Peninsula and around Kachemak Bay,they did hunt seals and beluga whales (Osgood 1966).Most Dena'ina activities in the Susitna area,however,were concentrated along streams and near lakes with runs of anadromous fish. Exploration and Early Settlement Captain James Cook was the first European explorer to sail the waters of Cook Inlet.In May 1778,his two ships,the Resolution and the Discovery,entered the inlet in search of the Northwest Passage (Bancroft 1970).Although Cook ultimately recognized that he had not found a northern route to the Atlantic,he did not realize the extent of his discovery.He did,however, send boats to briefly explore Turnagain Arm and the mouth of the Knik River (Bancroft 1970). Captains Nathaniel Portlock (1789)and George Dixon (1968),both of whom had been with Cook during his 1778 voyage,returned to Cook Inlet in July 1786. Eight years later,in April 1794,Captain George Vancouver,on board the Discovery,and Lieutenant William Broughton,in command of the Chatham,reached the head of Cook Inlet (Orth 1967;Vancouver 1967).Vancouver corrected Cook's observations concerning the nature of Turnagain Arm and made many additions to Cook's charts.His party spent about a month in Cook Inlet mapping and describing the coast. In contrast to the short visits of the English explorers,the Russians were very active in Cook Inlet during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.Their activities,however,were primarily limited to the coastal areas (Osgood 1966).Early contacts between Russian fur traders and the inhabitants of the Gulf of Alaska were brief and not always peaceful.Initial forays into Cook Inlet were made from Kodiak or the Aleutians. . Gold American trappers frequented the upper Kenai Peninsula in the years following the sale of Alaska to the United States (Reger and Antonson 1977),but it was ultimately gold that led to the exploration and settlement of the area.The gold era began around 1849 (Barry 1973).In 1869 and 1870,retired soldiers,American merchants,and at least one Russian settler formed an expedition to prospect along the Kenai River.They too found little gold,failing to cover even the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-215 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC cost of food for the expedition.Between 1870 and 1890,prospectors continued to look for gold along tributaries of the Kenai River drainage and Cook Inlet. The Kenai gold rush was probably precipitated by an itinerant miner named King.After prospecting for two years,King returned to Kenai in 1890 to pay off his grubstake,and then departed.His strike area,near the present day town of Hope,was discovered later.By the early 1890s,claims had been filed on many of the Kenai Peninsula's creeks,and word of the gold find began to spread.Lured by tales of riches,gold seekers began arriving in 1895.That same year, the towns of Sunrise,center of the Sunrise Mining District,and Hope,a small settlement near the beach at Resurrection Creek,were established (Barry 1973).The real rush to the district began in 1896,with Sunrise growing to a thriving community with several stores,a brewery,two saloons, and a restaurant (Barry 1973). Gold was first discovered in the Knik Arm area in 1897 (Cohen 1982).The resulting influx of miners into the Willow Creek District,and placer mining and prospecting activities in the early 1900s,led to the development of the town of Knik from a trading post into the economic center for the entire area. The influx of people looking for gold along Turnagain Arm had abated by 1905,with the Kenai fields being superseded by those of Nome and Fairbanks (Barry 1973).However,prospectors continued to search the Kenai districts and established mines continued to operate.Mining activities remained depressed through World War I.There was an upsurge of mining activity in the 1930s,but World War II brought a virtual end to commercial gold mining in all of Alaska (Barry 1973). The Alaska Railroad,Anchorage,and Twentieth Century Development The Alaska Central Railroad Company,formed in 1900,was the first to attempt to build a railroad out of Seward across the Kenai Peninsula.Alaska Central was bankrupted in 1904, however,having completed construction only as far as Mile 45 (Reger and Antonson 1977). Established in 1904,the Alaska Northern Railroad Company managed by 1915 to extend the tracks to Mile 71 at Kern Creek (Reger and Antonson 1977).Although financial difficulties prevented Alaska Northern from further work,the portion of the line that had been built provided daily passenger service across the peninsula during the summer and fall (Barry 1973). The Alaska Northern Railroad Company was about to follow Alaska Central in bankruptcy when it was purchased by the U.S.government.In 1913,Congress passed the Alaska Railroad Bill, which authorized the location,construction,and operation of a railroad linking the Pacific coast of Alaska with navigable waters in the interior.The Alaska Engineering Commission (AEC)was created to carry out the project.After 1915,work on the line progressed rapidly,and in September of 1918 Seward was connected by rail to the Matanuska coal fields (Reger and Antonson 1977). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-216 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC The history of Anchorage is directly linked to the construction of the Alaska Railroad.The AEC set up a headquarters camp at Ship Creek in 1914,and by the time President Wilson made the decision to proceed with a route that basically followed the present Seward-Fairbanks rail line,a large number of people were waiting at Ship Creek for construction to begin. Anchorage developed rapidly,both in size and in general importance.The growing town was named Anchorage by the U.S.Post Office over the objection of the AEC,which had proposed the name Ship Creek.From 1915 to 1920,when the city was officially incorporated,Anchorage was managed by the AEC. The Iditarod Trail was very mucha part of the history of the Cook Inlet area.Actually a series of trails,the Iditarod was first a route from Seward to Knik and the Willow Creek mining district. From Turnagain Arm the trail crossed both Crow Creek and Indian Creek Passes to Eklutna,then ran along the upper end of Knik Arm to Knik.In 1908,-a survey party for the AEC laid out a winter route that extended the trail to Nome.The discovery of gold in the Iditarod region in 1910 and the resulting rush of prospectors led to improvements in the trail and gave it its name. Following the founding of Anchorage,a spur of the trail was developed from the Eagle River area along Knik Arm and across what is now Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson (Carberry 1979). Cooper Landing,which had developed during the early years of the twentieth century into an important hunting and fishing resort,was connected to Seward by road in 1938 (Pittenger and Thomas 1980).The Sterling Highway,named after Hawley Sterling of the Alaska Road Commission who planned the road and pushed for its construction,was begun in 1947 but not completed until 1954 (Pittenger and Thomas 1980).Anchorage was linked to Seward in 1951 when the present highway was built.This Project was financed by the Department of the Interior, with the construction done under the supervision of the Alaska Railroad and Road Commission (Reger and Antonson 1977). 3.12.2 INVENTORY RESULTS More than 600 archeological and historical sites listed in the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey are present within the broad region in which the proposed Project is located.One of these,the Holy Assumption Church in Kenai,is designated as a National Historic Landmark.Another property,the Iditarod Trail system,was designated a National Historic Trail in 1978.Forty-three of the more than 600 sites have either been determined eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places.The nomination of 14 additional properties to the Register is pending. Although hundreds of cultural resources have been recorded within the general vicinity of the Project,archaeological survey has been limited within the alternative corridors defined for the proposed transmission line.A detailed record search identified only 16 known archaeological Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-217 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Chapter 3.DOC and historical sites within two-mile-wide corridors along each of the alternative transmission line routes (Table 3-24). TABLE 3-24 CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY ARHS No._|Name |Links |Type of Resources Tesoro Alternative,Bernice Lake To Captain Cook State Recreation Area KEN-064 Bishop Creek T2.1 waste flakes,bone fragments,and hearth KEN-254 Bishop Creek Parking Site T2.1 house depressions and cache pits KEN-096 Swanson River Site #1 T2.1 house depressions and cache pits KEN-097 Swanson River Site #2 T2.1 house depressions and cache pits KEN-112 T2.1 house depressions and cache pits KEN-114 T2.1 house depressions and cache pits KEN-253 Discovery Campground Site T2.1 house depressions and cache pits 'Tesoro Alternative,Captain Cook state Recreation Area to Pt.Possession KEN-059 T3.2 house depressions,cache pits,and refuse midden TYO-032 Miller Creek Site T3.2 house depressions and possible grave TYO-015 Pt.Possession T3.3 historic Native village Tesoro Alternative,Turnagain Arm TYO-030 Pt.Woronzof M1L.3,house depressions M2.4, PW1.1 Enstar Alternative,Southern Soldotna KEN-025 Custom House $2.1 reported archaeological site KEN-149 $2.1 cache pits and fire-cracked rock KEN-262 Naptown Rapids Site $2.1 midden and fire-cracked rock Enstar Alternative,Enstar to Burnt Island SEW-164 |Little Indian Creek Cabin |M5.1 |trapper's or miner's cabin Enstar and Tesoro Alternatives,Anchorage Bowl ANC-326 AEC Cottage #19 14.2,frame structure built in 1916-1917 15.6,15.8 3.12.3 SENSITIVITY MODEL To compensate for the lack of inventory data,a sensitivity model was developed in consideration of the distribution of known sites within the larger region and in consultation with archaeologists with experience in the Project area.The known archaeological and historical sites within the region are concentrated around the coast and along the highway system.The majority of the known prehistoric sites are less than 304.8 meters (1,000 feet)above sea level,and in areas of gentle slopes or forested valley bottoms.Late prehistoric sites are usually associated with bodies of water,and important villages appear on streams with large salmon runs.There are,for example,several hundred sites and more than 3,000 cultural features recorded in the Sqilantnu Archaeological District at the confluence of the Kenai and Russian rivers (Kent et al.1996). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-218 July 1999 Chapter 3-Affected Environment \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC There are concentrations of known historic properties in downtown Anchorage,and along the northern shore of Turnagain Arm,the Alaska Railroad south of Portage,and the Seward Highway south of the Hope Cutoff.There is no apparent relationship between mining sites and slope,elevation,or landform,although such sites do occur in zones of strong mineralization. Landforms that could be considered "high sensitivity zones”for prehistoric sites include lake, stream,and coastal margins;stream junctions;river terraces;inlets and outlets of lakes;elevated topographic features providing panoramic views of the surrounding terrain;constricting geomorphic features which tend to channel the movement of animals;and natural travel routes. Muskegs,colluvial slopes,shallow soils overlying rock,and steep slopes compose areas of lower or no archeological potential.Locations where there is a high potential for discovering additional historic sites include historic trails,mineralized zones that attracted gold miners,and early settlement areas.The possibility of locating sites in other settings should not be ruled out because the distribution of known archeological and historic properties may be the biased by ease of access. High sensitivity zones were modeled to include locales within 250 meters (820 feet)of fresh water and with a slope of 25 percent or less.All other areas were characterized as having low sensitivity.The resulting map of sensitivity zones is depicted on Figure MV-29,Cultural Sensitivity,in the Map Volume. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 3-219 Chapter 3-Affected Environment July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Chapter 3.DOC TINTHON=T8NTONT4NaKenai aof'Naas |1 @ie cpoeet NoULNUL1NPhoto graph Reference Map SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line General Reference Features Legend []State Park [__]Kenai National Wildlife Refuge ed Chugach National Forest [___]Private,Borough,or State Selected Lands @ General Photograph Location N Inventory Corridor "VY Alternative Route @)Link Number Code &=Existing Substations @®Proposed Transition Facility Siting Area "W Pipeline "/Transmission Line "VY Quartz Creek Transmission Line 'AV Railroad "Study Area Boundary "Rivers and Streams | A Oil Platform CD Ocean/Lakes/Inlet ”' C 01 3 6 Miles SourceData: i of Anchorage (1994),Municipality AChugachNationalForest(1995),Figure 3-7KenaiPeninsulaBorough(1994).USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. i| y Y|0 s Dat | c 2ll&. _ So s oge Yo 8&5a Y <« @=rF ce < '> s oo BDp=°Somw OE SC fe Foe 5225; 225=Say27<omoyrGS6s 22 68H oN,a Ogas o eo £5 r Oa?f a. nN eg "Fee "Pe ne bid "ss tesen Torrence International Substation ™ - wni= 5 3g S iS Pe] = : zs &5,3 . $ eee E@o y2 5 5 i "eo aa4 vQ co] Nc = "nrrn £S +€EE# 7 5= ; ' \i wae” 3es $s 3= i=)Ss iLT eer ween oui]<eZz-_ 4 oe en" &s3F * ° sf a wenn gank . 2 aeeeet = (a)3==*% xz2 ; | o" wyoOO¢a labd z Yhe ss EA Bee /22@™< gz 6" iw ° S > . Cc swn a)2 2&€& fF a ee o a se:% Q e 4 a Ww _ 17) Li i 8)2 Oo] oo] & wn 3)2cw Qi [av2mo]1]@o os (°) CcEso« s< =i -_=| =a9>2a ow2 6[-¥) € - me]Vv €c wl & S&S 'fs 3S Si nm8 -_ tn ad om | "rt Wy Oo, -&ec wn a HEwn Py = : pegeert py vy. XS ee. why UOl< s ° : ieee hein |ey Ny ro,en a ee eeaeaLa coe st aatilka ke caLeea ak a Li e Dennememateod 'CHAPTER 4 posureen wr. Stanek ne CHAPTER 4.0 -ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter describes the potential consequences,or impacts on the environment,that could result from the construction,operation,and maintenance of the proposed 138kV transmission line. 4.1 INTRODUCTION The sections that follow this introduction provide an explanation of the impact assessment process (Section 4.2)and address the potential impacts on each resource (Sections 4.3 through 4.11).Most of the resource sections contain an overview including the following: ™explanations and descriptions of the types of impacts anticipated m the level of the anticipated impact designated as significant,potentially significant,or insignificant =descriptions of measures to mitigate impacts m™residual impacts after mitigation Because of their unique characteristics,the discussion of each resource may vary slightly.For example,socioeconomics,cultural resources,electro-magnetic fields,and noise are addressed regionally rather than for each alternative. In addition,because of the large volume of data,results were summarized to the extent appropriate for each resource.The descriptions of potential impacts focus on those resources that could be affected substantially and those identified by the public and/or agencies as major issues (i.e.,biological resources,land use,recreation and tourism,and visual resources).Potential impacts on those resources that would not be affected substantially or that were not identified as major issues (earth,water,subsistence,and cultural)are presented in a general summary.Impacts on these resources would be minimal with only slight differences between alternatives.Maps illustrating construction methods and impact maps for vegetation,wildlife,land use and recreation,and visual resources are provided in a separate Map Volume accompanying this environmental analysis. In the Anchorage Bowl,several of the alternative routes share common links with one another. Rather than repeating information,in most cases the descriptions of the alternative routes have been abbreviated and addressed by geographic area.To facilitate review of the alternatives, diagrams that illustrate each alternative route and highlight the segment being described are shown in Chapter 2. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-1 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The descriptions of impacts for each alternative should be reviewed in conjunction with the resource maps in the Map Volume. 4.22.IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS Impacts are defined as modifications to the existing condition of the environment that would be brought about by the Applicant's Proposal.Impacts can be beneficial (positive)or adverse (negative),and can be direct or indirect.Impacts can be permanent,long-lasting (long term)or temporary (short term).Long-term impacts are defined as those that would substantially remain for the life of the Project or beyond.In the case of this Project,the life of the Project is stated to be 40 years.This time period is used for Project cost-benefits,however,most similar projects can last significantly longer with continued maintenance and eventual replacement of portions of the facilities. Short-term impacts are defined as those changes to the environment during construction that generally would revert to pre-construction condition at or within a few years of the end of construction.Impacts can vary in significance from no change or only slightly discernible change to a full modification of the environment.The following paragraphs describe how potential impacts were evaluated for this Project. 4.2.1 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL The first step was to understand the Applicant's Proposal and determine the types and amount of disturbance that could occur;that is,the design and typical specifications of the project facilities, construction techniques and equipment used,extent of construction,requirements for operation of the transmission line,and activities associated with routine maintenance.Activities associated with abandonment if or when the facilities are no longer needed will likely require updated environmental review.Table 4-1 provides a summary of the project description and costs by alternative route.Potential impacts that could occur from the activities associated with construction include the following: clearing vegetation for rights-of-way preparing tower sites,substation sites and transition facility sites assembling and erecting tower structures stringing conductors (e.g.,wire-pulling and -splicing sites) Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-2 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Facilities Underground Routes Overhead Cable Submarine Cable Transition Stations Substations Cost $M A Links Tt.1,T1.2,T1.3,Link T.13 Link T5.2 ®Rediske Airport (2 riser |Bernice Lake A total for 2-3 T1.4 =Rediske Airstrip 1.0 @ 22G compatibility -1.6 poles)@ Ring bus addition core =$47.1 =Single pole steel,single km (0.6 mile)km (1.0 mile)®Johnson Airport (2 riser to the substation circuit -19.0 km (11.8 ®Johnson Airstrip -poles)A total for 4-1 miles)0.5 km (0.3 mile)=Captain Cook SRA (2 core =$48.4 Links T3.1,T3.2,T5.!Link T2.1 riser poles) ™Guyed X steel,heavy -|®Captain Cook SRA -@ Pt.Possession South 42.5 km (26.4 miles)6.4 km (4.0 miles)(OH/submarine transition w/reactor) B Links S1.1,E2.1,M5.1 ®Burnt Island (OH/Soldotna B total for 2-3 @ Single pole wood, single circuit -7.2 km (4.5 miles) Link S1.2 . m@ Single pole steel,double circuit -0.6 km (0.4 mile) Link S1.3 8 H-frame wood -31.2 km (19.4 miles) Links E1.1,E1.3,E2.1 @ Guyed X steel-56.0 km (34.8 miles) submarine transition)=Breaker and a half operating as a ring bus Naptowne = =Reactor core =$40.8 B total for 4-1 core =$41.0 Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 FADATA\PROJ\09203\009\1EV AL2\TABLE4-t DOC 4-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Facilities Underground Routes Overhead Cable Submarine Cable Transition Stations Substations Cost $M C Links $2.1,$1.5,E1.2 ®Burnt Island (OH/Soldotna C total for 2-3 =H-frame wood -28.0 submarine transition)@ Breakerandahalf |core =$41.4 km (17.4 miles)operating as a ring Links $2.1,E2.1,M5.1 bus C total for 4-1 B Single pole wood,Naptowne core =$41.6 single circuit with ®Ring bus 12.5kV underbuild on $2.1 --7.9 km (4.9 miles) Links E1.3,E2.1 @ Guyed X steel -54.9 km (34.1 miles) Link S2.1 m Single pole steel, existing -0.5 km (0.3 mile) D Links M2.1,M2.2 D total for 2-3 @ 22.4 km (13.9 miles)core =$42.9 D total for 4-1 core =$54.1 E Links T4.1,74.2 Links MI.1,14.3,M2.3 @ Fire Island (2 OH/E total for 2-3 @ H-frame wood -7.2 km @ 20.3 km (12.6 miles)submarine transition)core =$43.0 (4.5 miles) E total for 4-1 core =$53.1 F Links T4.1,T4.2 Links M1.1,T4.3,M1.3 ®Fire Island (2 OH/Pt.Woronzof F total for 2-3 ®H-frame wood -7.2 km m 23.5 km (14.6 miles)submarine transition)®Ring bus addition core =$51.6 (4.5 miles) F total for 4-1 core =$63.6 G Link M2.4 Pt.Woronzof G total for 2-3 @ 27.7 km (17.2 miles)@ Ring bus addition core =$54.8 G total for 4-1 core =$68.9 Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 FADATA\PROJ\09203\009\1EVAL2\TABLE4-1.DOC Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Facilities Underground Routes Overhead Cable Submarine Cable Transition Stations Substations Cost $M H Links M2.1,M3.1 H total for 4-1 w 25.8 km (16.0 miles)core =$48.2 H total for 4-1 core =$61.1 I Link M4.1 I total for 2-3 @ 19.2 km (11.9 miles)core =$39.7 I total for 4-1 core =$49.9 J Link M5.4 J total for 2-3 @ 18.0 km (11.2 miles)core =$37.9 J total for 4-1 core =$47.5 K Link M5.3 K total for 2-3 @ 15.6 km (9.7 miles)core =$33.9 K total for 4-1 core =$42.2 L Link M5.5 L total for 2-3 @ 26.1 km (16.2 miles)core =$51.4 L total for 4-1 core =$65.2 M Link PWI.1 =Pt.Campbell Pt.Woronzof M total for 2-3®Kinciad Park and (submarine/under-@ Ring bus addition core =$14.7 Airport 6.4 km (4.0 miles) ground transition station)M total for 4-1 core =$15.0 Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\000%E VAL2\TABLE4-!DOC Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Facilities Underground Routes Overhead Cable Submarine Cable Transition Stations Substations Cost $M N Links 13.2,15.5 Links M3.2,13.1 ®Klatt Road (submarine/|International N total for 2-3 m Single pole steel,single ®1.3 km (0.8 mile)OH transition)=Breakerandahalf |core =$14.5 circuit with 12.5kV bay addition underbuild on 15.5 -6.4 N total for 4-1 km (4.0 miles)core=$15.5 O Links 13.3,14.4,15.5 Links M3.2,13.1 ®Klatt Road (submarine/International O total for 2-3 =Single pole steel,single =1.3 km (0.8 mile)OH transition)@ Breaker andahalf |core =$14.7circuitwith12.SkV bay addition underbuild on 15.5 -6.9 O total for 4-1 km (4.3 miles)core =$15.8 P Links 13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,Links M3.2,13.1 ™Klatt Road (submarine/|International P total for 2-3 16.3 #1.3km (0.8 mile)OH trnasition)m Breaker and ahalf |core =$16.0 =Single pole steel single bay addition circuit with 34.5 and P total for 4-1 12.5kV underbuild on 16.3 core =$17.1 8.9 km (5.5 miles) Q Links 12.6,15.8,15.9,16.3 Link 12.5 Link 12.5 ™Cross Road North (GIS |International Q total for 2-3 @ Single pole steel,single |@ Flying Crown =Flying Crown Airstrip -submarine/underground |@ Breakerandahalf |core=$16.0 circuit with 34.5 and Airstrip -0.8 km (0.5 0.6 km (0.4 mile)transition) , bay addition 12.5kV underbuild on mile)@ 120"Avenue (riser Q total for 4-1 16.3 -7.2 km (4.5 pole)core =$16.7 miles) R Links 12.6,14.3,14.4,15.5 Link 12.5 Link 12.5 ™Cross Road North (GIS ]International R total for 2-3®Single pole steel,single |@ Flying Crown =Flying Crown Airstrip -submarine/underground {|§Breakerandahalf |core =$16.3circuitwith12.5kV Airstrip -0.8 km (0.5 0.6 km (0.4 mile)transition)bay addition underbuild on 15.5 -8.5 km mile)@ 120°Avenue (riser R total for 4-1(5.3 miles)pole)core =$17.0 S Links 12.8,12.7,15.6,15.7,Link 12.5 Link 12.5 ®Cross Road North (GIS International S total for 2-3 15.3 @ Flying Crown =Flying Crown Airstrip -submarine/underground |®Breakerandahalf |core =$18.3@Singlepolesteel,single circuit with 12.5kV underbuild on 12.8 and 15.3 and 34.5 and 12.5kV underbuild on 12.7,15.6, and 15.7 -9.8 km (6.1 miles) Airstrip -0.8 km (0.5 mile) 0.6 km (0.4 mile)transition) B 120"Avenue (riser pole) bay addition S total for 4-1 core =$19.1 Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\00°NE VAL2\TABLE4-1 DOC 4-6 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Facilities Underground Routes Overhead Cable Submarine Cable Transition Stations Substations Cost $M T Links 12.6,14.2,15.6,15.7,Link 12.5 Link 12.5 ®Cross Road North (GIS |International T total for 2-3 15.3 ®Flying Crown ®Flying Crown Airstrip -submarine/underground |®Breakerandahalf |core =$18.3 @ Single pole steel,single Airstrip -0.8 km (0.5 0.6 km (0.4 mile)transition)bay addition circuit with 12.5kV mile)w 120"Avenue (riser T total for 4-1 underbuild on 15.3 and 34.5 pole)core =$19.1 and 12.5kV underbuild on 15.6 and 15.7 -10.0 km (6.2 miles) U Links 12.4,12.7,14.2,14.3,Link 12.4 Link 12.4 @ Shooting range (GIS International U total for 2-3 14.4,15.5 @ Shooting range --1.1 ®Coastal Wildlife Refuge submarine/underground |®Breaker andahalf |core =$18.2 =Single pole steel,single km (0.7 mile)-0.5 km (0.3 mile)transition)bay addition circuit with 12.5kV @ Old Seward Highway U total for 4-1 underbuild on 12.4,15.5,(riser pote)core =$18.8 and 34.5 and 12.5kV underbuild on 12.2 -11.9 km (7.4 miles) Vv Links 12.4,12.7,14.2,15.8,Link 12.4 Link 12.4 ®Shooting range (GIS International V total for 2-3 15.9,16.3 =Shooting Range-1.1 |@ Coastal Wildlife Refuge submarine/underground |®Breakerandahalf |core=$17.9 8 Single pole steel,single km (0.7 mile)-0.5 km (0.3 mile)transition)bay addition circuit with 12.5kV 8 Old Seward Highway V total for 4-1 underbuild on 12.4 and 34.5 (riser pole)core =$18.5 and 12.SkV underbuild on 12.7 and 16.3 -10.6 km (6.6 miles) WwW Links 12.4,12.7 15.6,16.1,Link 12.4 Link 12.4 =Shooting range (GIS International W total for 2-3 15.9,16.3 =Shooting Range-1.1 |@ Coastal Wildlife Refuge submarine/underground |®Breaker andahalf |core =$18.6 =Single pole steel,single km (0.7 mile) -0.5 km (0.3 mile)transition)bay addition circuit with 12.5kV underbuild on 12.4 and 16.1 and 34.5 and 12.5kV underbuild on 12.7,15.6, and [6.3 -10.8 km (6.7 miles) ®Old Seward Highway (riser pole) W total for 4-1 core =$19.2 Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 F (DATA\PROJ\09203\00NEVAL2\TABLE4-1 DOC Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Facilities Underground Routes Overhead Cable Submarine Cable Transition Stations Substations Cost $M X Links 12.4,12.7,15.6,15.7,Link [2.4 Link 12.4 ®Shooting range (GIS International X total for 2-3 15.3 =Shooting Range-1.1 |@ Coastal Wildlife Refuge submarine/underground |®Breaker andahalf |core =$19.9 @ Single pole steel,single km (0.7 mile)-0.5 km (0.3 mile)transition)bay addition circuit with 12.5kV @ Old Seward Highway X total for 4-1 underbuild on 12.4 and 15.3 (riser pole)core =$20.6 and 34.5 and 12.5kV underbuild on 12.7,15.6, and 15.7 -12.7 km (7.9 miles) Y Links 12.4,12.8,12.6,15.8,Link 12.4 Link 12.4 ®Shooting range (GIS International Y total for 2-3 15.9,16.3 @ Shooting Range -1.1 |@ Coastal Wildlife Refuge submarine/underground |®Breaker andahalf |core =$17.8 a Single pole steel,km (0.7 mile)--0.5 km (0.3 mile)transition)bay addition single circuit with ®@ Old Seward Highway Y total for 4-1 12.5kV underbuild on (riser pole)core =$18.4 12.4 and 12.8 and 34.5 and 12.5kV underbuild on 16.3 - 10.5 km (6.5 miles) Zz Links 12.4,12.8,12.6,14.3,Link 12.4 Link 12.4 ®Shooting range (GIS International Z total for 2-3 14.4,15.5 @ Shooting Range-1.1 |@ Coastal Wildlife Refuge submarine/underground |®Breakerandahalf |core =$18.0 =Single pole steel,single km (0.7 mile) -0.5 km (0.3 mile)transition)bay addition circuit with 12.5kV ®Old Seward Highway Z total for 4-1 underbuild on 12.4,12.8 (riser pole)core =$18.7 and 15.5 -11.5 km (7.3 miles) Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-8 Chapter 4 July 1999 F \DATA\PRON09203\00°\EVAL2\T ABLE4-1._DOC Environmental Consequences Project facilities and construction techniques are illustrated on drawings and simulations provided in the Map Volume and a separate volume titled Project Description Graphics and Simulations.The following illustrations describe construction methods: Construction Methods and Access -MV-32 Anchorage Area Construction Methods and Access -MV-33 Construction Season MV-34 Proposed Structure Type and Existing Utilities -MV-35 Anchorage Area Proposed Structure Type and Existing Utilities -MV-36 Following construction,impacts would result from the presence of the transmission line facilities and right-of-way.Also,periodic maintenance activities could cause temporary impacts. Preliminary locations for the transmission line within the alternative study corridors were established and verified through aerial and ground reconnaissance.These locations were used as reference centerlines for purposes of assessment and are referred to as routes. 4.2.2 TYPES OF IMPACTS Resource sensitivity and resource quantity are used to determine potential impact levels.The combination of these two assessment variables determines the level of impact assigned to each resource category.Impacts are categorized into three types,as follows: Direct impact:caused by the action and occurs at the same time and place Indirect impact:caused by the action and is later in time or farther removed in distance,but still reasonably foreseeable;may include growth inducing effects or other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use,population density or growth rate,and related effects on air and water and other natural systems,including ecosystems Cumulative impact:results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,and reasonable foreseeable future actions;can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time Cumulative impacts on specific alternative routes are described in the following sections on geology,water resources,marine environment,biology,land use,recreation/tourism, socioeconomic,subsistence,visual,and cultural resources.A summary of cumulative impacts is located at the end of Chapter 4. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-9 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Types of impacts can fall into two categories:(1)impacts associated with ground disturbance that occur during construction,and (2)long-term impacts associated with the presence of the line and associated facilities. For example,ground disturbances resulting from construction include the following: clearing vegetation for right-of-way preparing tower sites,substation sites,and transition facility sites assembling and erecting tower structures , stringing conductors (e.g.,wire pulling and splicing sites) Ground disturbance occurring as a result of construction could impact resources to varying degrees depending on several factors including sensitivity of the resource,duration of the disturbance,and extent of the disturbance.For example,where the proposed transmission line would parallel a linear feature such as an existing transmission line or pipeline,new ground disturbance would be minimized resulting in fewer potential impacts.On the contrary,if the proposed transmission line were sited where no such features exist,ground disturbance would be greater.Figures MV-32,Construction Methods and Access and MV-35,Proposed Structure Type and Existing Utilities,both in the Map Volume,illustrate the types of access and construction activities expected along each of the alternative route links. 4.2.3.SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS As defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),significance requires considerations of both context and intensity.Table 2-11,in Chapter 2,outlines the following discussion in relation to the alternative routes. Context:significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole,the affected region,the affected interests,and the locality;significance varies with the setting of the proposed action;for instance,in the case ofa site- specific action,significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather in the world as a whole Intensity:refers to the severity of an impact;the following should be considered in evaluating intensity (Council on Environmental Quality Regulation 1508.27): ™impacts may be both beneficial and adverse m degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-10 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 ™unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources,park lands,prime farmlands,wetlands,wild and scenic rivers,or ecologically critical areas m degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial m degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration ®whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts;significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment;significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small components m=degree to which the action may adversely affect districts,sites,highways, structures,or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural,or historical resources m=degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 @ whether the action threatens a violation of federal,state,or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment 4.2.4 INITIAL IMPACTS Given an understanding of the Project description (Chapter 2)and the inventoried information reflecting the existing environment (Chapter 3),each resource specialist determined the types and levels of impact that could occur in their respective area of resource investigation.Analysis developed (1)an estimate of the level of disturbance that could result from construction activities,and (2)the impacts of the Project on resources.Qualitative and quantitative variables of resource sensitivity,resource quantity,and impact duration were considered in predicting the magnitude of impacts,which are described generally as significant,potentially significant,and not significant.The impact levels are defined as follows: Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-11 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Significant:assigned to those categories where the Applicant's Proposal is expected to result in substantial change to the resource,or where sensitivity was moderate and there are no existing linear features Potentially Significant:assigned to those categories where the Applicant's Proposal may cause some adverse substantial change or where resource sensitivity is minimum,but new access would be required and there are no existing linear features Not Significant:assigned to those categories where sensitivity is minimum (excluding the above) 4.2.55 MITIGATION Mitigation typically involves one or more of the following: =avoiding the impact by not taking a certain action or part of an action =minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation m rectifying impacts by repairing,rehabilitating,or restoring the affected environment m™reducing the impact ="compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments As part of the Project description,the Intertie Participants Group is proposing to undertake certain measures to protect the environment as standard practice for the entire Project.These measures are referred to as "standard practice Project mitigation”and are summarized in Table 4-2.It is important to note that the impact levels initially assigned (initial impact levels)assume that the standard practice Project mitigation measures are implemented. Where warranted on a case-by-case basis,mitigation beyond these generic measures was recommended to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable or lesser level.These are called selective mitigation measures,and they include those measures or techniques to which the Project proponents commit on a case-by-case,or selective,basis after impacts are identified and assessed.For purposes of evaluating the alternative routes at the environmental analysis stage of a project,selective mitigation measures provide a planning tool for minimizing potential adverse impacts.Table 4-3 summarizes selective mitigation measures.A detailed Mitigation Plan will be Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-12 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 created after any Record of Decision that will describe specific mitigation measures along the route. TABLE 4-2 STANDARD PRACTICE PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION All construction vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will be restricted to predesignated access,contractor acquired access,or public roads. The areal limits of construction activities will be predetermined,with activity restricted to and confined within those limits.No paint or permanent discoloring agents would be applied to rocks or vegetation to indicate survey or construction activity limits. In construction areas where recontouring is not required,vegetation would be left in place wherever possible and original contour would be maintained to avoid excessive root damage and allow for resprouting. In construction areas (e.g.,marshaling yards,tower sites,spur roads from existing access roads) where ground disturbance is substantial or where recontouring is required,surface restoration would occur as required by the landowner or land-managing agency.The method of restoration would normally consist of returning disturbed areas back to their natural contour and reseeding (if required). Towers and/or conductors would be marked with high-visibility devices where required by governmental agencies (Federal Aviation Administration). Prior to construction,all supervisory construction personnel would be instructed on the protection of cultural and ecological resources.To assist in this effort,the construction contract would address (a)federal and state laws regarding antiquities and plants and wildlife,including collection and removal;and (b)the importance of these resources and the purpose and necessity of protecting them. The Intertie Participants Group (IPG)would continue to consider cultural resources during post-EIS phases of project implementation in accordance with the programmatic agreement that would be developed in conjunction with preparation of the environmental impact statement.This would involve intensive surveys to inventory and evaluate cultural resources within the selected corridor and any appurtenant impact zones beyond the corridor,such as access roads and construction equipment yards.In consultation with appropriate land-managing agencies and state historic preservation officers,specific mitigation measures would be developed and implemented to mitigate any identified adverse impacts.These may include project modifications to avoid adverse impacts, monitoring of construction activities,and data recovery studies. The IPG would respond to complaints of line-generated radio or television interference by investigating the complaints and implementing appropriate mitigation measures.The transmission line would be patrolled by air on a regular basis so that damaged insulators or other line materials that could cause interference are repaired or replaced. The IPG would apply necessary mitigation to eliminate problems of induced currents and voltages onto conductive objects sharing a right-of-way,to meet the appropriate codes. 10 Stream crossings will be as near as possible at right angles to streams.Bridges or culverts would be installed where necessary.All construction and maintenance activities shall be conducted in a manner that would minimize disturbance to vegetation,drainage channels,and intermittent or perennial stream banks.Towers will be sited with a minimum distance of 200 feet from streams. 1]All requirements of those entities having jurisdiction over air quality matters would be adhered to and any necessary permits for construction activities would be obtained. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-13 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-2 STANDARD PRACTICE PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12 Fences and gates would be repaired or replaced to their original predisturbed condition as required by the landowner or the land-managing agency if they are damaged or destroyed by construction activities.Temporary gates would be installed only with the permission of the landowner or the land-managing agency;and would be restored to its original predisturbed condition following construction. 13 During operation and maintenance of the transmission line,the right-of-way would be maintained free of non-biodegradable debris resulting from IPG activities. 14 Hazardous materials shall not be drained onto the ground or into streams or drainage areas.Totally enclosed containment shall be provided for all trash.All construction waste including trash and litter,garbage,other solid waste,petroleum products,and other potentially hazardous materials shall be removed to a disposal facility authorized to accept such materials. 15 No construction camps will be established along the right-of-way.Construction crews are expected to be able to find housing within communities in the study area.Construction crews will be transported to work sites daily. 16 Pre-construction surveys for plants and wildlife species designated as sensitive or of concern will be conducted in areas of known occurrence or habitat as stipulated by the land-managing agency during the development of the Construction,Operation,and Maintenance Plan once the transmission line centerline,access roads,and tower sites have been located and staked in the field. 17 Care will be taken to reduce the possibility of bear-human interactions during construction. Construction camps will not be established along the right-of-way and any waste generated during construction will be properly stored and disposed of,so that bears are not attracted to construction areas.Bear training will be provided to personnel. 18 Engineering design will include safeguards to prevent or reduce the possibility of fluid leaks due to damage to the cable from natural hazards in submarine and terrestrial environments. 19 Trenching of submarine cables in coastal marsh lands will be backfilled and reclaimed. To the extent practicable,construction will be completed during winter months to avoid damage to areas of sensitivity. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-14 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 .TABLE 4-3 SELECTIVE MITIGATION MEASURES In areas where soils and vegetation are particularly sensitive to disturbance,existing access roads will not be widened or otherwise upgraded for construction and maintenance,except in areas where repairs are necessary to make existing roads passable. To avoid disturbance to sensitive features (e.g.,streams,recreation trails),access roads will not be constructed in those areas.Rather,construction and maintenance traffic will use existing roads or cross-country access routes (including the right-of-way).To minimize ground disturbance, construction traffic routes must be clearly marked with temporary markers such as easily visible flagging.The construction routes or other means of avoidance must be approved in advance of use. To minimize ground disturbance and/or reduce scarring (visual contrast)of the landscape,the alignment of any new access roads or cross-country route will follow the landform contours in designated areas where practicable,providing that such alignment does not impact resource values additionally. To limit new or improved accessibility into the area,all access that is undesired or not required for maintenance will be closed using the most effective and least environmentally damaging methods appropriate to that area and developed with concurrence of the landowner or land manager.Low growing,native shrubby vegetation such as alders will be planted within the right-of-way. To minimize ground disturbance,operational conflicts,and/or visual contrast,the tower design will be modified or an alternative tower type will be used. To minimize amount of sensitive features disturbed in designated areas,structures and access roads will be placed so as to avoid sensitive features such as,but not limited to,riparian areas,water courses,residential uses,and cultural sites,and/or to allow conductors to clearly span the features, within limits of standard tower design.Avoidance may be accomplished by spanning sensitive features,shifting the alignment to the opposite side of an existing line,or realigning the route. To reduce visual contrast and/or potential operational conflicts,standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing of existing transmission line structures where feasible and within limits of standard tower design.The normal span will be modified to correspond with existing towers,but not necessarily at every location. To reduce visual impacts,potential impacts on recreation values and safety at highways and trail crossings,towers are to be placed at the maximum feasible distance from the crossing within limits of standard tower design. "Dulled”metal or corten finish on towers will be used to reduce visual impacts. With the exception of emergency repair situations,the construction,restoration,maintenance,and termination activities in designated areas (e.g.,buffer zones)will be modified or curtailed during sensitive periods (e.g.,nesting and breeding periods)for sensitive animal species.Sensitive periods and areas of concern would be approved in advance of construction or maintenance by the authorized officer.Winter construction during frozen conditions would be an alternative for avoiding sensitive periods or areas of wildlife concern,soft and wet ground conditions,and stream crossings. 11 Helicopter placement of towers during construction and helicopter patrol and maintenance may be used to reduce impacts. 12 To reduce visual contrast or avoid features (such as,but not limited to,land uses,jurisdiction, biological or cultural resources sites),clearing of the right-of-way will be minimized or in limited instances the right-of-way may be reduced (within the limits of conductor-clearance requirements and standard tower design). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-15 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-3 SELECTIVE MITIGATION MEASURES 13 To minimize disturbance to vegetation resources and reduce visual contract,clearing of trees in and adjacent to the right-of-way will be minimized to the extent practicable to satisfy conductor- clearance requirements (National Electric Safety Code).Trees and other vegetation will be removed selectively (e.g.,edge feathering)to blend the edge of the right-of-way into adjacent vegetation patterns,as practicable and appropriate. 14 Construction near anadromous fish streams will be timed and carried out in a manner that minimizes any potential impacts on subsistence,sport,and commercial fishing efforts,including avoidance of construction along anadromous streams during the peak salmon run periods. 15 To avoid disturbance to coastal bluffs and marsh lands in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge, submarine cables will be installed with horizontal directional drilling. 16 Transmission line wiil be placed underground,where required,in parks and in the flight path of airstrips and airports. 17 To minimize visual impacts,submarine to overhead transition facilities will be placed within a small enclosed building in context with the surrounding architecture. 18 Routine checks of the insulating fluid system of submarine cables will be made.In the event of a cable break,the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation will be notified and cables will be de-energized to minimize the fluid pressure and discharge rates.Cables will be repaired/replaced in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts and fluid loss. 19 Line diverters,spheres,or marking of lines will make them more visible to birds. 20 Burying small diameter wires may be considered in sensitive areas. Once initial impacts were identified for each resource along the reference centerlines of the alternative routes,selective measures were recommended to mitigate potentially significant or significant impacts where warranted.Residual impacts are impacts remaining after mitigation has been applied.Potential residual impacts were reported on maps and tables that identify the locations and magnitudes of potential resource impacts along the reference centerline.The preliminary results of impact assessment and mitigation planning were documented by link in resource analysis studies. Table 4-4 summarizes the initially estimated distance for which each measure was recommended along each alternative route. 4.2.6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS The remainder of this chapter provides results of the analysis of direct,indirect,and cumulative impacts and their significance for the following: geology,water,and marine resources biological resources land use recreation socioeconomics Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-16 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-4 SELECTIVE MITIGATION MEASURES Overall Length (km Route Option|-_{miles])I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Kenai Lowlands Tesoro 71.0 46.5 3.1 49.1 0.3 61.5 478 5.6 3.7 0.6 Route A (44.1)(28.9)**(1.9)|(30.5)*(0.2)|(38.2)*|(29.7)(3.5)*|(2.3)*|(0.4)* Enstar Route B 95.1 78.1 1 10.0 2.6 0.5 60.2 73.2 19.2 12.2 1.6 North /C (59.1)(48.5)**(0.7)*(6.2)|(1.6)|(0.3)*|(37.4)*|(45.5)(LE.9)*|(7.6)*|(1.0) Route B 90.9 69.8 0.5 0.5 60.0 62.4 12.2 12.2 1.5 South /C (56.5)(43.4)***7.4 (4.6)}(0.3)|(0.3)|(37.0)*|(38.8)(7.6)*|(7.6)*|(0.9)Route B 34.8 19.0 1.1 4.5 2.6 0.5 17.7 9.3 0.6 North (21.6)(11.8)*(0.7)*(2.8)|(1.6)|(0.3)**(11.0)(5.8)**(0.4) Route B 30.6 4.2 1.9 0.5 12.9 0.8 0.5 South (19.0)(2.6)**(1.2)}0.5(0.3)}(0.3)*(8.0)(0.5)**(0.3) 63.0 61.7 4.0 60.2 57.5 10.2 12.2 1.0 Route C (37.8)(36.7)**(2.4)(37.4)*|(34.5)(6.1)|(7.6)*|(0.6) Turnagain Arm Tesoro 22.4 22.4 Route D (13.9)*(13.9) 27.5 Route E 27.5 (17.1)5.0 3.1)*(17.1) 30.7 5.0 30.7 Route F (19.1)(3.1)*(19.1) 27.7 .27.7 Route G (17.2)*(17.2) 25.8 0.3 25.8 Route H (16.0)*(0.2)*(16.0) Enstar 19.5 19.5 Route I (12.1)**(12.1) 18.5 18.5 Route J (11.5)**(11.5) 16.3 16.3 Route K (10.1)**(10.1) Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-17 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 FADATA\PROJ09203\009\Final\Table 4-4 doc TABLE 4-4 SELECTIVE MITIGATION MEASURES Overall Length (km Route Option|_[miles])1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 25.9 Route L 25.9 -(16.1)**(16.1) Anchorage Bowl Tesoro 6.4 4.5 6.4 6.4 0.3 4.5 It 0.2 Route M (4.0)(2.8)**(4.0)(4.0)+**(0.2)(2.8)|(0.7)*|(0.1)* Enstar 77 1.3 Ll 6.1 6.4 2.6 |0.2 0.2 Route N (4.8)(0.8)*(0.7)(3.8)**(4.0)*|(1.6)(0.7)|(0.1)*(0.1) 8.2 0.2 0.6 71 6.9 3.1 0.2 0.2 Route O (5.1)(0.1)*(0.4)(4.4)**(4.3)*|(1.9)(0.1)*(0.1) 10.1 0.2 0.6 3.2 9.3 2.9 0.2 0.2 Route P (6.3)(0.1)(0.4)(2.0)**(5.8)*|(1.8)(0.1)*(0.1) 8.7 0.2 1.5 0.2 7.2 0.2 0.2 Route Q (5.4)(0.1)(0.9)|(0.1)**(4.5)*(0.1)*(0.1)* 10.0 0.2 1.5 8.5 0.8 0.2 0.2 Route R (6.2)(0.1)(0.9){6.9 (4.3)**(5.3)*|(0.5)(0.1)*(0.1)* 11.3 0.2 1.5 6.1 9.8 0.5 0.2 0.2 Route S (7.0)(0.1)(0.9)|(3.8)***(6.8)*|(0.3)(0.1)*(0.1)* 11.4 0.2 1.5 5.2 10.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 Route T (7.1)(0.1)(0.9)|(3.2)***(6.2)*|(0.3)(0.1)*(0.1)* 13.5 0.2 1 14.3 12.4 11 0.2 Route U (8.4)(0.1)(0.7)|(7.0)***(7.7)*|(0.7).*(0.1)* 12.2 0.2 Li 4.4 Wl 0.3 0.2 Route V (7.6)(0.1)(0.7)|(2.7)***(6.9)*|(0.2)*(0.1)* 12.4 0.2 il 6.6 11.3 0.3 0.2 Route W (7.7)(0.1)(0.7)|(4.1)***(7.0)*|(0.2)*(0.1)* 14.3 0.2 hl 9.0 13.2 0.8 0.2 Route X (8.9)(0.1)(0.7)|(5.6)***(8.2)*|(0.5)*(0.1)* 12.1 0.2 11 2.9 10.9 0.3 0.2 Route Y (7.5)(0.1)(0.7)|(1.8)***(6.8)*|(0.2)*(0.1)* 13.4 0.2 1.1 9.8 12.2 1.1 0.2 Route Z (8.3)(0.1)(0.7)|(6.1)***(7.6)*|(0.7)*(0.1)* *Mitigation measure that would reduce visual impacts at the Project design stage. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-18 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 F ADATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Table 4-4 doc ™subsistence ™visual resources ®cultural resources The impact characterization by alternative route is provided in the alternative route comparison, as shown in Tables 2-9A,2-9B,and 2-9C in Chapter 2. 43 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES,WATER RESOURCES,MARINE ENVIRONMENT 4.3.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS Geologic resources,water resources,and the marine environment in the Project area (also known as earth resources)are described in Chapter 3.Because of the similarity and interrelationships between the resources,the assessment of impacts on geologic resources,water resources,and the marine environment are combined.Similarly,these three resources are mapped together on Figure MV-1,Earth Resources,in the Map Volume.The study included an analysis of potential impacts on surface water and soil,as well as potential hazards to the Project from geological and marine conditions.Hazards are presented for alternative routes in Chapter 2.The following environmental features and hazards were analyzed: stream and rivers 100-year floodplains areas subject to high erosion potential areas with boulders moved by sea currents and sea ice rafting submarine areas prone to ice scour or impact from ice floes and pressure ridges areas prone to seismically induced ground failure potentially active faults and geologic structures surficial deposits prone to slope failure or slope instability (including bluff erosion) near coast mudflat erosion from trenching compressible soils subject to high settlement Construction of the project could result in increased soil erosion,thereby affecting water quality. Areas prone to increased soil erosion include areas with highly erosive soils,surficial soils prone to slope instability or slope failure (including bluff erosion),and stream crossings.Water quality also may be degraded by accidental spills of petroleum products,solvents,or other construction- related materials at or near stream crossings as well as in the submarine areas.The use of select backfill in near-coast mudflat trenches could cause preferential flow pathways and increase erosion or sediment load.Construction in areas with compressible soils that are subject to settlement may result in compaction of soil structure,causing long-term damage to soil properties including fertility,water holding capacity,hydraulic conductivity,and bulk density. Soils in fragile muskeg or floodplain areas may require several years to fully recover from compression.Water quality could be affected if a submarine cable (with oil)ruptured or cracked, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-19 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 thereby releasing oil into the waterway.The line could be subject to rupture,cracking,or breakage from earthquake,hazardous seafloor conditions,marine currents,and sea ice movement.With the application of selective mitigation measures,impacts may be reduced or avoided. Selective mitigation measures applicable to earth resources issues include the following (see Table 4-3 for complete list): 1.In areas where soils and vegetation are particularly sensitive to disturbance,existing access roads will not be widened or otherwise upgraded for construction and maintenance,except in areas where repairs are necessary to make existing roads passable. 2.To avoid disturbance to sensitive features (e.g.,streams,recreation trails),access roads will.not be constructed in those areas.Rather,construction and maintenance traffic will use existing roads or cross-country access routes in areas that are not environmentally sensitive (including the right-of-way).To minimize ground disturbance,construction traffic routes must be clearly marked with temporary markers such as easily visible flagging.The construction routes or other means of avoidance must be approved in advance of use by the authorized officer. 3.To minimize ground disturbance and/or reduce scarring (visual contrast)of the landscape, the alignment of any new access roads or cross-country routes will follow the landform contours in designated areas where practicable,providing that such alignment does not impact resource values additionally. 10.With the exception of emergency repair situations,the construction,restoration, maintenance,and termination activities in designated areas (e.g.,buffer zones)will be modified or curtailed during sensitive periods (e.g.,nesting and breeding periods)for sensitive animal species.Sensitive periods and areas of concern would be approved in advance of construction or maintenance by the authorized officer.Winter construction during frozen conditions would be an alternative for avoiding sensitive periods or areas of wildlife concern,soft and wet ground conditions,and stream crossings. 14.Construction near streams with anadromous fish will be timed and carried out in a manner that minimizes any potential impacts on subsistence,sport,and commercial fishing efforts,including avoidance of construction along these streams during the peak salmon run periods. 15.To avoid disturbance to coastal bluffs and marsh lands in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge,submarine cables will be installed with horizontal directional drilling 18.Routine checks of the insulating fluid system of submarine cables will be made.In the event of a cable break,the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation will be Southern Intertie Project EVAL _4-20 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 notified and cables will be de-energized to minimize the fluid pressure and discharge rates.Cables will be repaired/replaced in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts and fluid loss. With adherence to these mitigation measures,potential adverse impacts from the project are expected to be reduced or negligible.These mitigation measures will be applied during engineering design to various project actions.Additional site studies may be required by the engineering design team to adequately remedy potentially adverse impacts. Impact Level Definitions A non-significant impact is defined as one in which the Project causes an insignificant alteration to soils or water,primarily because the impact has been minimized or avoided.For example,the impact would be non-significant at small stream crossings as a result of spanning and constructing bridges,or where Project scheduling specifies that foundation installation activities would commence after the streams are frozen. A potentially significant impact is one in which the Project causes some alteration to soils or water that can generally be minimized by mitigation.For example,construction could cause compaction and damage to compressible soils that is mitigable through use of special equipment. Construction near streams could cause erosion or spills affecting water quality,but is mitigable through the use of temporary manmade or ice bridges,spans,and placement of towers away from banks.The near-coast use of select backfill in mudflat trenches could cause preferential flow pathways and increased erosion and sediment load. A significant impact is one that causes significant damage or alteration to soils/sediment or water,that may or may not be mitigable to below high levels.For example,severe stream bank erosion causing major sedimentation and degradation of water quality during construction could be considered a significant impact if not mitigated.No significant impacts were identified for earth resources due to the application of generic and selective mitigation measures. 4.3.2 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE A summary of impacts,including cumulative impacts,is provided in the following sections.No cumulative impacts were identified for geology and water resources. No-action Alternative-Under the no-action alternative,existing conditions would continue. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-2]Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Tesoro Route Options Impacts on Geologic and Water Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession (Links T1.1,T1.2,71.3,T1.4,T2.1,T3.1,T3.2,75.1, T5.2/Route Option A): This route would cross 1.0 kilometer (km)(0.6 mile)of 100-year floodplain,6 streams,13.7 km (8.5 miles)prone to seismic-induced ground failure,0.2 km (0.1 mile)prone to slope instability, and 1.5 km (0.9 mile)with compressible materials subject to settlement.With adherence to selective mitigation the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Impacts-The majority of impacts on earth resources along this route involve compressible soils that are subject to settlement.Compression is primarily caused by vehicles such as pickup trucks that have standard tires and wheels that narrowly distribute the weight of the vehicle. Compression may result in compaction of the soil structure and cause long-term damage to soil characteristics including fertility,water holding capacity,hydraulic conductivity,and bulk density.Soils in fragile muskeg or floodplain areas may take years to fully recover from compression.Compressible soils are mitigated by existing road access at Links T1.4 and T2.1. No access currently exists at Links T3.2 and T5.2 Several options to mitigate impacts are under consideration.The planned use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles and special equipment such as temporary steel matting to cross compressible areas will reduce installation and maintenance impacts on compressible soils in these areas.Tracked and low ground pressure vehicles are designed to evenly distribute the weight of the vehicle and their use significantly reduces soil compression and compaction.Steel matting is temporary and is used to distribute the weight of a pickup truck or other standard-tired vehicle.Season-specific installation also is a possibility.A hard,deep freeze is typical in the south-central Alaska region.Vehicle access is improved in the winter when the ground is hard.Frozen soil is much less likely to be damaged by compaction.Mitigation to include season-specific construction that schedules installation activities on this route to take place after the ground is frozen would further reduce the impact on compressible soils. Hydrologic resources are impacted by stream crossings at Bishop Creek,Swanson River,Scaup Creek,Otter Creek,Seven Egg Creek,and Millers Creek.Several of these crossings occur at streams that support anadromous fish (annual salmon returns).The nature of the channel of streams with anadromous fish,the pool/riffle ratio,as well as bed material size and distribution, are extremely important.Each of these is directly influenced by discharge.Construction activities in close proximity to any stream may impact the natural flow of the channel,both in terms of discharge and channel morphology.Spills of petroleum products,solvents,or other construction- related materials near the stream may adversely impact water chemistry.Removal of protective Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-22 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences July 1999 bank vegetation may result in bank slough.Although transmission line installation activities could affect the course and discharge of creeks and streams in the short term,mitigation including the planned spanning of all perennial rivers,streams,and creeks would significantly reduce hydrologic impacts.While construction and installation activities will place foundations and structures at a distance from sensitive banks and riparian areas,vehicle crossings during the construction phase are anticipated on all streams and creeks on this route with the exception of the Swanson River. Vehicle crossings are potential sources of significant impactson streams and creeks.Mitigation with temporary bridging may be used to reduce impacts from vehicle crossings on all perennial streams and creeks.Season-specific installation would schedule construction activities during the winter months when frozen waterways may be crossed via an ice bridge.Ice bridging is cost- effective and reduces impacts associated with vehicle crossings to very low levels.Ice bridging also protects the resource by increasing the likelihood that a petroleum or other spill will be cleaned up before it enters the waterway.Spring or summer construction would involve temporary manmade bridging.Manmade bridge sections also may be used as ramping during winter construction if vehicle access to the ice bridge is restricted by bank height. Compressible soils often are associated with flood zones and riparian areas.Season-specific construction places vehicles on compressible soils only after the soils are frozen hard.The planned use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles in these areas also will minimize soil disturbance and entrainment as well as reduce the possibility of soil compaction.Suspending the transmission line beneath the existing North Kenai Road bridge that crosses the Swanson River, or boring under the river,will virtually eliminate impacts on that hydrologic resource.The short- term nature of expected construction-related disturbances combined with planned mitigation activities would result in negligible to non-significant impacts on streams and associated hydrologic resources crossed along this route. Impacts on the Marine Environment in Turnagain Arm (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) Impacts-Submarine cable installation by trench with selective material backfill is planned on all tidal mudflats with 0.2 km (0.1 mile)at Pt.Campbell.Trenching of tidal mudflats is the main impact on geologic resources on this route.Tidal mudflats are composed of extremely fine, saturated glacial silt.Hydrologic properties such as transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity are an important part of the tidal mudflats'hydrologic equilibrium and thus their stability.Selective material backfill of trenches dug in the tidal mudflats is planned due to expected liquefaction of the saturated excavated material during trenching. The hydrologic properties of the selective backfill will be different than those of the glacial silt. Placement of the backfilled material will alter the hydrologic structure of the tidal mudflats in the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-23 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 area of the trench.If the hydraulic conductivity in the trench is higher than in the surrounding flats,water may move faster through the trench area than it does through the surrounding area.A preferential flow pathway that bisects the tidal flats may be the result.Tidal action will scour the trench and may degrade the integrity of the backfill.The nature of the impact is difficult to predict and depends on the backfill,placement,compaction,and overburden.If after site-specific soil investigations these issues are confirmed,then mitigation would involve horizontal directional drilling to avoid the impacts of trenching. In the event of a submarine cable break,insulating fluid (described in Chapter 2,Section 2.6)is not likely to impact the marine environment.The amount discharged would be small;its concentration would be low;it has no hazardous components;and it has not been found toxic to marine organisms. Routine checks of the insulating fluid system of submarine cables will be made.In the event of a cable break,the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation will be notified and cables will be de-energized to minimize the fluid pressure and discharge rates.Cables will be repaired/replaced in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts and fluid loss. With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non- significant to potentially significant. Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,M2.3/Route Option FE) Impacts-The use of selective backfill in the trenching of tidal mudflats within 1/10 mile of Fire Island,and within 1/10 mile of Pt.Campbell results in potentially significant geologic impacts on this route.As previously discussed,the use of selective backfill within the trench will alter hydrologic properties in those areas of the tidal flats affected by trenching.Cased boring of the bluffs on Pt.Possession,on the southwest end of Fire Island,and at Pt.Campbell would mitigate the impact on the structural integrity of those bluffs to a low level.Impact to resources on Fire Island is otherwise non-significant.Compressible soils are not present,nor are any stream crossings anticipated on the island.The impacts of and mitigation for submarine cable breaks are the same as described for Route Option D.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,74.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) This route would cross 8.1 km (5.0 miles)of 100-year floodplain. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-24 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences July 1999 'Impacts-The use of selective backfill in the trenching of tidal mudflats within 0.2 km (0.1 mile) of Fire Island,and within 1/10 mile of Pt.Woronzof results in potentially significant geologic impacts on those sections of this route.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof (Link M2.4/Route Option G) Impacts-Shore-tail tidal mudflat trenching with selective backfill within 1/10 mile of Pt. Woronzof represents the main impact on geologic resources along this route.Impact magnitude is similar to other routes landing at Pt.Woronzof.The impacts of and mitigation for submarine cable breaks are the same as described for Route Option D.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) Impacts-Impacts on tidal mudflats at the Klatt Road shore-tail are avoided by a horizontal directional drilling (HDD)program planned for the near-shore region of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR).All planned shore-tail activities at Klatt Road within the refuge will be directional drilled.HDD involves the drilling of a parabola-shaped,cased boring from shore to an area up to 914.4 meters (3,000 feet)out into the waterway.The cable is routed through the casing.The depth of the boring is such that impact on the tidal mudflats is essentially eliminated. A detailed explanation of the HDD program is provided in Chapter 2.The impacts of and mitigation for submarine cable breaks are the same as described for Route Option D.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Impacts on Geologic and Water Resources in the Anchorage Bow](Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) This proposed route would cross one stream. Impacts-This route follows the coast and goes along the top of,but at a distance from a steep bluff.Approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of roadless area would be crossed during installation.The crossing of the roadless area represents an impact on geologic resources.A potentially significant impact could be expected from these activities over those sections of the route affected by the new access.Selective mitigation includes routing the new access to reduce scarring of the landscape.Impacts on resources along the route due to the new access will be reduced to negligible or non-significant due to planned and selective mitigation measures. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-25 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Hydrologic resources will be impacted by a crossing at Fish Creek.The cable is underground over this entire route,and a boring would be drilled beneath Fish Creek.Drilling activities will occur at a distance from the waterway and sensitive riparian areas.Vehicle crossings,however, are anticipated at Fish Creek.Temporary manmade or ice bridging could be used to mitigate vehicle-related impacts.Short-term impacts,especially with regard to sedimentation,may result from construction activities.Due to a lack of compressible soils in the area,it is anticipated that even short-term impacts will be minimal.Impacts on hydrologic resources as a result of transmission line construction and maintenance are considered negligible to non-significant on Fish Creek due to planned mitigation and the short-term nature of construction activities.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route options-While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4,15.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route options-While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,I5.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route options-While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route options. Cumulative Impacts-No cumulative impacts were identified for geology or water resources for the Tesoro route. Enstar Route Options Impacts on Geologic and Water Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldotna Alternative (Links S1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) This route would cross 1.8 km (1.1 miles)of 100-year floodplain,6 streams,and 12.4 km (7.7 miles)with compressible materials. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-26 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impacts-Impacts on compressible soils are the main impact on geologic resources,especially on the first 14.5 km (9 miles)of this route.The routing of Link $1.1 parallels Soldotna Creek and exposes almost a mile of channel and riparian area to potential impact.Impact to compressible soils and the creek along Link $1.1,however,would be mitigated by the use of an existing gravel road and utility corridor.Access to tower locations can be made directly from the road with limited disturbance of the riparian area.The existing gravel road access continues through Link $1.2,where it becomes a four-wheel drive road for the length of Links $1.3 and E1.1,the remainder of the route. Two major river crossings,at Soldotna Creek and Moose River,are made by this route.Soldotna Creek is crossed three times.Both Moose River and Soldotna Creek have anadromous fish runs. As previously discussed,construction activities in close proximity to any stream may impact the natural flow of the channel,both in terms of discharge and channel morphology.A short-term increase in sediment load is possible within these waters due to construction activities.Accidents or spills associated with vehicle usage in the area could affect receiving water quality.Removal of protective bank vegetation may result in bank slough.Streams with anadromous fish are particularly sensitive to impacts that may disrupt the conditions needed for a successful salmon return. As is the case at other anadromous fish stream crossings,impacts on hydrologic resources as a result of transmission line construction and maintenance are considered negligible to non- significant on these creeks due to mitigation that includes the planned spanning of all perennial rivers,streams,and creeks,and the short-term nature of construction activities.Vehicle crossings during construction and installation activities are not anticipated at the southern crossing of Soldotna Creek.The creek is bridged adjacent to the crossing and opposing bank access is available.Vehicle crossings are more likely on the northern crossing of Soldotna Creek.This waterway is suitable for crossing in a vehicle without the use of a bridge.Widths and depths of the Moose River preclude vehicle crossings.The floodplains of Soldotna Creek are very wide at the crossings.Mitigation of impacts at Soldotna Creek will be accomplished with the use of temporary bridging,either ice or manmade.Season-specific construction scheduling would ensure that the area affected by the crossing is frozen hard and less susceptible to impacts from vehicles.Manmade bridging would be more difficult and time-consuming to use in the wet terrain,but would also accomplish the desired level of mitigation.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Southern Soldotna Alternative (Links S2.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) This proposed route would cross 0.6 km (0.4 mile)of 100-year floodplain,three streams,and 7.6 km (4.7 miles)with compressible materials subject to settlement. Impacts-Major river crossings represent the major potential impact on resources on this route. The Kenai River,a river with anadromous fish,is crossed twice.Funny River,which does not Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-27 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 support salmon returns,is also crossed.As is the case at other stream crossings,impacts on hydrologic resources as a result of transmission line construction and maintenance are considered negligible to non-significant on these creeks due to mitigation that includes the planned spanning of all perennial rivers,streams,and creeks,along with the short-term nature of construction activities.Both Kenai River crossings are in sections of the river where the width and depth of the river preclude vehicle crossings.The width of Funny River would accommodate a manmade temporary bridge in the summer.Ice bridging could be used to remediate vehicle crossing impacts in the winter.This option would result in negligible to non-significant impacts on the waterway.With adherence to proposed selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) This portion of the route would cross 0.6 km (0.4 mile)of 100-year floodplain,19 streams,and 7.6 km (4.7 miles)with compressible materials subject to settlement. Impacts-Hydrologic resources of Link E1.3 will be affected at Milepost 2.8 (East Fork Moose River),Milepost 13.9 (Mystery Creek),Mileposts 17.2 and 21.2 (Middle and North Fork of the Chickaloon River)and Milepost 33.1 (Big Indian Creek);resources of Link E2.1 will be affected at Milepost 36.6 (Little Indian Creek).All are important waters for anadromous fish and are within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR).A high probability exists that multiple crossings will also be necessary at streams or creeks that are unmapped and unnamed. Mitigation that includes the planned spanning of all perennial rivers,streams,and creeks will significantly reduce hydrologic impacts.Construction and installation activities will place structures at a distance from sensitive banks and riparian areas.While construction and installation activities will place foundations and structures at a distance from sensitive banks and riparian areas,vehicle crossings during the construction phase are anticipated on all streams and creeks on this route.Vehicle crossings are potential sources of significant impact on streams and creeks.As a result,temporary bridging would be used to mitigate impacts from vehicle crossings on all perennial streams and creeks.Mitigation such as season-specific installation would schedule construction activities during the winter months when frozen rivers,streams,and creeks may be crossed via ice bridges.Ice bridging is cost-effective and reduces impacts associated with vehicle crossings to very low levels.Ice bridging also protects the resource by increasing the likelihood that a petroleum or other spill will be cleaned up before it enters the waterway.Spring or summer construction would utilize temporary manmade bridging.Manmade bridge sections also may be used as ramping during winter construction if vehicle access to the ice bridge is restricted by bank height. Compressible soils are often associated with flood zones and riparian areas.Season-specific construction places vehicles on compressible soils only after the soils are frozen hard.The planned use of tracked and low ground pressure vehicles in these areas will also minimize soil Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-28 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 disturbance and entrainment as well as reduce the possibility of soil compaction.The short-term nature of expected construction-related disturbances combined with planned mitigation activities result in negligible to non-significant impacts on streams and associated hydrologic resources that must be crossed along this route.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Impacts on the Marine Environment in Turnagain Arm (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I) Impacts-Submarine cables will be installed by trenching techniques at Chickaloon tidal mudflats on this route adjacent to existing pipelines.Horizontal directional drilling is an option for cable installation through marsh land.Impact concerns would be the same as for Route Option D.The shore-tail at Klatt Road falls within the boundaries of the ACWR and impacts on the tidal mudflats will be mitigated to a negligible level by horizontal directional drilling.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J) Impacts-Submarine cables will be installed by trenching techniques at the Chickaloon tidal mudflats on this route.This portion of the route crosses the Turnagain Arm,although the Chickaloon tidal mudflats are with the KNWR.Impact concerns would be the same as those described for Route Option D.The shore-tail at Oceanview Bluff Park is located within the boundaries of the ACWR and impacts on the tidal mudflats will be mitigated by directional drilling to a negligible level.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K) Impacts-Submarine cables will be installed by trenching techniques at the Chickaloon tidal mudflats on this route.This portion of the route crosses the Turnagain Arm,although the Chickaloon tidal mudflats are with the KNWR.Impact concerns would be the same as for Route Option D.The shore-tail at Rabbit Creek is located within the boundaries of the ACWR and impacts on the tidal mudflats up to the route's intersection with an existing Enstar pipeline and railroad right-of-way may be mitigated by directional drilling to a negligible level.With adherence to generic and selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non- significant. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-29 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) This proposed route would cross 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of 100-year floodplain. Impacts-Submarine cables will be installed by trenching techniques at the Chickaloon tidal mudflats and within 1/10 mile of Pt.Campbell.This portion of the route crosses the Turnagain Arm,although the Chickaloon tidal mudflats are with the KNWR.This results in non-significant to negligible impact over those distances on this route.Impact concerns would be the same as for Route Option D.Cased boring of the bluffs on Pt.Campbell would improve the structural integrity of those bluffs and would mitigate the impact to a low level.With adherence to selective mitigation,measures the overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Impacts on Geologic and Water Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro route options-While Route Option M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar route or the Tesoro route,it is described as part of the Tesoro route options. Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road Alternatives (Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V,Z) This proposed alternative would cross 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of 100-year floodplain and one stream. Impacts-Compressible soils and the main fork of Campbell Creek are the main resource concerns along portions of the route options that are composed of Links I4.2,14.3,14.4,and I5.5. These links will be constructed along the right-of-way.Off-road construction activities within the transmission line right-of-way in areas of compressible soils will be conducted using tracked and other special vehicles.Due to planned mitigation,impacts on compressible soils along these links will be negligible. Campbell Creek,a stream with anadromous fish,crosses the route at km 1.8 (mile 1.1)of Link 15.5.As previously discussed,construction activities in close proximity to any stream may impact the natural flow of the channel,both in terms of discharge and channel morphology.A short-term increase in sediment load is possible within these waters due to construction activities. Accidents or spills associated with vehicle usage in the area could affect the water quality of receiving waters.Removal of protective bank vegetation may result in bank slough.As is the case at other stream crossings with anadromous fish,impacts on hydrologic resources as a result of transmission line construction and maintenance are considered negligible to non-significant on this creek due to mitigation that includes the planned spanning of all perennial rivers,streams, and creeks,and the short-term nature of construction activities.Vehicle crossing of Campbell Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-30 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Creek is not anticipated on this route as opposing bank access is available.The overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Alaska Railroad Alternatives (Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y,Z) This proposed alternative would cross two streams. Impacts-The confluence of the north,south,and main forks of Campbell Creek are the main resource concern along the portions of the above route options that are composed of Links 12.5, 12.6,12.8,15.8,15.9,and 16.3.The confluence of these forks occurs at approximately km 1.3 (mile 0.8)of Link 15.9.This section,which is almost 0.3 km (0.2 mile)in length,includes significant channel and bank lengths,riparian areas,and flood zones.A portion of the South Fork is paralleled upstream from the confluence by Link I5.9.As previously discussed,the main fork of Campbell Creek is an anadromous waterway.The likelihood of impacts on the hydrology of Campbell Creek in this area could be potentially significant.However,existing access is provided by a gravel railroad bed that bridges the confluence.The use of the railroad right-of- way will mitigate impact on the Campbell Creek confluence area.Use of the right-of-way will eliminate the need for new crossings of the creek and simplify transmission line installation across the confluence area.Short-term impacts,such as increases in sediment load,may be possible,but long-term impacts on the stability of the hydrologic system will be negligible.The overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Old Seward Highway/International Airport Road (Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) This proposed alternative would cross 1.0 km (0.6 mile)of 100-year floodplain,and five streams. Impacts-Mudflats at the shore landing,specifically Link 12.4,are a concern along the portions of the above route options that are composed of Links 12.4,I2.7,12.8,15.3,15.6,15.9,I5S.7,and 16.1.The shore-tail portion,as well as the initial 0.5 km (0.3 mile)of Link 12.4 parallels the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the mudflats.The right-of-way is outside the boundaries of the ACWR.Submarine cable will be trenched,and will result in potentially significant impact levels. Rabbit Creek will be bored to reduce impacts to low levels over a distance of approximately 0.3 km (0.2 mile).Installation will continue by trench north of Rabbit Creek to the transition facility location.. Link I5.7 crosses the North and South forks of Campbell Creek just upstream from their confluence.Access will be via an existing paved roadway.As previously discussed,potentially high impacts to the hydrologic system of Campbell Creek are mitigated to a negligible level through the use of the existing roadway.The overall environmental impact would be non- significant. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-31 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) This proposed route would cross 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of 100-year floodplain,and one stream. Impacts-Compressible soils are present over the entire route.Underground installation of the cable will occur at Links M3.2 and I3.1.Both links have existing access,but trenching will occur in the undisturbed soils parallel with the roadway.Use of the road will minimize construction impact on the soils,but will not eliminate it.The use of tracked and other special equipment in areas of compressible soils would mitigate potential impact on the soil surface.Impacts associated with the trench itself are also possible.Selective backfill will be used to bed the cable within the trench.Compressible soils are often at or near saturation and have unique hydrologic properties.The use of selective backfill could affect the hydrologic behavior of the soils in the same way it might affect the hydrologic behavior of the mudflats.The role that the saturated soil plays in the area's overall hydrologic profile must be considered.For example,during construction of Klatt Road in that area,a subsurface dam was constructed parallel to the road to protect the boggy area north of the road from subsurface moisture loss.Probable surface disturbances and possible subsurface impacts result in an overall potentially significant impact along Links M3.2 and I3.1. The remainder of the route,Link I3.2,is scheduled for overhead installation through a section with no existing access.The construction of the access road represents an impact on geologic resources.Vegetation removal decreases biomass and root systems,lessening the soil stability. Excavation and overburden removal destroy soil structure by exposing subsoils to weathering.A potentially significant level of impact could be expected from these activities over those sections of the route affected by new road construction.With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non-significant to potentially significant. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,3.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) This proposed route would cross 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of 100-year floodplain,and one stream. Impacts-This route is similar to Route Option N in that they both include Links M3.2 and I 3.1. The impacts discussed above for those links are similar on this route as well.Impacts associated with new access road construction are found over 0.06 km (0.04 mile)of Link 13.3.Selective mitigation would result in non-significant to potentially significant impacts as a result of road construction.The remainder of the route is sited over compressible soils with existing access. With adherence to selective mitigation,the overall environmental impact would be non- significant. Southem Intertie Project EVAL 4-32 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) Impacts-Links M3.2,13.1,and 13.3 are included on this route.Impacts discussed for those links are similar on this route.The remainder of this route,Link 14.3,includes 0.3 km (0.2 mile)of compressible soils.Impacts will be mitigated by existing access.Impacts over the remainder of the link are negligible.The overall environmental impact would be non-significant. Cumulative Impacts-No cumulative impacts were identified for the Enstar route options. Transition Facility Sites and Substation Options Impacts at all transition facility sites and substation alternatives on the Tesoro and Enstar routes would be non-significant. Impacts at Dave's Creek Substation would be non-significant. Summary of Impacts Kenai Lowlands Region Route Option A is preferred over the Route Options B and C primarily because fewer streams and rivers are crossed.The Enstar options would require more mitigation to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts. Turnagain Arm Region In the Turnagain Arm region,the Enstar route options are preferred over the Tesoro route options.The Enstar Route options cross areas with fewer hazards and limited adverse impacts on earth resources.) Anchorage Bowl Region The route options that start from Rabbit Creek are preferred since the proposed Project would include boring under Rabbit Creek.There are several boggy areas.These areas will require more mitigation. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-33 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 4.3.3 WATERSHED IMPACTS SUMMARY This section summarizes potential impacts on watersheds on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage Bowl.Some watersheds are at least partially located within the KNWR,of which has part of its purpose the protection of water quality and quantity.Rivers and streams within the study area are generally of low gradient and meandering.Higher gradient streams tend to be tributaries of the larger river systems and are associated with the western portions of the Kenai and Chugach mountains.The Kenai River,the largest riverine system in the study area,is the only glacial stream likely to be affected by the proposed Project.All other streams are nonglacial,fed by snowmelt,rainfall,and groundwater upwellings. Potential impacts on watersheds associated with construction,operation,and maintenance of the Project include increased erosion,loss of thermal cover along streams,alteration of the function of anadromous fish streams,and possible spills of fuels,lubricants,or other liquid contaminants during construction and/or maintenance activities.The potential impacts on watersheds associated with vegetation removal for right-of-way clearing and maintenance are discussed under the sections addressing impacts on native vegetation.Any long-term residual impact would be considered cumulative to the watersheds,based on other background disturbances in the region. Tesoro Route Options Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession Six streams are crossed by the Tesoro alternative between the Bernice Lake Substation and Pt. Possession.Potential impacts on watersheds and the streams themselves include the following: ®Bishop Creek Watershed -Bishop Creek drains an area of approximately 87.8 square km (33.9 square miles),supports a limited anadromous fish run,and is low gradient stream with known discharges between 0.1 and 4.3 cubic meters per second (cms)(5 and 150 cubic feet per second [cfs]).In addition to vegetation removal within the watershed,there is potential for impairing the function of Bishop Creek as an anadromous fish stream by increasing erosion potential,and removal of thermal cover required by salmon fry. Increased erosion potential could affect the viability of salmon or other anadromus fish spawn. Winter construction and maintenance could help alleviate potential erosion problems. Allowing development of low shrub and/or herbaceous cover within the project right-of- way could function to reduce erosion potential.Spanning,rather than removing all Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-34 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences July 1999 vegetation within about 15.2 meters (50 feet)of stream banks,would ensure minimal loss of thermal cover for the stream. Residual impacts or this watershed are likely to be non-significant if spanning of Bishop Creek is accompanied by winter construction and maintenance,and permitting the growth of shrubby and herbaceous plants in the right-of-way. =Swanson River Watershed -The Swanson River drains an area of approximately 717.4 square km (277 square miles)and has an average gradient of 0.8 meter per km (4 feet per mile).The Swanson River is the largest river in this portion of the Kenai Peninsula and supports significant runs of sockeye,coho,and pink salmon.Vegetation clearing and subsequent maintenance activities have the potential to impair the anadromous fish function of the Swanson River. Winter construction and maintenance,spanning vegetation within 15.2 meters (50 feet)of the banks of the stream,and allowing recovery of low-growing vegetation within the cleared right-of-way would likely avoid significant impairment of the stream and result in non-significant residual impacts on the Swanson River Watershed. =Scaup,Otter,Seven Egg,and Miller Creeks -This group of small streams drain watersheds of 49,52,109,and 29 square km (19,20,42,and 11 square miles), respectively.Gradients for these streams are 7,4,3,and 5 meters per km (37,20,15,and 26 feet per mile),respectively.This group of streams may support minor anadromous fish runs though none of them were included in anadromous fish data provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.All of these streams are higher gradient waterways than the Swanson River although the higher average gradients are primarily a function of their much shorter lengths. Watershed erosion potential seems to be the most important possible adverse impact that is likely associated with right-of-way clearing and maintenance for this group of streams. Retaining a vegetation buffer along the banks of these streams,winter construction,and allowing low-growing vegetation persistence in the cleared right-of-way would likely result in non-significant residual impacts for these small watersheds. Cumulative Impacts-No cumulative impacts were identified for watersheds of the Kenai Lowlands crossed by the Tesoro route options. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-35 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Enstar Route Options Northern Soldotna (Route Option B North) ™Moose River Watershed -This is the largest tributary of the Kenai River,draining a watershed of approximately 647.5 square km (250 square miles),within the KNWR.The Moose River is a low gradient stream with an average gradient of 1 meter per km (5 feet per mile).It originates in the Kenai Lowlands and receives water from tributaries that originate in the Kenai Mountains including the East Fork,Seven Lakes,and three unnamed streams each of which are crossed by the Enstar alternative.The Moose River and its tributaries support fairly substantial runs of sockeye and coho salmon with lesser presence of chinook and pink salmon. Impacts on the Moose River watershed are more likely to be significant along higher gradient tributaries that have their headwaters in the Mystery Hills of the Kenai Mountains,such as the East Fork of the Moose River.Erosion potential is greater on upland sites compared with lowland sites.Right-of-way clearing and maintenance in hilly or undulating terrain poses a greater threat of eroded materials entering downslope streams.Such materials can interfere with the anadromous fish function of streams by interfering with or preventing the normal development of fertilized salmon eggs. Winter construction,leaving and spanning streamside vegetation,and allowing recovery of low-growing right-of-way vegetation can facilitate a reduction in erosion potential and preserve streamside thermal cover that is important to developing salmon eggs and fry. Residual impacts on the Moose River watershed are likely to be non-significant if these mitigation recommendations are applied.Long-term,aggressive maintenance of the right- of-way on hills or slopes adjacent to streams could result in an elevated level of long-term residual impact. Southern Soldotna (Route Option B South) Kenai River The Kenai River receives its discharge waters from the snowfields and glaciers of the Kenai Mountains.The river drains a watershed of 5,206 square km (2,010 square miles)and has peak flows in summertime as a result of intense snowmelt in the mountains. Construction of the proposed Project would not likely have a significant effect on the Kenai River watershed.Winter construction in wet areas adjacent to the river could reduce the potential Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-36 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 for minor introduction of silt and soil into the river as a resulting from erosion associated with construction and maintenance activities.Such introductions are,however,likely to have little effect on the river due to its size and normally turbid condition. Residual impacts on the Kenai River watershed are most likely to be non-significant to indiscernible. Tributaries of the Kenai River than may be affected by the project include Soldotna Creek, Moose River,and Funny River., m™Soldotna Creek Watershed -This small creek drains a series of lakes and wetlands northeast of the city of Soldotna.The creek ultimately drains into the Moose River and may support very minor runs of anadromous fish.There are no streamflow or gradient data for Soldotna Creek.As with other small streams,construction in winter,leaving and spanning a buffer band of vegetation along the creek,and allowing recovery of vegetation in the cleared right-of-way would likely function to result in non-significant residual impacts on the Soldotna Creek watershed. =Funny River Watershed -The Funny River is a non-glacial tributary of the Kenai River that originates in the Kenai Mountains and drains a watershed of approximately 328.9 square km (127 square miles)and is partially in the KNWR.The Funny River is a fairly steep gradient stream with an average gradient of 21.4 meters per km (113 feet per mile). Right-of-way clearing and maintenance in hilly or undulating terrain poses a greater threat of eroded materials entering downslope streams.Such materials can interfere with the anadromous fish function of streams by interfering with or preventing the normal development of fertilized salmon eggs. Winter construction,leaving and spanning streamside vegetation,and allowing recovery of low-growing right-of-way vegetation can facilitate a reduction in erosion potential and preserve streamside thermal cover that is important to developing salmon eggs and fry. Residual impacts on the Funny River watershed are likely to be non-significant if these mitigation recommendations are applied.Long-term,aggressive maintenance of the right- of-way on hills or slopes adjacent to streams could result in an elevated level of long-term residual impact. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Route Option C) A number of streams that drain the northeast Kenai Lowlands and the western Kenai Mountains empty into the Chickaloon River or Chickaloon Bay.The streams involved include the Chickaloon River and six of its tributaries (Mystery Creek and five unnamed creeks),Big and Little Indian creeks,and Burnt Island Creek,all at least partly in the KNWR. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-37 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 ™Chickaloon River Watershed -This is the third largest watershed on the KNWR with a total area of approximately 797.7 square km (308 square miles).Headwaters include marshes and lakes in the eastern Kenai Lowlands and small streams draining the western slopes of the Kenai Mountains.The Chickaloon River has an average gradient of 0.9 meter per km (4.7 feet per mile).However,many of the tributaries draining the Kenai Mountains have much greater gradients,probably up to more than 37.9 meters per km (200 feet per mile). The Chickaloon River and its tributaries function as spawning and rearing habitat for salmon including an estimated 3,000 sockeye,5,000 coho,thousands of pink,and an estimated 100,000 king or chinook salmon annually.The river and its tributaries also host 4,000 to 6,000 Dolly Varden each year. Right-of-way clearing and maintenance in steep or hilly terrain poses a greater threat of eroded materials entering downslope streams.Such materials can interfere with the anadromous fish function of streams by interfering with or preventing the normal development of fertilized salmon eggs. Winter construction,leaving and spanning streamside vegetation,and allowing recovery of low-growing right-of-way vegetation can facilitate a reduction in erosion potential and preserve streamside thermal cover that is important to developing salmon eggs and fry. Residual impacts on the Chickaloon River watershed are likely to be non-significant to potentially significant if these mitigation recommendations are applied.Long-term, aggressive maintenance of the right-of-way on hills or slopes adjacent to streams could result in an elevated level of long-term residual impact. =Big and Little Indian Creek Watersheds -The watershed areas of Big and Little Indian creeks are 150 and 41 square km (58 and 16 square miles),respectively.The stream gradient of Big Indian Creek is 24.8 meters per km (131 feet per mile),compared with 65.5 meters per km (346 feet per mile)for Little Indian Creek.Both creeks support small runs of chinook salmon. The areas drained by these two creeks are quite steep and heavily forested resulting in a probable potentially significant to significant erosion potential from right-of-way clearing.Winter construction would help alleviate some of the potential,but because of the steepness of the terrain and removal of overstory vegetation throughout the proposed right-of-way,significant erosion potential will probably persist following construction. Aggressive maintenance of the right-of-way could possibly lead to a potentially significant to significant long-term residual impact relative to erosion. Potential impacts can be reduced further by leaving at least a 15.2-meter (50-foot)band of vegetation along both banks of both creeks and spanning the streams and their associated Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-38 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 vegetation bands.Also,allowing herbaceous and shrubby vegetation to persist on the right-of-way is likely to help reduce erosion potential. Overall long-term residual impact on these two watersheds is probably best rated as potentially significant. =Burnt Island Creek Watershed -This is a small watershed adjacent to Little Indian Creek. Burnt Island Creek is not a designated anadromous fish stream and there are no hydrologic data available for it. Impacts on this watershed resulting from construction and maintenance of the Southern Intertie Project are probably potentially significant to significant because of the small size of the watershed and because it is located in steep,heavily forested terrain. The same mitigation efforts suggested for Big and Little Indian Creeks would help reduce impacts on this watershed,but a potentially significant residual impact is likely. Anchorage Bowl Campbell and Furrow Creeks are the two creeks in the Anchorage Bowl likely to crossed by route options of the Southern Intertie Project. =Campbell Creek Watershed -Campbell Creek drains hillsides and upper slopes of the Chugach Mountains.The 191.7-square km (74-square mile)watershed is forested at lower elevations and is characterized by tundra at elevations above 457.2 meters (1,500 feet).Upper elevation stream gradients are steep,about 49.2 meters per km (260 feet per mile),while lower elevation gradients are approximately 30.3 meters per km (160 feet per mile).Campbell Creek does support a small run of anadromous fish. Given the relatively urban nature of alternative crossings of Campbell Creek and the fact that little to no right-of-way clearing will be associated with construction within the Municipality of Anchorage,spanning rather than removing vegetation along the creek should result in non-significant residual impacts. Cumulative Impacts-No cumulative impacts were identified for watersheds in the Anchorage area crossed by alternative routes. Cumulative Impacts-No cumulative impacts were identified for watersheds of the Kenai Lowlands crossed by the Enstar route options. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-39 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 44 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES In order to assess the environmental consequences of the Applicant's Proposal,an evaluation of potential impacts on vegetation and wildlife resources was conducted.The ultimate goals of the analysis were to identify impact types,duration,and significance;and possible mitigation scenarios that could be applied to reduce impacts to a more acceptable level.The analysis was conducted on a link-by-link basis,to eventually allow comparisons of impacts on individual links,route segments,and complete routes between the Kenai Peninsula and the Municipality ofAnchorage. The following sections describe the methods utilized in the assessment,the rationale for the methods employed,and a general analysis of impacts. 4.4.1 ISSUE IDENTIFICATION Biological resources of particular concern were identified as a result of meetings with land and wildlife management agency personnel,reviews of pertinent regional literature,and comments received from the public and special interest groups.In addition to identifying species and habitats of concern,specific issues associated with those resources were defined.Concerns and issues associated with wildlife species and habitats in general were also identified. Wildlife of concern included the following: ™anadromous fish m black bear #waterfowl m™brown bear ™trumpeter swan =beluga whale =bald eagle ™moose B®wolf =caribou m Canada lynx In addition to this group of high profile biological resources,concern also was expressed for neotropical migratory birds,waterbirds in general,raptors,small mammals,and marine mammals.The value of specific vegetation and aquatic communities as habitat for wildlife in general also was described. Issues associated with potential impacts on biological resources of the project area include the following: =Loss of habitat due to right-of-way clearing Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-40 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 -direct resource loss,including nesting and foraging habitat for forest nesting birds, loss of important forage species (e.g.,devils club)for brown and black bears,and loss of vertical cover important to a number of species -fragmentation of habitat on a local level,as well as contributing to habitat fragmentation on the Kenai Peninsula in general -creation of additional forest edge effect -creation of barriers to wildlife movement =Creation of improved public access into areas that are presently difficult to reach -increased harvest of large mammals and other high profile species -increased potential for encounters between humans and brown bears,resulting in disturbance to bears and/or increased bear mortality through defense of life and property -increased potential for intentional and unintentional disturbance of all classes of wildlife via winter snow machine use =Creation of wildlife hazards not currently present in the environment -potential collision hazard created by the presence of overhead transmission lines that could affect ducks,geese,trumpeter swans,bald eagles,and other birds =Creation of obstacles to wildlife management goals and objectives -presence of a wood pole electrical transmission line that could compromise moose management objectives by precluding prescription burns in some areas 4.4.22 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS Impact Types Three general categories of impacts were identified-direct,indirect,and cumulative.Direct impacts are caused by the action (i.e.,construction)and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by the action,but later in time or farther removed,which are reasonably foreseeable.Indirect impacts could include growth inducing effects,changes in land use,or increased contact between humans and wildlife.Cumulative impacts are impacts that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,present,and Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-4]Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 reasonably foreseeable future actions.Impacts also are described as either short-term or long- term impacts.Short-term impacts are those that may occur during construction of the transmission line and related facilities.Long-term impacts are those that could occur as a result of maintenance activities and the presence of the transmission line and associated facilities. Identification of Impacts The first step in the impact analysis was to identify potential impacts related to Project construction,maintenance,and facilities,for each resource of concern.The impact analysis was conducted at a general and a site-specific level.Impacts on vegetation,aquatic communities,and wildlife are addressed through general discussions in Section 4.4.3.Site-specific analyses involved assessing impacts on selected resources for which there was sufficient site-specific data to map the resources along the alternative routes.Selected resources include all vegetation and aquatic communities present along the alternative routes,as well as some important habitats for wildlife of concern,such as seasonal feeding,staging,or concentration areas;and nesting or _spawning areas. . Impact Significance Determination of significance is an essential and integral part of assessing impacts on biological resources for the Project.Impact significance is dependent on the sensitivity of a resource to project-related impacts and the context of those impacts.Sensitivity of vegetation and wildlife resources can be described based on the following criteria: =Legal status or protection of the resource or associated species -Species that are legally protected include those that are listed as threatened,endangered,candidates,or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended;those that are listed by the State of Alaska as Endangered or Species of Special Concern;and those protected by other legislation,such as the Bald Eagle Protection Act,Migratory Bird Treaty Act,and Marine Mammal Protection Act.Community types that are legally protected include wetlands and waters of the United States as directed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. =Susceptibility to the kinds of impacts associated with the Project -Highly susceptible resources are those for which project-related impacts could result in disturbance,injury, death,or decreased productivity.Resources with low susceptibility are not expected to be disturbed or otherwise harmed by Project-related impacts. =Value and quality as wildlife habitat -Resources are considered of high value if they are characterized by high species richness and/or provide critical resources for species of Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-42 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 concern.Resources of low habitat value support relatively few species,none of which are particularly sensitive. m Availability of resource within the Project study area -Resources are highly available if they are widespread within the Project study area.Conversely,resources were considered to be of low availability if they are of limited distribution in the Project study area. For example,brown bear summer feeding areas are not legally protected as defined above.They could be highly susceptible to project-related impacts,such as disturbance during construction and increased human/bear interaction resulting from improved access over the long-term.Brown bear summer feeding areas include all anadromous fish streams within the Project study area; however,the quality of these streams as brown bear summer feeding habitat could depend on anadromous fish numbers,levels of human disturbance,and accessibility to fish.Anadromous fish streams that provide good quality summer feeding habitat for brown bears are of relatively low availability within the Project study area.Based on the criteria outlined above,these resources are,therefore,considered sensitive to project-related impacts. Impact significance is evaluated within three levels of context -local,regional,and national.The local context for this Project is defined as the immediate vicinity of the alternative routes.The regional context depends on resource distribution and interactions.For example,the regional context for evaluation of impact significance on brown bear resources would be the Kenai Peninsula,because the population of brown bears on the Peninsula are believed to experience little,if any,immigration from or emigration to other brown bear populations.A national context considers resource status at the national level,and federal mandates for resource protection.For example,wildlife within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR)are considered a national resource due to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)mandate to protect wildlife. Adverse impacts on wildlife within the KNWR are considered nationally significant. Impacts on a resource could be significant on a local scale,but insignificant on a regional scale if the resource is widely distributed on a regional basis.Likewise,an impact on a resource that is significant at a regional level could not be significant at a national level if regional impacts do not adversely affect the status of the resource nationally,or interfere with federal protection mandates.For example,increased access as a result of the Project could have a significant impact on brown bears at a local level due to potential increase for human/bear interactions in the vicinity of the alternative routes.Such impacts could be regionally significant if they have an adverse effect on brown bears at the population level on the Kenai Peninsula.Adverse impacts on the Kenai Peninsula population of brown bears would not likely affect brown bears at a national level;however,adverse impacts on the species that take place within the KNWR would be nationally significant due to the federal mandate to protect wildlife. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-43 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Mitigation of Impacts In order to reduce impacts to a more acceptable level,generic and selectively committed mitigation measures were developed.Generic mitigation measures are those to which Chugach Electric Association (CEA)agrees to adhere throughout the Project.An example would be an agreement to not place construction staging areas in riparian,wetland,or saltmarsh habitats. Another would be an agreement to ensure that equipment fuels,lubricants,and hazardous substances do not have any possibility of entering waterways in any significant quantity by containing and removing them from construction sites.Selective mitigation measures are those that CEA would commit to on a case-by-case basis following impact identification and assessment. Specific,selective mitigation measures from the full list that are recommended to reduce impacts on biological resources are presented below.A complete list of selective mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 2. =Measure 1 -In areas where soils and vegetation are particularly sensitive to disturbance, existing access roads will not be widened or otherwise upgraded for construction and maintenance,except in areas where repairs are necessary to make existing roads passable. =Measure 6 -To minimize the amount of sensitive features disturbed in designated areas, structures and access roads will be placed so as to avoid sensitive features such as,but not limited to,riparian areas,water courses,residential areas,and cultural sites;and/or to allow conductors to clearly span the features,within limits of standard tower design. Avoidance could be accomplished by spanning sensitive features,shifting the alignment to the opposite side of an existing line,or realigning the route. =Measure 7 -To reduce vegetation clearing and avian collision hazards,as well as visual contrast and/or potential operational conflicts,standard tower design will be modified to correspond with spacing of existing transmission line structures where feasible and within limits of standard tower design.The normal span will be modified to correspond with existing towers,but not necessarily at every location. =Measure 10 With the exception of emergency repair situations,the construction, restoration,maintenance,and termination activities in designated areas (e.g.,buffer zones)will be modified or curtailed during sensitive periods (e.g.,nesting and breeding periods)for sensitive animal species.Sensitive periods and areas of concern would be identified and timing of activities approved in advance of construction or maintenance by the authorized land manager.Winter construction during frozen conditions would be an alternative for avoiding sensitive periods or areas of wildlife concern,soft and wet ground conditions,and stream crossings. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-44 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Measure 12 -To reduce visual contrast or avoid features (such as,but not limited to,land uses,jurisdiction,and biological or cultural resources sites),clearing of the nght-of-way will be minimized or,in limited instances,reduced (within the limits of conductor- clearance requirements and standard tower design). Measure 13 -To.minimize disturbance to vegetation resources and reduce visual contrast,clearing of trees in and adjacent to the right-of-way will be minimized to the extent practicable to satisfy conductor-clearance requirements (National Electric Safety Code).Trees and other vegetation will be removed selectively (e.g.,edge feathering)to blend the edge of the right-of-way into adjacent vegetation patterns,as practicable and appropriate. Measure 14 -Construction near anadromous fish streams will be timed and carried out in a manner that minimizes any potential impacts on anadromous fish or their habitat,as well as subsistence,sport,and commercial fishing activities,including avoidance of construction along anadromous streams during peak salmon run periods. Measure 15 -Horizontal drilling will be used in saltmarshes. Measure 18 -Slash from right-of-way clearing in closed mixed forest and closed spruce forest would be chipped,dispersed,or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion. The application of selectively committed mitigation measures to a particular,site-specific potential impact might not eliminate the impact,but could reduce its severity.For example, avoiding summer construction and maintenance activities in brown bear summer feeding areas (Measure 10)could reduce the severity of impacts on these resources;however,impacts would remain due to the increased potential for human/bear interactions resulting from improved access. Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative effects are an integral part of the biological impact assessment of the Project.The following elements were included in the cumulative impact analysis: geographical area in which the impacts will occur,or the "sphere of influence” other past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have or can be expected to cause impacts in the geographical area regional wildlife mapping of habitat characteristics Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-45 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 m™direct and indirect impacts of the alternative routes 4.43 GENERAL ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS The following discussions describe impacts that could occur on vegetation,aquatic communities, and wildlife resources as a result of the Project,prior to application of selective mitigation measures.Potential conflicts with related resource management plans are included in this general impact analysis.Criteria for significance of impacts for each resource are presented.Possible mitigation scenarios are described for resources that could experience significant impacts. Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Wetland Vegetation The Project could result in impacts on wetland vegetation.Direct impacts could result from removal of vegetation in right-of-way clearing,construction of spur roads,and improving existing access roads or trails.In addition to removal of larger plants along the right-of-way in wetland areas,smaller plants would be crushed by vehicles.Use of rubber-tired and tracked vehicles in wetland areas could result in soil disturbance,rutting,and changes in surface water hydrology.Soil disturbances in some wetland communities also could result in invasion of undesirable herbaceous plant species.Vegetation removal could cause erosion,which is a special concern in and near riverine communities where sedimentation could have negative effects on anadromous fish eggs,fry,and juvenile fish. Of the wetland types that occur within alternative corridors,saltmarsh habitats are considered the most sensitive to disturbance.This habitat type is very important to migrating waterfowl and shorebirds,provides excellent foraging opportunities for black bears in spring,and is very susceptible to disturbance.Trenches cut for submarine cables in this vegetation type would not likely return to preconstruction conditions for many years following construction. Impacts on estuarine mud flats in Turnagain Arm are not considered to be significant due to a lack of vegetation and the natural,highly stressed nature (due to tidal actions)of upper tidal level mud flats. Local impacts could be significant as a result of construction and right-of-way maintenance over the life of the Project.Due to the small amount of wetlands that could be affected in relation to the wide distribution of these communities within the Project study area,impacts would be regionally insignificant.Any adverse impacts on wetlands within the KNWR would be significant at a national level due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats on the KNWR. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-46 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impacts on wetland vegetation could be substantially reduced by winter construction (Measure 10),spanning (Measure 6),not improving existing roads (Measure 1),minimizing clearing of the right-of-way (Measure 12),and selective removal of vegetation within the right-of-way (Measure 13).Horizontal drilling (Measure 15)under the saltmarsh habitats associated with the marine crossings would avoid damage to this wetland community. Upland Vegetation Impacts on upland vegetation types would result from right-of-way clearing,crushing of vegetation by construction vehicles,and post-construction right-of-way maintenance.In general, large woody plants would be excluded within the right-of-way for the life of the Project.Of all vegetation types affected by construction,operation,and maintenance of the Project,the largest volume of vegetation loss would occur within the closed spruce and closed mixed forest types, due to the number and size of individual plants (i.e.,trees)that would be removed.Debris piles of fallen white spruce left within the right-of-way following clearing could encourage spruce bark beetle infestations.Clearing of the right-of-way could also encourage establishment of noxious weeds. Impacts on upland vegetation would not be significant in a regional sense.They could be significant in a local sense due to adverse effects on individual animals,especially in the case of closed tall shrub communities,which provide important resources for wildlife.Any impacts on upland vegetation within the KNWR would be significant at a national level due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats on the KNWR. Impacts on upland vegetation could be reduced by not improving existing roads (Measure 1), minimizing clearing of the right-of-way (Measure 12),and selective removal of vegetation within the right-of-way (Measure 13).Spanning (Measure 6)areas of closed tall shrub would avoid impacts on this community. Anadromous Fish Activities associated with construction of an electrical transmission line in or near anadromous fish streams could potentially result in sedimentation that could bury anadromous fish eggs or impact fry and juvenile fish.Not only are such potential impacts deleterious to anadromous fish themselves,there is also the potential for indirect impact on a forage resource for brown bears and other species (mink,black bear,otter,coyotes,etc.). Anadromous fish streams are protected under state law and are vital to salmon and other anadromous species.They provide an important food source for brown bears as well as bald eagles,otters,black bears,and other scavengers.These streams are also of significant regional economic importance relative to commercial and sport fisheries. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-47 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impacts on these streams would represent a significant and unacceptable impact at a local, regional,and national level.Application of selective mitigation measures will minimize such impacts.Streams will be spanned (Measure 6),construction will occur during the winter months (Measure 10),and existing roads at anadromous fish stream crossings will not be improved (Measure 1).With the exception of an emergency event,such as wildfire,impacts related to ground disturbance during maintenance activities also could be minimized.Overall,construction and maintenance of a transmission line is not expected to conflict with goals and objectives described in the KNWR's Fishery Management Plan (KNWR 1995b). Birds Impacts of the proposed Project on bird populations are related to long-term collision hazards 'with conductors and other structures,construction and maintenance activity disturbance, increased legal and illegal harvest associated with increased human access,and habitat loss resulting from right-of-way clearing.Potential electrocution of birds is not a concern because the distance between conductors would be too large for birds to simultaneously contact more than one conductor,or a conductor and support structure. Some degree of collision hazard will exist for the life of the Project.Although birds could collide with conductors and guy wires,approximately 80 to 93 percent of avian collisions with transmission lines have been shown to involve static lines (Faanes 1987).Static lines are small diameter wires that are placed above the conductors to intercept lightning.The conductors are of much larger diameter and highly visible compared to static lines.It has been suggested that birds in flight see phase wires (conductors),flare upward to avoid them,and collide with the static lines above (Alonso et al.1994;Colson &Associates 1994;Faanes 1987;James and Haak 1979). Although static lines are not part of the Project,fiber optic lines of small diameter are proposed to be attached to the Southern Intertie Project towers in the same location as static lines (i.e., above the conductors). Collisions are especially a concern in areas where birds are moving between foraging and roosting areas or are present in large numbers during staging for migration (Faanes 1987). Collision hazards would be of particular concern for bald eagles in riparian areas where eagles forage along anadromous fish streams.In general,large-bodied birds are more susceptible to collisions (Anderson 1978;Colson &Associates 1994;Faanes 1987).Species that congregate in large flocks are particularly susceptible to collisions with power lines (Colson &Associates 1994).The potential for collisions increases during periods of low light visibility,including early morning and evening hours,and during periods of precipitation,fog,or low ceiling clouds (Bevanger 1994;Colson &Associates 1994).Panic flight in response to disturbance can also result in birds colliding with electrical transmission lines (APLIC 1994).Locally,breeding birds would be expected to habituate to the presence of a transmission line in their territory,and would be more aware of the line compared to transient birds (Meyer 1978).Juvenile birds could be Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-48 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 particularly vulnerable to collisions.Ospreys often nest in tower structures and young ospreys occasionally collide with wires. It is impossible to estimate the numbers of waterfowl,raptors,and other birds that are likely to collide with transmission line structures over any period of time because collision rates depend on site-specific settings and conditions.A collision rate of 0.07 percent (78 collisions in 156,975 crossings)was reported in a study of flight behavior of waterfowl and other birds in relation to -transmission lines (Meyer 1978).Another study of waterfowl collisions reported a very similar rate (Stout and Cornwell 1976).An average collision rate of 0.51 percent (965 collisions in 189,267 crossings)was reported for waterbirds at five study sites in Oregon (James and Haak 1979).Another study in Montana reported that at least 4,100 birds were killed from May 1,1980 to September 29,1981 as a result of collision with a transmission line over a large wetland in Montana.Ducks and grebes accounted for the majority of the mortalities (Malcolm 1982).On the KNWR between January 1989 and October 1998,16 bald eagle mortalities,and injuries to a common loon,an osprey,and one great-horned owl from powerline strikes were documented by the KNWR (unpublished data 1999a).However,all of the injuries and deaths were associated with electrocution,which is not a factor for this Project. Site-specific conditions at each of these study locations make it very difficult to extrapolate results to the Project area on the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area.Weather and visibility have a great influence on the collision rate at a given location.Another factor is whether the birds involved are migrants or are on their breeding grounds.Collisions with transmission lines have not been identified in the literature as a major source of mortality in birds in Alaska. Although large-bodied birds are more susceptible to collision,small passerines are known to collide with wires (APLIC 1994).They are especially susceptible to collision with structures during nocturnal migrations or poor weather conditions (Avery et al.1978).The percentage of passerines among dead birds collected below transmission lines varies greatly between studies. Of the collected dead birds,7 percent (Brown and Drewien 1995)to 55 percent (Pearson 1993) were passerines,with differences likely due to habitat variables and line type.Factors contributing to the lower collision mortality rate of these birds are their tendencies to fly under wires and reduce flight activity during poor weather conditions (Avery et al.1978). Segments of the transmission line on this Project where potential for avian collision is relatively high would be marked to reduce collision mortality.Various wire marking techniques have proven to be effective in reducing bird mortality (Alonso et al.1994;Beaulaurier 1980;Brown and Drewien 1995;Morkill and Anderson 1993)and have been acceptable as a mitigation action for "takings”as defined in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Lewis 1993).Collision hazard is greatest and wires should be marked within approximately 40 meters (131 feet)from the edge of water (Faanes 1987),unless there is forest between the water and the transmission line. Transmission lines would not present a collision hazard to waterfowl where birds would have to fly above forests that lay between water and the line.River crossings are also areas of collision hazard and should be marked. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 4-49 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Construction and right-of-way maintenance activities could result in loss of nests,direct mortality of nestlings in nests,and disruption of nesting activities.Any construction during the nesting season would require an application for a "taking”permit from USFWS in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.The USFWS recommends that construction activities be avoided during the nesting season (March through August)within up to 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of bald eagle nests (USFWS 1993).According to the recommendations,aircraft should be no closer than 305 meters (1,000 feet)from active nests.Helicopters would be used for Project construction and annual maintenance patrol.Construction and maintenance of the Project outside the nesting season would avoid disturbance to all nesting birds (Measure 10). Increased human access associated with the transmission line corridor and access roads could potentially result in increased disturbance and illegal harvesting of birds.Trumpeter swans and bald eagles would be especially vulnerable to human disturbance. Birds also could be affected by habitat loss and modification through right-of-way clearing, maintenance,and trenching in saltmarshes.An aspect of habitat loss that is of particular concern for neotropical migratory and resident birds is habitat fragmentation.Habitat fragmentation involves the reduction of large areas of habitat into smaller and often isolated habitat patches as a result of habitat removal.Smaller habitat patches generally support fewer species because they cannot adequately accommodate species that require large territories or species that specialize in habitat interiors.Increasing edge from habitat fragmentation,or edge effect,in forested habitats leaves forest-breading birds more vulnerable to predation,nest parasitism,and invasion of non- indigenous species.Clearing of the right-of-way would parallel existing corridors,therefore minimizing habitat fragmentation and edge effect. Species that require mature,interior forest habitats would be adversely affected by clearing of mature forest.Clearing of mature forest habitats along the right-of-way could impact nesting and foraging habitat for several birds on the State of Alaska List of Species of Special Concern. These species include the olive-sided flycatcher,gray-cheeked thrush,Townsend's warbler,and blackpoll warbler.Clearing of trees also would reduce potential nest,roost,and perch sites for bald eagles and other raptors.The USFWS recommends that major clearing of vegetation be avoided within 0.4 kilometer (km)(0.25 mile)of bald eagle nest trees (USFWS 1993). Conversely,clearing of mature forest habitats along the right-of-way could be beneficial to forest edge species and species that prefer open,grass or shrub-dominated habitats. Impacts would be reduced in bald eagle and trumpeter swan nesting areas by not improving existing roads (Measure 1).Selective clearing of vegetation in the right-of-way (Measures 12 and 13)that avoids bald eagle nest trees also would reduce impacts on bald eagle nesting areas. Impacts related to habitat loss potentially could be significant locally,but would not be significant at a regional level owing to the very small quantity of habitat likely to be affected and the presence of an existing utility corridor through much of the proposed routes.Impacts related Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-50 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 to habitat loss in saltmarsh would vary depending on whether electrical transmission cables are embedded in a trench or bored beneath the surface of saltmarsh via horizontal drilling (Measure 15).Either scenario could result in disturbance to ducks and geese during construction.Drilling beneath the surface would cause less long-term habitat disturbance since trenching would result in removal and trampling of vegetation in a community that is notably slow to recover from surface disturbances. Direct impacts largely would be restricted to those individuals present in areas of construction disturbance,right-of-way clearing,or trenching.Loss of individual birds,especially among ducks,geese,and swans,as a result of collisions with wires and other structures could affect individual birds for the life of the Project,but local populations are not expected to be adversely affected.In all,impacts on birds could be locally significant but are expected not to be regionally significant due to the limited amount of habitat and number of birds that could be affected by the Project.Adverse impacts on birds within the KNWR,however,could be nationally significant due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife on the refuge. Mammals Black Bears Potential impacts of the Project on black bears include disturbance during construction,habitat loss,and increased legal and illegal harvest of black bears resulting from increased human access to black bear habitat.Black bears are,however,widespread on the Kenai Peninsula. Construction of the Project in spring in the Chickaloon Bay area could result in displacement of individual black bears that come to the area to forage on early greening Equisetum and bluejoint reedgrass.Similarly,vegetation removal associated with right-of-way clearing in mature closed spruce and mixed spruce forest likely would result in loss of some stands of devil's club,an important forage species for black bears in late summer and fall.Lowbush cranberry,another important forage species for black bears,is also associated with mature forest.Right-of-way clearing could enhance moose habitat by opening up new potential winter range in closed forest communities,which would improve opportunities for black bears to forage on moose calves or moose carcasses. Impacts on black bears could be locally significant if bears are disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activities in Chickaloon Bay during the spring.Local,significant impacts also could occur in mature forest if large areas of devil's club are lost.These impacts would be reduced by selective clearing of vegetation in the right-of-way (Measure 12).Impacts on black bears are otherwise expected to be non-significant at local and regional levels due to the dispersed nature of black bear foraging habitat and the limited area to be affected by the Project.Impacts on black bear habitat on the KNWR,would be nationally significant due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats on the refuge. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-51 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Brown Bears Potential impacts on brown bears from construction of the Project would primarily result from short-term disturbance expected from construction activities and long-term disturbance from increased human access.Disturbance from construction activities could cause displacement of bears,interrupting feeding opportunities and limiting use of brown bear concentration areas. Although disturbance to bears is primarily a concern during periods of bear activity,disturbance to denning bears could result in human/bear conflicts and abandonment of dens and,possibly, cubs.Brown bears are known to den at all elevations,from alpine snow chutes in the Kenai Mountains down to small upland areas scattered around the Kenai Lowlands.Three denning brown bears were disturbed in two dens by field workers during a seismic exploration project within the KNWR during the 1997-98 winter.The bears permanently abandoned their dens in mid-winter.A female and her cub fled their disturbed den.The third bear attacked and fatally injured a nearby seismic worker before deserting the area (Staples and Bailey 1998).Denning bears also could be disturbed by helicopter overflights (Reynolds et al.1986).Routine maintenance inspections for the proposed Project would likely involve use of a helicopter. The presence of a transmission line itself is not expected to impede brown bear movement or other activities.Clearing of the right-of-way would result in some potential loss of foraging and denning habitat for brown bears.Loss of devil's club could impact foraging opportunities for brown bears.The area cleared for the right-of-way represents a small portion of total bear habitat on the Kenai Peninsula.Increased human access resulting from clearing of the right-of-way and improvement of existing roads likely will result in increases in human/brown bear contact, potentially resulting in brown bear mortality and/or displacement of bears from traditional use areas. The possibility of increasing the ability of humans to access areas that are currently difficult to reach represents a major concern of wildlife management personnel on the Kenai Peninsula.The extent to which an additional 45.7-meter (150-foot)-wide clearing from the transmission line right-of-way would increase human activity in these areas is not known.An increase in inappropriate use of snowmobiles and unauthorized use of all-terrain vehicles likely would occur as a result of the Project (Johnston,personal communication,1998). A comprehensive report of brown bears in the Project area,"A Management Strategy for Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears”(Jacobs 1989b)outlines recommendations for protection of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula.Recommendations include retaining a large area of continuous suitable habitat for brown bears,eliminating or minimizing disturbances in areas essential or seasonally important to bears,setting a conservative harvest,and reducing destruction of life and property conflicts.The strategy specifically calls for retaining a large area of undeveloped land along the western slopes of the Kenai Mountains,including the Chickaloon drainage on the KNWR. Limited access is recommended for the pipeline road on the KNWR.Poor condition of the existing road is expected to limit use,and improvements that would increase human use are Souther Intertie Project EVAL 4-52 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 discouraged.The strategy also recommends that the area north of the Chickaloon River be as undisturbed as possible from mid-June to late-October.Seasonal road closure and prohibition of aircraft use along much of the remaining Enstar route and near Pt.Possession on the Tesoro route also are recommended.According to the recommendations,roads should not cut through riparian zones.Construction of a transmission line would conflict with the above management objectives. Impacts related to disturbance from construction activities during sensitive periods for brown bears potentially could be considered to be locally and regionally significant.Winter construction (Measure 10)would greatly reduce impacts related to disturbance to bears.The potential of increasing human access in brown bear habitat is very significant locally and regionally, especially where existing access is limited and in areas where bears move seasonally between upland and lowland areas.Impacts on brown bears on the KNWR would be nationally significant due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife on the refuge.Increased access could be minimized by not improving existing roads (Measure 1). Moose Potential impacts on moose from construction of the Project could result from clearing of the right-of-way which could have the effect of a short-term reduction in preferred browse in high- quality moose winter range.Depending on the length of time between subsequent clearings of the right-of-way following construction,impact on moose winter range may be of short duration. It is anticipated that plant species sought by moose in winter (e.g.,birch and aspen saplings) would likely re-establish within a few years following initial removal.Clearing of the right-of- way in closed forest communities would remove some winter thermal cover for moose,but may have a beneficial effect by opening up new winter range as browse species become established within an open corridor. Prescribed burns are utilized on the refuge as a means of enhancing or creating moose habitat, especially winter range (Davis,personal communication,1997).The opportunity to apply prescribed burning to create or maintain moose winter range would be restricted by the presence of a transmission line. Moose winter range is important to moose survival during winter;however,vegetation types that provide moose winter range are relatively common in the Project study area.Given the relatively small quantity of moose winter range affected by this Project,impacts off of the KNWR would not be significant at the local,regional,or national level.Similarly,any enhancement of moose winter range through right-of-way clearing also would not be significant.Any adverse impacts on moose winter range on the KNWR,however,are considered significant at a national level due to the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife. Impacts on moose winter range could be reduced by selective clearing of vegetation in the right- of-way (Measure 12).If low-growing shrubby vegetation under 15-feet tall were only cleared for Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-53 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 tower sites and along access and spur roads rather than within the entire right-of-way,much of the available forage would be protected. Caribou The Project would not impact the Kenai Lowlands herd (KLH)or Kenai Mountain herd (KMH). The alternative routes do not traverse the range of the KMH and are not expected to affect this herd.Although the routes traverse the known range of the KLH,direct or indirect impacts are not expected to be significant.Caribou could be temporarily displaced from the vicinity of alternative routes during construction.Such displacement,however,would not be significant because of the wide distribution of winter range and calving areas in the Kenai Lowlands. Clearing within the right-of-way could encourage caribou to use the right-of-way as a travel corridor.However,beneficial impacts as a result of right-of-way clearing are expected to be negligible. Predators Construction and maintenance of the transmission line could potentially disturb predators over the short term.Increased human access along the alternative routes could result in disturbance over the long term,as well as increased mortality,to wolves,lynx,coyote,red fox,wolverine, and mink from hunting and trapping.A study of wolves on the Kenai Peninsula revealed that wolves were attracted to the pipeline road that parallels the Enstar route,probably because it provides an easy travel corridor with little human use (Thurber et al.1994).If human activity along the route increases,wolves likely would avoid the road (Thurber et al.1994).Lynx, however,might not exhibit similar avoidance behavior (Staples 1995). Increased human access and visibility from clearing of the right-of-way could result in increased legal and illegal harvest of predators.Hunting and trapping are the major causes of mortality among wolves on the Kenai Peninsula (Peterson et al.1984).Dispersing wolves would be especially vulnerable to harvest by humans (Peterson et al.1984).A study of lynx harvests indicates that the lynx population may have been over-exploited on the Kenai Peninsula from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s (Bailey et al.1986). Clearing of the right-of-way will result in a relatively small area of habitat modification.Such modification would result in loss of potential denning habitat for lynx.In addition to negative impacts on predators,there is some potential for improving conditions by creating new habitat for prey species.Vole populations,for example,might increase in some areas as a result of overstory removal.Snowshoe hare and moose habitat also could be improved in some areas by vegetation removal.Such potential enhancement of prey populations could benefit wolf,lynx, red fox,and coyote. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-54 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Increased illegal harvest of predators would complicate management of these animals and conflict with management objectives outlined in the Wolf Management Operational Plan (KNWR 1988c)and the Furbearer Management Plan (KNWR 1988d)for the KNWR. Impacts on predators are not expected to be significant because these species are widely distributed within the region.However,as a result of improved access in both summer and winter,local harvest could increase.Effects of increased access could be reduced by not improving existing roads (Measure 1)for Project construction and maintenance.Adverse impacts on mammalian predators on the KNWR would be nationally significant due to conflicts with the USFWS mandate to protect wildlife on the refuge. Small Mammals Small mammals that are present within alternative corridors include shrews,weasels,marten,red squirrel,beaver,several species of voles,muskrat,porcupine,and snowshoe hare.Potential impacts on these mammals are related primarily to habitat loss,destruction of burrows or other cover sites,and direct mortality by construction equipment.Small mammals also may experience effects of habitat fragmentation and edge effect similar to birds.Construction,operation,and maintenance of the Project is unlikely to affect any small mammals at the population level and overall project impacts are expected to be non-significant. Marine Mammals Information on sensitivity of marine mammals to utility developments is limited;however, potential impacts on marine mammals resulting from placement of a submarine cable include noise disturbance,changes in water quality from dredging or trenching,and potential release of insulating fluid in the event of a submarine cable break.Beluga whales and harbor seals are not expected to collide or otherwise come into contact with submarine cables during or after installation because both species are likely to avoid the area while cable is being installed,and once in place,the cable will lay on or beneath the sea floor. Construction on shoreline areas,as well as installation of submarine cable,could result in minor disturbance to marine mammals in the Turnagain Arm.Because sound travels long distances under water,and many marine mammals communicate and use acoustic cues for navigating and locating prey,changes in the acoustic environment can be potentially significant (Hazard 1988). Reactions to noise disturbance could include cessation of resting,feeding,or social interactions; increased alertness (in pinnipeds);changes in surfacing,respiration,or diving cycles (in cetaceans);and onset of avoidance.Responsiveness to manmade noise disturbance varies widely, even within a species.Marine mammals have been observed to continue their normal activities in the presence of high levels of manmade noise and also have been observed to exhibit avoidance to much lower levels of noise.Because marine mammals cope with disruption of activities by Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-55 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 predators,bad weather,unusual ice conditions and other natural phenomena,it is assumed that they can also tolerate occasional brief periods of man-induced disturbance,e.g.,by a single passing ship or aircraft (Richardson et al.1995).In the Turnagain Arm,the ambient noise level is high because of very strong tidal currents.This ambient noise level would tend to mask sounds from the vessel activity associated with laying the cable. Beluga whales in Cook Inlet seasonally move close to areas of routine noise from heavy small boat traffic,oil and gas activity,recreation,transport,and commercial fishing.They temporarily avoid areas of sudden noise-level change (McCarty 1981).Therefore,the whales likely would avoid the immediate vicinity of the cable-laying vessel.Such avoidance could impact calving activities in Chickaloon Bay.Disturbance to beluga whales during calving season in Chickaloon Bay would be considered an adverse impact and significant at every level due to the concern for and pending status of the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales.Impacts on whales during calving would be avoided by not installing submarine cable between mid-June and mid-July (Measure 10).Construction in shoreline areas at Chickaloon Bay is not expected to result in disturbance to harbor seals hauled out on the flats during low tide due to the distance between the construction area and the haul-out area. Beluga whales normally occupy turbid waters of Turnagain Arm and upper Cook Inlet and are, therefore,not likely to be significantly impacted by increased turbidity from dredging.The effects of small ongoing leaks of insulating fluid on beluga whales is unknown.The insulating fluid is non-toxic and readily biodegradable.No hazardous constituents have been identified in the fluid,and no adverse effects to marine life have been documented from previous discharges of laboratory tests (CEA 1990).The insulating fluid used by CEA is manufactured by Shell Chemical Inc.as Dobane 80 and marketed by Pirelli as Voltoil 10L.The fluid is extremely light, has good evaporation characteristics,and closely resembles water in texture and physical appearance. Due to the small discharge,vigorous currents,bed load,and large volume of well-mixed receiving waters,and compared to other local oil and grease discharges,concentrations of cable fluid would be almost non-detectable (CEA 1989).The insulating fluid also is readily biodegradable. Threatened and Endangered Species Peregrine Falcon The American peregrine falcon is a rare migrant within the Project study area,and would most likely be passing through in extremely low numbers in the coastal marshlands of Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR.Horizontal drilling in these areas would avoid any potential conflicts with this species.No significant impacts have been identified for the American peregrine falcon as a result of the Project. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-56 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Steller Sea Lion Placement of a submarine cable is not expected to affect Steller sea lions.The species rarely ventures into turbid waters of the Upper Cook Inlet and would not likely be in the vicinity of cable installation.No significant impacts have been identified for the Steller sea lion as a result of the Project. 4.4.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION BY ALTERNATIVE A summary of vegetation and aquatic resources impacts and wildlife impacts are provided in the following sections by route option.The amount of each vegetation type that would be affected by right-of-way clearing along each route is reported in Tables 4-4 and 4-5 at the end of Section 4.4. Acreages were calculated using data from the vegetation cover/wetlands map and assuming a clearing width ranging from 9.1 meters (30 feet)to 45.7 meters (150 feet)along the right-of-way, depending on structure type and specific situations along each link.Links with X-frame construction would involve a 45.7-meter (150-foot)clearing.Single-pole and H-frame construction parallel to an existing pipeline or other transmission line would involve a 30.5- meter (100-foot)clearing.H-frame replacements along existing lines also assume a 30.5-meter (100-foot)clearing,though new clearing would only involve 15.2 meters (50 feet).Clearing for single-pole construction parallel to a road would be 9.1 meters (30 feet)wide,as would clearing for an underground line paralleling an existing pipeline.Other underground lines would involve a 15.2-meter (50-foot)clearing.Amounts of wildlife resources affected by alternatives are presented in Tables 4-6 through 4-13 at the end of Section 4.4. No-action Alternative Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The no-action alternative would result in no impacts on vegetation and aquatic resources.No ground disturbance,or loss or degradation of vegetation and aquatic communities is involved in the no-action alternative. Wildlife Under the no-action alternative,no impacts on wildlife resources are anticipated.No habitat loss or disturbance is associated with the no-action alternative.Similarly,there would be no habitat enhancement for species that rely on early seral stages of forest development. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-57 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Tesoro Route Alternatives Impacts on Selected Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake Through Pt.Possession (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,T2.1,T3.1,T3.2,75.1, T5.2/Route Option A) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing would impact closed mixed forest,bogs and meadows,and closed tall shrub.Clearing width would be 9.1 meters (30 feet)on Links T1.2,T1.3 and T1.4 which are along a road edge,on Link T2.1 which would be underground through Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA),and on Link T5.1,which would be a submarine cable on land.Clearing width on Link T1.1 would be 30.5 meters (100 feet).Links T3.1 and T3.2 would have 45.7-meter (150-foot)clearing along the right-of-way.Winter construction and maintenance would minimize impacts on these resources,especially in wetland communities.Riverine,riparian communities,low-growing vegetation in bogs and meadows,and closed tall shrub would be spanned.In order to discourage bark beetle infestation,spruce logs and slash from clearing in closed mixed forest would be chipped,dispersed,or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion.Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way.Impacts on vegetation and aquatic resources from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Potential impacts on anadromous fish in Bishop Creek,Swanson River, Otter Creek,and Seven Egg Creek would be minimized by spanning these streams,winter construction,and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the streams.Impacts on anadromous fish from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Waterfowl Habitat loss from right-of-way clearing would be minimized by spanning streams, winter construction,and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats. Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting,brood rearing,and staging also would be avoided through winter construction and maintenance on most of the route.Submarine cable would be installed during the spring north of the proposed Pt.Possession transition facility.Wetland habitats are not crossed by this part of the route.The Project could result in limited noise disturbance to waterfowl in nearby wetlands during construction. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-58 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Approximately 66.9 km (41.6 miles)of the route contain stream crossings or are within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of open water and,therefore,present a potential collision hazard for waterfowl.Hazard exists primarily to birds that might cross the route as they fly between lakes,or along stream channels.Collision hazard would be minimal north of Captain Cook SRA.Waterfowl would not likely fly across the route in this area except at river crossings due to the absence of lakes,ponds, or saltmarsh west of the route.There would not be a collision hazard at the Swanson River because the wires would be installed beneath the river bottom.Within areas of identified potential collision hazard,wires would be marked at river crossings and within 400 meters (1,312 feet)of open water where there is no forest between the water and the transmission line. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access could be an issue on the northern end of the route,starting approximately halfway between Captain Cook SRA and Pt.Possession,where there is presently only an unimproved trail.Increased human disturbance in this area could result in more disturbance or short-term displacement of waterfowl in localized areas.Impacts on waterfowl from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Trumpeter Swan Approximately 35.5 km (22.07 miles)of Route Option A are within known trumpeter swan nesting areas.Potential disturbance to nesting swans would be avoided through winter construction and maintenance throughout most of the route.Installation of submarine cable north of the Pt.Possession transition facility in spring is not expected to disturb nesting swans because nest sites are located over 1.6 km (1.0 mile)from the route. Approximately 66.9 km (41.6 miles)of the route are within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of open water. These areas present a potential collision hazard for trumpeter swans.Collision hazard is expected to be minimal north of Captain Cook SRA.Trumpeter swans in this area would be less likely to fly across the transmission line due to the absence of lakes and ponds west of the route.Within areas of identified potential collision hazard,wires would be marked within 400 meters (1,312 feet)of open water where there is no forest between the water and the transmission line. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access may be an issue on the northern end of the route, starting approximately halfway between Captain Cook SRA and Pt.Possession,where there is presently only an unimproved trail.Increased human access in this area could result in some increased disturbance of trumpeter swans.Impacts on trumpeter swan from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Bald Eagle Winter construction would avoid disturbance to known bald eagle nesting areas. Right-of-way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites within 0.4 km (0.25 mile)of a known bald eagle nesting area.This nesting area was inactive in 1998 but could become active again in the future.Bald eagle nest trees would be identified and avoided during construction.Selective vegetation removal within the right-of-way would minimize impacts of right-of-way clearing. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-59 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The Project could present a minimal collision hazard to bald eagles foraging at Bishop,Seven Egg,and Otter creeks.Within nesting areas,bald eagle fledglings could be vulnerable to collisions with wires. Increased human access on the northern portion of Route Option A is not likely to have an effect on bald eagles because only one known bald eagle nesting area is present and it is over 1.6 km (1.0 mile)from Route Option A.Impacts on bald eagle from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Wolf Increased access on the northern portion of Route Option A could result in increased hunting and trapping pressure on wolves.Wolves might be attracted to the right-of-way as a travel corridor,and thus,become more vulnerable to harvest.Because wolf abundance is low and no pack areas are crossed where access would be improved,increase in harvest would be expected to be minimal.Clearing of the right-of-way in mature forest would provide additional moose winter range that would benefit wolves.Impacts on wolves from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Canada Lynx Increased access on the northern portion of Route Option A could result in increased harvest of lynx.Lynx would be especially vulnerable within the nght-of-way.The potential for increased frequency of legal and illegal harvest on the northern portion of Route Option A likely would be low because lynx abundance is low.Clearing of the right-of-way could remove potential denning habitat for lynx,but could also benefit lynx by improving habitat for snowshoe hare.Impacts on lynx from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Black Bear Approximately 324 hectares (860 acres)of general black bear habitat could be affected by right-of-way clearing.Approximately 75 percent of this area contains forest types that could potentially support devil's club.These forest types are widely distributed in the Project study area.Right-of-way clearing along this route is not expected to significantly impact availability of important food sources for black bears.Disturbance during winter construction and maintenance is not expected to adversely impact denning black bears although individual dens adjacent to the corridor potentially could be disturbed.Summer construction north of the proposed Pt.Possession transition facility would not disrupt sensitive periods or feeding areas for black bears.Black bears in the vicinity of the northern portion of the route could be subject to increased legal and illegal harvest where human access is improved.Impacts on black bear from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Brown Bear Disturbance to brown bears would be minimized by winter construction and maintenance,although denning bears potentially could be disturbed.Brown bears are known to den in the Kenai Lowlands;however,no dens have been recorded near the coast.Brown bears could experience long-term disturbance from increased access in the northern portion of Route Option A,starting about halfway between Captain Cook SRA and Pt.Possession.Presently, there is only an unimproved trail in this area;however,a 30.5-meter (100-foot)-wide road is Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-60 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 planned to Moose Point as well as a 91.5-meter (300-foot)-wide utility corridor.Increased human access would result in higher risk of human and bear conflicts.Disturbance to brown bears is mainly a concern where brown bears might concentrate within the riparian corridor along Seven Egg Creek.Right-of-way clearing in forest communities could result in limited loss of foraging habitat for brown bears;however,these communities are widespread within the Project study area.In general,brown bear use of coastal portions of the Kenai Peninsula study area is limited due to human disturbance and distance from high quality foraging and denning habitats.Impacts on brown bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Beluga Whale Route Option A is entirely on land and would not impact beluga whales. Moose Clearing of the right-of-way would temporarily reduce browse in moose winter range. Approximately 119 hectares (297 acres)of winter range might be affected by right-of-way clearing within areas of moderate to super-high winter moose abundance.Remaining portions of the route are in areas of low winter moose abundance.Clearing within closed forest communities could reduce winter thermal cover for moose,but could improve winter forage range within the right-of-way.Impacts on moose from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Caribou Route Option A is well outside of the traditional range of the KLH of caribou, although right-of-way clearing could reduce vegetative cover in habitats suitable for future use by caribou.Such habitats are,however,widely distributed throughout the Kenai Lowlands. Impacts on caribou from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Impacts on Selected Resources in Turnagain Arm (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The only potential impacts identified for vegetation and aquatic resources along this segment were in saltmarsh at the Pt.Campbell landfall.Construction activities could either involve placing cable in a trench,or horizontal drilling below the marsh at Pt.Campbell.Saltmarsh may take several decades to recover from trenching,whereas horizontal drilling would avoid such impacts.Impacts on saltmarsh habitat in the area,however,would not be significant. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Streams _There are no anadromous fish streams along this route;therefore, no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-61 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Waterfowl Waterfowl staging and nesting habitat on the southern tip of a narrow strip of saltmarsh between Pt.Campbell and Pt.Woronzof would be affected.The trenched area would take at least several decades to recover but only a small area would be affected.These impacts of trenching could be avoided by horizontal drilling.Installation of the submarine cable could disturb nesting waterfowl in the vicinity of Pt.Campbell during construction.Impacts on waterfowl from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Trumpeter Swan Installation of submarine cable would not likely disturb trumpeter swans in the vicinity of Pt.Possession because nest sites are over 1.6 km (1.0 mile)from the route. There is no swan nesting near Pt.Campbell. Bald Eagle There are no known bald eagle nesting areas along Route Option D. Wolf/Canada Lynx Route Option D does not include any wolf or lynx habitat;these species are not expected to be impacted by the Project. Black Bear _Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears that might forage for carrion along the shoreline at Pt.Possession.No appreciable black bear habitat exists at the Pt.Campbell landfall.Impacts on black bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Brown Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Pt.Possession.Brown bear use in the vicinity is,however,minimal due to the absence of anadromous fish streams.Impacts on brown bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Beluga Whale Noise disturbance during installation of submarine cable could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the cable-laying vessel;however,disturbance would not affect areas of suspected calving activities.Impacts on beluga whales from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Moose/Caribou This route does not provide habitat for and would not impact moose or caribou. Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing could impact closed mixed forest on Fire Island.In order to discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,slash from clearing in closed mixed forest would be chipped, dispersed,or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion.Saltmarsh on Fire Island and at Pt.Campbell would take at least several decades to recover from trenching unless horizontal Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-62 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 drilling is applied at these sites.Impacts on forests and saltmarshes from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Streams There are no anadromous fish streams along this route;therefore, no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl A small amount of waterfowl habitat in the saltmarsh fringe would be affected on the southern end of Fire Island and at Pt.Campbell if trenching is done.These impacts could be avoided by horizontal drilling.Installation of the submarine cable could disturb nesting/staging waterfowl at Fire Island and Pt.Campbell. Trumpeter Swan Approximately 5.5 km (3.4 miles)of Route Option E are within a known trumpeter swan nesting area.Installation of the submarine cable would not likely disturb nesting swans at Pt.Possession or Fire Island because nest sites are over 1.6 km (1 mile)from where submarine cable would be installed.Disturbance to nesting swans from construction of overhead line on Fire Island could be avoided by late summer or fall construction.Collision hazard would be a concern and wires would be marked if the route is immediately adjacent to the lakes on Fire Island. Bald Eagle There are no known bald eagle nests along Route Option E. Wolf Route Option E does not include any wolf habitat;wolves are not expected to be impacted by the Project on this route. Canada Lynx Route Option E does not include any high quality lynx habitat;therefore lynx are not expected to be impacted by the Project on this route. Black Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears that might forage for carrion along the shoreline at Pt.Possession.No appreciable black bear habitat exists at the Pt.Campbell landfall or on Fire Island.Impacts on black bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Brown Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Pt.Possession.Brown bear use in the vicinity is,however,minimal due the absence of anadromous fish streams.Impacts on brown bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Beluga Whale Noise disturbance during installation of submarine cable could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the cable-laying vessel;however,disturbance Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-63 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 would not affect areas of suspected calving activities.Impacts on beluga whales from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Moose Clearing of the right-of-way would temporarily reduce browse in moose winter range on Fire Island.Clearing within closed forest communities could reduce winter thermal cover for moose,but improve winter forage range within the right-of-way.Impacts on moose from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Caribou This route does not provide habitat for and would not impact caribou. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Impacts on vegetation and aquatic resources are similar to Route Option E,with the exception of the Anchorage landing.Right-of-way clearing would impact closed mixed forest at Pt. Woronzof.To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,slash from clearing would be chipped, dispersed,or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion.Impacts on vegetation and aquatic resources from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Wildlife Impacts on wildlife are similar to Route Option E,with the exception of the Anchorage landing. Anadromous Fish Streams There are no anadromous fish streams in the vicinity of Pt. Woronzof;therefore,impacts on anadromous fish are not expected. Waterfowl -There is no waterfowl nesting or staging habitat in the vicinity of the Pt. Woronzof landfall.Noise disturbance during construction would not likely impact nesting and staging waterfowl along the coast south of Pt.Woronzof due to the distance between construction activities and waterfowl nesting and staging areas.Impacts on waterfowl from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Trumpeter Swan There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat at Pt.Woronzof,and swans are not expected to be impacted by this route. Bald Eagle _Right-of-way clearing and disturbance during construction would not occur within 0.8 km (0.5 mile)of any known bald eagle nests. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-64 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Wolf/Canada Lynx/Brown Bear These species are not present at Pt.Woronzof and would not be impacted by this route. Black Bear No appreciable amount of black bear habitat is present at Pt.Woronzof.Black bears are not expected to experience impacts from this route. Beluga Whale Noise disturbance during installation of submarine cable could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the cable-laying vessel;however,disturbance would not affect areas of suspected calving activities.Impacts on beluga whales from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Moose No appreciable amount of moose habitat is present at the Pt.Woronzof landfall and moose are not expected to be impacted by this route. Caribou There are no caribou in Anchorage,and they would not be impacted by this route. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof Submarine (Link M2.4/Route Option G) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing would impact closed mixed forest at Pt.Woronzof.To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,slash from clearing would be chipped,dispersed,or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion.Impacts on closed mixed forest from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Streams _There are no anadromous fish streams along this route;therefore, no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl -There are no wetland habitats that would provide waterfowl nesting or staging habitat along the route at Pt.Possession and Pt.Woronzof.Impacts on waterfowl from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Trumpeter Swan Installation of submarine cable would not likely disturb nesting trumpeter swans in the vicinity of Pt.Possession because nest sites are over 1.6 km (1.0 mile)from the route.There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat in Anchorage.Impacts on trumpeter swans from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Bald Eagle |No known bald eagle nesting areas would be affected by this route.Impacts on bald eagles from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-65 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Wolf/Canada Lynx These species are not present on Route Option G.Impacts on these species from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Black Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears that might forage for carrion along the shoreline at Pt.Possession.No appreciable black bear habitat exists at the Pt.Woronzof landfall.Impacts on black bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Brown Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Pt.Possession.Brown bear use in the vicinity is,however,minimal due the absence of anadromous fish streams.Pt.Woronzof does not provide habitat for brown bears.Impacts on brown bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Beluga Whale Noise disturbance during installation of submarine cable could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the route;however,disturbance would not affect areas of suspected calving activities.Impacts on beluga whales from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Moose The shoreline at either Pt.Possession or Pt.Woronzof does not provide habitat for moose.Impacts on moose from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Caribou This route does not provide habitat for and would not impact caribou. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources No impacts on vegetation and aquatic resources are expected along this route.Potential impacts on saltmarsh within the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marsh. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams along this route;therefore,no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl Potential impacts to waterfowl habitat within the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling.Noise from horizontal drilling could disturb nesting or staging waterfowl during construction.Impacts on waterfowl from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-66 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Trumpeter Swan Installation of submarine cable would not likely disturb nesting swans in the vicinity of Pt.Possession because nest sites are over 1.6 km (1.0 mile)away.There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat in Anchorage.Impacts on trumpeter swans from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Bald Eagle |No known bald eagle nesting areas would be affected by this route.| Wolf This route does not include any appreciable wolf habitat.Wolves travelling through the ACWR are not expected to be impacted by the Project., Canada Lynx This route does not include any appreciable lynx habitat.Lynx are not expected to be impacted by this route. Black Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears that might forage for carrion along the shoreline at Pt.Possession.The Project is not expected to impact black bears that might forage in the saltmarsh at the ACWR. Brown Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Pt.Possession and the ACWR.Brown bear use in these areas is,however,minimal due the absence of anadromous fish streams. Beluga Whale Noise disturbance during installation of submarine cable could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the route;however,disturbance would not affect areas of suspected calving activities.Impacts on beluga whales from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Moose/Caribou This route does not provide habitat for and would not impact moose or caribou. Impacts on Selected Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Route Option M would be underground,paralleling an existing pipeline through Kincaid Park and an existing road west of the airport.Right-of-way clearing along this route would involve a 9.1-meter (30-foot)wide clearing in closed mixed forest.To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,slash from clearing would be chipped,dispersed,or hauled out based on agency or landowner discretion. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-67 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams crossed by this route;therefore,no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl Route Option M does not cross any waterfowl habitat;however,waterfowl nesting and staging areas have been identified adjacent to the route.Potential disturbance to nesting waterfowl adjacent to the route would be avoided by late-summer construction.Impacts on waterfowl from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Trumpeter Swan There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat in Anchorage.The Project is not expected to affect trumpeter swans that my pass through the ACWR during migration. Bald Eagle Potential disturbance to nesting bald eagles would be avoided by installing the underground cable after August.Right-of-way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites within 0.4 km (0.25 mile)of a known bald eagle nesting area.Bald eagle nest trees would be identified and avoided during construction.Selective vegetation removal within the right-of-way would minimize impacts of clearing.Impacts on bald eagles from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Wolf There is no appreciable use of this area by wolves.Impacts on wolves from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Canada Lynx Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace lynx in Kincaid Park. Lynx habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park.Clearing of the right-of-way could remove potential denning habitat for lynx,but could also benefit lynx by improving habitat for snowshoe hare.Impacts on lynx from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Black Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in Kincaid Park.Black bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park.Clearing-of the right-of-way would result in limited removal of potential foraging habitat for black bears.Impacts on black bears from Project activities along this route are not expected to be significant. Brown Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in Kincaid Park.Brown bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park.The absence of anadromous fish streams in the park,combined with human disturbance,limits use of the area by brown bears. Beluga Whale Route Option M does not contain beluga whale habitat Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-68 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Moose Clearing within closed mixed forest along the route could temporarily reduce some browse and winter thermal cover for moose,but could also improve moose winter range by creating an opening for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Caribou Caribou do not occur in Anchorage and would not be impacted by this route. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,I3.2,I5.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route alternatives -While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4,I15.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route alternatives -While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route alternatives -While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Enstar Route Option Alternatives Impacts on Selected Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldotna Alternative (Links S1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing on this route would impact needleleaf woodland,bogs and meadows,and closed mixed forest.Links $1.1,$1.2,and $1.3 parallel an existing 115kV line and will require a clearing width of only 30.5-meters (100 feet).Clearing width on Link E1.1 would be 45.7 meters (150 feet).Winter construction and maintenance would minimize impacts on these resources, especially in wetland communities.Riverine communities and low-growing vegetation in bogs and meadows would be spanned.Spruce logs and debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be either hauled out or chipped in place based on agency or landowner discretion.Other Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-69 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts on vegetation resources include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Potential impacts on the anadromous fish in Moose River and Soldotna Creek would be minimized by spanning these streams,winter construction,and not widening orupgradingexistingroadsadjacenttothestreams. Waterfowl Habitat loss from right-of-way clearing would be minimized by spanning streams, winter construction,and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats. Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting,brood-rearing,and staging would also be avoidedthroughwinterconstructionandmaintenance. Approximately 31.9 km (19.9 miles)of the route contain stream crossings or are within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of open water and,therefore,present a potential collision hazard for waterfowl.The hazard exists primarily to birds that might fly over,under,or through the conductors,between lakes or along stream channels.Collision hazard is especially a concern where the route crosses the Moose River,an important concentration and staging area for waterfowl.Within areas of potential collision hazard,wires would be marked at river crossings and within 400 meters (1,312 feet)of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Trumpeter Swan Approximately 6.5 km (4.0 miles)of Route Option B North are within known trumpeter swan nesting areas.Potential disturbance to nesting swans will be avoided through winter construction and maintenance. Approximately 31.9 km (19.9 miles)of the route are within 1.0 mile of open water.These areas present a potential collision hazard for trumpeter swans.Collision hazard is especially a concern where the route crosses the Moose River,an important migration staging area for trumpeter swans and other waterfowl.However,lines presently span the river near the proposed crossing for this project.In areas of potential collision hazard,wires would be marked within 400 meters (1,312 feet)of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Bald Eagle Winter construction would avoid disturbance to nesting bald eagles.Right-of- way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites within 0.4 km (0.25 miles)of a known bald eagle nesting area.Bald eagle nest trees would be identified and avoided during construction.Selective vegetation removal within the right-of-way would minimize impacts of clearing. The project might present a minimal collision hazard to bald eagles foraging at the Moose River. Within nesting areas,bald eagle fledglings could be vulnerable to collisions with wires. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-70 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Wolf The route would parallel an existing transmission line and is in the vicinity of existing development.Clearing of the right-of-way in mature forest would provide additional moose winter range and potentially benefit wolves. Canada Lynx Clearing of the right-of-way could remove potential denning habitat for lynx but could also benefit lynx by improving habitat for snowshoe hare. Black Bear Approximately 158 hectares (390 acres)of general black bear habitat could be affected by right-of-way clearing.Approximately 51 percent of this area contains forest types that might support devil's club.These forest types are widely distributed in the Project study area.Right-of-way clearing along this route is not expected to substantially impact availability of important food sources for black bears.Disturbance during winter construction and maintenance could distract black bears denning near the route. Brown Bear Disturbance to brown bears would be minimized by winter construction and maintenance.Denning bears could potentially be disturbed by project activities;however,it is unlikely that brown bears would select den sites in the vicinity of the route due to existing human disturbance.Right-of-way clearing in forest communities could result in limited loss of foraging habitat for brown bears;however,these communities are widespread within the Project study area. Beluga Whale Route B North is entirely on land and would not impact beluga whales. Moose Clearing of the right-of-way would temporarily reduce browse in moose winter range. Approximately 109 hectares (270 acres)of winter range could be affected by right-of-way clearing within areas of moderate to super-high winter moose abundance.Remaining portions of the route support low winter moose abundance.Clearing within closed forest communities could reduce winter thermal cover for moose,but improve winter range within the right-of-way. Caribou Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace caribou from the vicinity of the route.Right-of-way clearing could reduce vegetative cover in habitats used by caribou.Such habitats are,however,widely distributed throughout the Kenai Lowlands. Southern Soldotna Alternative (Links S2.1,S1.5,and E1.2/Route Option B South) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing on Route Option B South would impact needleleaf woodland,bogs and meadows,and closed mixed spruce forest.Link $2.1 involves rebuilding within an existing right- of-way and clearing would be limited to removal of individual trees.Clearing widths on Links S1.5 and E1.2 would be 30.5 meters (100 feet)and 45.7 meters (150 feet),respectively.Winter construction and maintenance would minimize impacts on these resources,especially in wetland Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-71 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 communities.Riverine communities and low-growing vegetation in bogs and meadows would be spanned.Slash from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed,hauled out,or chipped in place at landowner or agency discretion.Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts on vegetation resources include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Potential impacts on the anadromous fish in the Kenai and Funny rivers would be minimized through spanning these streams,winter construction,and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the streams. Waterfowl -Habitat loss from right-of-way clearing would be minimized through spanning streams,winter construction,and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats. Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting,brood-rearing,and staging would also be avoided through winter construction and maintenance. Approximately 26.5 km (16.5 miles)of the route contain stream crossings or are within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of open water and,therefore,present a potential collision hazard for waterfowl.Within areas of potential collision hazard,wires would be marked at river crossings and within 400 meters (1,312 feet)of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Trumpeter Swan No known trumpeter swan nesting areas are crossed by Route Option B South.Approximately 26.2 km (16.3 miles)of the route are within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of open water.These areas present a potential collision hazard for trumpeter swans.Within areas of potential collision hazard,wires would be marked within 400 meters (1,312 feet)of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line. Bald Eagle Winter construction would avoid disturbance to nesting bald eagles.Link $2.1 is within 0.4 km (0.25 miles)of a known bald eagle nesting area;bald eagle nest trees would be identified and avoided during construction.However,this portion of the route is a rebuild within an existing nght-of-way and vegetation clearing would be limited to the removal of individual trees. The Project might present a minimal collision hazard to bald eagles foraging at the Kenai and Funny rivers.Within nesting areas,bald eagle fledglings could be vulnerable to collisions with wires. Wolf The route would parallel an existing transmission line and is in the vicinity of existing development.Clearing of the right-of-way along most of the route (Link $2.1)would be limited to the removal of individual trees. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-72 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Canada Lynx Clearing of the right-of-way along most of the route (Link $2.1)would be limited to the removal of individual trees. Black Bear _Right-of-way clearing along this route is not expected to significantly impact availability of important food sources for black bears.Clearing of the right-of-way along most of the route (Link $2.1)would be limited to the removal of individual trees.Disturbance during winter construction and maintenance could distract black bears denning near the route. Brown Bear Disturbance to brown bears would be minimized by winter construction and maintenance.Denning bears could potentially be disturbed by project activities;however,it is unlikely that brown bears would select den sites in the vicinity of the route due to existing human disturbance. Beluga Whale Route Option B North is entirely on land and would not impact the beluga whale. Moose Clearing of the right-of-way within areas of moderate to super-high winter moose abundance would be limited because construction on Link $2.1 would involve a rebuild within an existing right-of-way. Caribou Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace caribou from the vicinity of the route.Right-of-way clearing would be very limited along most of the route, involving primarily the removal of individual trees on Link 82.1. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,and M5.1/Route Option C) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing would impact closed mixed forest,closed white and black spruce forest, bogs and meadows,and moist grassland.Clearing width would be 45.7 meters (150 feet)on Link E1.3 and 30.5 meters (100 feet)on Links E2.1 and MS5.1.Winter construction and maintenance would minimize impacts on these resources,especially wetland communities.Riverine communities and low-growing vegetation in bogs and meadows would be spanned.To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,slash from clearing in closed mixed forest and white spruce forest would be dispersed,hauled out,or chipped in place based on agency or landowner discretion.Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish -This route crosses the largest number of anadromous fish streams, although most are relatively small.Potential impacts on anadromous fish in the East Fork Moose Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-73 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 River,Mystery Creek,North Fork Chickaloon River,Chickaloon River,East Fork Chickaloon River,Big Indian Creek,and Little Indian Creek will be minimized by spanning these streams, winter construction,and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the streams. Waterfowl Habitat loss from right-of-way clearing would be minimized by spanning streams, winter construction,and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats or adjacent streams.Disturbance to waterfowl during nesting,brood-rearing,and staging also would be avoided through winter construction and maintenance on most of the route.Submarine cable would be installed during the spring north of the proposed transition facility south of Burnt Island.Wetland habitats are not crossed by this portion of the route.The Project could result in limited noise disturbance to nesting waterfowl in the Chickaloon Bay. Approximately 30.6 km (19.0 miles)of the route contain stream crossings or are within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of open water and,therefore,present a potential collision hazard for waterfowl.In areas of potential collision hazard,wires would be marked at river crossings and within 400 meters (1,312 feet)of water where there is no forest between the open water and the transmission line.Route Option C has a number of stream crossings,but very few lakes in close proximity to the route. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access could be an issue north of Mystery Creek,where access would be improved by the Project.Increased human disturbance in this area might result in more panic flights,thus increasing the risk of waterfowl collisions with wires (APLIC 1994). Trumpeter Swan Approximately 6.4 km (4.0 miles)of Route Option C are within known trumpeter swan nesting areas.Potential disturbance to nesting swans will be avoided through winter construction and maintenance. Approximately 27.7 km (17.2 miles)of the route are within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of open water. These areas present a potential collision hazard for trumpeter swans.With the exception of Afonasi and Trapper Joe Lakes,there are no lakes in close proximity to the route and collision hazard is expected to be minimal north of Mystery Creed.Trumpeter swans in this area would not regularly fly across the transmission line toward the Kenai Mountains.In areas of potential collision hazard,wires would be marked within 400 meters (1,312 feet)of water where there is no forest between open water bodies and the transmission line. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access is an issue north of Mystery Creek.Increased human access for hunting in this area could result in increased illegal "take”of trumpeter swans in the Chickaloon Flats during waterfowl!hunting season. Bald Eagle Winter construction would avoid disturbance to nesting bald eagles.Right-of- way clearing would result in reduction of vegetative cover and potential nest and roost sites within 0.4 km (0.25 mile)of a known bald eagle nesting area.Bald eagle nest trees would be Souther Intertie Project EVAL 4-74 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 identified and avoided during construction.Selective vegetation removal within the right-of-way would minimize impacts of clearing. The Project could present a minimal collision hazard to bald eagles foraging at the seven anadromous fish streams crossed by the route.Within nesting areas,bald eagle fledglings could be vulnerable to collisions with wires. Wolf Increased access north of Mystery Creek could result in increased legal and illegal harvest of wolves.Although wolf abundance is low along this portion of the route,the route passes through the middle of the Big Indian wolf pack.Wolves might be attracted to the right-of-way as a travel corridor and,thus,become more vulnerable.Wolves moving between the mountains and lowlands would be crossing the route.Clearing of the right-of-way in mature forest would provide additional moose winter range and potentially benefit wolves. Canada Lynx Increased human access north of Mystery Creek could result in increased legal and illegal harvest of lynx.Lynx would be especially vulnerable to harvest within the right-of- way.Because lynx abundance is low north of Mystery Creek,increase in legal and illegal harvest would be minimal.Clearing of the right-of-way would remove potential denning habitat for lynx, but also could benefit lynx by improving habitat for snowshoe hare. Black Bear Approximately 280 hectares (692 acres)of general black bear habitat could be affected by right-of-way clearing.Approximately 76 percent of this area contains forest types that might support devil's club.Since these forest types are widely distributed in the Project study area,right-of-way clearing along this route is not expected to significantly impact availability of important food sources for black bears.Disturbance during winter construction and maintenance could disturb black bears denning near the route.Black bears in the vicinity of the northern portion of the route could be subject to increased legal and illegal harvest where human access is improved. Brown Bear Disturbance to brown bears will be minimized by winter construction and maintenance,although denning bears potentially could be disturbed.Brown bears could experience long-term disturbance from increased access,especially north of Mystery Creek. Currently existing access in this area consists of a four-wheel drive road of varying width and condition that is associated with the Enstar Pipeline.This area is under protective management by the KNWR and the road is open to highway vehicles during the August and September hunting season only.The road is open to snow machines in the winter.Increased human access would result in higher risk of human and bear conflicts.Brown bears would cross the route as they seasonally move between the mountains and the lowlands.Disturbance to brown bears is mainly a concern where brown bears may concentrate within the riparian corridors.Right-of-way clearing in forest communities could result in limited loss of foraging habitat for brown bears; however,these communities are widespread within the Project study area. Beluga Whale Route C is entirely on land and would not impact beluga whales. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-75 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Moose Clearing of the right-of-way would temporarily reduce browse in moose winter range. Approximately 82 hectares (203 acres)of winter range may be affected by right-of-way clearing within areas of moderate to high winter moose abundance.Remaining portions of the route support low winter moose abundance.Impacts of right-of-way clearing on moose winter range would be minimized by removing low-growing shrubby vegetation under 4.5 meter (15 feet)tall only for tower sites and along access and spur roads rather than within the entire right-of-way. The opportunity to apply prescribed burning to create or maintain moose winter range would restricted by the presence of a transmission line. Clearing within closed forest communities would reduce winter thermal cover for moose,but improve winter range within the right-of-way.This route traverses areas of general movement of moose between uplands and lowlands.Construction or presence of the line is not expected to interfere with moose movements;however,increased human access north of Mystery Creek could result in increased harvest of moose. Caribou South of the Chickaloon River,disturbance during construction could temporarily displace caribou of the KLH from the vicinity of the route.North of the Chickaloon River,the route is outside of the traditional range of the KLH.Right-of-way clearing may reduce vegetative cover in suitable habitats for caribou.Such habitats are,however,widely distributed throughout the Kenai Lowlands. Impacts on Selected Resources in Turnagain Arm (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources No adverse impacts on vegetation and aquatic resources were identified for this route.Potential impacts on saltmarsh at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marshes. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Streams There are no anadromous fish streams along this route;therefore, no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl Potential impacts to waterfowl habitat in Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling.Installation of submarine cable could disturb nesting waterfowl in the vicinity of the landfall at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR during construction. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-76 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Trumpeter Swan This route does not include trumpeter swan nesting habitat.Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace staging swans that may use saltmarsh habitats on the Chickaloon Flats during migration. Bald Eagle No known bald eagle nesting areas would be affected by this route. Wolf/Canada Lynx This route does not include wolf or lynx habitat;therefore,no impacts on wolf or lynx are expected. Black Bear Horizontal drilling could disturb black bears foraging in the Chickaloon Flats,an important spring feeding area for black bears.The Project is not expected to impact black bears that may forage in the saltmarsh at the ACWR. Brown Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Chickaloon Bay and potentially the ACWR.Brown bear use in these areas is, however,minimal due the absence of anadromous fish streams. Beluga Whale Submarine cable would be installed before mid-June to avoid disturbance to beluga whale calving.Disturbance could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the route. Moose This route has no moose habitat. Caribou This route has no caribou habitat. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Potential impacts on saltmarsh at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marshes.Closed mixed forest would be affected by right-of-way clearing at the Anchorage landfall.To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,slash from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed,hauled away,or chipped in place at landowner or agency discretion. Wildlife Impacts on wildlife on Route Option J are similar to those described above for Route Option I, with the exception of impacts related to right-of-way clearing in closed mixed forest in Anchorage.Clearing within closed mixed forest along the route could temporarily reduce some Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-77 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 browse and winter thermal cover for moose,but could also improve moose winter range by creating an opening for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Potential impacts on saltmarsh at Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marshes. Wildlife Impacts on wildlife on Route Option K are similar to those described above for Route Option I, with the exception of disturbance to a known bald eagle nesting area at the ACWR.Disturbance to nesting waterfowl and potentially staging swans at Potter Marsh would be greater than at other Anchorage landings due to the high quality of waterfowl habitat at Potter Marsh. Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The only impacts identified for vegetation and aquatic resources along this segment were in a narrow band of saltmarsh at the Pt.Campbell landfall.Construction activities would involve placing cable in a trench.Horizontal drilling is not part of the project description along this route. Saltmarsh would be affected and would take at least several decades to recover.Potential impacts on saltmarsh at Chickaloon Bay would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marsh. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Streams There are no anadromous fish streams along this route;therefore, no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl Potential impacts on waterfowl habitat in Chickaloon Bay would be avoided by horizontal drilling.Saltmarsh habitat would be affected on the southern tip of a narrow strip of waterfowl staging and nesting habitat between Pt.Campbell and Pt.Woronzof.The trenched area would take at least several decades to recover.Installation of submarine cable could disturb nesting waterfowl in the vicinity of the route at Chickaloon Bay and Pt.Campbell. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-78 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Trumpeter Swan Route Option L does not include trumpeter swan nesting habitat. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace staging swans that may pass through the Chickaloon Flats during migration., Bald Eagle There are no known bald eagle nesting areas along Route Option L;therefore,no impacts no bald eagles are expected. Wolf This route does not include wolf habitat;therefore,no impacts on wolves are expected. Canada Lynx This route does not provide habitat for lynx. Black Bear Noise and activity associated with horizontal drilling could disturb black bears foraging in the Chickaloon Flats,an important spring feeding area for black bears. Brown Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of Chickaloon Bay.Brown bear use in this area is,however,minimal due the absence of anadromous fish streams. Beluga Whale Submarine cable would be installed before mid-June to avoid disturbance to beluga whale calving at Chickaloon Bay.Disturbance could temporarily displace beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of cable-laying vessels. Moose This route has no moose habitat;therefore,no impacts on moose are expected. Caribou This route does not include caribou habitat;therefore,no impacts on caribou are expected. Impacts on Selected Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Enstar Route) Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road (Links I4.2,14.3,14.4,15.5/Route Options N,O,R,T,U, V,Z) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing on these routes could impact closed mixed forest and bogs and meadows. Clearing width would be 9.1 meters (30 feet)along existing roads.Winter construction and maintenance would minimize impacts on these resources,especially in wetland communities. Riverine and riparian communities along Campbell Creek,and low-growing vegetation in bogs and meadows would be spanned.In order to discourage spread of spruce bark beetle infestation, debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed,hauled out,or chipped in place at landowner or agency discretion.Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-79 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Wildlife Anadromous Fish _Potential impacts on anadromous fish in Campbell Creek could be minimized by spanning the creek,and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the creek. Waterfowl Waterfowl habitat is limited along this segment,and occurs at Klatt and Connor's bogs.Waterfowl habitat includes nesting and brood-rearing habitat.Habitat loss from right-of- way clearing would be minimized by spanning streams,winter construction,and not widening or upgrading existing roads in wetland habitats. Trumpeter Swan There is no trumpeter swan nesting or staging habitat along this segment; therefore,no impacts on this species are expected. Bald Eagle There are no bald eagle nesting areas within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of this segment; therefore,no impacts on this species are expected. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Brown Bear/Black Bear Habitat for these species along this segment is limited and use is restricted due to human development in adjacent areas.No impacts are anticipated for these species. Beluga Whale This segment does not include beluga whale habitat;therefore no impacts on beluga whales are expected. Moose Clearing within closed mixed forest along the route might temporarily reduce some browse and winter thermal cover for moose,but also could improve moose winter range by creating an opening for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Caribou This route does not include habitat for and would not impact caribou. Alaska Railroad Routes (Links 12.5,12.8,12.6,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Options P,Q,R,S,T, V,W,Y,Z) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing on these routes could impact closed mixed forest,bogs and meadows,and closed tall shrub.Clearing width would be 9.1 meters (30 feet)along existing railroad beds. Impacts on vegetation and aquatic resources would be similar to those described above for the Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road segment. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-80 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Wildlife Impacts on wildlife along this segment would be similar to those described above for the Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road segment,with the exception of potential impacts on waterfowl and swans in the ACWR,adjacent to the south end of this segment.Potential disturbance to nesting waterfowl and swans during migration adjacent to the route would be avoided by construction in late summer,fall,or,winter. Old Seward Highway/International Airport Road Routes (Links 12.4,12.8,12.7,15.6,15.7, 15.3/Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing on these routes would impact closed mixed forest.Riverine communities would be spanned.Clearing width would be 9.1 meters (100 feet)along existing roads.Potential impacts on saltmarsh at the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling below the marsh.To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed,hauled out,or chipped in place at land-managing agency or landowner discretion. Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish Streams The submarine cable would be installed by horizontal drilling below Little Rabbit Creek,which therefore would not be affected by the Project.Potential impacts on anadromous fish in Campbell,South Fork Little Campbell,and North Fork Little Campbell creeks,would be minimized by spanning the creeks,and not widening or upgrading existing roads adjacent to the creeks. Waterfowl Potential impacts on waterfowl habitat in the ACWR would be avoided by horizontal drilling.Installation of submarine cable could disturb nesting waterfowl in Potter Marsh in the vicinity of the route during construction.However,overall impacts on waterfowl along this route are not expected to be severe. Trumpeter Swan This segment does not include trumpeter swan nesting habitat. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace staging swans in the ACWR. Bald Eagle Construction could disturb nesting eagles within a known nesting area and temporarily displace bald eagles that might forage for carrion along the shoreline. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-81 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Wolf/Canada Lynx/Brown Bear/Black Bear Habitat for these species along this segment is limited and use is restricted due to human development in adjacent areas.No impacts are anticipated for these species. Beluga Whale This segment does not contain beluga whale habitat;therefore,impacts on this species are not expected. Moose Clearing within closed mixed forest along the route could temporarily reduce some browse and winter thermal cover for moose,but also may improve moose winter range by creating openings for establishment of low-growing shrubs and trees. Caribou Caribou do not occur in the Anchorage Bowl;therefore,no impacts on this species are expected. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing on this segment of Route Option N would impact black spruce forest, bogs,and meadows,mainly in the Klatt Bog.Winter construction would reduce impacts on this wetland community.Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Wildlife Impacts on wildlife along this segment are similar to those described above for the Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road segment,with the exception of potential impacts on waterfowl in the ACWR at the south end of this segment.Potential impacts on waterfowl nesting habitat could be avoided by horizontal drilling.Installation of submarine cable could disturb nesting waterfowl and swans during staging and migration in the vicinity of the route during construction. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing on this segment of Route Option O would impact black spruce forest and closed mixed forest.Riverine communities would be spanned.Clearing width would be 9.1 meters (30 feet)along existing roads.To discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed,hauled out or chipped in place at landowner Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-82 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 or agency discretion.Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Wildlife Impacts on wildlife along this segment are similar to those described above for the Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road segment with the exception of potential impacts on waterfowl and swans in the ACWR at the south end of this segment.Potential impacts on waterfowl nesting habitat would be avoided by horizontal drilling.Installation of submarine cable may disturb nesting waterfowl and swans during migration and staging in the vicinity of the route during construction. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Right-of-way clearing on this segment of Route Option P could impact closed mixed forest. Clearing width would be 9.1 meters (30 feet)along existing roads.In order to discourage spruce bark beetle infestation,debris from clearing in closed mixed forest would be dispersed,hauled out,or chipped in place at landowner or agency discretion.Other selective mitigation measures that would reduce impacts include not upgrading existing roads and minimizing clearing of the right-of-way. Wildlife Impacts on wildlife along this segment are similar to those described above for the Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road segment,with the exception of potential impacts on waterfowl and swans in the ACWR at the south end of this segment.Potential impacts on waterfowl nesting habitat would be avoided by horizontal drilling.Installation of submarine cable may disturb nesting waterfowl in the vicinity of the route during construction. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-83 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives Tesoro Alternatives Bernice Lake Substation Site Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Project activities would require clearing of approximately 0.40 hectares (1.0 acre)of closed mixed forest. Wildlife The extent of low density residential and general industrial development around the site precludes use of the area by many wildlife species.There are no anadromous fish streams, waterfowl habitat,trumpeter swan nesting areas,bald eagle nests,or caribou or beluga whale habitat near the proposed new substation.The immediate area of the substation does not provide appreciable habitat for wolves,Canada lynx,black bears,or brown bears.In addition,moose habitat at the site is considered low quality.Therefore,no significant impacts on wildlife from project activities at this site are expected. Kenai Lowlands -Transition Facility Sites (Reside Airport Sites 1 and 2,Johnson Airport Sites 1 and 2) Vegetation and Aquatic Resources These proposed transition sites are all located on presently developed lands.There are no natural vegetation or aquatic resources associated with these sites;therefore,no adverse impacts are expected. Wildlife The extent of general development around the site precludes use of the area by many wildlife species.There are no anadromous fish streams,waterfowl habitat,trumpeter swan nesting areas, bald eagle nests,or caribou or beluga whale habitat near the proposed new substation.The immediate area of the substation does not provide appreciable habitat for wolves,Canada lynx, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-84 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 black bears,or brown bears.In addition,moose habitat at the site is considered low quality. Therefore,no significant impacts on wildlife from project activities at this site are expected. North and South Ends of Captain Cook State Recreation Area Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Both proposed transition sites are in closed mixed forest.The facilities would not require any clearing outside of the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near the proposed sites;therefore,no impacts on anadromous fish are anticipated. Waterfowl No waterfowl habitats would be affected by construction at the proposed sites. Potential disturbance to nesting waterfowl in surrounding areas would be avoided by construction in late summer,fall,or winter. Trumpeter Swans There are no trumpeter swan nesting areas in the vicinity of the proposed sites.Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace swans in the vicinity of the transition facilities. Bald Eagle There are no known bald eagle nests in the vicinity of the sites;therefore,no impacts on this species are expected. Wolf Wolf abundance is low at both of these transition facilities.The transition site at the south end of the Captain Cook SRA is located within a developed area,so wolves are not likely to be there.Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace wolves in the vicinity of the transition facilities. Canada Lynx Lynx distribution is low at both of these transition facilities.Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace lynx in the vicinity of the transition facilities. Black Bear _Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in the vicinity of the transition facilities. Brown Bear The transition site at the south end of the Captain Cook SRA is located within a developed area,so brown bears are not likely to be present.The northern site is located within the riparian corridor of the Swanson River,which is considered a brown bear concentration area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-85 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Disturbance to brown bears within the Swanson River corridor would be minimized by construction in early spring or late fall. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs at either transition site;therefore,no impacts on this species are expected. Moose The southern transition facility site is within an area of development influence,though moose are common.Moose abundance is moderate at the northern transition facility site. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Caribou These sites are outside the traditional range of the KLH;therefore,no impacts on this species are expected.. Pt.Possession Transition Facility Site Vegetation and Aquatic Resources This proposed transition site is located on top of a bluff in closed mixed spruce forest.The facility would not require clearing outside of the right-of-way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near the proposed site;therefore,no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl No waterfowl habitats would be affected by construction of the proposed site. Project construction may result in limited noise disturbance to nesting waterfowl in surrounding areas. Trumpeter Swan _This proposed transition site lies within three trumpeter swan nesting areas that were active prior to 1998 (KNWR unpublished data 1998b).Construction activities would not likely disturb nesting swans because nest sites are over 1.6 km (1.0 mile)away. Bald Eagle No bald eagle nest have been documented within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of the facility; therefore,no impacts on this species are expected. Wolf Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace wolves in the vicinity of the transition facility. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-86 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Canada Lynx Lynx distribution is low at this proposed transition facility.Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace lynx in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility. Black Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility. Brown Bear Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility;however,the proposed site is not within a brown bear concentration area or summer-feeding area. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat is present at this proposed site;therefore no impacts on this species are expected. Moose Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in the vicinity of the proposed site. Caribou The site is outside the traditional range of caribou from the KLH;therefore no impacts on this species are expected. Fire Island South and North Transition Facility Site Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The proposed Fire Island South site is situated in a transition area between saltmarsh,barren, sandy beach,and closed mixed forest.The south site itself is in an open area of mixed sand dune and grass/shrub cover just south of a small lake.The proposed Fire Island North site is located in closed mixed spruce forest.These facilities would not require clearing outside of the right-of- way. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams on Fire Island;therefore,no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl The proposed facility site would not be located within waterfowl nesting areas. Construction activities could disturb nesting waterfowl in adjacent areas during construction. Trumpeter Swan Construction activities are not likely to disturb nesting swans because nesting habitat is over 1.6 km (1.0 mile)from the proposed sites. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-87 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Bald Eagle Disturbance from construction may temporarily displace bald eagle that may forage along the shoreline in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Wolf/Canada Lynx/Black Bear/Brown Bear/Caribou These species do not occur on Fire Island; therefore,no impacts on these species are expected. Beluga Whale There is no beluga whale habitat at either of the proposed sites;therefore,no impacts on this species are expected. Moose Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Enstar Alternatives Soldotna Substation Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The existing Soldotna Substation is located in an area of relatively intense human development. Vegetation has previously been cleared from the site and no aquatic resources are within the perimeter of this site. Wildlife The extent of human development and disturbance at this site precludes use by most wildlife species.There are no anadromous fish streams,waterfowl or beluga whale habitat,trumpeter swan nesting areas,or bald eagle nests near the proposed new substation.Human activity at the site limits use of the area by wolves,Canada lynx,black bears,and brown bears.Moose would be the most common large wildlife species in the area.Human activities and development in the area likely have degraded the quality of habitat for caribou.Therefore,no significant impacts from Project activities at this site were identified for any wildlife species. Naptowne Substations Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Either of the proposed Naptowne Substation sites would be located in closed mixed forest. Construction at either site would result in removal of approximately 0.3 hectare (0.7 acre)of closed mixed forest. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-88 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Wildlife The extent of human development and disturbance at these sites precludes use of the areas by many wildlife species.There are no anadromous fish streams,waterfowl or beluga whale habitat, trumpeter swan nesting areas,or bald eagle nests near either of the proposed new substations. Human activity in the vicinity of the sites limits use by wolves,Canada lynx,black bears,and brown bears.Human activities have likely degraded the quality of habitat for caribou.Moose would be the common large wildlife species present in the immediate vicinity of both sites.No significant,adverse impacts on wildlife from project activities were identified at either of the sites. Proposed Transition Facility South of Burnt Island Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The proposed transition facility site south of Burnt Island is situated in mature,closed mixed forest.No vegetation clearing beyond that required for right-of-way clearing will be required to accommodate this facility. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams near the proposed site;therefore,no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl There is no waterfowl habitat at this proposed site.Construction of the facility could result in noise disturbance to nesting waterfowl in Chickaloon Bay. Trumpeter Swan/Bald Eagle There are no trumpeter swans or bald eagles nesting in the vicinity of this transition facility.No impacts on these species have been identified. Wolf Clearing for this facility would involve minimal habitat loss for wolves.Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace wolves in the vicinity of the transition facility. Canada Lynx Clearing for this facility would involve minimal loss of potential denning habitat for lynx.Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace lynx in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility. Black Bear Clearing for this facility would involve minimal habitat loss for black bears. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace black bears in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-89 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Brown Bear Clearing for this facility would involve minimal habitat loss for brown bears. Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace brown bears in the vicinity of the proposed transition facility;however,the proposed site is not within a brown bear concentration area or summer-feeding area. Beluga Whale No beluga whale habitat occurs at this site.Potential disturbance to beluga whales during calving in Chickaloon Bay would be avoided by construction prior to mid-June. Moose The Project would involve limited loss of moose habitat.Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Caribou This site is not within the range of any caribou herd;therefore,no impacts on caribou are anticipated. Anchorage Bowl Transition Facility Sites Pt.Campbell Transition Facility Site Vegetation and Aquatic Resources The facility site is an abandoned gravel quarry with very limited vegetation resources present.No impact on vegetation and aquatic resources have been identified. Wildlife Anadromous Fish There are no anadromous fish streams in the vicinity of the proposed facility;therefore,no impacts on anadromous fish are expected. Waterfowl This site does not provide habitat for waterfowl.Construction activities could result in noise disturbance to nesting waterfowl in the ACWR,west of the facility. Trumpeter Swan There is no trumpeter swan nesting habitat in Anchorage.The Project is not expected to affect trumpeter swans that may pass through the ACWR during migration. Bald Eagle Construction activities may result in noise disturbance to nesting bald eagles within a known nesting area. Wolf Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace wolves in Kincaid Park.Wolf habitat within the park,however,is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-90 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Canada Lynx Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace lynx in Kincaid Park. Lynx habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Black Bear _Black bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park. Brown Bear Brown bear habitat within the park is limited and is subject to disturbance from adjacent development and year-round human recreation use in the park.The absence of anadromous fish streams in the Park combined with human disturbance limits use of the area by brown bears. Beluga Whale This proposed site does not contain beluga whale habitat and is not expected to impact beluga whales. Moose Disturbance during construction could temporarily displace moose in Kincaid Park. Caribou Caribou do not occur in Anchorage;therefore,no impacts on this species are expected. Cross Road North Site,120"Avenue Site,Klatt Road Site,Shooting Range Site,and Old Seward Highway Sites Vegetation and Aquatic Resources With the exception of the Klatt Road site,all of these potential transition facility sites are located on developed lands with minimal vegetation resources.The Klatt Road site is located in bog and wet meadow wetland,which would require filling.Impacts on the wetland community would be minimized by winter construction. Wildlife No impacts were identified for selected wildlife resources at any of the sites.The extent and intensity of human development and occupation probably precludes all but infrequent use of these sites by selected wildlife species. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-91 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Anchorage Bowl]Substation Sites International and Pt.Woronzof Sites Vegetation and Aquatic Resources Upgrading of the existing International and Pt.Woronzof sites would not involve clearing or disturbance of vegetation. Wildlife No impacts were identified for selected wildlife resources at these sites. 4.459 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Definition Cumulative impact as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.7)is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal)or person undertakes other such actions.Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.These reasonably foreseeable future actions refer to future action projections,or estimates,of what is likely to take place when a given proposed action is implemented.They are not part of the proposed action but are projections being made so that future impacts,cumulative and otherwise, can be estimated as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).Cumulative impacts are interdisciplinary,multi-jurisdictional,and usually do not conform to political boundaries. The Council on Environmental Quality has defined the resulting effects as direct and indirect. Direct effects are caused by the project action and occur at the same time and place.Indirect effects also are caused by the project action,but are later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8).Cumulative effects are the total effect on a given resource or ecosystem of all actions taken or proposed. Cumulative Impact Analysis The following elements were included in the cumulative impact analysis for the Southern Intertie Project: Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-92 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 m=The geographical area in which the impacts will occur The cumulative impact study area or "sphere of influence”for the Project within the Kenai Peninsula has been defined to address the combinations of land jurisdiction,land management,and environmental features as shown on Figure MV-17,Cumulative Impacts,in the Map Volume,and includes the following: The cumulative impact study area includes all lands,encompassed by a line drawn along the Cook Inlet to the west from Pt.Possession to the Kenai River,along Turnagain Arm to the north,from Pt.Possession to Burnt Island;a line along the Chugach National Forest/KNWR boundary to the east,from Burnt Island to the Russian River and Skilak Lake;and a line along the Kenai River to the south. The KNWR also was considered a "sphere of influence”within the cumulative impact study area for purposes of documenting effects. ™Other past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have or can be expected to cause impacts in the geographical area Figure MV-17 presents the patterns of existing development,future development,parks, open space,agriculture,protected areas within the KNWR,and linear facilities.This figure represents an aggregate of mapped data from the land use,land jurisdiction,and recreation maps from Chapter 3. =Regional wildlife mapping Wildlife habitats within the cumulative study area were characterized for anadromous fish,waterfowl,trumpeter swans,bald eagles,wolves,Canada lynx,black bear,brown bear,beluga whales,moose,and caribou.Habitat mapping and characterizations used in the cumulative impact assessment were established in consultation with the USFWS and Alaska Department of Fish and Game.Types of characterizations included swan and eagle nesting,waterfowl staging,and distribution of general habitat areas;large mammal and furbearer habitat,abundance,and concentration areas;anadromous fish streams;and beluga whale concentration areas. =The direct and indirect impacts of the alternative routes The assessment of alternative routes addresses direct and indirect impacts associated with construction,operation,and maintenance of the transmission line. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-93 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 =Quantification The cumulative impact assessment included both a quantitative and qualitative approach. The quantitative process involved geographic information system (GIS)modeling to determine the area of each individual wildlife habitat attribute within each of the cumulative impact categories.By overlaying each type of development on the cumulative impact map on to the individual wildlife maps,tabular data were created for the area of potential impact for each species within the sphere of influence area.For example,moose abundance was quantified as follows: =Cumulative Impact Study Area High abundance moose habitat area Total area -58,989 hectares (145,760 acres) Area within existing development -8,814 hectares (21,780 acres) Area of potential future development -24,864 hectares (61,438 acres) Area protected -24,352 hectares (60,172 acres) Park/open space/agriculture 959 hectares (2,370 acres) =Kenai National Wildlife Refuge High abundance moose habitat area Total area -39,808 hectares (98,363 acres) Area within existing development -3,013 hectares (7,446 acres) Area of potential future development -12,439 hectares (30,738 acres) Area Protected -24,352 hectares (60,172 acres) Park/open space/agriculture -3 hectares (8 acres) In summary,the assessment of cumulative impacts incorporates the following: quantitative data patterning of the impacts within each sphere of influence area legal protection,susceptibility,value,and availability of habitat direct and indirect impacts along alternative routes significance of impacts Kenai Lowlands The majority of lands (93 percent)within the Kenai Lowlands portion of the Project study area are presently undeveloped.Most of the existing development is toward the western reaches of the Project study area,in the vicinity of Soldotna,Kenai,Nikiski,and portions of the KNWR. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-94 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Within the Project study area,approximately 8,368 hectares (20,678 acres)of the KNWR contain developments that include oil and gas extraction and transmission facilities and associated access roads north of Soldotna and east of Nikiski.Other developments on the refuge include the Enstar Pipeline and road,several trails,and a cabin at Trapper Joe Lake.Another 73,765 hectares (182,271 acres)of currently undeveloped land on the refuge have been identified as potential sites for future development.Remaining refuge lands within the Project study area,from the wilderness boundary east to the Chugach National Forest,include approximately 245,123 hectares (605,691 acres)of undeveloped lands dedicated to protection of wildlife habitats. Foreseen and unforeseen cumulative effects will,in time,reduce the suitability of the northern portion of the KNWR as wildlife habitat.Conversely,degradation of habitats and wildlife populations will occur along the Tesoro Route Option A whether the Project is built or not.Much of the high abundance and moderate abundance wildlife habitat occurs within areas of existing or future development.The eastern portion of the KNWR that is traversed by the Enstar Route Option C is currently characterized as relatively low in wildlife abundance.The USFWS fire management plan is designed to improve this habitat for wildlife.A significant fire in the area would result in this area becoming higher abundance habitat.A fire in the eastern portion of the KNWR is not improbable during the life of the Project (USFWS 1999). Lands within the Kenai Peninsula Borough that are currently undeveloped extend from the Kenai River north toward Nikiski and Captain Cook SRA,and from Moose Point to Pt.Possession.The area between Captain Cook SRA and Moose Point is slated for future development.Specific development plans exist for projects at Moose Point and Gray Cliffs.Moreover,the Tesoro Route Option A alternative is within an area that includes a planned transportation corridor. Areas within the KNWR that are not fully protected include lands with Native Selections and conveyance,and Federal oil and gas leases as shown on the Land Jurisdiction Map (MV-18). Examples of the types of future development that are reasonable foreseeable include timber harvesting,oil and gas field development,and lodge and resort development.As corportions planned for profit,Native inholdings will most likely be developed,in order to generate a positive return on their land holdings (USFWS 1999). Past,present,and foreseeable future developments in the Kenai Lowlands portion of the study area have had adverse consequences for many wildlife species including brown bears,lynx,and wolves.Direct impacts of such development include habitat loss and potential disturbance, injury,or death resulting from construction activities.Indirect impacts include increased illegal harvest of wildlife facilitated by improved access,increased human/wildlife conflicts,collisions with vehicles,avian collisions with structures,and barriers to wildlife movements.The following discussion addresses cumulative impact issues for selected wildlife of concern. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-95 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Selected Wildlife Issues Moose Winter Distribution Of the 175,364.hectares (433,317 acres)of moderate to super high abundance winter moose habitat in the Kenai Lowlands portion of the Project study area,48 percent (84,948 hectares [209,903 acres])are within areas of potential future development;36 percent (63,484 hectares [156,866 acres]})are within protected KNWR lands;14 percent (24,425 hectares [60,355 acres]) are within existing developments;and the remaining 2 percent (2,507 hectares [6,194 acres])are within parks,open space,or agricultural lands.Therefore,including areas that are currently developed,there is potential for 62 percent of moderate to super high abundance moose habitat to be developed in the Kenai Lowlands. With the amount of development that already has occurred in the area,coupled with the potential for development of a large portion of moderate to super high abundance moose habitat, management of moose habitat within protected KNWR lands may become especially significant for maintaining healthy moose populations in the Kenai Lowlands.Protected lands within the KNWR also provide an additional 181,640 hectares (448,826 acres)of low abundance moose habitat. As discussed earlier,direct impacts of the proposed alternative routes on moose habitat are expected to be non-significant.Clearing of the right-of-way in closed forest communities may have the positive cumulative effect of creating additional habitat that could potentially support moderate to high numbers of moose.Prescribed fire management is an important tool for improving habitat quality for moose on the KNWR.The Enstar alternative would interfere with the application of prescribed fires in the vicinity of the right-of-way.The indirect cumulative effect in this case could be a decrease in moose habitat quality along the Enstar route.A natural fire and/or the KNWR Fire Management Plan would change the currently non-significant level of abundance to a significant level for moose in Enstar corridor area. Potential negative cumulative effects resulting from the Project on either the Tesoro or Enstar alternative include improvement of roads and trails and right-of-way clearing,which will improve access for humans and could result in increased harvest of moose.Increased harvest of moose would have the cumulative effect of requiring management actions by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and USFWS in addition to potentially causing population declines in moose.Improved access for humans would result in more moose/human interactions,with the cumulative effect of increasing the frequency and,possibly,duration of disturbance for moose, especially during critical time periods such as late winter and calving.Increased disturbance can result in decreased feeding time and higher energy expenditures. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-96 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Caribou The Project would have no cumulative effect on the KMH,with the possible exception of making it easier for humans to access the herd from an improved Enstar Pipeline road. The KLH occupies approximately 131,320 hectares (324,487 acres)of the Kenai Lowlands in the southern part of the Project study area (Figure MV-14).Of this total,67,708 hectares (167,303 acres)or 52 percent of all caribou habitat is in protected status on the KNWR.An additional 1,773 hectares (4,381 acres)is located in parks or other forms of open space.The remaining 61,840 hectares (152,803 acres)or 47 percent of the total is located on lands that have been developed or have the potential to be developed in the future. Future growth and development off the KNWR in the Soldotna area is likely to result in the majority of the KLH remaining on the KNWR,where there is reduced potential for contact with people and domestic dogs.The cumulative effect of construction of the Project on either Route Option B North or B South is negligible in comparison with the effects of future growth and development within the herd's range. Brown Bear Brown bear habitat within the cumulative effects study area was divided into two categories-habitats within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of an anadromous fish stream general bear habitat more than 1.6 km (1.0 mile)from such a stream (Figure MV-13).Potential brown bear habitat within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of a stream totals 160,371 hectares (396,271 acres)in the study area.Of this total,15,665 hectares (38,709 acres)(10 percent)have been developed.Future development could involve an additional 57,229 hectares (141,411 acres)(36 percent)of potential brown bear habitat.Habitat in this category that occurs on protected lands within the KNWR totals 85,246 hectares (210,646 acres)(53 percent). General brown bear habitat,habitat not associated with streams,totals 251,570 hectares (621,620 acres)in the cumulative effects study area.The portion of this acreage that is protected totals 159,875 hectares (395,045 acres)(64 percent).General brown bear habitat that is currently developed amounts to 13,036 hectares (32,212 acres)(5 percent)and habitat that could potentially be developed in the future consists of 78,335 hectares (193,562 acres)(31 percent). Improving access into brown bear habitat along the Enstar route would result in a long-term increase in bear/human encounters with the probable result of more bears being killed by hunters as well as bears being killed "in defense of life and property.” The cumulative effects of habitat modification on the Enstar route are not significant with respect to brown bears.The amount and types of vegetation to be removed will have no discernible, long-term,cumulative effect on brown bear populations. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-97 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Cumulative effects on brown bears resulting from construction of the Tesoro alternative would be less severe than the Enstar alternative.Brown bear habitat on the Tesoro alternative consists of general habitat and habitat along four anadromous fish streams.The amount of development and human activity along the Tesoro route,coupled with the fact that the route runs along the edge of Cook Inlet,which provides few resources for brown bears,suggests that brown bear use of the route is limited. Black Bear Black bears are distributed throughout the cumulative effects study area and are relatively common.General black bear habitat occurs over 411,940 hectares (1,017,891 acres)of the study area.Of this total,28,702 hectares (70,921 acres)(7 percent)is already developed and 135,564 hectares (334,973 acres)(33 percent)potentially could be developed in the future.Black bear habitat that is protected from development amounts to 245,123 hectares (605,691 acres)(60 percent)on the KNWR. Particularly valuable black bear habitat is present in closed mixed forest and white spruce forest where devil's club occurs and provides important forage for bears in summer.Within alternative corridors (Figure MV-12)for this project,devil's club is quite common.On the Tesoro route a total of 244 hectares (602 acres)of potential devil's club was mapped compared with 295 and 253 hectares (729 and 624 acres)on Route Option B North and South,respectively of the Enstar alternatives.Given the widespread nature of devil's club within closed forests,it is unlikely that a measurable cumulative effect would result from construction along either the Tesoro or Enstar routes with respect to this black bear resource. Improvementof access on the Enstar or Tesoro alternative would likely result in increases in numbers of human/black bear encounters.Hunters could find it easier to reach their quarry as a result of road improvements potentially resulting in increased harvest of black bears. Gray Wolf Most of the cumulative effects study area is occupied by gray wolves.Areas of high relative abundance for wolf are situated in the western portions of the KNWR in the 1969 burn area.Of the high relative abundance lands,99 percent 28,301 hectares (78,337 acres)are either developed (12 percent)or have the potential of being developed in the future (88 percent).Moderate relative abundance lands generally coincide with the 1947 burn.Approximately 71 percent (88,349 hectares [218,308 acres])of lands supporting moderate relative abundance wolf densities are protected while 5 percent (6,749 hectares [16,677 acres])are currently developed and 23 percent (28,129 hectares [69,505 acres])have potential for being developed in the future. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-98 Chapter 4 -Environmenta!Consequences July 1999 Improvement of access on the Enstar route would result in the long-term potential for increased hunting and trapping of wolves.An indirect cumulative impact on wolves would be the potential for increased contacts with humans who were engaged in some form of recreation that did not involve wolves.Increases in human activities could also result in the increased presence of domestic dogs within wolf territories and potential introduction of additional canine diseases. Canada Lynx Areas of high relative abundance for Canada lynx are centered on the 1969 burn area.Past and potential future development in this area includes 31,703 hectares (78,337 acres)or 99 percent of the known high relative abundance lands for lynx on the northern Kenai Peninsula. The Enstar route options cross portions of the 1947 burn area,which supports lynx at moderate relative abundance levels.Improved access along the Enstar route could result in increased harvest of lynx occasioned by improved access for hunters and trappers.Construction on the Enstar alternative would not result in improved access to any areas of high lynx relative abundance. The Tesoro route options traverse only low relative abundance lynx habitat.Construction of this alternative would have no discernible cumulative effect on lynx. Trumpeter Swan Long-term cumulative effects on trumpeter swans are more likely with the Tesoro alternative. There are more swan territories associated with more lakes along the Tesoro route than along the Enstar route.Perhaps the most significant long-term cumulative effect on Tesoro is the fact that most of the land along this route is privately owned and subject to development.Future increases in development could result in additional facilities,including electrical distribution lines that may pose a long-term hazard to swans. Construction along the Enstar route would be unlikely to result in long-term cumulative effects on swans relative to collision hazard.The Enstar route passes through primarily upland habitat, with most swan breeding and rearing areas to the west of the route.It is unlikely that swans would be regularly traveling from west to east in this area since they do not utilize forest habitats and there are no lakes or other suitable wetlands for swans on the east side of the Enstar route. Improved access along the Enstar Pipeline resulting from construction of this Project could result in an increase in frequency and,possibly,duration of disturbance to nesting swans due to increased recreational activities along the improved road.Improvement of access also could lead to a cumulative increase in the numbers of swans that are taken by waterfowl hunters. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-99 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 General Waterfowl Long-term,cumulative impacts on waterfowl along the Tesoro alternative would be similar to the projected impacts for trumpeter swan.Increased development,facilitated by improved access, would result in the presence of new facilities,including electrical distribution lines that could present long-term hazards to waterfowl.Additionally,improved access north of Captain Cook SRA will result in more opportunities for waterfowl hunters to access wetlands between the park and Pt.Possession,resulting in a long-term increase in the number of waterfowl harvested. Along the Enstar route options,improvements in access to the Chickaloon Bay and other wetland areas could have the long-term cumulative effect of increasing harvest of waterfowl.The potential for long-term collision hazard for waterfowl along the Enstar alternative is probably low for the same reasons discussed above for trumpeter swan. Areas in Alaska where potential collision hazards have been identified and investigated include the Lisburne power line in Prudhoe Bay and the 213.4-meter (700-foot)LORAN towers and supporting guy wires at Tok,Alaska.The collision rate of approximately 0.2 percent in the Lisburne study was found to be within the range of other collision mortality studies (Anderson and Murphy 1988).In the three-year study at Tok,collision mortality of shorebirds and waterfowl,including swans,was low with only a few individuals each season (Alaska Biological Research,Inc.1991). Bald Eagle All possible route options of the Enstar and Tesoro alternatives in the Kenai Lowlands could affect known bald eagle nest sites as discussed in the direct impact assessment portion of this document (Section 4.4.4).Cumulative effects on bald eagles are associated with improved access along both routes and the possibility of increased levels of human disturbance at nest sites. Long-term,cumulative collision hazard for bald eagles could persist through the life of the Project as a result of the small diameter,fiber optic cable that would be placed on towers above the electrical conductors.This hazard is likely to be most severe at crossings by the Enstar routes of the Kenai and Moose rivers.Eagles,especially young,inexperienced birds,moving up and down these rivers in search of fish or carrion might attempt to fly over the conductors and collide with the overhead fiber optic cable. Anadromous Fish Cumulative impacts on anadromous fish and streams should be minimal to indiscernible along either of the Kenai Lowland alternatives.Streams and associated riparian habitats would be spanned,with no construction occurring either in streams or streamside vegetation.It is arguable Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-100 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 that access improvements could lead to increased sport or subsistence harvest of fish,but such increases may not be measurable. Beluga Whale Neither the Tesoro nor the Enstar route would have any direct cumulative effect on beluga whales since neither alternative has a marine component in the Kenai Lowlands.The marine crossings associated with each alternative do,however,pass through beluga whale concentration areas. Turnagain Arm The Turnagain Arm of Cook Inlet separates the northern Kenai Peninsula from the Anchorage Bowl.The arm is a large tidal estuary that is a relatively unproductive marine environment due to a number of physical stressors,including widely fluctuating temperature and salinity,high turbidity,and wintertime ice scour of the bottom and inter-tidal sediments. Both the Enstar and Tesoro alternatives include marine crossings of Turnagain Arm between the northern Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.No cumulative effects on Turnagain Arm are expected as a result of this Project. Selected Wildlife Issues Installation of the marine crossing cables would have no cumulative effect on moose,caribou, brown bear,black bear,wolf,lynx,bald eagle,or anadromous fish streams. Trumpeter Swan,Waterfowl,and Shorebirds Cumulative impacts on trumpeter swans,waterfowl,and shorebirds as a result of installation of the marine crossings for either the Tesoro or Enstar alternative should be negligible to indiscernible for the most part.Cumulative impacts on shorebirds using Chickaloon Bay and the ACWR should be indiscernible,even for Anchorage landings that call for trenching rather than horizontal drilling. Potential cumulative impacts on trumpeter swans and waterfowl relate primarily to improved access to the northern portions of both the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives and have been discussed in relation to the Kenai Lowlands.The marine crossings per se should have no cumulative effect. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-101 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Beluga Whale Cumulative impacts on beluga whales using the Turnagain Arm for calving and foraging are related primarily to potential future needs to repair or replace marine cables.In such an event,the kinds of impacts and disturbances associated with the initial installation of marine cable would be repeated.The physical presence of the cable in Turnagain Arm is unlikely to have any measurable cumulative effect on beluga whales. Fire Island Construction impacts on selected wildlife species on Fire Island have been discussed elsewhere. There is potential for impacts on moose,waterfowl,and trumpeter swans during construction of the Project.There is potential long-term collision hazard for swans and waterfowl due to the fiber optic cable to be strung above the electrical conductors.Cumulative impacts on these species on Fire Island are minimal to indiscernible since increased human access and potential future development are not reasonably foreseeable future scenarios. Anchorage Area The Anchorage Bowl area is characterized by substantial residential,commercial,and industrial development with little remaining native wildlife habitat.General exceptions occur in the ACWR,along Klatt Road,and in Kincaid Park between Pt.Campbell and Pt.Woronzof. Selected Wildlife Issues Moose Of the large mammals addressed in this document,moose is the only one that commonly occurs within the Municipality of Anchorage.In particular,moose are abundant at Kincaid Park near Pt. Campbell. Cumulative impacts on moose-habitat resulting from construction of this Project within the Municipality of Anchorage will be indiscernible.Given the extent of existing development in Anchorage,the addition of facilities and structures associated with this Project will be almost unnoticeable. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-102 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Brown Bear Brown bears are known to occur on the outskirts of Anchorage in the Chugach Mountains and they occasionally roam the fringes and into the suburbs of the city.There is no suitable expanse of habitat for brown bears,however,within the Anchorage Bowl.There are brown bear habitat elements present at Kincaid Park,in the ACWR,and along Klatt Road.It is unlikely,however, that these areas would be used by brown bears due to the extent and intensity of human development and activity that surround these small areas. Black Bear The probability of black bears being present in the Anchorage area is much greater than that for brown bears.There is limited habitat for black bears in the Klatt Bog area,at Kincaid Park,and in the forested areas surrounding the city.The extent and intensity of development within the municipality,however,largely precludes regular use of habitat patches by black bears. Cumulative impacts on black bears resulting from construction of this Project within the Municipality of Anchorage are negligible. Wolf As with the brown bear,there are some small patches of habitat within the Project area that could be used by wolves.Small numbers of wolves frequent the outskirts of Anchorage and occasionally roam the ACWR.The likelihood of wolves being present in black spruce bogs along Klatt Road or in mixed forest at Kincaid Park,however,seem remote at best.Cumulative effects on wolves resulting from construction of the Anchorage Bowl portion of this Project are indiscernible and likely do not exist. Lynx There probably are small numbers of lynx present,at least from time to time,in the Kincaid Park area.This likely will continue to be the case as long as these areas remain relatively undisturbed. Cumulative effects of construction of this project on lynx are probably minimal. Bald Eagle Potential long-term cumulative effects of the Project on bald eagles relate to the presence of the overhead fiber optic cable that will constitute a long-term collision hazard for eagles.Also, growth-inducing effects of the Project could,in the long term,result in future loss of bald eagle habitat around the outskirts of Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-103 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Waterfowl Cumulative effects on waterfowl within the Municipality of Anchorage should be minimal. Long-term collision hazard will persist for the life of the Project because of the presence of the fiber optic cable. Anadromous Fish Streams Cumulative effects to anadromous fish streams are not expected. 4.4.6 IMPACT SUMMARY Kenai Lowlands Among the route options in the Kenai Lowlands,Route Option A,the Tesoro Pipeline route,is clearly preferred with respect to most biological resources.Impacts related to increased human access would be greater on the Enstar alternatives.The Tesoro and Enstar alternatives both involve potential increased human access on the northern portion of the alternatives.Increased human access is particularly a concern for brown bear,wolf,and lynx.The distance for which access would be significantly improved is greater on the Enstar alternatives.Resources for brown bears are generally higher quality on the Enstar alternatives due to relatively low human disturbance and resource availability within this portion of the KNWR.Brown bears are also more likely to cross the Enstar route as they seasonally move from mountains to lowlands; whereas brown bears are less likely to occur near the coast on the Tesoro alternative.Wolves may be more susceptible to increased human access on the Enstar alternatives because these alternatives pass through the middle of the Big Indian wolf pack territory;whereas the Tesoro alternative passes through a small portion on the periphery of the Swanson River pack territory. Increased human access is considered to be a significant impact associated with Route Option C, although it is controlled by the KNWR leading to an opportunity to mitigate the impact.The cumulative effect of injecting an expanded right-of-way and electrical transmission line into the area traversed by the Enstar Pipeline would be significant given that the foreseeable future status of the route would be no development whatsoever under USFWS management. Although the Tesoro alternative is preferred for most biological resources,Route Option B South/C would present the least amount of collision hazard for trumpeter swans and other waterfowl,due to the fewer number of lakes in proximity to the route.Route Option B South/C avoids collision hazard at the Moose River,an important concentration and staging area for waterfowl.Route Option B South/C involves clearing less acreage of high quality moose winter range (moderate to super high abundance)and black bear foraging (devil's club)habitat than Route Option C North/C. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-104 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Turnagain Arm Overall,the marine crossings associated with the Tesoro alternative would be preferred to those associated with the Enstar alternative.Tesoro alternative crossings would avoid disturbance to waterfowl concentration and staging areas,black bear spring feeding areas,and sensitive beluga whale concentration areas at Chickaloon Bay.Among the Tesoro alternative routes,Route Option G (Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof)is preferred.Route Option G would not involve impacts on waterfowl or saltmarsh.Impacts on moose,waterfowl,and trumpeter swans on Fire Island would be avoided.Impacts on the marine environment are expected to be similar and not significant on all of the marine crossings associated with the Tesoro alternative. Among the Enstar alternative routes,Route Option K (Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek)would be least preferred due to potential disturbance to high quality waterfowl concentration areas near Potter Marsh.Route Option L (Chickaloon Bay to Pt. Campbell)would avoid impacts on the waterfowl concentration areas affected by the other Enstar alternative routes. Anchorage Area From a biological resources perspective,Route Option M (Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof)is the least desirable of the Anchorage area alternatives.Route Option M involves some habitat loss and disturbance to various wildlife species that may occur in Kincaid Park,including bald eagle, lynx,black bear,and moose.Among the remaining Anchorage alternatives,the Old Seward Highway/International Road routes are least preferred.The Old Seward Highway/International Road routes would require selection of the least preferred marine crossing (Route Option K).The best scenario for biological resources in the Anchorage area would be selection of Route Option G (Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof)as the marine crossing,which would avoid any adverse impacts in the Anchorage area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-105 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 6661 Aine saouanbasuog jeyuamiuonAUg - p Jaydeya 90I-P AVA W9afoig aiy191U] Waynes 00 0:0 0:0 Ol 0:0 say W 00 00 0°0 00 00 sare}09H 0:0 00 00 0:0 00 soloy T 00 0'0 0:0 0:0 00 Sale}9L{ 0'0 00 0:0 0:0 00 say a 0'0 00 0:0 00 0:0 SJB}99H 0°0 070 00 00 0°0 Sav f 070 00 00 00 00 $3.12193H 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 So1IV I 00 00 0:0 0:0 0:0 $a1e}99H 00 00 0°0 00 00 soloy H 0:0 0:0 00 0'0 00 Soivj9}{ 00 0:0 0:0 0:0 00 saloy D 0:0 0:0 00 VEC 0:0 SoiB)93F] 00 0:0 0:0 a: 00 SalV Jd 00 00 00 bce 00 $aib}99H 00 0:0 0:0 4} 0:0 SIIDV q 0:0 0:0 00 00 00 $318199H 00 00 00 00 00 SoD d gs 00 00 sel OLL $318}99H tbl 0:0 00 LSte 816l SolV e) 0°0 00 00 Ly 00 Salb}I9H 0:0 00 00 911 0:0 SaloV Winosa 00 00 SL 6°95 00 $3.18}99H 00 00 761 ¢0tl 00 SeloV YON€ gs 00 0:0 ; S9¢1 OLL S91B199H trl 0:0 00 CLEE 8i6l Sa1V O/WINOS @ 8s 00 SL £381 OLL SaIB}I9H Cr 0-0 T6l T99b 8161 So19V O/UON 0'0 90 00 96L1 00 $3.18}99H 0:0 rl 0':0 8tbr 0'0 SIV Vv puejssesy JsIopy qnsys HEL paso[D PUETPOOAA JeajatpaaN | jsas0.4 PaxtA] Paso[D S310, uondg ajynoy aanads apyAAPaso] SALNOU AALLVNUALTV YOd NOLLVLADAA GNV'TdA NO SLOVdWI S-F ATAVEL saduanbasuos jeyuaWiUOHAUY - p Jaidey) LOI-¥ 6661 Aine TVA }0alo1g aiplayuy Waynes 0:0 0°0 00 £0 00 Sdse199}{ 00 00 00 80 00 saoy Z 00 00 00 £0 00 $aJe}09}] 00 0:0 00 80 00 saoy A 00 0'0 00 Z0 00 $310199H 00 00 00 ¢'0 00 salny x 00 00 00 £0 00 SOIVIDIT 00 00 00 L0 00 Sosy M 00 00 00 £0 00 $91e}9H 00 00 0:0 80 00 Say A 0'0 0:0 00 £0 00 saeyoa}] 0:0 00 00 - 30 00 Say nN 00 00 00 10 00 SOuB199f] 00 00 00 70 00 Soy L 00 0'0 0:0 10 00 $910}93] | 00 00 00 Z0 00 Say Ss 00 00 00 70 00 S109}] 00 00 00 ¢0 00 S3IOV y 00 0'0 00 Z0 00 S94B99]4 00 0'0 00 c0 00 soso fe) 00 0'0 0:0 70 00 $318]99]| 00 00 00 50 00 So1NY d 0'0 0:0 00 70 00 $330]99}{ 00 00 00 r'0 00 sasoy O 0'0 0:0 0:0 0'0 00 $aseyoaq{ 00 00 0:0 00 0°0 SoIDV N 00 00 00 TY 00 $ae}09H puvjssery JSIO[A] qniys [[8L paso[D puL[pooAA Jea[a[/pIeN 38940] PAXIA pasolD ysoi04 uondgo ajnoy aonids ay1YAA pasolD SALNOY AAILVNUALTVY YOU NOILVLADYA GNV1d1 NO SLOVdWI S-F ATEVL TABLE 4-6 IMPACTS ON WETLAND VEGETATION FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES Route Option Bogs and Meadows*Saltmarsh Riverine A Acres 74.6 0.0 0.1 Hectares 30.4 0.0 0.1 B North/C Acres 204 0.5 11.5 Hectares 82.6 0.2 4.7 B South/C Acres 62.3 0.5 8.0 Hectares 25.1 0.2 3.2 B North Acres 75.2 0.0 3.6 Hectares 30.4 0.0 1.4 B South Acres 5.5 0.0 0.0 Hectares 2.2 0.0 0.0 C Acres 128.9 0.5 8.0 Hectares 52.1 0.2 3.2 D Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.0 E Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.0 F Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.0 G Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 .Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.0 H Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.0 ;0.0 I Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.0 J Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.0 K Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.0 L Acres 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.0 M Acres 0.0 0.9 0.0 Hectares 0.0 0.4 0.0 N Acres 0.2 0.0 0.1 Hectares 0.8 0.0 0.04 O Acres 0.2 0.0 0.1 Hectares 0.1 0.0 0.04 P Acres 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.04 Q Acres 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.04 R Acres 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.04 S Acres 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.04 T Acres 0.0 0.0 0.1 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-108 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-6 IMPACTS ON WETLAND VEGETATION FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES Route Option Bogs and Meadows*Saltmarsh Riverine Hectares 0.0 0.0 0.04 U Acres 0.0 1.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.4 0.04 Vv Acres 0.0 1.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.4 0.04 Ww Acres 0.0 1.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.4 0.04 x Acres 0.0 1.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.4 0.04 Y Acres 0.0 1.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.4 0.04 Zz Acres 0.0 1.0 0.1 Hectares 0.0 0.4 0.04 TABLE 4-7 IMPACTS ON WATERFOWL FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON THE KENAI PENINSULA Potential Collision Hazard (within 1.0 Route Option Waterfowl habitat*mile of open water) A Miles 0.9 41.6 Km 1.5 66.9 B North/C Miles 2.4 38.9 Km 3.9 62.5 B South/C.Miles 2.4 35.5 Km 3.8 57.1 B North Miles 0.4 19.9 Km 0.7 31.9 B South Miles 0.4 16.5 Km 0.6 26.5 C Miles 2.0 19.0 Km 3.2 30.6 *Waterfowl habitat includes open water,riverine,and saltmarsh. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-109 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 IMPACTS ON BALD EAGLE NESTING AREAS TABLE 4-8 FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES Number of Nests within 0.4 km (0.25 mile)of Route Option Number of Nesting areas crossed route A 1 1 B North/C B South/C B North B South N]<]><]E]<<]C]4]M]AO]oe]O]Z/SICA]So)|LQ)|molalmLeeKSO]OlOLSO]OFOfOfHO]OfOf]OfOFOlSO]|]|mepeeldpbSSPOlSPO]OfOpa]SfOfOfOfOf]|SO]SO]SO]Of]CfCO]CO]CO]CO]MHPRH]HpNiteSouthern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 4-110 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-9 IMPACTS ON WOLF ABUNDANCE FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON THE KENAI PENINSULA Potentially Route Option Significant Significant Non-significant Sparse or None A Acres 0 0 478 0 Hectares 0 0 193 0 B North/C Acres 8 300 466 0 Hectares 3 121 189 0 B South/C Acres 0 259 416 0 Hectares 0 105 169 0 B North Acres 8 201 50 0 Hectares 3 81 20 0 B South Acres 0 278 0 0 Hectares 0 112 0 0 C Acres 0 253 416 0 Hectares 0 102 169 0 TABLE 4-10 IMPACTS ON LYNX ABUNDANCE FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON THE KENAI PENINSULA Potentially Route Option Significant Significant Non-significant Sparse or None A Acres 0 0 478 0 Hectares 0 0 193 0 B North/C Acres 8 294 472 0 Hectares 3 119 191 0 B South/C Acres 0 259 416 0 Hectares 0 105 169 0 B North Acres 8 4]56 0 Hectares 3 7 22 0 B South Acres 0 13 0 0 Hectares 0 2 0 0 Cc Acres 0 253 416 0 Hectares 0 102 169 0 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-111 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-11 IMPACTS ON BLACK BEAR HABITAT FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON THE KENAI PENINSULA Route Option General Habitat*Potential Devil's Club A Acres 478 602 Hectares 193 244 B North/C Acres 774 729 Hectares 313 295 B South/C Acres 676 624 Hectares 274 252 B North Acres 105 202 Hectares 42 82 B South Acres 7 97 Hectares 3 39 C Acres 669 $27 Hectares 271 213 *General habitat includes potential devil's club. TABLE 4-12 IMPACTS ON BROWN BEAR HABITAT FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON THE KENAI PENINSULA Route Option General Habitat Riparian Habitat* A Acres 346 132 Hectares 140 $3 B North/C Acres 409 366 Hectares 165 148 B South/C Acres 366 310 Hectares 148 126 B North Acres 50 56 Hectares 20 22 B South Acres 7 0 Hectares 3 0 Cc Acres 359 310 Hectares 145 126 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-112 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-13 IMPACTS ON WINTER MOOSE ABUNDANCE FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON THE KENAI PENINSULA Route Option Super-High High Moderate Low A Acres 0 11 0 467 Hectares 0 5 0 189 B North/C Acres 23 89 6l 501 Hectares 9 36 65 203 B South/C Acres 0 49 161 466 Hectares 0 20 65 189 B North Acres 23 47 0 35 Hectares 9 19 0 14 B South Acres 0 7 0 0 Hectares 0 3 0 0 C Acres 0 42 161 466 Hectares 0 17 65 189 TABLE 4-14 IMPACTS ON CARIBOU HABITAT FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON THE KENAI PENINSULA Route Option Kenai Lowland Herd Kenai Mountain Herd A Acres 0 0 Hectares 0 0 B North/C Acres 412 0 Hectares 167 0 B South/C Acres 314 0 Hectares 127 0 B North Acres 105 0 Hectares 43 0 B South Acres 7 0 Hectares 3 0 Cc Acres 307 0 Hectares 124 0 45 LAND USE RESOURCES The land use impact assessment was based on the issues expressed by agencies,Community Working Group (CWG)members,and the public during the scoping period.Issues centered on the effects of the Project on existing and planned residential uses;right-of-way restrictions and limitations;effects on vacant parcels of land identified for future development;compliance with agency management plans;and potential hazards to navigable airspace and proximity to aviation facilities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 4-113 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences 4.5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS The land use impact assessment model included three assessment variables for assessing impacts: resource sensitivity,resource quantity and duration of impact.These three variables resulted in the assessment of an initial impact (significant,potentially significant,or non-significant)to each land use category.Once initial impact levels were established along the routes,specific measures for mitigating or reducing significant or potentially significant impact levels were applied.The residual impact represents the potential impact that could be expected to occur,after mitigation, if the proposed Project were constructed along a given route. Impact Significant Definitions Resource sensitivity established during the Phase I feasibility study was the primary element in determining initial impacts for land uses.The presence or absence of existing parallel transmission lines or pipelines modified the sensitivity level,while ground disturbance quantified the area of impact.In addition,site-specific circumstances were considered,and in some cases modified the impact significance.Agency,CWG and public concerns helped determine site- specific factors. The impact levels are defined as follows: Significant:assigned to those categories where the officially stated or approved land use restriction,plan,or policy would be violated,or where land use sensitivity was moderate but modified by the lack of existing linear features Potentially Significant:assigned to those categories whose sensitivity is moderate and where there is an existing transmission line or linear feature present,or where sensitivity is minimum,and there are no existing linear features Non-significant or where no measurable impact would occur:assigned to those categories where sensitivity is minimum (excluding the above) For a particular land use feature or area of affected resource,only the impact within the assumed centerline of each alternative route was assessed. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-114 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impact Types Types of potential physical impacts on land uses in the study area are physical restrictions to residential,commercial and industrial uses.These impacts would be long term,and would include limitations on future urban development,planned subdivisions,and potential conflicts with local land use plans and policies.Impact significance was assigned assuming Project construction utilizing 230kV X-frame,H-frame and single-pole structures,in addition to underground and submarine cables.Within the study area,significant and potentially significant impacts were initially identified for the following situations: m those areas where the transmission line would require an additional new right-of-way in existing subdivided residential areas occupied by residences ™those areas where severance of currently vacant parcels could prohibit future development m™residential areas where the project would physically conflict with existing residences or planned subdivisions at the final approval stage m those areas where the project would create a direct conflict with commercial,industrial or transportation uses In this study,long-term is used to characterize impacts continuing after construction while short- term is for impacts that would be limited to construction.Most impacts in this study are expected to be long term,lasting for the life of the Project.However,changes in development plans necessitated by placement of a transmission line across or bordering a parcel are seen as short term. Land use impacts assessed physical or operational effects of the proposed Project on private, borough,municipal,and state land uses.Impacts on management plans and policies were not assessed for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR)and Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge (ACWR)lands.In these cases,the responsible agency will make .an internal determination of compatibility with their existing management plans,policies,and statutes. Mitigation Mitigation measures were recommended in most cases as effective means of reducing the severity of initial impacts.Four measures from the selectively committed mitigation measures were used to reduce initial significant and potentially significant impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line to a potentially significant or non- significant residual level.The selective mitigation measures recommend for land use resources are listed below. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-115 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 1.No widening or upgrading of existing access roads would be undertaken in the area.This would minimize ground disturbance and limit new or improved access ability. 4.To limit new or improved accessibility into the area,all access that is undesired or not required for maintenance will be closed using the most effective and least environmentally damaging methods appropriate to that area and developed withconcurrenceofthelandownerorlandmanager. 5.To minimize ground disturbance,operation conflicts,and/or visual contrast,the tower design will be modified or an alternative route type will be used. 6.Avoidance of sensitive features may be accomplished by spanning,shifting the alignment to the opposite side of an existing line,or realigning the route.This will minimize theamountofsensitivefeaturesdisturbed. Wherever possible property boundaries would be utilized in order to:minimize severance of parcels.A landowner consultation program will be initiated prior to project start up to ensure communication with landowners.Private easements will be purchased at fair market value and compensation made for any property damage. 4.5.2 IMPACTS ON LAND USE AND LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS Below is an overview of land use and land management plans and the possible effects by the proposed Project. Land Jurisdiction and Ownership The effects of the proposed Project on land jurisdiction primarily involve land policies,land- management plans,and permitting requirements of federal,state,and local agencies. Jurisdictions mapped in the inventory section were used to identify the land agencies potentially affected by the alternative routes. Management Plans Impacts on management plans and policies were assessed for the Municipality of Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula Borough (i.e.,local management plans),coastal management plans,and the KNWR.The overview of impacts for these categories is provided in the paragraphs that follow. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-116 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Municipality of Anchorage The Municipality of Anchorage is currently updating their plan;therefore,a discussion of the impacts related to the Municipality of Anchorage Comprehensive Plan are not included in this section.It is anticipated that this information will be included in the draft environmental impact statement pending completion of the Municipality of Anchorage Comprehensive Plan. Completion of this plan is anticipated by the end of 1998. Kenai Peninsula Borough The following is a discussion of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan,May 1992. The goals and objectives of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan related to utilities are as follows: Objective 1.To establish and maintain appropriate utility rights-of-way or easements to serve existing and future utility needs. Action A The Planning Department will continue close coordination with utility operators in reviewing and approving utility easement dedication and vacation proposals associated with subdivision plat approval. Action B The Planning Department will evaluate borough and state land to identify potential utility routes and reserve appropriate rights-of-way prior to development or sale. Objective 2.To assist residents in establishing financing procedures for utility extension projects which would benefit borough residents. Action A The borough will continue to investigate the development of fair and equitable procedures,such as local improvement districts or special assessment districts,to finance utility line extensions. Although these goals do not specifically relate to the construction of Southern Intertie Project, the plan does state (page 3-39)"Additional transmission line upgrades are needed to carry power to Anchorage and Fairbanks.”Given that the borough lands located along the coast from Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)to Pt.Possession have been subdivided and a transportation/utility right-of-way has been formerly platted,the Tesoro alternative appears to be consistent with the plan. However,the proposed Project appears to be inconsistent with other sections of the plan,most notably scenic quality,as follows: Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-117 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Goal 6.6:To maintain or improve scenic quality in visible areas of the borough. Objective 1.To minimize the adverse visual impacts of development activities adjoining residential and recreation areas and major road corridors. Objective 2.To promote visual quality at public facilities throughout the borough. Both the Enstar and Tesoro alternative routes would create varying degrees of visual impacts on adjoining residential,recreational,and major road corridors.However,mitigation measures outlined in the visual resources section of this report are expected to minimize impacts.Although the Project may not be consistent with these goals and objectives,locating the transmission line along existing utility rights-of-way minimizes the extent of additional visual impacts on areas that are currently undisturbed. Coastal Management Plans The purpose of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is as follows: ™preserve,protect,develop,and where possible,restore or enhance,the resources of the nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations ™encourage and assist the states to effectively exercise their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone,giving full consideration to ecological,cultural,historic,and aesthetic values as well as the needs for economic development Section 46.40.020 of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP)states that: "The ACMP shall be consistent with the following objectives: 1.The use,management,restoration,and enhancement of the overall quality of the coastal environment 2.The development of industrial or commercial enterprises which are consistent with the social,cultural,historic,economic,and environmental interests of the people of the state 3.The orderly,balanced utilization and protection of the resources of the coastal area consistent with sound conservation and sustained yield principals 4.The management of coastal land and water uses in such a manner that,generally,those uses which are economically or physically dependent on a coastal location are given Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-118 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 higher priority when compared to uses which do not economically or physically require a coastal location The protection and management of historic,cultural,natural,and aesthetic values and natural systems or processes within the coastal area The prevention of damage to or degradation of land and water reserved for their natural values as a result of inconsistent land or water usage adjacent to that land The recognition of the need for a continuing supply of energy to meet the requirements of the state and the contribution of a share of the state's resources to meet national energy needs The full and fair evaluation of all demands on the land and water in the coastal area (4ch 84 SLA 1977)” According to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program (June 1990),local programs must be consistent with the guidelines and standards adopted by the council under AS 46.40.040 and must include the following: 1.A delineation within the coastal district of the boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district coastal management program 2.A statement,list,or definition of the land and water uses and activities subject to the district coastal management program 3.A statement of policies to be applied to the land and water uses subject to the district coastal management program 4.Regulations,as appropriate to be applied to the land and water uses subject to the district coastal management program 5.A description of the uses and activities which will be considered proper and the uses and activities which will be considered improper with respect to the land and water within the coastal area 6.Asummary statement of the policies which will be applied and the procedures which will be used to determine whether specific proposals for land or water uses or activities shall be allowed 7.A designation of,and the policies which will be applied to the use of,areas within the coastal resource district which merit special attention Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-119 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The purpose of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan is to provide "local input and guidance to state and federal agencies involved in developing projects,issuing permits or managing land within the coastal area or resources of the borough.The program will also provide an information base and policies to assist the borough in managing borough lands and making local decisions affecting coastal resources.” Section 5.3 of the Coastal Management Plan states that "To the extent feasible and prudent, existing industrial facilities or areas and pipeline routes shall be used to meet new requirements for exploration and production support bases,transmission/shipment (including pipelines and transportation systems),and distribution of energy resources.”The Tesoro Route is compatible with this section of the Coastal Management Plan.In addition,state standard 6 AAC 80.080. Transportation and Utilities,Paragraph b (b)states that "Transportation and utility routes and facilities must be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless the route or facility is water- dependent or no feasible and prudent inland alternative exists to meet the public need for the route or facility.” Section 6.4 Pipelines and Utilities,paragraph (a)states "To the extent feasible and prudent, existing pipeline and utility corridors shall be used for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities,rather than developing new corridors.”Given that the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives both maximize the use of the only north-south utility rights-of-way in the area,the proposed Project appears to be consistent with this section of the Coastal Management Plan.Additionally, paragraph (b)suggests "where feasible and prudent,pipelines and utilities shall be installed underground in areas of high recreational or scenic value or intensive public use.”Based on Land and Water Conservation Fund Act requirements and requests from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources the portion of the Tesoro route that traverses Captain Cook SRA will be placed underground along the existing roadway.Based on this information it appears that the proposed Project is consistent with the Coastal Management Plan.The Project also will comply with paragraph (d)"Overhead utility lines shall be visibly marked where necessary to avoid hazard to low-flying aircraft”as per Chugach Electric Association (CEA)standard marking practices for transmission lines.For more information on aviation safety,please refer to the aviation safety section in Chapter 3. Although the coastal management plans for both the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Municipality of Anchorage stress environmental considerations within the coastal zone,neither plan excludes construction and operation of the proposed Project.In locations where the Project is within the coastal zone,it appears that installation of the Project facilities would be consistent with the requirements of the ACMP.In order to comply with the ACMP,Municipality of Anchorage,and Kenai Peninsula Borough coastal management plans and recommendations of federal,state and local agencies the following design consideration have been incorporated into the proposed Project: =Installation methods include boring under the vegetated tidal flats within the ACWR,as recommended by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Municipality of Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-120 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Anchorage.This will minimize ground disturbance,direct effects on local wildlife populations,visual impacts,and disturbance to the bluffs. =Transition stations will be placed inland of the shoreline,thereby minimizing ground disturbance and visual impacts. =Construction will occur during the winter,or during periods of frozen conditions thereby minimizing impacts on wetland areas. Based on a review of the coastal management plans the proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of the local plans and the Federal Coastal Management Act. KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan A goal of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service's (USF WS's)Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the KNWR includes a desire to acquire inholdings within the refuge while maintaining a balance of indigenous wildlife and natural processes.The plan also stresses protection of the Chickaloon Flats as one of the major reasons for extending the northeastern boundary of the refuge,in addition to the reconfiguation according to the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA).The plan notes that the KNWR has more roads and trails than any other refuge in Alaska.Oil and gas exploration and development is still considered active within the KNWR. The plan also notes that human use associated with oil and gas development is a significant management problem.The proposed Project would result in similar management problems. The Project alternatives are located within a Moderate Management area and Minimal Management area along the Enstar pipeline corridor.Moderate Management was established along the pipeline corridor and access road in recognition of future use by hunters and recreators utilizing motorized equipment.Although off-road travel is prohibited within the KNWR during summer,refuge managers acknowledge that this corridor would receive disproportionately higher use during the hunting season versus other access areas on the northern portion of the refuge. Minimal Management was established to maintain the pristine conditions of areas.that have important fish and wildlife and wilderness values.Lands in this category represent USFWS recommendations for future wilderness designation.For a more detailed discussion of the KNWR management areas refer to the Land Use section in Chapter 3. Based on the mandate and purpose establishing the refuge,predicted environmental impacts, proximity of highly sensitive wildlife species,and management concerns,the proposed Project would conflict with the KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-121 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 KNWR Fire Management Plans The KNWR uses prescribed and naturally occurring fires to manipulate habitat for certain key species,most notably moose.According to the 1985 KNWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, major fires occurred on the refuge in 1871,1883,1891,and 1910 (KNWR 1985a).Two large, human-caused fires in 1947 and 1969 occurred within the Project area.As a result,areas of mature spruce forests were replaced by a mosaic of brush and early successional species that improved habitat for numerous species including moose. Another purpose of prescribed burning within the refuge is to provide necessary fuel breaks for populated/developed areas while enhancing habitat for moose and other wildlife.Fire management direction is based on the following four management plans: Alaska Wildland Fire Management Plan,amended March 1998 Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan,Kenai Peninsula Planning Area,April 1984 KNWR Fire Management Plan,revised February 1988 Prescribed Burn Plan,KNWR,Mystery Creek III Prescribed Burn,1996 Each plan relates specifically to the KNWR at different levels.Both the Alaska Wildland Fire Management Plan and the Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan have a broad scope and define general levels of suppression activities related to management goals,wildlife,scenery,and human development,while the KNWR and Mystery Creek plans are specific to the refuge.Route Options B and C along the Enstar pipeline corridor intersect the Mystery Creek burn unit and three fire suppression designations:full protection management option,modified action management option,and limited action management option.From the refuge boundary in Sterling to the east fork of the Moose River full protection lands are crossed for 14.5 km (9 miles).From the east fork of Moose River to Mystery Creek Road modified action lands are crossed for 4.8 km (3 miles).From the Mystery Creek Road intersection with the pipelines to Chickaloon Flats (41.8 km [26 miles])the pipelines serve as a boundary between modified and limited action.The proposed right-of-way clearing of 45.7 meters (150 feet)would provide an additional fire break adjacent to the access road.However,the transmission line right-of-way would not be cleared to mineral soil,leaving some fuels available for fire advancement. The KNWR intends to prescribe burn along the entire length of the Enstar pipeline corridor from Sterling to Chickaloon Flats;operations will involve helitorches carried by helicopters to ignite the area.Helicopters with water buckets have been used for holding actions on fires.Both water buckets and helitorches are slung on cables below the helicopter.The transmission line would present a risk of entanglement during fire management activities.Smokey conditions and low visibility also increase the potential for accidents.Other aircraft,such as spotter planes and slurry bombers,are brought in from other areas in the state.Unfamiliarity with the area combined with the presence of the transmission line could increase the possibility of an accident. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-122 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 To minimize risk to suppression crews,CEA would typically shut down the intertie during a fire, if warranted,thereby eliminating any risk of electrocution or "arcing.”This can be done immediately by calling the dispatch center at CEA,and would not require any additional efforts. The dispatch center is on-call 24 hours a day.The proposed transmission line towers are constructed of steel and are able to withstand some degree of heat/flame produced from ground fires.The conductors can be damaged by fire,but potential for damage depends on variables such as fire intensity,fuel,wind,and proximity.CEA would inspect the line before energizing and any portions determined to be damaged would be replaced.Maintaining recreation in the right- of-way minimizes exposure of the lines to effects from fire.The transmission line also would be marked to minimize the risk of aviation hazards associated with suppression activities.Overall impacts related to fire management and suppression crew safety are anticipated to be potentially significant to significant. KNWR Land Protection Plan The goal of the KNWR Land Protection Plan is to preserve high quality habitat found on and in and in the vicinity of private lands within the KNWR.The plan identifies where private lands are located,what resources need protection,what methods of resource protection exist,what priorities for resource protection are,and recommendations and methods of implementation. Private inholdings within the refuge potentially affected by the Project include lands conveyed to Pt.Possession Inc.(now with private developer interest attached),Salamatof,and Kenai Natives Association.The Plan identifies Pt.Possession lands along Route Option A (Bernice Lake to Pt. Possession)as a low and medium ranking of importance according to the Alaska Priority System (APS).The APS model is based on the mission of the USFWS and management concerns of each individual refuge.The APS model uses the following seven criteria to rank land and resources:. endangered species migratory birds diversity of wetlands diversity of uplands marine mammals resident refuge purpose species fisheriesNAMPYWNSE According to the KNWR Land Protection Plan,the probability of development at Pt.Possession is rated as medium (the USFWS does not have right of first refusal on this property).Significant concerns include disturbance to trumpeter swans on Diamond Lake;the property also is formerly part of the Kenai Wilderness Area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-123 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 APS ranking for the Salamatof lands along Route Option B,Spirit Lake Tract,is high with a high probability of development noted.The parcel includes existing cabins and a road.Title 22(g)does not apply,thereby removing limitations on development.Significant areas of concern include high density moose wintering and trumpeter swan nesting areas. The APS ranking of importance for the Kenai Natives Association lands along Route Option B indicate a high priority with a high probability of development.This parcel does fall under the Section 22(g)regulations.However,no 22(g)regulations have been promulgated,therefore the specific degree of protection has not been identified.Significant areas of concern include important moose winter areas,staging for trumpeter swans,lynx,coyote,and wolf denning areas. This parcel was recently released to the Kenai Natives Association after a Congressionally mandated land exchange became finalized. Based on the interpretation of the KNWR Land Protection Plan and discussions with USFWS representatives,there is no identifiable impact on the KNWR Land Protection Plan related to the proposed Project. Existing and Planned Land Use The majority of potential impacts on existing and planned land uses would result from the direct physical conflict between the proposed transmission line and a land use feature.Direct or significant impacts on existing residences could result from the incompatibility with or removal of occupied dwellings and related structures from the Project right-of-way.Most significant residential initial impacts would be mitigated to potentially significant or non-significant impacts by narrowing the right-of-way,or locally rerouting the alignment . Impacts on future land uses would occur in those areas where construction,operation,and maintenance would preclude or impair future development activities.Impacts on future land uses would be generally non-significant to potentially significant,based on future plans along the alternative routes and the use of existing linear features. Transportation and Utilities Impacts on highways,roads,and existing utilities would result from direct physical conflicts and right-of-way encroachment.Generally these impacts are a matter of technical coordination and realty agreements with the affected administering agency or utility company.Agreements or permits usually can be acquired from the administering agency or utility company provided certain construction and right-of-way stipulations are met. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-124 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 4.5.3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE The following sections provide summaries of land use impacts including cumulative impacts. No-action Alternative There would be no impacts on jurisdictions,management plans,existing and future land uses,or transportation and utilities on the Kenai Peninsula or in the Anchorage Bowl from the proposed Project under the no-action alternative. Tesoro Route Alternatives Impacts on Land Use Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,T2.1 13.1,T3.2,T5.1, T5.2/Route Option A) Potential initial impacts in Nikiski assumed a centerline located on private property,on the east side of the road right-of-way.A 9.1-meter (30-foot)utility easement would be required from landowners.Approximately 170 parcels would be crossed and as a result 4.7 km (2.9 miles)of possible significant initial impacts were identified for residential and commercial uses within the proposed 9.1-meter (30-foot)right-of-way.Mitigation to avoid impacts on parcels is to locate the line within the North Kenai Road right-of-way,and acquire a 9.1-meter (30-foot)aerial easement for the transmission facilities.This would reduce potential impacts to the non-significant to potentially significant range and avoid crossing parcels. The two private airstrips located adjacent to Link T1.3 are within 106.7 to 129.5 meters (350 to 425 feet)of the proposed alignment.An overhead transmission line would present an obstruction to approaches and departures from both airstrips.Although Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)regulations requiring mitigation measures do not apply to unapproved aviation facilities, CEA would bury the transmission line for approximately 304.8 to 762 meters (1,000 to 2,500 feet)where it crosses the flight paths to the private airstrips to mitigate potential hazards. The overhead portions of the Project near the heliport would be marked with appropriate devices as required by the FAA and in accordance with CEA's standard practices.Impacts on aviation facilities are predicted to be non-significant. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-125 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Due to the distance from the assumed centerline and the parallel orientation of the airstrip at Moose Point,impacts are anticipated to be non-significant.At this time no specific mitigation measures are recommended. North of Captain Cook SRA,severance of parcels contributed to 2.9 km (1.8 miles)of possible significant initial impacts.Paralleling the Tesoro Pipeline at a constant 22.9-meter (75-foot) separation would force the proposed transmission line to sever approximately 24 parcels that are both currently vacant and occupied.This separation from the pipeline would also locate the proposed line within the 30.5-meter (100-foot)-wide platted North Kenai Road at some points, and within the 91.4-meter (300-foot)-wide transportation corridor at other locations.Mitigation to avoid land use impacts and to conform to the Gray Cliffs and Moose Point subdivision plans would involve locating the route within the transportation corridor right-of-way,avoiding severance of 22 private parcels,and avoiding locating the line within North Kenai Road. Following the planned transportation corridor would involve crossing a corner of a section of the KNWR.With an adjustment in the alignment,the Project could avoid the KNWR.Impacts still would occur for 0.2 km (0.1 mile)due to three structures within the transportation corridor right- of-way on Link T3.2 and a 0.2 km (0.1 mile)on Link T5.1 as a result of bisecting a private parcel with residences present.Residual impacts would be reduced to potentially significant and non- significant for the remainder of the route.Potential impacts on conveyed lands at Pt.Possession would be non-significant. Cumulative Impacts-The Kenai Peninsula Borough is planning to extend the North Kenai Road past Captain Cook SRA into Gray Cliffs Subdivision within the next six years.The Planning Department has identified that an upgraded access road may be beneficial to develop that area. Construction of an access road north of the park to Pt.Possession could lead to increased use of this area by hunters and recreationists,and allow for easier access to existing residences. The Gray Cliff and Moose Point developments will continue to develop as rural recreation subdivisions and borough holdings will continue to be sold to private interests.As the population on the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage increases,both primary and secondary homes would continue to be developed.Lake-front property would remain highly valued.Pt.Possession conveyed lands have been purchased by a private developer.Potential uses may range from commercial recreation uses to residential subdivisions.No cumulative impacts have been identified to existing or future land uses as a result of the Project. Impacts on Land Use-related Resources in the Turnagain Arm Area (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) There are no land use impacts along this route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-126 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) Potential residual impacts on land uses on Fire Island would be potentially significant to non- significant.Access conditions at the north end of the island lowered impacts slightly when compared the lack of access availability at the south end of the island.VHP Omnidirectional Range Tacan (VORTAC)and communication facilities on the island would require compliance with FAA regulations,resulting in low residual impacts. VORTAC and communication facilities on the island would require compliance with FAA regulations,resulting in low residual impacts.No impacts are anticipated to the airstrip on Fire Island because it is closed. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,74.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) Potential impacts on Fire Island would be the same as above. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof submarine (Link M2.4/Route Option G) There are no land use impacts along this route. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) There are no land use impacts along this route. Cumulative Impacts-As a result of the extreme marine environment it is anticipated that the Turnagain Arm will remain essentially undeveloped.A harbor potentially could be built on Fire Island at some point in the future,but at this time that plan is very conceptual.Development of a causeway from Anchorage to the Peninsula seems as equally unlikely.Recreation and aesthetics will continue to be the main focus of this area.The ACWR would continue to manage coastal lands for wildlife-related uses.No cumulative impacts on existing or future land uses were identified for routes in the Turnagain Arm region. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-127 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impacts on Land Use Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) Initial and residual impacts along this route are the same.Short-term construction impacts on Kincaid Park would be potentially significant to significant but long-term impacts would be non- significant. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Enstar Route Alternatives Impacts on Land Use Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldotna (Links S1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) Possible significant initial impacts along Link S1.1 would occur for 0.2 km (0.1 mile)as a result of residences within the proposed right-of-way.Impacts on these residences would be mitigated to non-significant by realigning the route or double-circuiting the transmission line. Approximately 120 parcels would be crossed and additional right-of-way required.All residual impacts along this route would be potentially significant to non-significant. The 11 airstrips located along this link do not appear to require any specific mitigation measures. However,CEA's practice of marking overhead wires in areas used by aircraft would minimize any potential impacts.This route parallels an existing overhead transmission line crossing of the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-128 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Moose River,which is currently marked with a hazard warning ball.The proposed Project also would be marked at this crossing point. Southern Soldotna (Links 82.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) There were no significant initial impacts identified for this route.Approximately 129 parcels would be crossed.On Link S2.1,through the Funny River Subdivision,the proposed line would replace the existing 69kV line on a pole-for-pole basis and maintain the existing H-frame crossing of the Kenai River.All residual impacts along this route would be potentially significant to non-significant. Seven airstrips located with 1.6 km (1 mile)of this link are all private.The proposed Project would be marked appropriately as per CEA's general practices and FAA requirements. Cumulative Impacts-Homer Electric Association is planing two projects in the Sterling area.A new 115-24.9/14.4kV substation and 115kV tap line will be needed in the future,although specific sites or construction dates have not been identified.The design and construction of a similar substation in the north Kenai area is in progress (Homer Electric Association 1993). Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) Impacts on the KNWR management plans and policies are addressed in Section 4.5.2. Construction of the proposed Project would widen the existing transportation corridor in the KNWR.Access along Mystery Creek Road may be substantially changed as a result of construction activities.Natural views may be altered,wildlife displaced,historically used campsites may be defoliated,and traditional long-time users may be displaced by new users more tolerant of altered landscapes and increased motorized use.The refuge may experience a loss of control over maintaining limited access opportunities off the Mystery Creek Road. Of the three airstrips adjacent to this route,two are closed to all but emergency landings,while the third,Big Indian Creek airstrip,is open to use.Hazard warning marker balls would be installed pending FAA review. Cumulative Impacts-Past,present,and planned projects on the KNWR were evaluated to estimate the increment of cumulative impact that would result from construction of Route Option C that crosses the KNWR.The major portion of the development on the KNWR has occurred historically,as described in the KNWR Wilderness Proposal/Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (USFWS 1988). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-129 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The KNWR was originally established in 1941 to include 849,843 hectares (2.1 million acres)of land to protect moose populations.In 1964,the KNWR area was reduced to 700,109 hectares (1.73 million acres)to exclude private lands,and provide a future corridor for transportation and utility system,and development in general on the Kenai Peninsula.In 1980,the area was expanded to its present size of 812,207 hectares (2,007,000 acres)by ANILCA,including 1.35 million acres of designated wilderness.Historically,there has been development of various rights-of-way,oil and gas field development,and other land uses that have diminished the quality of the refuge environment.The Bureau of Land Management was the responsible agency for permitting rights-of-way on the KNWR until 1966 when the USFWS assumed that role and enforced new protection stipulations and requirements. Rights-of-way have been granted for roads,highways,pipelines,telephone lines,recreation facilities,communications towers,airstrips,and electric transmission and distribution lines as listed in Table 4-15.There also are plans to realign the Sterling Highway,which may result in clearing for additional right-of-way through the corner of the wilderness area west of Cooper Landing,although an alternative has not been identified at this time. TABLE 4-15 ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE PROJECT AREA OF IMPACT ON THE KNWR Length Estimated Right-of-way |Amount of Land (in km Average Width (in Used (in hectares Land Use/Facility Type [miles])meters [feet])[acres]) Past and Present Projects State roads and highways 83.7 (52)61 (200)$10.3 (1,261) Access roads (oil and gas)64.4 (40):30.5 (100)196.3 (485) Electric transmission lines 80.5 (50)45.7 (150)367.9 (909) Telephone lines 4.8 (3)15.2 (50)7.3 (18) Buried pipeline 120.7 (75)45.7 (150)552 (1,364) Seismic exploration lines 2,414 (1,500)7.1 (30)2,207.6 (5,455) Communications towers (2)_-121.4 (300) Sand and gravel sites _-60.7 (150) Airstrips (4)__323.8 (800) Oil and gas fields _--4,846.3 (12,000) Subtotal:Past and Present --9,203.4 (22,742) Planned or Future Projects Oil and gas field area subject to lease _-73,762.8 (182,271) (117,240 less present 12,000 acres) Subtotal:Planned or Future 42,589.3 (105,240) Southern Intertie Project 56.7 (35.2)45.7 (150)259 (640) Cumulative Total _-_52,067.9 (128,662) Sources:USFWS 1988b and Dames &Moore estimates. Oil and gas leases have been issued since 1958.There were 312,013 hectares (771,000 acres)of land open to oil and gas leasing until 1980 when ANICLA reduced the area to 216,912 hectares (536,000 acres)-presently there are 47,445 hectares (117,240 acres)of land subject to federal oil Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-130 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 and gas leasing (Johnston 1998).Over 100 wells have been drilled on the 3,238-hectares (8,000- acre)Swanson River Oil Field,although less than half are currently operating.Natural gas production,which began in 1993,is expected to accelerate as the rate of oil extraction diminishes. Environmental effects from those projects identified by the KNWR have included the impact types listed below (KNWR 1988b). Roads_and highways:traffic (over 400,000 vehicles annually)and related activities (grading, clearing,resurfacing,litter,snowplowing,sign placement),resulting the following: moose mortality-highest on Sterling Highway,minimal on unpaved roads higher rate of illegal off-road vehicle and snowmobile use erosion dust Oil and gas,and material extraction =water quality and quantity affected by spills and industrial accidents @ air quality affected by gas flaring ™visitor use concentrated by lack of access to oil fields Overhead electric transmission lines =raptor mortality m™visual impact Direct and indirect impacts have been assessed and reported for the individual environmental resources potentially affected by the Project.In order to evaluate the relative incremental impact of the proposed transmission line Project,cumulative estimates of the amount of land used for other KNWR projects identified above are listed in Table 4-15. According to this summary,the amount of land directly affected by past and present project development on the KNWR would be on the order of magnitude of 9,308 hectares (23,000 acres),or about 1 percent of the KNWR's land area.Future oil and gas leases would add about 42,492 hectares (105,000 acres),or another 5 percent of the total area.Indirect impacts resulting from these projects could be considered to add additional acreage. The estimated amount of additional land that would be affected by the Project within the KNWR is approximately 259 hectares (640 acres).The incremental increase in land directly affected by the proposed Project would be approximately %of 1 percent of the total area of land disturbance Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-13]Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 associated with other past,present,or future activities summarized above.While the impact area of the Project may be a relatively small increase in disturbance to the KNWR,incrementally,it is considered an adverse cumulative impact. Impacts on Land Use-related Resources in the Turnagain Arm Area (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I) There are no land use impacts along this route. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J) There are no land use impacts along this route. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K) There are no land use impacts along this route. Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) There are no land use impacts along this route. Cumulative Impacts-As a result of the extreme marine environment it is anticipated that the Turnagain Arm will remain essentially undeveloped.Recreation and aesthetics will continue to be the main focus of this area.The ACWR would continue to manage coastal lands for wildlife- related uses.No cumulative land use impacts on land uses are associated with the Turnagain Arm Region. Impacts on Land Use Resources in the Anchorage Bow](Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro route alternatives While Route Option M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar route or the Tesoro route,it is described as part of the Tesoro route alternatives. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-132 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road (Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V,Z) Initial impacts along this route accounted for the assumed centerline to be located on private land outside of the road right-of-way.Mitigation to reduce 0.5 km (0.3 mile)of significant initial impacts along Link 15.5 to residential uses was to relocate the line to within the road right-of- way for the entire route.Potential residual impacts would be potentially significant to non- significant.Impacts on planned residential development along this route would be non- significant. Alaska Railroad (Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y,Z) A potentially significant impact occurs at the planned picnic area within Oceanview Bluff Park on Link I2.5.Short-term construction impacts would be potentially significant to non-significant, but long-term impacts would be potentially significant.Impacts along the remainder of the route would be non-significant. The alternative that parallels the railroad adjacent to the Flying Crown Airstrip would be buried within the railroad;therefore no impacts on aviation are anticipated. Old Seward Highway/International Road (Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) Initial impacts along this route accounted for the assumed centerline to be located on private land outside of the road right-of-way.Approximately 265 parcels would be crossed resulting in 1.9 km (1.2 miles)of significant initial impacts on residential and commercial uses on this route. Recommended mitigation would be to rebuild the transmission line within the road right-of-way. Potential residual impacts would be potentially significant to non-significant. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) Initial impacts would be potentially significant for this route.Planned developments and two parcels would be crossed on Links [3.1 and 13.2.Mitigation to reduce impacts on the developments would be to relocate the line within the road right-of-way.Residual impacts would be non-significant to potentially significant. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) Initial impacts would be potentially significant for this route.Planned developments and two parcels would be crossed on Links [3.1 and J3.2.Mitigation to reduce impacts on the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-133 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 developments would be to relocate the line within the road right-of-way.Residual impacts would be non-significant to potentially significant. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,J3.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) Initial impacts would be potentially significant for this route.Planned developments and two parcels would be crossed on Links J3.1 and 13.2.Mitigation to reduce impacts on the developments would be to relocate the line within the road right-of-way.Residual impacts would be non-significant to potentially significant. Cumulative Impacts on Anchorage Area Routes-Anchorage Bowl has a limited land base and as a result,development is expected to fill in the existing vacant and undeveloped parcels.Urban renewal will occur according to the Municipality of Anchorage Comprehensive Plan and Visioning Plan.Planned land uses identified at this time will be potentially be completed with in a few years.No cumulative land use impacts are expected for the alternatives in Anchorage. As electrical loads grow as a result of increased development,electrical system upgrades are required to strengthen power systems to support the load.Current and long-range plans for construction of electrical transmission and distribution facilities were obtained from the two utilities serving the Anchorage area-Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (AML&P)and CEA. AML&P is planning future substations and a subtransmission line upgrade in the Anchorage area,but has not identified any planned facilities in the Project area (AML&P 1997). CEA reported one project,the International-South Anchorage 138kV transmission line and substation,that is planned within the Anchorage study area.While there is no specific date for the planned south Anchorage circuit,the purpose of this planned transmission line is to reinforce the electrical system in the south Anchorage area.As a result of local growth,it is required independently of the Southern Intertie Project.If the Southern Intertie Project were to be routed to the International Substation,both projects could share portions of the same line through south Anchorage.Sharing common facilities could mitigate any cumulative effects that might result from the combination of both projects (CEA 1992b). Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives The expansion on the Bernice Lake Substation would result in non-significant residual impacts. The riser pole locations on Links T1.3,T1.4,and T2.1 would result in non-significant residual impacts.The new transition facility site on Link T5.1 near Pt.Possession would be located on state land designated for multiple use.Residual impacts would be non-significant. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-134 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 On Fire Island two transition facilities would be required,one at the south end of the island and one at the north end.Residual impacts would be non-significant. The expansion of the existing Soldotna Substation would result in non-significant residual impacts.A new substation,Naptowne,would be located at the junction of Links $2.1 and S1.5. This facility would be located on private land and require 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres).Residual impacts would be potentially significant.A transition facility site would be required at the end of Link MS.1 in the KNWR.This facility would be located on lands designated Minimal Management. Transition facility sites at Pt.Woronzof and Pt.Campbell would result in non-significant residual impacts.The transition facility site at Klatt Road would result in moderate impacts.The transition facility sites located north of Cross Road,at 120"Avenue,along Old Seward Highway and near Rabbit Creek Rifle Range would result in non-significant impacts. The Pt.Woronzof Substation would require a 0.6-hectare (1.4-acre)addition to the north of the existing facility.Residual impacts would be potentially significant. International Substation would require 0.08-hectare (0.2 acre)addition to the west of the existing facility.Residual impacts would be non-significant. Dave's Creek Substation The expansion of the Dave's Creek Substation would result in non-significant impacts. Impact Summary -Resource Preference Kenai Lowlands Region Route preference among Route Options A,B,and C is based on residual impacts,input from agencies,CWG members,and the public.Based on these factors,Route Option A would be the preferred route for land use resources. Turnagain Arm Region Route preference among the nine options that cross the water with submarine cable is not distinguishable.Options that avoid Fire Island would minimize land use impacts.The largest factor in determining a preference among these routes is the implication the submarine landings in Anchorage have on the route as a whole. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-135 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Anchorage Bowl Region Route preference among the 14 options in Anchorage is not a comparison on equal levels.Routes to Pt.Woronzof minimize land use impacts entirely.Pt.Campbell would be second with the least amount of land use impacts.The Alaska Railroad alternative would be third based on non- significant impacts and staying within the railroad right-of-way for the duration of the route. The other routes that involve Minnesota Drive and Old Seward Highway have varying levels of significant,potentially significant,and non-significant impacts. 4.6 RECREATION AND TOURISM RESOURCES The recreation resources assessment was based on the issues expressed by agencies,Community Working Group members,and the public during the scoping period.Issues focused on effects resulting from the presence of the Project in or near recreational areas,the impacts on the quality of a recreation or wilderness experience,and the effects on tourism. 4.6.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS The recreation resources impact assessment model used the same three assessment variables for assessing impacts as the land use model-resource sensitivity,resource quantity,and duration of impact.These three variables resulted in the assessment of an initial impact (significant, potentially significant,or non-significant)to each recreation category.Once initial impact levels were established along the routes,specific measures for mitigating or reducing significant or potentially significant impacts were applied.The residual impact represents the potential impact that could be expected to occur,after mitigation,if the proposed Project were constructed along a given route. Impact Levels Impact significance was determined assuming Project construction utilizing 230kV X-frame,H- frame,and single-pole structures,along with underground and submarine cables.Within the study area possible significant or potentially significant impacts were initially identified for the following situations: m™those areas where the transmission line would require new right-of-way through an existing recreation area m those areas where the transmission line would prohibit use or limit future development of a recreation area Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-136 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 ™presence of the transmission line would physically interfere with recreation activities Impact Types Direct impacts on recreation uses pertain to physical or operational effects of the proposed Project on recreation resources.Physical impacts include restrictions to existing facilities and uses,and right-of-way restrictions to the occupied land.These impacts would be long term,and would include limitations on future facilities or expansion of existing sites.Direct effects also can include changes in scenic qualities or attributes,particularly in remote natural settings.Only physical impacts on recreation uses occurring within the right-of-way were determined for this analysis.Visual and aesthetic impacts are described in the visual resources section. Indirect effects of transmission lines on recreation resources include potential displacement or concentration of recreation users.The presence of a transmission line may displace those recreation users who find the presence of line intrusive,or the presence of the line may attract users who seek the transmission line corridor as a means of access.This type of an effect could occur on either the Tesoro or Enstar routes.Impact types identified for recreation uses included impacts that: m alter or otherwise physically affect any established,designated or planned recreation, preservation use area,or activity m affect any officially adopted policies or goals of the affected land-managing agency ™increase or decrease accessibility to any area established,designated,or planned for recreation or preservation use Mitigation Mitigation measures were recommended in most cases as effective means of reducing the severity of initial impacts.One measure from the selectively committed mitigation measures was used to reduce initial significant and potentially significant impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line to a potentially significant or non- significant residual level.The selective mitigation measure recommend for recreation resources is as follows: 6.Avoidance of sensitive features may be accomplished by spanning,shifting the alignment to the opposite side of an existing line,or realigning the route.This will minimize the amount of sensitive features disturbed. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-137 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 4.6.2 OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS ON TOURISM The major tourist attraction within the Project area is the Kenai River.Enstar Route Option B South/C crosses the Kenai River in two locations,the most visible of which is the aerial crossing at Bings Landing State Recreation Site.The existing crossing consists of an overhead 69kV transmission line that would be removed and replaced by the Project facilities.Construction would occur during winter or periods of low recreational use in spring and fall,resulting in a low impact on tourist activities.Predicted impacts relate primarily to the influx of workers during construction and are discussed in the socioeconomic section.The impact on visual characteristics and settings of both crossings are described in the visual resources section. A field investigation with U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)personnel determined that no direct impacts are expected to occur on the Swan Lake/Swanson River canoe trails from any of the route options.However,based on discussion with USFWS representatives,impacts are expected on recreation and tourism along the Enstar pipeline corridor as a result of construction activities and the presence of the transmission line and right-of-way. No direct impacts on cruise ships have been identified because of the distance of the vessels' travelways from the alternative corridors.However,aerial flight-seeing is a popular side trip for many cruise ship passengers and other tourists,in addition to residents of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.Several commonly used flight-seeing routes parallel or traverse the route options.The presence of a transmission line would modify the naturally appearing landscape and may have an indirect effect on aerial flight seeing. 4.6.3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE No-action Alternative There would be no impacts on recreation uses on the Kenai Peninsula or in the Anchorage Bowl from the proposed Project under the no-action alternative. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-138 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Tesoro Route Alternatives Impacts on Recreation Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,71.4,T2.1 13.1,T3.2,T5.1, T5.2/Route Option A) This route crosses through Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)with an underground transmission line adjacent to the road.There are no direct impacts on any of the campgrounds or facilities within the park.Short-term impacts would be significant to potentially significant during construction of the line.Heavy equipment will temporarily occupy one lane of traffic and ground disturbance will occur.Long-term impacts would be non-significant.Lands north of the park designated as possible future additions would be crossed with an overhead transmission line offset from the existing pipeline corridor but within the platted transportation corridor. The USFWS (Johnston 1997a)estimated that the Tesoro route potentially would affect 5 permittees and 74 clients who use the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).The specific effect of an overhead transmission line on these commercial visitor services that use the KNWR was not defined. Cumulative Impacts-Continued urbanization and development in the Nikiski area will increase the recreational value and the use of Captain Cook SRA.State lands designated for addition to the park could act as a buffer to planned development.No cumulative impacts on recreation along Route Option A were identified. Impacts on Recreation Resources in Turnagain Arm (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Pt.Campbell,submarine (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-139 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof submarine (Link M2.4/Route Option G) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Cumulative Impacts-Recreation and aesthetics will continue to be an issue along the coastline/bluff in Anchorage.The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge would continue to manage coastal lands.The South Coastal Trail in Anchorage is stillin scoping/planning phases.No alignment has been determined at this time.No cumulative impacts on recreation were identified for Turnagain Arm alternatives. Impacts on Recreation Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) Short-term impacts during construction in Kincaid Park would be significant.Vegetation clearing,ground disturbance,and the presence of heavy equipment would occur during installation of the line.Recreation activities would be temporarily interrupted during either summer or winter construction.However,long-term impacts on recreation use in the park and along the trails would be non-significant. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-140 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route alternatives-While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route alternatives. Enstar Route Alternatives Impacts on Recreation Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldotna (Links S1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) Impacts on recreation uses along this route would be non-significant.The crossing of the Moose River would occur at the existing location.Canoeists utilizing the Swan Lake National Recreation Trail which ends at the refuge boundary would see the new line at the same time and from the same locations as previously experienced with the existing line.It is unknown how this would affect visitor use or experiences.Recreational boaters and local residents use the Moose River as a destination and a route for recreational purposes. Southern Soldotna (Links 82.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) Impacts on the Kenai River crossings would be non-significant.No direct impacts would occur on recreationists using the river for boating or fishing.Impacts on Funny River and Bings Landing State Recreation Sites would be non-significant as a result of the existing 69kV transmission line being replaced. Cumulative Impacts-Protection of the Kenai River watershed is a high priority of the Kenai Peninsula Borough,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Alaska Department of Natural Resources,and other state and federal agencies,river users,and local residents;and it is the focus of the Kenai River Watershed Forum.Concern for the cumulative impacts of growth and development of the Kenai River watershed has triggered the enactment of the Kenai River Habitat Protection Ordinance 96-06,which was adopted by the Kenai Borough Assembly in 1996. Future government projects along the Kenai River were summarized by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Kenai Peninsula Borough,and other agencies in 1997 to provide an understanding of what state and federal agencies are doing in the Kenai River watershed.This list is contained in Appendix O of the Alaska Department of Transportation's (ADOT's)Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Kenai River Crossing,December 1997.There are a variety of types of projects and studies listed which are associated with fisheries,water quality, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-141 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 river access,land management and land use planning,watershed conservation,bank restoration, and education. The two alternative bridge crossings that were selected by ADOT for further study for the Kenai River Crossing Project are in the vicinity of Sterling between river mile (RM)34 and 37.9 ADOT?'s preferred alternative is the Scout Lake Loop Road (East)bridge,which is at RM 34. There are two Kenai River crossings for the Soldotna B/South Route Option for the Project. They are located at approximately RM 28 (about 6 river miles west of the preferred ADOT bridge crossing),and at approximately RM 39 (about 5 river miles east of the preferred ADOT bridge crossing).The types of impacts reported for the Scout Lake Loop Road (East)alternative (wetland,river bottom,riverbank,water quality,and residential relocation)can be avoided by the Project by replacing the existing 69kV transmission line within the existing right-of-way,and spanning the Kenai River above the riverbank and wetland zone.The Kenai River Overlay District (15.2-meter [50-foot]habitat protection zone)also can be avoided at the river crossings. As a result cumulative impacts on the Kenai River can be minimized. Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) Construction of the proposed transmission line would introduce an industrial manmade structure into a natural and wilderness-like setting.Access along Mystery Creek Road may be improved as a result of construction activities.Natural views may be altered,wildlife displaced,historically used campsites may be defoliated,and traditional long-time users may be displaced by new users more tolerant of altered landscapes and increased motorized use.The KNWR may experience a loss of control over maintaining limited access opportunities off the Mystery Creek Road.The USFWS (Johnston 1997a)estimated that the Enstar route potentially would affect 24 permittees and 7,384 clients. KNWR personnel have indicated that clearing of the right-of-way would,in most cases,result in an increase in snowmachine use along the right of way.Subsequently,the refuge may close the area,which is currently open to snowmachining.Therefore,impacts on snowmachining are expected to be potentially significant to significant if closed to use. Some increase is anticipated in law enforcement patrols whether the right-of-way remains open or is closed to snowmachine use.If the right-of-way remains open,the increase in snowmachining would require a corresponding increase in enforcement patrols.If the right-of- way is closed,patrols would be required to prevent snowmachine users from trespassing. Therefore,the level of enforcement is uncertain and no impact has been assigned. Cumulative Impacts-Lands fronting the Kenai River will continue to be valued for recreational use in the Soldotna and Sterling areas.Hunting pressure on the KNWR will most likely increase due to the rise in population and proximity to Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-142 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impacts on Recreation Resources in Turnagain Arm (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (Link M4.1/Route Option I) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4/Route Option J) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link M5.3/Route Option K) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Links M5.5/Route Option L) There are no impacts on recreation uses along this route. Cumulative Impacts-Recreation and aesthetics will continue to be the main focus of the coastal bluff area.No cumulative impacts were identified for recreation use in the Turnagain Arm region. Impacts on Recreation Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro route alternatives-While Route Option M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar route or the Tesoro route,it is described as part of the Tesoro route alternatives. Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road (Route Options N,O,R,T,U,V,Z) Potential impacts on recreation uses from this corridor would be moderate to low.Planned open space would be located on the west side of Minnesota Drive,north of Raspberry Road. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-143 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Alaska Railroad (Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y,Z) The submarine landing at the railroad tracks would cross through a planned landscape enhancement and picnic area in Oceanview Bluff Park.Residual impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation would include revegetation of disturbed areas.Potential impacts on recreation uses along the remainder of the corridor would be non-significant. Old Seward Highway/International Road (Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) Potential impacts on recreation uses along this corridor would be low. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2;15.5/Route Option N) Potential impacts on recreation uses along this route would be low. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) Potential impacts on recreation uses along this route would be low. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) Potential impacts on recreation uses along this route would be low. Cumulative Impacts-Recreation and aesthetics will continue to be the main focus of the Coastal Bluff area in the Anchorage Bowl.No cumulative impacts were identified for recreation use in the Anchorage Bowl region. Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives There are no impacts on recreation uses from the proposed transition facility sites and substation alternatives along Tesoro or Enstar alternatives on the Kenai Lowlands. Transition facility sites at Pt.Woronzof and Pt.Campbell would result in low residual impacts. The transition facility sites located at Klatt Road north of Cross Road,at 120"Avenue,along Old Seward Highway,and near the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range would have no impacts on recreation uses. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-144 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Residual impacts on recreation uses at the Pt.Woronzof substation and International Substation would be non-significant. Dave's Creek Substation Impacts on recreation uses from the expansion of the Dave's Creek Substation would be non- significant. Impact Summary -Resource Preference Kenai Lowlands Region Route preference among Route Options A,B,and C for recreation resources would identify Route Option A as the preferred route. Turnagain Arm Region Route preference among the nine options that cross the water with submarine cable is not distinguishable.The largest factor in determining a preference among these routes is the implication the landings in Anchorage have on the route as a whole. Anchorage Bowl Region Routes to Pt.Woronzof minimize recreation use impacts entirely.The Alaska Railroad option would be second based on non-significant impacts and staying within the railroad right-of-way for the duration of the route.The other options that involve Minnesota Drive and Old Seward Highway also have non-significant impacts. 4.7 SOCIOECONOMICS 4.7.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS A socioeconomic impact assessment assesses the social and economic impacts of a proposed project on the local population and the significance of those impacts,and recommends measures to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts.A project's effects can be a mixture of beneficial and adverse changes in living conditions and quality of life,and may be temporary or permanent. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-145 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Projects to develop infrastructure or other physical resources affect the human environment in a variety of ways.Demographic and economic changes during the construction of transmission lines,substations,and other facilities are generally the principal impact.New construction activities set off changes in employment,income,demand for public and private services and, through alteration in land uses,changes in living patterns. Impacts are assessed by comparing the likely changes the proposed action would cause to the local socioeconomic setting with current conditions (the baseline or "no-action”alternative).The socioeconomic baseline for the Project region is presented in Chapter 3.It includes trends in population,employment,housing,public services,and fiscal sector characteristics.This section will describe the proposed Project's activities and associated socioeconomic effects,and will Project how the local population's living conditions and quality of life might change. Socioeconomics is not an exact science.People's behavior in reaction to the introduction of transmission system construction activities and facilities is difficult to predict.There are regional economic impact modeling methodologies that are helpful in estimating the secondary effects of introducing new money into a local economy.Alaska,however,has a significant seasonally fluctuating workforce and a highly seasonal tourism and recreational market.Therefore, predictions of multiplier effects on local area employment and income due to short-term changes in construction employment and spending are very speculative. Socioeconomic effects operate at two levels.These levels are the "macro”level of system-wide operating benefits accruing to the customers of the Railbelt Utilities,and the "micro”level of impacts on the residents living near Southern Intertie Project's facilities.At the macro level, Railbelt power customers would benefit from the increased reliability of service made possible by the additional transfer capability between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage.Some cost savings would likely develop,which could be translated into rate reductions,but the major benefit would be the avoided costs of power interruptions and associated economic losses.' Both short-term and long-term socioeconomic effects must be considered.The Project would generate new short-term jobs and wage income for some Alaska residents.The Project would also provide a temporary increment of demand for worker consumption and Project construction goods and services in the Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula areas.Local merchants and businesses would benefit from these short-term impacts.The Project could disrupt recreational activities in 'the Kenai Lowlands by providing workers who would compete with visitors and tourists for transient accommodations during the summer season.Over the long term,the Project's micro,or local,level socioeconomic effects would be primarily fiscal,in the form of payments for rights- of-way,taxes,and fees to local jurisdictions.Long-term operations and maintenance activities Average rate reductions of 0.16 cents and 0.21 cents per kWh,respectively,are predicted for the Tesoro and Enstar route alternatives over the 40-year life of the Project,which would be equivalent to a saving of about $1 dollar per month for the typical household's power bill.This is too small to have a noticeable effect on the state economy.Sub-Section 4.7.3,below,presents a digest of the rate impact analysis provided in Chapter 1. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-146 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 would have no discernible impacts on local community life due to their very small staffing requirements and the relatively infrequent need for surface access to facility sites. The most critical issue is how communities and residents near the Project right-of-way and along work site transportation routes would accommodate construction logistics.Worker lodging in the lowlands region of the northern Kenai Peninsula is of particular concern because of potential competition between workers and tourists for campsites and other lodging.Other potential issues include impacts on tourism attractions and on property values,environmental justice,and cumulative effects of the proposed transmission line development in conjunction with other major projects. Central to an impact assessment is determining the significance of its effects.There are no legislative or regulatory criteria for establishing the "significance”of a socioeconomic impact, and most practitioners of the social sciences avoid quantifying the thresholds of "goodness”or "badness.”For example,a high level of unemployment is "bad,”but the precise level is subject to debate,and it can be difficult to estimate how a proposed construction project may affect such conditions.It is possible,however,to evaluate localized impacts of an individual infrastructure construction or resource development project and make some judgments regarding the potential significance of an impact.One commonly accepted indicator of socioeconomic stress is the housing vacancy rate.When it falls below 5 percent,the housing market is "tight,”with excess demand for living accommodations and supporting infrastructure and services.In other words, there are more people in the area than it can comfortably support in the near term.Another indicator is the area's ability to accommodate visitors,reflected in transient accommodation supply and demand.This is probably the primary criterion for assessment of the significance of a construction project's impacts on the human environment.This issue will be one focus of this study's socioeconomic investigation. Effects Overall Project Expenditures and Workforces Socioeconomic impacts are caused by changes in utilization of people and material resources. One focus of the analysis is to determine the demand for community resources such as housing, utilities,and other public services during construction,operation,and maintenance of the Project. During construction,the Project would generate between 85 and 90 person-years of direct construction employment (full-time equivalent with 60-hour workweek)during the spring 2002 to fall 2003 period,which would yield around $8.75 million in direct wages and salaries. Another $50+million is projected to be spent for equipment,materials,and construction goods and services.Operations and maintenance activities would have no discernible impacts on local community life due to their very small staffing requirements and the relatively infrequent need for surface access to facility sites. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-147 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The Project consists of two basic alternative routes (each with variants)with transmission facilities to be located in the municipality of Anchorage,the Turnagain Arm area,and the northern lowlands part of the Kenai Peninsula.The Tesoro route commences near Nikiski,runs along the northwestern shore of the Peninsula to Pt.Possession,crosses Turnagain Arm underwater,and terminates in western Anchorage at the Point Woronzof Substation-a distance of 99.8 km (62 miles).The Enstar route commences near Soldotna (Kenai)and proceeds inland northeasterly up the peninsula,crosses Turnagain Arm underwater,and terminates in Anchorage at the International Substation-a distance of 122.3 km (76 miles). Determining whether concentrations of workers and construction activities might stress local communities involves reviewing the timing and location of deployments of workers and local spending (by workers as well as by the Project).Because the Project has not gone out to bid, there are no data on how much work would go to Alaska-based contractors or how they might recruit their workforces (local residents versus outsiders):In a typical project,major parts of the overhead transmission line,submarine cable;and substation construction components typically are contracted to firms of national or even international scope,with local contractors being subcontracted for traditional tasks like site preparation,trenching;and foundation work.Because of the highly specialized nature of power transmission systems and their construction requirements,particularly the submarine cable segments of the Project,it can be expected that many of the supervisory personnel and skilled trades specialties would be hired from out of state. The contractors would be interested in maximizing the hiring of local workers in order to minimize relocation costs,but the more specialized skill requirements would probably have to be recruited elsewhere in order to ensure that the Project is adequately staffed and that completion deadlines would be met.The Project's consulting design engineers estimate that approximately half of the manpower would be recruited from out of state.?Therefore,approximately 45 of the 90 worker-years of employment would be completed by out-of-state workers.Such personnel would reside in Alaska only during their specific work phases.A similar number of person-years of work would go to residents of the Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula areas. Much of the equipment,conductors,control systems,and other electrical components would likely be imported from out of state.Local vendors,on the other hand,would be expected to supply the Project's basic construction materials and logistical services.The Project's consulting design engineers estimate that most of the non-labor procurements-about 85 percent-would be made out of state.'Accordingly,such non-local procurements of materials,equipment and other construction services would constitute around $42.5 million of the $50+million of the Project's non-labor expenses,with the balance of approximately $7.5 million accruing to local suppliers and vendors of construction goods and services. Power Engineers,1997a. *Source:Power Engineers,Inc.1997a.Total costs of the Project are outlined in Chapter 1 of the report. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-148 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Project Scheduling and Location Factors-An Overview of Project Logistics The foregoing numbers provide part of the basis for estimating the economic forces that would act on communities along the Project right-of-way during construction.The other part of the analysis is the timing of construction activities.Much of the construction work on the Kenai Peninsula would be completed during winter months to reduce potential impacts on ecological resources. Figure 4-1 provides an overview of the projected monthly manpower loading levels for construction of the two alternatives.The bands depict the average number of workers per month for each route,including all aspects of the Project (i.e.,Kenai Lowlands,Turnagain Arm,and SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING COMPARISON OF ENSTAR VS.TESORO TOTALS No.ofWorkersperMonthFigure 4-1 Anchorage Bowl segments for power lines,substations,submarine crossings,etc.);subsequent figures break out each area's loading.Figure 4-1 shows the period January 2002 through December 2003. The Tesoro route is projected to have a peak summer loading of around 60 workers in the first year (2002),declining to about 45 during the winter,but rising to a peak of approximately 155 workers by late spring 2003.The workload then declines,with work completed by October 2003. The Enstar route's manpower loading rises in the first year to a summer peak of approximately 80 workers,then declines to around 30 in early winter,but rises to over 90 by March 2003;the loading continues to rise to its 2003 peak of about 135 workers in June.The pattern of winding down in the summer and fall of 2003 is relatively linear for the Tesoro route,whereas the Enstar route has a step in its manpower loading during the summer due to the greater length of its Anchorage Bowl overhead cable segment. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-149 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Numbers of workers vary according to the phase of work and the precise route option being implemented in a segment.Based on the design engineers'estimates of work scheduling and crew sizes,the number of workers involved in the overhead cable portion of the Kenai Lowlands segment could be 95 persons on the Enstar route (in February-March 2003).The Tesoro alternative's peak would be around 65 workers,occurring in June 2003,following a constant level of 45 workers on the peninsula during the winter and early spring months.For either alternative,the overhead cable work would proceed continuously from summer 2002 through winter,spring,and summer of 2003.Work on other components would be undertaken only during the warm weather months. The Tesoro route's underground cable sections and associated transition facilities on the Kenai Peninsula would employ approximately two dozen workers during each of the warm weather seasons of both years.The Enstar route has a much smaller component of these facilities,and would employ only about a half-dozen workers on the Peninsula during the spring and summer of 2003.Construction and modification of substations on the Kenai Lowlands and in the Anchorage Bowl would employ an additional one to two dozen workers at the several sites along the rights-of-way for both routes.'Construction of the submerged cable segment across Turnagain Arm for either alternative would require 55 to 75 workers at the time of maximum effort in late spring of 2003.Finally,in the Anchorage Bowl area,two to three dozen workers (depending on the route)would be involved in constructing the underground and overhead cable sections of the transmission line.° It is difficult to be precise about the timing and location of worker requirements for transient accommodations,which is the critical issue for communities near the Project right-of-way in the Kenai Lowlands region.The communities of Soldotna,Kenai,Nikiski,Sterling,and Cooper Landing would be particularly affected (some more than others,depending on the route option selected).With the May through September construction season coinciding with the peak tourist and recreation season,operators of motels,recreation vehicle (RV)parks,and campgrounds in the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula could encounter increased demand for sites from the workers at the same time as they are serving the traditional high season customers.Displacement of traditional motel,RV park,and campground users by transmission project workers is an issue that must be assessed in view of the potentialfor the disruption of business and personal relationships among residents and visitors to the northern Kenai area. "Power Engineers,Inc.1997a. 'The Tesoro route into the western end of the city involves mainly submerged and buried cable terminating at the Pt. Woronzof Substation.The Enstar route has a short length of underground cable where the line comes ashore at the eastern end of the city,but several miles of overhead cable follow it to the International Substation. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-150 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 4.7.2 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS BY REGION Kenai Flats Region Impacts Field research was conducted in the Kenai Flats area regarding availability of transient accommodation,visitation and recreational demand patterns,provision of welfare services,and anticipated public works projects.From a socioeconomics perspective,this research revealed that there is little to distinguish the two alternatives'local impact areas.The central issue is the number and location of non-resident transmission line construction workers.Their number is a function of the Project's logistics.Their location (during the Project)is a function of where lodging is available relative to the workplace.Commute times between the Project area communities of (from west to east)Nikiski,Kenai,Soldotna,Sterling,and Cooper Landing and the Project work sites are all less than one hour.Accordingly,transient workers could find accommodation anywhere among the Project area communities and be within a reasonable commuting distance of the job.The principles of a gravity model tend to apply,where people making a location decision endeavor to optimize between availing themselves of the maximum quantity of amenities available while minimizing the travel time.Most of the amenities in the Kenai Flats area are in Soldotna,Sterling,and Kenai,so it is logical to expect that most transient workers would look there for accommodation.It follows that the analysis of local socioeconomic impacts could be conducted in the context of a single impact area,namely the communities along the Kenai Highway between Nikiski and Cooper Landing. No-action Alternative As noted earlier,the no-action alternative is described in the Chapter 3 discussion of the baseline patterns and trends of socioeconomic activity.Current levels and trends of population,income, employment,and private and public sector activity presumably would,absent the Applicant's Proposal,continue unchanged. Tesoro Alternative The socioeconomic setting of the Tesoro route alternative over the Kenai Lowlands area may be characterized as having a variety of human activities and facilities,including residential development,recreational attractions (notably the Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA) and the Cook Inlet shoreline),and industrial activity (e.g.,the Nikiski oil refinery,various oil and gas industry support activities,warehouses,and the Tesoro Pipeline).The proposed action would not disturb a pristine area.The right-of-way follows existing road and pipelines all the way to Pt. Possession. The Tesoro route consists of three principal segments (from south to north):Bernice Lake to the Captain Cook SRA;the Captain Cook SRA itself;and the segment north of the Captain Cook SRA along the North Kenai Road to Pt.Possession (along the right-of-way of the Tesoro Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-15}Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Pipeline).The southern segment runs along the western side of Nikiski (along existing utility rights-of-way),passing through a melange of urban/commercial/industrial parcels interspersed with low and medium density residential parcels and adjacent vacant lands.The Captain Cook SRA is undeveloped.The area to the north is initially in low-density residential development, giving way to natural open areas with scattered homesites accessible via the beach.The northern Peninsula is zoned for minimum parcel sizes of 16.2 hectares (40 acres).Several areas along the coast,such as Gray Cliffs/Moose Point,have been platted for residential development in anticipation of the extension of the North Spur Road. Construction of the Tesoro route transmission facilities on the Kenai Peninsula would take an estimated 639 worker-months of labor,distributed as depicted on Figure 4-2.Except for the summer 2003 peak of around 60 workers,the workforce would average around 45 persons for much of the Project.° SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING KENAI LOWLANDS--TESORO ROUTE ac=]&eoiJoNo.ofWorkersperMonth=°o.na Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jui Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 wana |<2003 Figure 4-2 *The question arises of how many workers on the Kenai Flats segment would be permanent residents of the area.In the mid-1990s,the Kenai/Soldotna area had approximately 600 workers employed in construction,according to the Alaska Department of Labor,suggesting that the local area could supply some of the Project's labor requirements. Since these local workers would have been involved on existing jobs it is likely that in the future only a fraction would be free at any given point in time to be available for the Southern Intertie Project.To obtain the requisite numbers and types of skills,most of the Project's workers would have to be recruited from the Anchorage area and elsewhere,and they would therefore require transient accommodations.Anecdotal information indicates that perhaps 5 percent of the local construction workers might be between jobs at points in time during the transmission Project (fewer in summer,more in winter),suggesting that around two or three dozen local resident/construction workers might be available for hiring.Only some of these workers would have the requisite skills for transmission line projects,however.That number is not known,but a rough estimate of around 10 to 15 (depending on the season)seems reasonable,and those numbers are being used in this assessment for estimating the need for transient accommodations. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-152 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 If the Tesoro route were selected,then the entire northern Kenai Peninsula road system would be affected.The communities of Kenai,Nikiski,and Soldotna would experience increases in demand for housing and other community resources,and there would be increases in traffic along the Sterling Highway and North Kenai Road due to Project worker and logistical support travel through the area. Enstar Alternative The socioeconomic setting for the Enstar route alternative over the Kenai Lowlands area is distinguished by having substantial human activities and facilities at its southern terminus at the boundary between Soldotna and Sterling,but having the majority of its route passing through virtual wilderness (albeit along the right-of-way of a buried pipeline).Two alternative alignments of the initial segment of the proposed transmission line,which commences at the Soldotna Substation,bypass most of the towns of Soldotna and Sterling.One route option (Links $1.1 and $1.2)run along the northern edge of Sterling while the other (Link $2.1)runs along the south side.They converge at the eastern boundary of Sterling from which point the route runs north and east to a crossing point on the shore of Turnagain Arm. From a socioeconomic impact standpoint,Enstar's two initial southern segment alignments are identical,in that both traverse mostly undeveloped muskeg bogs,scrub,and Alaskan cedar woodlands.The more southern alignment passes a few parcels of low-density residential property and some gravel pits near the Kenai River,while the northern alignment (which occupies an existing transmission right-of-way)passes a few low-density residential parcels just north of the substation,skirts the Mackeys Lakes subdivision,and then runs east through the transmission line corridor.In sum,the portions of Soldotna and Sterling crossed by either of the two alternate initial alignments are virtually indistinguishable,apart from one cluster of low- density parcels experiencing transmission line construction activities with one alternative versus another group experiencing them from the other.In either instance,the transmission line work would progress rapidly,remaining only a few days in any one location.Disturbances to any given neighborhood would be brief. Construction of the Enstar route transmission facilities on the Kenai Peninsula would entail an estimated 637 worker-months of labor distributed over two construction seasons.As depicted on Figure 4-3,the 2002 season would have a relatively low level of manpower loading,peaking at around 60 workers in mid-summer,but declining to 30 by late fall/early winter.The 2003 season, in contrast,would have an early peak of around 90 workers in March,with the mid-summer loading being about 20 workers. If the Enstar route were selected,mainly Soldotna,Sterling,and Cooper Landing would be affected by the local construction activities. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-153 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING KENAI LOWLANDS--ENSTAR ROUTE 100 80 f "1 Enstar Route Workers } 60 No.ofWorkersperMonth20 'Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 --------->|<2003 Figure 4-3 Transient Accommodation Impacts from Construction of Facilities There are a considerable number of motels,lodges,inns,and bed and breakfast establishments in the lowlands area communities.These facilities are primarily oriented to the summer tourist trade.It is unlikely that many Project workers would utilize them for extended periods of time during the summer season,however,due to relatively high rates.Some rates are well in excess of $100 per night.'There are houses,condominiums,apartments,and rooms available for rent, but summer vacancy rates are generally tight,according to community surveys by the state Department of Labor's Annual Rental Market Survey.The 1996 survey of the Kenai Peninsula Borough showed vacancy rates ranging from 0.0 percent (4-bedroom apartments with a median monthly rent of $997)to 6.4 percent (2-bedroom apartments with a median monthly rent of $625)(Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs [DCRA]1997).The best prospects for summer worker lodging would be RV and campground sites.A directory of RV and campground facilities for the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula indicated that there are more than 1,600 spaces,but that there are seasonal limitations on availability of sites.Table 4-16 provides those data. 7AAA Tourbook 1997 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-154 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-16 RV AND CAMPGROUND FACILITIES IN THE KENAI FLATS AREA RV Park Sites Campground Sites .(limited amenities,.Community Area :ge Total SitesWithOthere.g.,pit toilets,noHookupsshowers) Nikiski-Kenai 143 0 53 196 Soldotna 245 334 461 1,040 Sterling 58 15 142 215 Cooper Landing 26 85 125 236 Total 472 434 781 1,687 Source:Woodall's '96 Western Campground Directory 1996 If the Tesoro route were selected,workers probably would prefer to locate in the Nikiski-Kenai area.During the warm weather season (typically mid-May through mid-September),there are around 200 campsites available,of which 143 have utility hookups.Daily rates in 1996 were around $20 to $25 for sites with hookups,or $10 to $15 for sites without utility services.During the other months,however,most RV parks and campsites are closed,and transient workers would have to stay in motels,many of which keep at least some facilities open year-round.® Daily costs of lodging would be higher than staying in RV parks,however,so subsistence allowances for the off-season non-local workers would probably have to be adjusted. The communities of Soldotna and Sterling would most directly serve workers on the Enstar route.There are several motels and lodges in the area (whose summer rates are high),and the towns'RV parks have around 275 sites with utility hookups (see Table 4-16 above).Kenai,to the west,and Cooper Landing,to the east,also could be used,adding another 200 hookup sites. There are several hundred non-hookup RV and campground sites in the area with minimal amenities.” In the course of the fieldwork mentioned above,various people in the peninsula's visitor industry were contacted for information about visitation trends and facilities.They were asked how an influx of between 60 and 90 non-local transmission line workers would affect the availability of transient lodging.Uniformly,the response was that the influx could be easily accommodated except during the peak of the red salmon run in the middle two weeks of July.If reservations for that period were made sufficiently in advance (before the end of the preceding year),there would be no problem in obtaining space. ®Few dependents are expected to accompany the non-local workers,in line with typical transmission line work practices involving 60-hour weeks and spartan living arrangements. °The Enstar route passes by the Bings Landing State Recreation Site,whose campground has 37 sites (no utilities). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-155 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Data were collected on various measures of visitation,and the data support the observation of the local visitor industry.Following are several graphs of various aspects of tourism and visitation to the peninsula.Figure 4-4 shows the monthly levels of visitors to the Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau during 1996 and 1997.The July peak is distinct. Kenai Visitors &Convention Bureau Visitors,1996,1997 No.ofVisitors-o-1996 m-1997 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5 shows the average daily traffic levels per month during 1997 at the Placer River traffic station south of Palmer (which intercepts all vehicular traffic to and from the Kenai Peninsula). KenaiPeninsula Traffic,1997 (Placer River Station)ADT/MonthaooQo||2,000 eG ee Se 2 oe ©eee "leis 4H Hil ry AHHH :0 FES ES F FTES F ES Fv@ Figure 4-5 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-156 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Figure 4-6 shows the levels of passenger emplanements through the Kenai Municipal Airport during 1997. Kenai Municipal Airport Em planements,1997 Passengers/MonthFigure 4-6 Finally,Figure 4-7 shows the numbers of person-days per month for camping and day-use of the state parks and recreation areas on the peninsula. This last chart indicates that the peak of visitation for campers occurs during the month of July, following a gradual buildup from the mid-spring season. It is clear from the foregoing charts that the demand for visitor accommodations in the Kenai Peninsula peaks in July.According to owners and operators of such facilities,motels,RV parks, and other rental facilities are completely booked during the middle two weeks of the month. Before and after that period,the vacancy rate increases.The Greater Soldotna Area Chamber of Commerce reports that there is a vigorous booking agency system in the area whose principal business is locating accommodations for short-term visitors during the summer season.Facilities booked include not only apartments and condominiums,but also private homes'guestrooms, small inns,and bed and breakfast establishments.Trend data from previous years indicate that demand is growing at about 5 percent per year,to which the visitor industry has responded with gradual expansion and addition of motels,RV parks,apartments,and condominiums. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-157 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Kenai Peninsula State Parks and Recreation Areas Visitation,1997 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 Visitor-daysperMonth20,000 0 RNSf©@&&§$e ¥ m Camping >Da Figure 4-7 An initial concern was whether owners and operators of motels and RV parks might be reluctant to rent space to transmission line workers during the summer season for fear of displacing their regular clientele.Conversations with several persons in the accommodations business and the local chambers of commerce have diminished that concern.These people have uniformly stated that if facilities were booked and guaranteed sufficiently in advance there would be no problem in supplying the space during the high season.The Best Western King Salmon Motel in Soldotna,for example,has been renting out its top floor (24 rooms)for the first two weeks of June for several years to a group sponsoring training of Russian petroleum engineers (Christopher 1998).The King Salmon also operates an RV park with 46 spaces (full hookups), which are rented on a first-come,first-served basis.Further,a King Salmon Best Western RV space can be occupied indefinitely.'°For space at either their motel or RV park during July, however,reservations must be made before the end of the preceding year to ensure availability. First-come,first-served is the rule for the area's commercial operators.For other times of the year,there is plenty of space,except for the weeks of Thanksgiving and New Year. The Greater Soldotna Area Chamber of Commerce and Kenai Convention and Visitors Bureau are able to assist organizations find accommodations for groups visiting the area,and this would include transmission line contractors'workers.The chambers use their connections with member '°This is unlike the state parks and recreation area campgrounds,which typically limit stays to 7-10 days and to no more than two or three stays during a season. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-158 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 motels,lodges,and inns as well as booking agencies to direct inquiries for bulk accommodations (Smith 1998).The chambers and bureau do not provide direct booking because the service would compete with their members.The chambers and bureau do work to facilitate the placement of visitors.The Soldotna Chamber of Commerce even noted that the City of Soldotna had initiated a program to recruit RV and motorhome visitors to stay at schoolyards during the summer in order to provide a presence that would discourage vandalism (Smith 1998). It would be useful to compare the number of transient accommodations that the Southern Intertie workers would need with the available supply during the peak visitation season.Unfortunately, there is no consolidated estimate of the total number of motel rooms,rental apartments,and condominiums in the Nikiski/Kenai/Soldotna/Sterling area.The Kenai Peninsula Economic Development Department reports that there are 152 establishments registered to provide hotel and lodging services (including RV parks,but excluding public campgrounds),as follows: #Soldotna 91 =Kenai 37 =Sterling 13 @ Nikiski 3 =Cooper Landing 8 The size of individual establishments ranges from a few to several dozen rooms or RV parking spaces.Based on field observation and conversations with people in the business it is estimated that the average number of rooms or spaces per establishment is 10,yielding a total of over 1,500 rooms and RV sites in the Nikiski to Cooper Landing corridor.Based on state park and recreational data for campground visitors,a party of three persons constitutes the typical visitor group,so the 152 establishments identified above could accommodate upwards of 4,500 visitors (assuming an average of 10 rooms/spaces per establishment and three persons per party). These numbers exclude many small bed and breakfast operations lacking business licenses as well as a multitude of apartment and condominium buildings and complexes whose owners rent them out individually through booking agents.The picture emerges,however,of a large and growing visitor accommodation industry on the peninsula which,while fully occupied during the middle part of July,is able to accommodate large numbers throughout other parts of the year. The projected numbers of transmission line workers needing accommodations during July are well below the Project's manpower loading peaks.For the Tesoro route,the July manpower loading is 25 workers in 2002 and 21 in 2003,while for the Enstar route,it is 18 in both 2002 and 2003.The problem could decrease by multiple occupancy of rooms and RV spaces by Project workers.These considerations indicate that obtaining space for the non-local workers during the height of the Kenai tourist season will not impose any significant burden on the Project area's visitor accommodations,provided they are secured and guaranteed well in advance.Moreover,at other times of the year,especially the September through April period of Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-159 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 low demand,the workers would represent a welcome addition to the area's customer base (Christopher 1998). Facility Impacts on Property Values Rights-of-way will be purchased or leased for property used for the transmission line.Any impact on property values crossed by the transmission lines will be included in the right-of-way purchase price or lease rate.The issue of adjacent property values possibly being adversely affected by transmission lines has arisen in some projects.Depending on the alternative selected, other property owners in Nikiski or Soldotna/Sterling would be primarily affected.In Nikiski,the transmission line would follow an existing right-of-way.In the Enstar alternative,the route options are routed mostly over vacant lands at the edges of the communities of Soldotna and Sterling.''Residential parcels in these communities tend to be scattered and interspersed with vacant parcels,which reduces the chances for houses to be close to the lines.Further mitigating the potential adverse effect is the state's requirement of a 30.5-meter (100-foot)buffer zone between any transmission line right-of-way and adjacent structures.For these reasons,the Project would have a negligible impact on properties adjacent to the right-of-way. It has been found in various studies of property values in metropolitan areas of comparable property transactions (i.e.,similar qualities of houses except that one of each pair was next to a high-voltage overhead transmission line)that the properties next to the transmission lines sold for no more than one or two percent less than their more distant counterparts.The studies concluded that other factors such as location of the property,type and condition of improvements,and the level of real estate activity were far more significant factors than the presence or absence of transmission lines in determining the value of residential property.” Effects of Powerline Construction on Trade and Commerce Project workers'daily expenditures would probably average on the order of $50 per day per person,based on projected subsistence,and travel allowances factored into the labor cost projections.Project workers could spend $1 million over the course of the entire Project for lodging,subsistence and travel expenses in the Kenai Lowlands area."In addition,construction materials,such as lumber,cement and aggregates,fuels,and construction services would be procured from local vendors and contractors for the Project.If these local procurements represented 10 percent of the Project's materials budget,more than $5 million could be expended for local materials for the Kenai Lowlands segment over the two years of work,or about $2.5 1!The northern alignment around Sterling would utilize an existing transmission corridor. ?Cited in Right of Way magazine,1996. "Assumes a total of 640 worker-months at a spending rate of $50 per day for subsistence,lodging,entertainment and the like. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-160 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 million per season.Thus,the annual direct infusion of Project-related spending into the local Kenai Peninsula economy could amount to around $6 million over the nearly two-year duration of the Project. To give some perspective on the potential impact of this construction spending,the population of the communities of the Kenai Lowlands area (Nikiski,Salamatof,Kenai,Soldotna,Ridgeway, Sterling,and Cooper Landing)was about 22,000 in 1996.According to the state Departments of Labor and Community and Regional Affairs,total personal income,based on a median household income for the area of $38,000 and an average of 2.7 persons per household,was $310 million.This is approximately 30 percent of the total income for the entire Kenai Peninsula Borough).Retail sales in the lowlands area amounted to an estimated $100 million.'*Thus it can be inferred that an increment of $3 million per year in retail expenditures for the Project in the Kenai Lowlands area would be a small but positive boost to the local economy. Public Services and Utilities Impacts The influx of Project workers would not materially impact community services such as police, fire,health care and welfare.Service providers in Kenai,Soldotna,Sterling,and other communities are organized to deal with large numbers of non-residents passing through the area during the summer months,and the Project's complement of field personnel would represent a small increment.As an indicator of the area's tourism dynamics,the Kenai Convention and Visitors Bureau in Soldotna received over 50,000 visitors during 1993.During the month of July,visitors number around 800 per day (DCRA 1997c). After completion of construction,virtually all personnel-related socioeconomic factors associated with the transmission Project would disappear.Operation of the facility would be remotely controlled,and maintenance would entail only a few personnel performing helicopter inspections,with infrequent occasions for ground inspections of the right-of-way.The principal long-term socioeconomic factor would be fiscal.in the form of payments to owners of lands to be occupied by the right-of-way.These payments would include compensation for easements on privately owned lands,property taxes on fee lands acquired for the right-of-way,and in-lieu-of property tax payments and administrative fees for easements on publicly-owned lands.The value of these land-related costs has not been determined,but they would be classified as positive, beneficial effects for the entities and jurisdictions receiving them. ''Based on the ratio of retail sales per capita with per capita income for the entire Kenai Peninsula Borough population in 1993.In that year,total retail sales per resident were $7,607,which was about one-third of average income per capita of $22,761 (U.S.Census Bureau data).The ratio rather than the value was used to adjust for the northern Kenai Lowlands area's lower average income compared to the borough-wide averages.The borough-wide retail sales activity in 1993,which totaled $329.4 million,included an estimated $95 million of tourist expenditures. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-161 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Mitigation Strategy It is recommended that final Project design and scheduling plans include a precise estimate of the location and timing of the manpower loading.The plans should identify the peaks of worker deployment along the right-of-way.This information then would be used to determine the time- path of transient housing requirements,followed by an appraisal (preferably in the year before work commences)of the actual availability of RV sites,campground sites and other transient accommodations near the Project right-of-way.The principal concern is ensuring that adequate accommodation is secured during the month of July,when visitor demand for space is at a peak. Advance planning and timely booking will make it likely that transient facilities will accommodate the Project's field personnel without major disruption to the Kenai Lowlands area's recreational and tourist housing market. If the Tesoro route were selected,residents along the northwestern shore of the upper Kenai Peninsula might experience temporary disturbances from construction activities.These could be mitigated by good construction management practices avoiding or minimizing interruption of access to homesites.Public involvement activities also would allay concerns about the Project's local effects.Other socioeconomic effects in the area of construction and operation of the transmission facility would be small but positive increments in revenues to local businesses, workers,and public jurisdictions. Cumulative Impacts (Kenai Peninsula) Two concerns have arisen regarding the cumulative effects of the Project on the Kenai Peninsula. First,there is the possible interaction of the Project's requirements for local socioeconomic resources with those of other projects.A review was made to determine whether the area can accommodate all coincident activities.The second longer-term issue is whether the transmission line Project,in conjunction with other infrastructure and other development projects,'*might adversely affect the economic viability of the Peninsula's tourist trade by degrading recreational and visual resources. Concurrent Projects Alone,the Southern Intertie Project will not constitute a major source of disturbance to the socioeconomic equilibrium of the Kenai Peninsula.To ascertain the potential that other large construction projects,in combination with the Southern Intertie Project,may impose unacceptable burdens on community resources,a survey was conducted of organizations knowledgeable about future developments on the peninsula.Contacts were made to the Kenai Peninsula Borough's Economic Development District and Planning Division,cities of Soldotna and Kenai,and Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT). 'S barker 1998. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-162 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The Kenai Peninsula Borough and the cities of Soldotna and Kenai cited a number of current projects or projects that might occur in the same timeframe as the Southern Intertie Project.As reported in Bower,Gregory,Simmons (1998)such projects may include the following: =$5 million Challenger Learning Center =$1.7 million public health facility in the borough (due for completion in 1999) m juvenile detention center =convention/hotel facility in Kenai or Soldotna (for which no funding has been announced) ™wastewater outfall project for Kenai (still in the initial planning stages of a 5 to 10 year effort) =Kenai Watershed Project (long-term regional water resource development planning effort sponsored by the Army Corps of Engineers with involvement of the borough and local communities) None of these local projects appear to be of sufficient magnitude to impose significant pressures on the communities'social and economic balance,with or without the Southern Intertie Project. Several contacts mentioned that the principal forthcoming construction projects in the area would be highway upgradings by ADOT.To identify major highway projects on the Kenai Peninsula that might coincide with the Southern Intertie Project,the state's currently approved Surface Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP)(1998)was reviewed.The STIP lists highway and other surface transportation projects that have funding approved and appropriated for the period Fiscal Years (FYs)1998-2000,plus prioritized projects for which funding is pending approval from federal and state sources.These latter projects are slated for implementation during FYs 2001,2002,and 2003.They overlap the Southern Intertie Project's schedule. The STIP includes 16 highway improvement projects on the Kenai Peninsula.These are listed in Table 4-17 by ADOT "Need”identification number,location,phase of work,and year of implementation.The STIP identifies the following three phases of project implementation: @ Phase 2 -Design @ Phase 3 -Right-of-Way Acquisition =Phase 4 -Construction In total,Alaska is planning to spend more than $110 million for highway and bridge improvements on the peninsula over the next six years.Of this total,$62.2 million is to be expended during FYs 1998-2000.$52.2 million is for direct construction.Funding for FYs 2001- Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-163 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 2003 has not yet been approved.A total of $50 million is being sought,of which about $41 million would be for construction. It is the highway construction phase that is of particular interest to the socioeconomic impact assessment.That is when the workforce is mobilized and,if local heavy construction contracting or manpower resources are not sufficient,non-local workers must be recruited and temporarily relocated to the Project area.To estimate the number of highway workers that would be associated with the highway projects,the IMPLAN regional economic model database was used, which provides values for direct employment and other parameters of economic activity as a function of total spending.Thus,for the activity "New Highway and Street Construction,”the IMPLAN database indicates that $1 million in direct expenditures will employ eight workers (this does not include secondary employment generated by procurement of supplies and workers' consumer spending).This coefficient was applied to the sum of Phase 4 spending to obtain the number of highway workers that would be needed each year between FY 1998 and FY 2003.The following table summarizes the data: .Construction No.of HighwayFiscalYear.Spending Workers(July 1-June 30)eure($million)(Annual Average) 1998 2.20 18 1999 23.00 184 2000 27.00 216 2001 13.23 106 2002 11.20 90 2003 17.18 137 Source:Table 4-17 Portions of FY 2001 through 2003 overlap with the period of time scheduled for construction of the Southern Intertie Project on the Kenai Peninsula,with the bulk of the Project work occurring during FY 2002 (July 2002-June 2003).During that period,the manpower loading for the Tesoro route on the peninsula is around 45 workers (October 2002 through April 2003),with a brief peak of about 60 workers during June 2003.For the Enstar route,the Project manpower loading varies from a low of around 30 during November-December 2002 to a peak of around 90 during February-March 2003,thereafter decreasing sharply to 25 or less.Juxtaposing these numbers with the projected highway project workforce indicates that the cumulative manpower loading of the two programs would amount to a maximum of around 180 workers during February-March 2003 with the Enstar route,versus a maximum of around 150 during June 2003 with the Tesoro route. These numbers do not suggest an excessive burden for the Kenai Peninsula communities.A significant proportion of the highway project workforce likely can be recruited locally Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-164 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-17 ALASKA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (STIP)FOR 1998-2000 KENAT PENINSULA HIGHWAY PROJECTS (Funding in thousands of dollars) Need |Location Project Description Phase |FFY 98|FFY 99/|FFY 00|FFY 01 |FFY 02 |FFY 03 ID 2404 Kenai {North Kenai Spur Road MP 10.5 to 25 Rehabilitation 2 700.0 Resurface the existing paved surface,add shoulders,3 100.0 provide separated pedestrian pathway.4 4,500.0 Project Total 700.0 100.0}4,500.0 2614 Seward |MP 0.0 to 8 -Seward to Grouse Creek Canyon 2 800.0 Rehabilitate roadway and/or upgrade including 3 1,250.0 bridge work as needed.4 8,730.0 Project Total 800.0}1,250.0 8,730.0 2615 Seward |MP 8 to 13 -Grouse Creek Canyon Rehabilitate the roadway to include widening for 2 passing lanes,grade changes,and reconstruction of 3 500.0 the Grouse Creek Bridge.4 10,000.0 Project Total 10,500.0 2616 Seward (MP 13 to 18 -The Summit to Snow River 2 Rehabilitate roadway,widen and construct a grade-3 150.0 260.0 separated railroad crossing just south of Snow River.4 6,500.0 Project Total 150.0}6,760.0 2617 Seward |MP 18 to 25-Snow River to Falls Creek , Widen to include a grade-separated railroad crossing at 2 1,200.0 Crown Point,bridge rehabilitation,passing lanes and 3 1,500.0 resurfacing of the roadway.4 11,200.0 Project Total 1,200.0 1,500.0]11,200.0 2618 Seward |MP 25 to 30 -Falls Creek to Moose Pass 2 800.0 Rehabilitation of roadway including widening,resurfacing,and 3 500.0 replacement of the Fall Creek and Trail River bridges.4 8,100.0 Project Total 800.0 $00.0]8,100.0 2620 Seward |MP 30 to 35 -Moose Pass to Sterling Wye 2 300.0 Rehabilitation roadway and/or upgrade as needed.3 100.0 4 Project Total 300.0 100.0 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-165 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-17 ALASKA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (STIP)FOR 1998-2000 KENAI PENINSULA HIGHWAY PROJECTS (Funding in thousands of dollars) Need |Location Project Description Phase |FFY 98|FFY 99|FFY 00)FFY 01|FFY 02)FFY 03 ID 2672 Sterling |MP 36 to 45 -Sterling/Seward Wye to Sunrise Rehabilitation the Sterling Highway from the Seward Highway at the Tern Lake Wye (MP 36)to MP 45 near Kenai Lake.Includes minor realignments,replacement of 2 250.0 the Quartz Creek Bridge,drainage improvements,3 widening and resurfacing.4 11,500.0 Project Total 250.0}11,500.0 2673 Sterling |MP 45 to 60 -Sunrise to Skilak Lake Road Relocation of the highway around Cooper Landing with new 2-lane 12-foot driving lanes,paved shoulders,and climbing lanes where necessary from MP 46 to MP 55 2 450.0 2,000.0 Several scenic pulloffs will be constructed.Rehabilitation ofthe 3 1,000.0}1,500.0 highway from MP 55 to MP 58.4 Project Total 450.0 2,000.0}1,000.0}1,500.0 2674 Sterling |Soldotna Urban &Kenai River Bridge Replacement Rehabilitation of about 1.5 miles of the Sterling Highway (5 lanes)through Soldotna between Kenai Spur Road and 2 Kobuk Street.Additional lanes,widen the Kenai River 3 800.0 500.0 Bridge,and improve intersections,including walkways.4 11,700.0 Project Total 800.0 500.0)11,700.0 6109 Sterling |Skyview High School Entrance Capacity Improvements 2 100.0 Provide turn lanes and lighting at the school entrance.3 50.0 4 600.0 Project Total 750.0 2401 Kenai |Kenai River Bridge Access Road Rehabilitation Rehabilitation bridge access road including resurfacing and 2 widening.Project starts at the Kenai Spur Road and 3 ends at Kalifornsky Beach Road (3.5 miles)4 1,600.0 Project Total 1,600.0 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-166 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-17 ALASKA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (STIP)FOR 1998-2000 KENAI PENINSULA HIGHWAY PROJECTS (Funding in thousands of dollars) Need |Location Project Description Phase |FFY 98|FFY 99|FFY 00|FFY 01)FFY 02 |FFY 03 ID 2398 Kenai {Kenai Forest Drive/Redoubt Avenue Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Forest Drive from Kenai Spur Road to 2 250.0 Redoubt Avenue,(1 mile)and Redoubt Avenue from 3 500.0 Forest Drive to Kenai Spur Road (1.5 miles).4 5,300.0 Project Total 750.0 5,300.0 2644 |Soldotna |Funny River Road:MP 2.7 to MP 17.0 Rehabilitation Rehabilitation from end of pavement near Soldotna Airport (MP 2.7)to MP 17 with the intent of hard surfacing 2 This gravel road.Including shoulder widening,drainage 3 150.0 improvements and scenic waysides.4 3,550.0 Project Total 150.0}3,550.0 2645 |Soldotna |Kalifornsky Beach Road MP 16.4-22.4 Rehabilitation and Safety Improvements Rehabilitation from the Kenai River Bridge Access Road (MP 16.4)to the Sterling Hwy (MP 22.4)(6 miles). Including widening for a 2-way left turn lane,6-foot 2 shoulders,resurfacing,and reconstruction ofthe 3 250.0}1,865.0 Gaswell Road intersection.4 5,000.0 Project Total 250.0|6,865.0 2642 |Soldotna |East Redoubt Avenue Rehabilitation Rehabilitation East Redoubt Ave between the Sterling Highway and end of road at MP S.Includes adding to road base to support hard surfacing,drainage improvements (including 2 450.0 culvert installations,clean out ditches and hard surfacing 3 75.0 a 36-foot top.4 5,525.0 Project Total 450.0 75.0|5,525.0 Grand Total,Kenai Peninsula Projects 5,800.0]28,775.0)27,600.0|17,980.0|13,225.0|18,775.0 Total Phase 2 (Design)1,850.0)1,900.0 0.0}3,250.0 300.0 0.0 Total Phase 3 (Right-of-way)1,750.0}3,875.0 600.0]1,500.0)1,725.0;1,600.0 Total Phase 4 (Construction)2,200.0)23,000.0/27,000.0)13,230.0|11,200.0;17,175.0 Total Man-Years Construction Labor (@ 8 FTE/Smillion)18 184 216 106 90 137 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-167 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 from peninsula resident construction workers.Skills requirements for highway and street improvements are not as specialized as those for transmission line construction.Thus,the number of non-local highway workers needing accommodations in peninsula communities should be significantly smaller than the total workforce requirement.Also,most of the highway construction work during FY 2001-2003 will be in the Seward area (see Table 4-17),whereas the Southern Intertie work would be based out of Nikiski or Soldotna.Most of the highway projects' non-local workforce would lodge in the Seward area,while the Southern Intertie workers would lodge in the Nikiski/Kenai/Soldotna/Sterling area.A third mitigating factor is that the bulk of the manpower loading for the transmission line Project occurs during the offseason,i.e.,during the fall-winter-spring quarters of 2002 to 2003,when demand for visitor accommodations is low. Accordingly,the competition for transient accommodations between the transmission line and highway projects should be negligible.The potential for cumulative adverse impacts on the Kenai Peninsula's socioeconomic resources from the Southern Intertie Project and the state's highway program appears to be insignificant. Long-term Tourism and Recreation Impacts The Kenai Peninsula Borough's Planning Division has expressed a concern that the Project's aboveground transmission facilities might contribute to erosion of the Peninsula's attractiveness and economic vitality as a tourism and recreation destination.The borough states that the negative impact of the Project would be "...in the nature of a cumulative impact in which the location of above-ground electrical transmission lines,along with existing and future development activities measurably detracts from the wild and pristine character of the region.”'* It is not disputed that intrusion of manmade structures to the setting could be a distraction from its natural state.Detracting from the pristine character is a matter of degree.There is no acceptable measure of the detraction which may occur due either to the Project alone or the Project in conjunction with others.Unfortunately,it is not possible with the currently available tools of economic analysis to make a quantifiable estimate of whether or to what extent the Southern Intertie Project's facilities (alone or in conjunction with other projects)might induce people to reduce their demand for or consumption of the peninsula's tourism and recreation resources.Additional information in the form of a contingent valuation survey''might provide a sense of how much it might be worth to a group of users to have the transmission line system entirely undergrounded,to avoid the visual intrusion of transmission lines in the landscape of the KNWR.But unless the survey included a question asking how much the respondents would be willing to pay to have the facility out of sight,the conclusions could only be regarded as indicative of a general sentiment. '©Parker,op.cit.,p.3. ''Contingent valuation surveys attempt to determine monetary values for non-marketable natural resources by creation of a pseudo market for the resource in question (e.g.,preservation of a vista or an endangered specie,etc.) by asking how much a person would be willing to pay to preserve the asset (or be willing to accept in lieu of it).The results from a sampling of respondents are then extrapolated to the total population or user base. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-168 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The borough cites one study,The Economic Analysis of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (1998),which estimates that spending by consumptive users of the refuge's wildlife resources (sport fishers and hunters),non-consumptive users (hikers,campers,etc.)and the refuge administration on refuge-related activities generated 5.7 percent of the borough's total value of sales in FY 1995-96 and 8.7 percent of the jobs."*The study also noted a strong upward trend of visitation by fishermen and hunters to the peninsula (as well as the rest of the state)over the past decade by non-residents.This shows the importance of the area's natural resources as one source of income and employment. Of itself,the Project would not seriously damage the area's tourist and recreation trade.It would not affect the majority of people using the area's fishing,hunting,camping and hiking resources. The red salmon run would still fill up every motel,resort,RV and bed and breakfast space every July.However,if people came to fear a "grafitti”effect,i.e.,that one degradation of the setting leads to another and then another and another one after that,then perhaps a line would have be drawn on what additional changes to the landscape should be permitted.This would apply not only to essential infrastructure like roads and power facilities,but also to the borough encouraging development of subdivisions in remote areas like Gray Cliffs/Moose Point,where all the accoutrements of residential life would have to be inserted into a mostly undisturbed setting. Turnagain Arm Region Impacts Because the construction activities for the submerged portions of the Southern Intertie Project would mainly involve offshore operations,the principal socioeconomic impact of constructing this segment would be its effects on local traffic from logistical support activities.These include workers commuting and moving construction materials and equipment to and from work areas along the Turnagain Arm.Workers likely would be transported on a daily basis from staging areas in Anchorage to work boats and barges.This impact is assessed in the discussion of the Project's impacts on the onshore sections in the Anchorage Bowl region,in which area it is assumed the bulk of the logistical support for the marine cable work would be located and mobilized. Cable-laying activities will not significantly impact navigation and fishing in the Turnagain Arm, as very little boating and fishing occurs.Extensive mudflats and the wide range of tidal flows discourage excursion into the offshore area. '§op.cit.,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,1998. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-169 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Anchorage Bow]Region Impacts No-action Alternative As noted earlier,the no-action or "without Project”alternative is described in the Chapter 3 discussion of baseline patterns and trends of socioeconomic activity.Current levels and trends of population,income,employment,and private and public sector activity would presumably continue.) Combined Turnagain Arm/Anchorage Bowl Project Alternative It is logical to combine the impact analysis of these two Project segments because workers likely reside or stay in the Anchorage Bowl during constructionof either.The socioeconomic effects of the Project in the Anchorage Bowl area principally would be temporary increases in the area's labor force.Some of the Project's specialized labor likely would be recruited from outside the area causing associated changes in the demand for housing and consumption of public and private goods and services.The personnel constructing the Turnagain Arm crossing and the onshore transmission line segments in the Anchorage Bowl would be housed in the metropolitan area (many would be permanent residents of the area).Workers on the submerged portion would be transported daily to and from the work sites. The Tesoro and Enstar route alternatives have similar manpower loading patterns for the combined effects of the Anchorage Bowl transmission line and Turnagain Arm underwater cable segments.Figure 4-8 shows the patterns for each route's combined manpower loading.The peaks of the Enstar route's combined manpower loading in the 2002 season are of the same general magnitude as that of the Tesoro alignment's,but are split into two subpeaks due the earlier scheduling of the underwater crossing work.In the 2003 season,however,the two routes have similar peaks.Due to the Enstar's larger overhead cable workforce,however,Enstar peak is 100 and the Tesoro peak is 90 workers. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-170 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING COMBINED ANCHORAGE BOWL SEGMENTS 100 |.No.ofWorkersperMonthFigure 4-8 Tesoro Combined Underwater and Overland Segments The manpower loading projections for construction of the Tesoro route alternative's combined Anchorage Bowl and Turnagain Arm segments are depicted on Figure 4-9.The Tesoro route alternative would require an estimated 164 worker months of construction labor for the onshore cable segment plus another 261 worker months of labor on the submerged segment.” SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING ANCHORAGE AREA--TESORO ROUTE 100 80 5 60 ¢ §40 8 2 20 |. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar pr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 02 avannnnenn>|<2003 Figure 4-9 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-171 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The Tesoro route's onshore cable segment in the western end of Anchorage is relatively short, with the conductors mainly located in an underground conduit after coming ashore.As a result, the onshore segment has a relatively low manpower loading of around 20 workers.The combined peak of on-and off-shore worker loading for the first season's work would be around 30.In contrast,the offshore segment has most of its work concentrated during the 2003 season, peaking at nearly 80 workers in June.Most of the off-shore personnel would be working from barges and work boats.Accordingly,residents living along the right(s)-of-way of the Tesoro route alternative(s)in the western side of the Anchorage Bowl would experience relatively minor disturbances. Enstar Alternatives Combined Underwater and Overland Segments The manpower loading projections for construction of the Enstar route's combined Anchorage Bowl and Turnagain Arm segments are depicted on Figure 4-10.The Enstar route would require an estimated 177 worker-months of construction labor for the onshore cable segment (versus 164 for Tesoro)plus another 223 worker-months of labor for the submerged segment (versus 261 for Tesoro).'®Thus,the Enstar alignment would involve more on-shore overhead cable work than the Tesoro route,due to Enstar's greater overland distance,but less submerged cable work because of the shorter length of the Enstar's crossing of Turnagain Arm. SOUTHERN INTERTIE MANPOWER LOADING ANCHORAGE AREA--ENSTAR ROUTE 120 oe BO tte cg ed ee 60.No.ofWorkersperMonth20 ... we0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 -------->|<2003 Figure 4-10 19 POWER Engineers,Inc.1997a Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-172 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impact Summary-Anchorage Bowl Unlike the Kenai Lowlands situation where most of the Project's workers would be temporary relocators and weekend commuters from the Anchorage area,many of the workers for the Anchorage Bowl sections of the Project would be residents who would not require transient accommodations.Based on the work crew size projections,10 to 15 non-local construction workers would be hired for the Anchorage Bowl transmission line segment.In contrast,the majority of workers on the submerged cable crossing more likely would be non-locals.Very specialized skills are required for this work,and the contractors (who generally are international) would be inclined to recruit experienced workers from their headquarters locales.Seventy-five non-local workers may need temporary lodging during their assignments.The non-local workers would represent an insignificant increment to the city's population and construction labor force (254,000 and 8,000,respectively,in 1996). Anchorage has adequate visitor accommodations and amenities to accommodate non-local workers.The Anchorage Yellow Pages contain 10 pages of hotels and motel listings.Vacancy rates for apartments in the city in 1996 were relatively high,ranging from 6.0 percent (3- bedroom apartment with a median monthly rent of $838.00)to 9.3 percent (1-bedroom apartment with a median monthly rent of $550.00)(Alaska Department of Labor 1996).Finding temporary lodging for this number of non-local workers should not be a problem,nor would the workers place a strain on the city's other visitor resources. Spending of payroll earnings and procurement of local materials,equipment,and services would make a relatively small contribution to the area's economy.Wages and salaries for the Anchorage Bowl and Turnagain Arm segments of the Project are estimated at approximately $7 million for the Enstar route and $3.8 million for the Tesoro route.As noted earlier,major parts of the system components,notably the cables and control systems,would be obtained from national and international suppliers.Some portion of the projected $50+million in the Project's material costs would accrue to local vendors and contractors.The increment would be insignificant to the region-wide total economy. No information is available on the likely fiscal effects of the Project.Most of the route alternatives in the Anchorage area involve public lands (highways and railroad alignments),so state and local jurisdictions would receive compensation for Project rights-of-way in the form of payments in-lieu of taxes.These revenues probably would not have a significant impact on overall agency budgets.Once the final route alignment and configuration is determined, definitive right-of-way costs can be determined and fiscal impacts can be better estimated. 4.7.3 RATE IMPACTS FROM THE PROJECT Construction of the Project would lower electric rates overall.The Project is being proposed by the six Railbelt Utilities,all having different rate structures.The cost of the end-use kilowatt- Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-173 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 hour (kWh)rates for each of the utilities is based on many factors that vary from utility to utility. Therefore,an average net saving per kWh each year for all the utilities combined was calculated, based on their total projected electric energy demand.An analysis of rate impacts was completed by DFI-Aerodynamics (1997). The cost reductions attributable to the Project are described and quantified in the Update and Reevaluation of Economic Benefits of Southern Intertie (DFI 1998).There are six types of cost reduction attributable to the Project,as follows: avoided and deferred generation additions avoided economy energy and transmission losses sharing of operating reserves reduced maintenance expense on the existing Kenai transmission line elimination of the minimum 25 megawatt (MW)Kenai generation requirement avoiding loss of transfer capability during adverse weather conditions and work adjacent to the existing line In addition to cost reductions resulting from these savings,ratepayers also would benefit from the improved reliability the intertie would allow Railbelt Utilities to provide.However,since the reliability benefits do not directly impact electricity rates,they were not considered in calculating the rate impacts from the Project. The Enstar route,the least expensive of the two alternatives,would produce a small savings starting in the first year of operation,and the savings would grow larger in later years,eventually reaching almost 0.35 cents per kWh.The average reduction over the 2004-2043 life of the Project would be 0.21 cents per kWh.In contrast,the Tesoro route would provide a small savings in the early years of operation,and these savings would grow larger in later years,reaching a maximum of about 0.25 cents per kWh.The average reduction over the 2004-2043 life of the Tesoro alternative would be 0.16 cents per kWh. The Tesoro route exhibits lower savings than the Enstar route in subsequent years.The cable replacement costs account for the sawtooth pattern of ratepayer savings shown on Figure 4-11. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-174 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Rate Impacts of Southern Intertie Project (in Cents/kWh)Cents/kWhGjEnstar 2-3 Route mTesoro 2-3 Route Figure 4-11 In order to put these findings into a macroeconomic context that encompasses the Railbelt customer base,regional economic data are used.Table 4-18 shows the numbers for population and personal income in the four boroughs constituting the Railbelt service area. TABLE 4-18 RAILBELT POPULATION AND INCOME DATA,1996 Personal Area Population |Income ($mil.) Anchorage Borough 249,377 7,208.97 Fairbanks North Star Borough 83,835 1,762.06 Kenai Peninsula Borough 47,175 1,090.50 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 52,564 8383.41 Subtotal Railbelt Boroughs 432,951 10,944.93 Percent Alaska 71.6%73.6% Alaska 604,966 14,880.18 Source:BEA,REIS,1998 Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-175 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The Railbelt boroughs had about 433,000 residents in 1996 (72 percent of the state's total population),whose earnings and other income was almost $11 billion (74 percent of the state's total)in that year.””These Railbelt inhabitants were served by 190,000 metered connections by the Railbelt Utilities,whose estimated demand for electrical energy in 1997 was 3,850 gigawatt- hours (gWh)(3,850,243,000 kWh),according to the Intertie Participants Group.”'The estimated economic benefits of the project are based on projections of power demand and cost savings over the 40-year period 2004-2043.At the beginning of the period,projected total energy demand will be 4,510 gWh,rising to 5,866 gWh in 2043.The average annual level of demand over the 40- year period would be 5,556.6 gWh.” As noted in Chapter 1,the average cost savings were estimated to be 0.21 cent/kWh for the Enstar route and 0.16 cent/kWh for the Tesoro route.Multiplying these values by the average annual amount of electrical energy demanded yields the aggregate cost savings to the Railbelt customers,which then can be related to the macroeconomic setting of the service area.For the Enstar route the average annual electric power cost savings would be $11.7 million,while for the Tesoro route they would be $9.0 million. In 1997,the Railbelt Utilities served 190,000 metered customers.The average savings per metered customer (assuming that the customer base remained fixed)would be about $61.70 per year over the life of the Project with the Enstar route,versus $47.50 per year with the Tesoro route.The region has a total annual personal income of $10.94 billion,with an average annual income per metered customer of about $57,600.Thus,the individual average annual electrical energy cost savings per customer (applied as if they had been available in 1996/97)would be about 1/10 of 1 percent of the average income for the Enstar route,and 0.08 percent for the Tesoro route. Electricity users'energy requirements vary widely.Residential customers use much less than commercial customers,who in turn use less than industrial customers.The customer base is expanding as the Railbelt's population and economic activities grow.Therefore,the savings per customer-kWh would decrease slightly over time.The overall savings from the Enstar route, averaging $11.7 million per year,would still represent an increase in current regional disposable income of 0.11 percent,versus 0.08 percent for the Tesoro route's $9.0 million.”Even taking possible multiplier effects into account,these increments in purchasing power,while beneficial, are too small to have any discernable impact on the Railbelt region's economic performance. ?°Source:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis.Regional Economic Information System (REIS),1998. *!The IPG (Intertie Participants Group),also referred to as the Railbelt Utilities,is composed of the GoldenValley Electric Association,Matanuska Electric Association,Chugach Electric Association (CEA),Anchorage Municipal Light and Power,Homer Electric Association,and Seward Electric Association. 22 Source:IPG estimates,1997. 3 The percentages would diminish slightly in future years as the value of aggregate personal income increases in step with population and economic growth. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-176 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 4.7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Presidential Executive Order 12898,"Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”(February 11,1994),requires that each federal agency identify and address,as appropriate,disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,policies,and activities on minority and low- income populations.The Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless or race, color,national origin,or income with respect to the development,implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,regulations,and policies.Fair treatment means that no group of people,including racial,ethnic,or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,municipal,and commercial operations or the execution of federal,state,local,and tribal programs and policies.” The following questions are helpful in assessing whether a project raises environmental justice issues:First,does the potentially affected community include minority and/or low-income populations?Second,are the environmental impacts likely to fall disproportionately on minority and/or low-income members of the community and/or tribal resources?Third,have all communities been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process?Each of these questions is addressed below. =Does the potentially affected community include minority or low-income populations? To determine whether the community includes minority and/or low income populations,the demographics and socioeconomics of the project areas were evaluated.The composition of the population was documented (see Section 3.9).Within each alternative area,the minority population was between 5 and 6 percent.The population under the poverty level ranged from 4.9 to 7.8 percent.These statistics indicate very low proportions of low income and minority persons residing in the Project area in 1990.Borough-wide,7.2 percent of the population is Alaska Natives,and the borough is classified as Non-Native.(Census Bureau 1990;DCRA 1998).A minority population may be present if the minority population percentage of the affected area is "meaningfully greater”than the minority population percentage in the general population or other "appropriate unit of geographic analysis.”*The foregoing data substantiate the finding that minority populations represent a significant proportion of the Project area population. **EPA Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analysis,April 1998. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-177 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 =Are minority or low-income persons disproportionately impacted by the Project? To determine if minority or low-income persons would be disproportionately impacted by the Project,two issues were analyzed.The first was whether the routing of the Project within communities in the Nikiski,Soldotna,and Sterling areas of the Kenai Peninsula”would disproportionately affect minorities or low-income populations.The second was whether impacts to the natural resources will affect minorities differently than other non-minorities. m Have all communities been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process? A public outreach and consultation program was designed and implemented that provided information to all community residents,including Native American groups (and others with different socio-cultural perspectives).Information on the Project plans,including environmental and health aspects of electrical facilities,was made available to groups and individuals.In conjunction with the public involvement and consultation program,a proactive environmental planning process was structured to include the views of potentially affected low-income and minority populations in formulating environmental analysis criteria. (A description of the public involvement program is included in Chapter 2,Section 2.3.) Project Routing The 1990 Census was used to determine the populations of minority and low-income persons along the alternative Project routes.It provides the only geographically disaggregated compilation of information on the area's population from which socioeconomic differences among the communities can be distinguished.”Typically,the Census of Population and Housing divides areas into census tracts,blocks and other geographic units for enumeration.In the case of the Kenai Peninsula Borough,the population is too small and dispersed to be enumerated in tracts or blocks.Instead,the borough is divided into two subareas within which communities are identified as census designated places (CDPs).The Seward Census Subarea includes the southeastern coastal area of the peninsula while the Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Subarea includes the rest of the borough,including the communities and areas traversed by the Project's alternatives.Those of concern for the Project are the Nikiski and Daniel's Lake CDPs for the Tesoro route,and the Soldotna,Ridgeway,and Sterling CDPs for the Enstar route. *5 An extensive scoping and public involvement program was aimed at affording residents ample opportunity to voice their concerns. 2°No supplemental censuses have been taken since 1990 to update the data. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-178 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Figure 4-12 shows these CDPs with the alternative transmission line routes superimposed.”'The Tesoro route commences at the Bernice Lake Substation in Nikiski and follows the North Kenai Highway through the Nikiski and Daniel's Lake CDPs into the North Kenai area (which takes in all the area on the northern part of the peninsula not falling within designated CDPs).The Enstar route has two alternative alignments from its departure from the Soldotna Substation,one along the north side of the Sterling CDP and the other generally along the southern side.The northern alignment (Links $1.1,1.2 and 1.3)runs north along the Soldotna/Sterling CDP boundary,west along the Soldotna/Ridgeway CDP boundary,north through Ridgeway to the northwest corner of the Sterling CDP,then east to the latter's eastern boundary.The southern alignment (Link 82.1) passes virtually entirely within the Sterling CDP.Beyond the eastern boundary there are no CDPs. Selected data from the 1990 Census for the above CDPs are presented in Table 4-19,which shows numbers for white and non-white population,labor force and unemployment,income, poverty status,and housing conditions.In 1990,there were 3,548 people living in the Tesoro route CDPs,and 9,302 people living in the Enstar route CDPs (including the Soldotna and Ridgeway CDPs-Sterling CDP alone had 3,802 persons).The Tesoro route CDPs'residents represented 8.7 percent of the entire borough's 1990 population,while the Enstar's constituted 22.8 percent (the Sterling CDP's alone was 9.3 percent). Summarizing the data from Table 4-19: Characteristic Tesoro Route CDPs Enstar Route CDPs Percent non-White 5.8%5.3%[2] Percent unemployed 14.5%[1]7.5%[3] Percent families below poverty level 7.8%[1]4.9%[4] Percent houses lacking complete plumbing facilities 3.7%10.3%[5] Source:U.S.Census Bureau 1990 Notes:[I]Nikiski CDP only.Data not available for Daniel's Lake CDP. [2]Sterling CDP =3.4% (3]Sterling CDP =7.4% [4]Sterling CDP =6.7% [5]Sterling CDP =21.4% The racial composition of the CDPs was predominately white,ranging from low of 92.5 percent in the Ridgeway CDP and 94.1 percent in Nikiski CDP,to a high of 96.6 percent in the Sterling CDP.”Unemployment was relatively high in Nikiski CDP,reflecting the national recession,but moderate in the Enstar route CDPs.The percentage of the families below the poverty level was *?The figure was made by scanning and superimposing sections from the EVAL's Figure MV-14 onto a portion of the CDP map prepared by the Kenai Peninsula Borough from data generated by the Alaska Dept.of Labor, Resource and Analysis. 8 The majority of the non-Whites were American Indian,Eskimo or Aleut. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-179 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 NORTH KENAIT CDP Pevend ;3 «!rd en tee =4 nar rey?arra,bdNIAe+zo avy eeewhyhesar”pa ! _NT WSKI os Fo.erat te Svidiene ae "4 APARIEL'S LAKE ie/*ry ots BerpfelPareSubytavion 02seeOR"ir FIGURE 4-12 CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACES IN THE KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-180 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 moderate to low in all areas.Houses lacking complete plumbing facilities were very low in Nikiski,non-existent in Soldotna,moderately high in Ridgeway,and surprisingly high (21.4percent)in Sterling,considering the relatively high levels of family income and employment.” These statistics indicate very low proportions of low income and minority persons residing in the Project area in 1990.Age/gender/racial origin data are not available for later years,but a review of the area indicates continued growth of population,employment,residential construction,and commerce.The state Department of Labor subsequently prepared estimates of population change,which show that by mid-1997,the Tesoro route CDPs'populations had expanded 12 percent while the Enstar route's three CDPs had grown by 31 percent (mostly in the Sterling CDP). Visual inspection of neighborhoods along the rights-of-way indicated that there is a wide diversity of housing types.A feature common to all neighborhoods is large lots,with large,tree- filled distances between homes.The initial 9.7 km (6 miles)of the Tesoro route's right-of-way in Nikiski passes through a melange of urban/commercial/industrial parcels interspersed with low and medium density residential parcels and adjacent vacant lands.There is an occasional old and unattractive structure,often with cars and machinery lying about,but there are no clusters of shanties or slum dwellings.There are many mobile homes or modest manufactured houses along the highway,with very substantial residences in adjacent parcels off the highway on side roads, well screened from their neighbors and the traffic.Beyond Daniel's Lake,infrastructure and housing is very sparse.North of the Captain Cook SRA,there are occasional homesites nestled in small clearings near the Cook Inlet shoreline,but there is little other development,even in the Gray Cliffs/Moose Point subdivision,which is halfway between Nikiski and Pt.Possession,and was platted in the 1980s.Recent aerial photography of the subdivision area taken by the borough shows only a few widely scattered homesites. The Enstar route lies entirely within the Sterling CDP.The northern alternative passes short portions of the Soldotna and Ridgeway CDPs after departing the Soldotna Substation,but except for its detour around the west side of the Mackeys Lake subdivision,the right-of-way traverses vacant land.The homes along the right-of-way between the Soldotna Substation and Mackeys Lakes are widely spaced and generally medium-sized and well kept,and near Mackeys Lakes, are upscale.Many of the houses facing the lakes have floatplanes. The southern alternative of the Enstar route's first mile passes through an area of low density, upscale development south of the Soldotna Substation.Then the setting becomes open countryside with large stands of spruce and brush.There are numerous unpaved roads penetrating the area between the highway and Kenai River,and occasionally homesites and RV parks tucked away in clearings.Lodges,resorts and fishing guides are located at points along the river.There are no concentrations of housing. °We suspect that the Sterling CDP had a relatively high number of construction workers'trailers listed as domiciles.Interestingly,the median annual family income of the Sterling CDP was highest among all CDPs,at $51,145. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-18]Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 According to the manager of the Soldotna office of the state Department of Public Assistance, which serves the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula,the caseload is scattered.*°The manager of the Soldotna office of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC),which administers the federal Section 8 rent subsidy program for the area,said the office had approximately 250 households receiving assistance,with a waiting list of another 115.*!There are approximately 7,000 households in the area.Those 365 households on or waiting to get on the Section 8 rent subsidy list represent about 5 percent of the total population.As is shown in Table 4-19,the 'percentage of families below the poverty level in 1990 was around 5 percent for the Enstar route CDPs (7.8 percent in Nikiski).This suggests that the Section 8 caseload would be a good proxy for the size and location of low income households.Since the AHFC office could not divulge any information about its cases,a secondary source of data on where low-income households resided had to be used.The office supplied a listing of landlords in the area participating in the Section 8 program.The frequency of occurrence for locations of low-income housing offered by those landlords on the list was as follows:Soldotna 12,Kenai -11,Nikiski -4,and Sterling -2. This distribution accords with the observation that most low-income households in the area live in the cities of Kenai and Soldotna,which have the more developed infrastructure of social services.It is unlikely that a disproportionate burden will be placed on low income or minority populations in the Project area due to the routing of the transmission line. °°Personal conversation,Kathy Price,09 September 1998.The Department will not divulge any details about its cases. 3!Personal conversation,Marilyn Holvert,09 September 1998.The Department would not release names or addresses of its cases. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-182 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-19 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DATA,KENAI PENINSULA,1990 Route:Tesoro Route |Enstar Route CDP:|Nikiski |Daniels Total |Soldotna |Ridgeway|Sterling |Total Lake Total persons 2,710 838 3,548 3,482 2,018 3,802 9,302 White 2,551 792 3,343 3,267 1,867 3,673 8,807 Non-White 159 46 205 215 151 129 495 Percent non-White 5.9%5.5%5.8%6.2%7.5%3.4%5.3% Civilian labor force (16 +1,833 n.a.n.a.2,382 1,446 2,647 6,475 years old) Percent in labor force 67.6%n.a.n.a.73.4%74.1%66.0%71.2% Employed 1,059 n.a.n.a.1,596 1,003 1,617 4,216 Unemployed 180 n.a.na.153 68 130 351 Percent unemployed 14.5%n.a.n.a.8.7%6.3%74%7.5% Per capita income (1989)18,823 n.a.na.15,800 17,404 18,436 17,213 Median household income 44,242 Na.n.a.38,004 48,967 51,145 46,039 (1989) Poverty status in 1989: Percent persons below 7.0%n.a.na.5.7%6.1%.7.7™%6.6% P/L Percent families below 7.8%n.a.n.a.4.5%2.3%6.7%4.9% P/L Housing conditions: Percent Hus lacking 3.7%n.a.n.a.0.0%7.0%21.4%10.3% complete plumbing facilities Percent Hus lacking complete kitchen facilities 2.5%na.na.0.0%8.8%21.7%10.8% Sources:U.S.Dept.of Commerce,Bureau of the Census,1991 (corrected data)and Alaska Dept.of Labor,Research and Analysis 1991. 4.8 SUBSISTENCE Before the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service can grant a right-of-way for the proposed Project,that agency must comply with Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act by evaluating the effects of the proposed Project on subsistence uses and access to subsistence resources in the area.If the proposed Project were to significantly restrict subsistence uses,the agency must (1)notify appropriate state agencies,regional councils,and local committees,and Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 4-183 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences (2)notice and hold a hearing in the vicinity of the Project.The agency also must determine that any significant restriction of subsistence uses is consistent with sound management of public lands,will involve the minimum of public lands needed for the proposed use,and reasonable measures will be implemented to minimize adverse effects. The Federal Subsistence Board has determined that the residents of Ninilchik,Nanwalek,Port Graham,and Seldovia customarily and traditionally hunted moose and has established federal subsistence priorities for these communities to hunt moose within Game Management Unit 15. The designated subsistence communities of Ninilchik,Cooper Landing,and Hope,located some 16 km to 64 km (10 miles to 40 miles)from the Project area may do some subsistence hunting within the Project area,but the extent of use appears to be quite minimal. The extent of right-of-way required across federal lands for the alternatives considered varies from 30 feet to 150 feet (9.1 meters to 45.7 meters)wide.Increased public accessibility along such corridors sometimes leads to conflicts between sport and subsistence hunting and fishing. The alternatives across the Kenai Peninsula portion of the Project area largely parallel corridors previously disturbed by pipelines.Public accessibility is anticipated to increase along all routes. However,due to the overall low level of subsistence use in the area,no impacts,or only minimal impacts,on subsistence practices are anticipated from increased uses of hunting and fishing sports. There appears to be no negative impact on populations of relevant species that would impair subsistence practices. Under state law,the Subsistence Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game also can designate subsistence areas on nonfederal lands None of the Project area is used for subsistence by any state-designated subsistence communities. In sum,impacts on subsistence are not projected to be significant,and do not vary significantly among the alternatives considered.Therefore,subsistence resources are not a critical factor in selecting among the Project alternatives. Cumulative Impacts Because there are no significant impacts on subsistence from the Project, there are no cumulative impacts identified. 4.9 VISUAL RESOURCES Impacts on visual resources were assessed by determining the potential for change to the landscape scenery and views.In many locations,the methods of construction (i.e.,underground or submarine)have provided substantial mitigation and have reduced visual impacts.Where the Project would be constructed above ground,and in new or existing corridors,the construction of "Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-184 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 . the line could result in residual impacts that range from potentially significant to significant,and would be long-term,remaining over the life of the Project. The primary issue associated with visual resources as identified by the public,agencies and community working groups,was effects on sensitive viewers.The focus is on foreground and middleground views from individual residences,communities,recreational areas,and key travel routes. 4.9.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS This section describes criteria,methods,and models used to assess visual impacts of the Project along the alternative study corridors.Key components of the assessment,including visual contrast,visibility,and impact models and assumptions are described below. Visual Contrast Visual contrast is a measure of the degree of perceptible change that would occur in the form, line,color,and texture of the landscape as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project facilities.Two major components that contribute to the visual contrast include the addition of structural elements in the landscape and removal of vegetation.The levels (strong, moderate,and weak)and types of visual contrast that could result from the Project route options are defined below. Visual Contrast Levels =Weak contrast-would occur in areas where the proposed transmission line is subordinate to the surrounding setting and does not attract attention =Moderate contrast-would occur where the proposed transmission line begins to attract attention but does not dominate the surrounding setting =Strong contrast-would occur where the proposed transmission line dominates the surrounding setting Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-185 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Visual Contrast Types Vegetation Vegetation contrast would result from the clearing of new right-of-way or widening of an existing right-of-way.Vegetation contrast was determined through an evaluation of the required width of clearing for vegetation types,sizes,and patterns inventoried within the study corridor. Contrast levels were assigned to each vegetation type based on the relative change in appearance of the landscape predicted to occur as a result of right-of-way clearing. Structure Structure contrast examines the compatibility of transmission and other ancillary facilities with the existing landscape.Structure contrast is largely dependent on the presence or absence of existing parallel transmission lines in the landscape.Visual contrast is typically the strongest where there are few existing structural elements (e.g.,existing utilities,etc.)in the landscape and weaker where existing transmission lines are paralleled. The range of overall contrast levels that could result from construction of the Project by the combination of vegetation and structure contrast is shown in Table 4-20. TABLE 4-20 VISUAL CONTRAST LEVELS Vegetation Contrast Structure Contrast Strong Moderate Weak Strong Strong Strong Strong to Moderate Moderate Strong Moderate Moderate to Weak Weak Strong to Moderate Moderate to Weak Weak Visibility Levels The visibility of Project facilities depends on the context in which the Applicant's Proposal will be viewed.Although there are many contributing factors,the two major parameters that contribute to the visibility of the Project are distance and screening between the viewer and the alternative route options. Distance Zones The appearance and scale of Project facilities in the landscape change with viewing distance and Project type.Lands seen from sensitive viewing areas,identified in the inventory phase of the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-186 July 1999 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences study,were divided into four distance zones,including (1)immediate foreground, (2)foreground,(3)middleground,and (4)background or seldom seen.Due to landscape characteristics and development patterns,the extent of viewing distance and perception of structural elements within rural landscapes was determined to be generally greater than in urban settings as indicated in Table 4-21.(See Chapter 3 ,Visual Resources for detailed information.) Screening Potential Visibility to and from developed areas and travel routes was determined by the edge conditions bordering individual areas.Edge conditions are described as screened,partially screened,or open conditions.A screened edge condition would block views of the Project.Screened conditions generally consist of topography,vegetation,and/or development that acts as a buffer.Partial screening occurs where there are dispersed patterns of vegetation and development,which are not continuous.Open edge conditions lack any screening. TABLE 4-21 LEVELS OF VISIBILITY FOR RURAL AND URBAN AREAS Screening Visibility Fg (300 feet to '%|Mg (¥%mile to 1 Bg and SS Potential (0 to 300 feet)mile)mile)(beyond 1 mile) Immediate Foreground Rural Visibility Levels Open High High Moderate Moderate/Low Partially Screened |High/Moderate Moderate Moderate/Low Low Screened Moderate Moderate/Low Low Low Urban Visibility Levels Open High High High/Moderate Moderate Partially Screened ;}High/Moderate Moderate Moderate/Low Low Screened Moderate Moderate/Low Low Low Impact Assessment Impact Assessment for Rural Landscapes In general,significant visual impacts in rural landscape settings are the result of high visibility from sensitive viewing areas such as residences and recreation areas with strong or moderate Project/setting contrast within scenic quality Class A,B,or C landscapes,as shown in Table 4-22.Significant impacts also are a result of moderate visibility and strong contrast within scenic quality Class A landscapes. Potentially significant impacts include areas of high to moderate visibility from sensitive viewpoints where the Project would result in moderate to weak contrast within scenic quality Class A landscapes.Potentially significant impacts also were assigned to a wide range of Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-187 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences July 1999 conditions where the Project would be noticeable and begin to attract attention including middleground views located in areas of moderate contrast. Where structures would be located in conditions that do not attract attention or would be seldom seen,impacts are considered to be non-significant.These include areas where the views are generally beyond 1.6 km (1.0 mile),or screened by vegetation in a middleground setting. Impact levels for residential and recreation viewers in rural landscapes are shown in Table 4-22, which displays the relationship between levels of visual contrast and rural visibility levels. Impact Assessment for Urban Landscapes In general,a significant impact is a result of high to moderate visibility and strong or moderate Project/setting contrast within residential and park-like image types (see Chapter 3 Visual Resources).In these settings,the proposed facilities are visually evident in the landscape and are incongruous with the visual image types. TABLE 4-22 IMPACT LEVELS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND RECREATION VIEWERS IN RURAL LANDSCAPES Visibility Levels High High to Moderate Visual Contrast Moderate |Moderate to Low Low Strong 9 8 7 8 7 6 7 6 5 6 5 4 5 4 3 Strong to Moderate 8 7 6 7 6 5 6 5 14 5 14 3 4.|3 2 Moderate 7 6 5 6 5 4 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 |1 Moderate to Weak 6 5 4 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 Weak 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 I 1 ]1 A |B Cc A Bic JA {BIC JA I]ByuC [A TB IC Scenic Quality Class Significant Impacts -7,8,9 Potentially Significant Impacts -4,5,6 Non-Significant Impacts -1,2,3 Potentially significant impacts occur in areas where the line is visible but subordinate to the landscape.Potentially significant impacts include areas of strong contrast within open foreground views from commercial/public image types.Potentially significant impacts also were assigned to a wide range of conditions where the Project would be noticeable and begin to attract attention. These conditions include areas with high visibility to areas of strong Project/setting contrast located within commercial/retail image types. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-188 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impact levels for residential and recreation viewers in urban landscapes are shown in Table 4-23, which displays the relationship between levels of visual contrast and urban visibility levels based on urban landscape. TABLE 4-23 IMPACT LEVELS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND RECREATION VIEWERS IN URBAN LANDSCAPES Visibility Levels Visual High to Moderate to Contrast High Moderate Moderate Low Low Strong 9 7 5 3 18 6 4 7 5 3 1 |6 4 2 1 {4 3 1 Strong to 8 6 4 3°17 5 3 6 4 2 175 3 1 173 2 1 Moderate Moderate 7 5 3 216 4 2 5 3 1.1/4 2 ]1 |2 l 1 Moderate 6 4 2 145 3 1 4 2 I 1 |3 1 1 1 1 1 1 to Weak Weak 5 3 1 144 2 1 3 1 1 1|2 1 1 1 1 1 1 RP {Cl |]C2}1 |RP |Ci |C2]1 {RP |Cl |C2]}1 |]RP {Cl {C271 |RP |Ci {C2 Visual Image Type* *R =Residential P =Park-like C1 =Commercial-office C2 =Commercial-retail I =Industrial Significant Impacts -7,8,9 Potentially Significant Impacts -4,5,6 Non-Significant Impacts -1,2,3 Impact Assessment for Travelways Visual impacts along travelways were assessed separately from rural and urban landscapes. Impacts on views from travelways are largely dependent upon distance,the setting,and orientation to the Project-either parallel or perpendicular to the roadway. Significant impacts are a result of strong or strong to moderate contrast along a high sensitivity travelway.A high sensitivity travelway would be characterized by an open landscape setting, which offers scenic views to distant or local natural features.Construction of the proposed Project in these locations would interrupt views to natural features and would be one of the few manmade elements visible within foreground views from the road.In this condition,the proposed activity would dominate the landscape. Potentially significant impacts occur where strong to moderate through moderate to weak contrast occurs within a moderate sensitivity travelway corridor.A moderate sensitivity travelway would be characterized by landscapes that provide intermittent views to distant and local natural features.Development patterns in these areas typically have a fairly unified and organized appearance.Potentially significant impacts are also a result of moderate to weak Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-189 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 contrast along a high sensitivity travel route or strong to moderate contrast within a moderate to low sensitivity travel route corridor. Where structures are located in conditions that do not attract attention,impacts are considered to be non-significant.Non-significant impacts include areas where Project contrast ranges from strong to weak along a low sensitivity travelway.Non-significant impacts also are the result of moderate to weak contrast along a moderate to low sensitivity travelway. Impact levels for views along travelways in rural and urban landscapes are shown in Table 4-24, which displays the relationship between levels of visual contrast and travel corridor sensitivity. TABLE 4-24 IMPACT LEVELS FOR VIEWS ALONG TRAVELWAYS Project/Setting Travel Corridor Sensitivity Contrast High Moderate Moderate to Low Low Strong 8 7 6 3 Strong to Moderate 7 6 5 3 Moderate 6 5 4 2 Moderate to Weak 5 4 3 1 Weak 4 3 2 1 Significant Impacts -7,8,9 Potentially Significant Impacts -4,5,6 Non-Significant Impacts -1,2,3 Scenic Quality and Urban Visual Image Types The assessment of impacts on scenic quality and visual image types accounts in urban settings for levels described in Chapter 3.The focus of the assessment is on areas rated as scenic quality Level A or residential and park-like visual image types.The scenic quality levels have been incorporated into the visual impact analysis as shown in Tables 4-20 and 4-21. Table 4-25 displays the relationship between visual contrast and scenic quality classes,and Table 4-26 shows the relationship between visual contrast and urban image types. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-190 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-25 IMPACT LEVELS FOR RURAL SCENIC QUALITY CLASSES Rural Scenic Quality Classes Visual Contrast Class A Class B Class C Strong 7 5 4 Strong to Moderate 6 4 3 Moderate 5 3 2 Moderate to Weak 4 2 1 Weak 3 1 1 Significant Impacts -7,8,9 Potentially Significant Impacts -4,5,6 Non-Significant Impacts -1,2,3 TABLE 4-26 IMPACT LEVELS FOR URBAN VISUAL IMAGE TYPES Urban Visual Image Types Residential Commercial Commercial Visual Contrast |and Park-Like Office Retail Industrial Strong 8 5 4 3 Strong to Moderate 7 4 3 2 Moderate 6 3 2 1 Moderate to Weak 5 2 l 1 Weak 4 1 |1 Significant Impacts -7,8,9 Potentially Significant Impacts -4,5,6 Non-Significant Impacts -1,2,3 Mitigation Initial impact levels were determined based on the Project description.Selective mitigation was considered to reduce visual impacts.The effectiveness of mitigation techniques in conjunction with the landscape character and visibility can be best determined at the Project design stage. Selective mitigation that would reduce visual impacts include measures 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11, 12,and 13,as shown in Table 4-3 4.9.2 SIMULATIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS A series of photo simulations were prepared for Project route options.All simulations are located in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume.Included are simulations of the Quartz Creek (see Section 2.1,Route Options Studied and Eliminated),Tesoro,and Enstar alternatives,as listed below. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-19]Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Route Eliminated m 2-la Quartz Creek -National Forest,Existing Conditions 2-1b Quartz Creek -National Forest,Simulation . m 2-2a Quartz Creek -Seward Highway,Existing Conditions 2-2b Quartz Creek -Seward Highway,Simulation m 2-3a Sixmile Creek/Hope Cutoff,Existing Conditions 2-3b Sixmile Creek/Hope Cutoff,Simulation m 2-4a Sterling Highway,Existing Conditions 2-4b =Sterling Highway,Simulation Tesoro Route @ 4-la North Kenai Road -Forested Setting,Existing Conditions 4-1b North Kenai Road -Forested Setting,Simulation m 4-2a North Kenai Road -Developed Setting,Existing Conditions 4-2b North Kenai Road -Developed Setting,Simulation =4-3a Moose Point Aerial View,Existing Conditions 4-3b Moose Point Aerial View,Photo Simulation Enstar Route m 4-44 Kenai River -Bings Landing,North Side,Existing Conditions 4-4b Kenai River -Bings Landing,North Side,Photo Simulation m 4-5a Kenai River -Bings Landing,South Side,Existing Conditions 4-Sb Kenai River -Bings Landing,South Side,Photo Simulation m 4-6a Mystery Creek Road,Existing Conditions 4-6b Mystery Creek Road,Single Pole,Photo Simulation 4-6c Mystery Creek Road,H-Frame,Photo Simulation 4-6d Mystery Creek Road,X-Frame,Photo Simulation m 4-7a Trapper Joe Lake,Aerial View,Existing Conditions 4-7b Trapper Joe Lake,Aerial View,Modeled Simulation 4-7c Trapper Joe Lake,Aerial View,Photo Simulation m 4-8a Trapper Joe Lake,Surface View,Existing Conditions 4-8b Trapper Joe Lake,Surface View,Modeled Simulation Anchorage Area m 4-92 Minnesota Dirve -O'Malley Road,Existing Conditions @ 4-9b Minnesota Dirve -O'Malley Road,Photo Simulation Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-192 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 4.9.3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS BY ROUTE OPTION Visual impacts associated with the proposed Project would be long term,remaining over the life of the Project.Construction and operation of the proposed facilities may result in impacts that affect the landscape scenery of an area,as well as views from residences,recreation areas,and travelways.Descriptions of the impacts along the route options are provided in the following sections. Tesoro Route Options Impacts on Visual Resources on the Kenai Peninsula (Tesoro Route) Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession (Links T1.1,T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,T2.1,T3.1,T3.2,T5.1, T5.2/Route Option A) Summary of Visual Impacts The route option between Bernice Lake to Pt.Possession would span a distance of 71 km (44.1 miles),of which a total of 33.8 km (21.1 miles)of significant landscape scenery and/or viewer impacts were assigned.Additionally,29.8 km (18.6 miles)of potentially significant and 7.04 km (4.4 miles)of non-significant visual impacts were assigned to these links. Significant impacts from the construction of this route option would result from a combination of vegetative clearing along North Kenai Road and the Tesoro Pipeline,the addition of aboveground structures along the majority of this route,and the disruption of local viewsheds. Viewers potentially affected by this route option include the community of Nikiski,dispersed residences,travelers on North Kenai Road,and recreators in Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA).Highly valued views along this route option include views on the ground from residences,recreation areas and key travel routes as well as aerial views from planes and helicopters. The southern portion of this route option initially was to be located on private lands within Nikiski;however,in order to mitigate significant land use impacts,the route option has been moved into the North Kenai Road right-of-way.This route option,however,will be within close proximity to residential,recreation and key travel route viewsheds.The appearance of this route option in this setting is illustrated on Simulations 4-la,4-1b,4-2a,and 4-2b in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume. A more detailed visual impact discussion is provided below that is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-193 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 independently;therefore,the impacts described in these two sections overlap.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Landscape Scenery Approximately 23.5 km (14.7 miles)of significant impacts were assigned to scenic quality Class A forested wetlands,the coastline of the Cook Inlet,and forested residential areas near Nikiski (Links T1.3,T1.4,T3.1,and T3.2).Potentially significant impacts on scenic quality Class B forested lowlands and residential areas would occur for the majority of this route (Links T1.3,T1.4,T3.1,and T3.2),for approximately 37.8 km (23.6 miles).The remaining portion of this route would have non-significant impacts on landscape scenery,including Captain Cook SRA where the lineis underground. Viewers Significant impacts on open immediate foreground and foreground views from > residences would occur for approximately19.7 km (12.3 miles)from Nikiski to Captain Cook SRA (Links T1.3 and T1.4),as well as dispersed residences from Captain Cook SRA to Pt. Possession (Links T3.1 and T3.2).Approximately 32.3 km (20.2 miles)of this route would have potentially significant impacts on views from residences which are partially screened to screened due to the presence of vegetation (Links T1.3,T1.4,T3.1,and T3.2).The remaining impacts on residences along this route would be non-significant due to viewing distance and local screening conditions. Impacts on views from recreation areas within Captain Cook SRA would be low (Link T2.1), due to underground construction within the existing road right-of-way.Impacts on views from dispersed recreation users along this route would be variable depending upon activity,viewer orientation,and proximity to the route.Therefore,they were not quantifiable in terms of level and miles of impacts. Significant impacts on open immediate foreground views from the North Kenai Road (Links T1.2,T1.3,T1.4,and T2.1)would occur for 13.8 km (8.6 miles)where roadside conditions are characterized by forested areas where manmade features are absent or subordinate to the natural landscape scenery.In addition,there would be significant impacts on views overlooking adjacent lakes (Link T1.4)from two pullouts along the North Kenai Road.Potentially significant impacts on views along the North Kenai Road would occur for 4.0 km (2.5 miles)where roadside conditions are characterized by areas in which development is evident,but does not dominate natural landscape scenery.The remaining portion of the North Kenai Road would have non- significant impacts due to conditions adjacent to the roadway,including commercial and industrial development. Visual impacts on the Gray Cliffs and Moose Point subdivisions would result from the clearing of the right-of-way and visibility of structures from existing and future development.Mitigation would include the use of the planned transportation corridor,which is independent from the planned future road corridor.By placing the 45.7 meter (150-foot)right-of-way of the Project within the planned 91.4-meter (300-foot)right-of-way,there is the opportunity to establish Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-194 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 vegetation screening to existing and future development.Through right-of-way feathering techniques in sensitive areas,the width of required clearing would be minimized. The visual impact of right-of-way clearing from planes is an additional visual resource issue for the Tesoro alternative due to the amount of air traffic between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.The impact of clearing will be variable depending on flight patterns,weather conditions,and season.Typical flight patterns for commuter planes are east of the coast,over the interior of the Kenai Lowlands,where the Project right-of-way would be seen from an angle as a linear clearing parallel to the coast.Adjacent trees would screen portions of the right-of-way.The setting varies from adjacent wilderness to a pattern of existing oil field development and seismic lines.The clearing would be most evident in the winter,when there is a strong contrast between the snow cover and the adjacent forest.In the summer,the clearing would be green,similar to the surrounding vegetation,and therefore less evident.The contrast of the vegetation clearing would appear strongest in uniform dense forest,and least evident in spruce bogs with low growing vegetation.Mitigation for reducing vegetation contrast in dense forest areas would be consistent with those described for minimizing visual impacts on residential development-variable right- of-way clearing widths and minimal ground disturbance. Cumulative Impacts-The visual impacts associated with right-of-way clearing and new transmission structures along the Tesoro route will be seen in context to existing and future development described in Section 4.5,Land Use.Cumulative impacts on Captain Cook SRA can be avoided by the proposed undergrounding adjacent to the road edge.The use of the planned transportation corridor in the Moose Point and Gray Cliffs developments is consistent with planned uses;however,the Project would represent the first major use of this planned corridor. Mitigation to provide screening opportunities for future adjacent lot development will reduce visual impacts on the area.Use of single-pole structures along the North Kenai Road right-of- way will reduce clearing requirements and visual impacts on travelers and residents of the area. The cumulative impacts of aerial views will be seen in context to existing and future oil and as development within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR),which has resulted in over 1,609 km (1,000 miles)of seismic lines,as well as other linear clearing.Blending the right-of- way clearing with adjacent vegetation to a more natural pattern will provide mitigation to aerial views. Impacts on Visual]Resources in Turnagain Arm (Tesoro Route) Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell (Links M2.1,M2.2/Route Option D);Pt.Possession to Pt. Campbell via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M2.3/Route Option E);Pt. Possession to Pt.Woronzof via Fire Island (Links M1.1,T4.1,T4.2,T4.3,M1.3/Route Option F);Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof (Links M2.4/Route Option G);and Pt.Possession to Klatt Road (Links M2.1,M3.1/Route Option H) Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-195 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Summary of Visual Impacts The route options between Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell would largely result in no identifiable visual impacts because much of these route options would consist of marine cables to span the Turnagain Arm.However,the route option from Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell via Fire Island would result in 7.9 km (4.9 miles)of potentially significant visual impacts where this route option would transition from Marine cable to an aboveground transmission line (27.4-meter [90-foot]-tall H-frame wood).Visual impacts along these links (T4.1 and T4.2)would result from a combination of vegetation and structure contrast.Clearing of vegetation would occur in forested areas along the transmission line right-of-way,which would be noticeable primarily from aerial views and seasonal,dispersed recreational views. Landscape Scenery Potentially significant impacts on scenic quality Class B landscapes would occur along the route crossing the relatively flat heavily vegetated terrain on Fire Island (Links T4.1,T4.2,and T4.3).The remainder of these routes would have non-significant or no impacts on landscape scenery because they are underground or submarine. Viewers There would be no impacts on views from seasonal residences located on Fire Island due to distance and screening from terrain and vegetation.Impacts on views from dispersed recreation users along this route are variable depending upon activity,viewer orientation,and proximity to the route.Therefore,they were not quantifiable in terms of significance and distance of impacts. Impacts on Visual Resources in the Anchorage Bowl (Tesoro Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Wornzof (Links PW1.1/Route Option M) Summary of Visual Impacts The route option between Pt.Campbell to Pt.Wornzof spans a distance of 6.4 km (4.0 miles),of which a total of 6.0 km (3.7 miles)of potentially significant, and 0.4 km (0.3 mile)non-significant visual impacts were assigned. This underground route option follows the Tesoro Pipeline and future airport development between Pt.Campbell and Pt.Woronzof.This route option would be within immediate foreground and foreground views of the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail;however,since the line would be buried underground,there would not be any structure contrast from aboveground utility poles.In select locations,vegetative clearing would occur within views from the Tony Knowles Trail,resulting in potentially significant impacts. A more detailed visual impact discussion is provided below that is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently;therefore,the impacts described in these two sections completely overlap geographically.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-196 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Landscape Scenery Approximately 6.0 km (3.7 miles)of potentially significant impacts would occur on park-like landscapes along the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (Link PW1.1).Non- significant impacts for this route would occur along an industrial area adjacent to the airport for the remaining 0.5 km (0.3 mile)of this route. Viewers Potentially significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail (Link PW1.1)would occur for approximately 1.8 km (1.1 miles) along this route.The remaining portion of this route would have non-significant to no impacts on views from recreation area due to low scenic quality and screening due to the presence of vegetation. Cumulative Impacts-The proposed location for Route Option M will be an underground line adjacent to an existing pipeline clearing which will reduce the cumulative effects of additional clearing through Kincaid Park.The proposed route would be in a separate and underground location to the east of the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail to avoid any visual impacts on the trail system south of the Pt.Woronzof Substation. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,13.2,15.5/Route Option N) See Enstar route options-While Route Option N could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route options. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4,I5.5/Route Option O) See Enstar route options-While Route Option O could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route options. Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,14.3,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Option P) See Enstar route options-While Route Option P could be chosen as a portion of either the Tesoro route or the Enstar route,it is described as part of the Enstar route options. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-197 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Enstar Route Options Impacts on Visual Resources in the Kenai Peninsula (Enstar Route) Northern Soldotna Route Option (Links S1.1,$1.2,$1.3,E1.1/Route Option B North) Summary of Visual Impacts The Northern Soldotna route option spans a distance of 33.6 km (53.8 miles),of which a total of 1.0 km (1.6 miles)of significant landscape scenery and/or viewer impacts were assigned.Additionally,26.9 km (43.04 miles)of potentially significant and 5.7 km (9.1 miles)of non-significant visual impacts were assigned to these links. This route option starts north of the Soldotna substation and extends northeast of the community of Soldotna with the eastern end of this route option paralleling a short portion of the Enstar Pipeline.Most of this route option parallels existing transmission line corridors,some with multiple transmission lines. Significant impacts from the construction of this route option would result from a combination of vegetative clearing,the addition of aboveground structures,and the disruption of local residential,recreational,and travel route viewsheds.Visual Project/setting contrast is considered to be greater when structures are placed within an undeveloped setting without existing structures in place.Therefore,anticipated structure contrast from the addition of new structures within existing utility corridors is considered to be of low to moderate structural contrast.Viewers potentially affected by this route option include dispersed residences around the community of Soldotna,travelers on Swanson River Road at a single crossing,and recreators on Sevena Lake, the Moose River,the East Fork of the Moose River,and aerial views from planes. The more detailed visual impact discussion below is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently; therefore,the impacts described in these two sections completely overlap geographically.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Landscape Scenery Approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mile)of significant impacts would occur in areas classified as scenic quality Class A.This would occur in forested residential areas near Sport Lake and Union Lake (Links $1.2 and S1.3),and Sevena Lake (Link $1.3). Potentially significant impacts on scenic quality Class A and B landscapes would occur for approximately 22.1 km (13.8 miles)of this route where the setting has been modified by the presence of existing transmission line(s)or pipeline corridors.Potentially significant impacts on Class A landscapes would occur at wetland complexes and drainages such as Soldotna Creek Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-198 Chapter 4 -Environmental!Consequences July 1999 (Link $1.1)and the Moose River (Link S1.3).Potentially significant impacts on Class B landscapes would occur near Soldotna and Sterling in forested lowlands (Link $1.3)and forested rolling hills (Links $1.3,El.1,and E1.3).In addition,potentially significant impacts would occur in forested residential areas (Links $1.1,$1.2,and $1.3).Non-significant impacts would occur throughout the remaining portion of this route in areas of bottomland,grassland,and disturbance. Viewers Significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences within an area of forested wetlands near Sevana Lake (Link $1.3)would occur for 0.2 km (0.1 mile)along this route.Approximately 16.2 km (10.1 miles)of potentially significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences would occur north of the Soldotna Substation (Links $1.1 and $1.2).These residential views are open to partially screened due to the presence of vegetation and this portion of the route parallels two existing 115kV and 69kV transmission lines from the Soldotna Substation to an area approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mile)north of Sport Lake.The remaining portion of this route would have non-significant or no impacts on views from residences. Cumulative Impacts-Impacts on residences adjacent to the Soldotna Route Option B/North would experience the cumulative effects of two parallel transmission lines and the additional clearing requirements. Southern Soldotna Route Option (Links 82.1,$1.5,E1.2/Route Option B South) Summary of Visual Impacts The Route Option B South spans a distance of 30.4 km (18.9 miles),of which a total of 0.9 km (0.57 miles)of significant landscape scenery and/or viewer impacts were assigned.Additionally,13.0 km (8.1 miles)of potentially significant and 16.5 km (10.3 miles)of non-significant visual impacts were assigned to these links. This route option starts south of the Soldotna substation and extends southeast of the community of Soldotna.The majority of this route option would replace and existing 69kV transmission line south of Soldotna.Short portions of this route option would parallel an existing 115kV transmission line northeast of Soldotna. Significant impacts from the construction of this route option would occur at the crossing of the Kenai River,where an existing 69kV wood H-frame structure would be replaced with a wood, single-pole structure within the viewshed of both local residence and recreators.Significant visual impacts also would occur where this route option would be visible from dispersed residences along Link E1.2,north of the Sterling Highway.The primary factors that contribute to significant visual impacts in these locations are the visibility from sensitive viewers,close proximity of the viewers,and additional clearing of vegetation,widening the existing right-of- way. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-199 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The more detailed visual impact discussion below is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently; therefore,the impacts described in these two sections completely overlap geographically.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Landscape Scenery Approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mile)of significant impacts would occur on scenic quality Class A landscapes along this route,as previously described for Links $1.3,E2.1, and MS5.1 of Route Option B. Potentially significant impacts would occur for approximately 10.7 km (6.7 miles)along this route.This includes scenic quality Class A Kenai River valley (Link S2.1);as well as forested residential areas adjacent to the Kenai River (Link $2.1),along Funny River Road (Link 82.1), and east of Sterling (Link $1.5),where the route parallels an existing 69kV transmission line. Impacts on the remaining landscapes along this route are expected to be low due to low scenic quality and the presence of an existing transmission line or pipeline. Viewers Significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences would occur where the route crosses the Kenai River at Bings Landing (Link $2.1)and east of Sterling (Link S1.5).Potentially significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences along the Kenai River (Link $2.1),Funny River Road,and east of Sterling (Link $1.5).The remaining portion of this route would have non-significant impacts on views from residences due to screening from vegetation and the presence of existing transmission line(s). Significant impacts on views from recreation areas occur for approximately 0.3 km (0.2 mile) along this route.This includes immediate foreground views of the Kenai River (Link S2.1) crossing at Bings Landing. Potentially significant impacts on views from recreation areas occur for approximately 1.8 km (1.1 miles).This includes immediate foreground and foreground views where the route crosses the Kenai River (Links $2.1)and immediate foreground and foreground views from Birch Ridge Golf Course south of the Soldotna Substation (Link $2.1).The remaining portion of this route would have non-significant impacts on views from residences due to screening from vegetation and the presence of existing transmission line(s). There would be approximately 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of potentially significant impacts on immediate foreground views at the crossing of the Funny River Road (Link $2.1)and Sterling Highway (Link $2.1),where an existing 69kV transmission line crosses the road at this location. Cumulative Impacts-Replacement of the existing 69kV transmission line with the proposed 230kV single-pole line along the Soldotna Route Option B/South will mitigate cumulative impacts. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-200 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Enstar to Chickaloon Bay (Links E1.3,E2.1,M5.1/Route Option C) Summary of Visual Impacts The Enstar to Chickaloon Bay route option spans a distance of 60.5 km (37.8 miles),of which a total of 48.3 km (30.2 miles)of significant visual impacts were assigned to these links.The remaining 12.2 km (7.6 miles)would result in potentially significant visual impacts. This route option would parallel the Enstar Pipeline through the KNWR.Significant visual impacts from the construction of this route option would result from vegetative contrast and the addition of aboveground structures (guyed X steel along Link E1.3,and single-pole wood along Links E2.1 and MS.1)within this right-of-way.Views of concern include both recreational views from Mystery Creek Road,Moose River,the East Fork Moose River,Afonasi Lake,Trapper Joe Lake and Cabin,as well as aerial views.The appearance of this route option in this setting is illustrated on simulations in the Project Description Graphics and Simulations Volume. The more detailed visual impact discussion below is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently; therefore,the impacts described in these two sections completely overlap geographically.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Landscape Scenery Within the KNWR (Route Option C)significant impacts on scenic quality would occur for approximately 31.68 km (19.8 miles)in forested wetlands and drainages near Mystery Creek Road (Link E1.3),small creeks crossing the Enstar Pipeline (Link E1.3),and densely forested foothills and valleys of the Chugach Mountains (Links E1.3,E2.1,and M5.1). Viewers Significant impacts on viewers would occur within the KNWR for 29.1 miles along Links E1.3,E2.1,and M5.1.Significant visual impacts were assigned to foreground views from the Afonasi Lake along East Fork of Moose River,Trapper Joe Lake,and Chickaloon Flats areas as well as to the surrounding landscapes that have been designated as wilderness within the KNWR from Mystery Creek Road intersection to Chickaloon Bay.The segment of Route Option C along Link E1.3,4.8 km (3 miles)south of the Mystery Creek Road intersection was assigned a potentially significant impact,with the exception of the crossing at the East Fork of Moose River,due to habitat manipulation and lack of access. The significant impacts assigned to Route Option C through the KNWR reflect the management and wilderness values adjacent to the Enstar Pipeline.Visibility of structures,right-of-way clearing,and associated ground disturbance all contribute to the visual impacts on the KNWR. Mitigation through winter construction that would reduce impacts on the terrain,variable right- of-way clearing,and lowering tower heights or structure types in selected areas could reduce the magnitude of the visual impacts.In the Trapper Joe Lake area,lowering tower heights and minimizing clearing would minimize visual impacts from the lake and local cabin.In the Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-201 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Chickaloon area,where the route would be visible along the hillside above the flats,impacts could be reduced by the use of single-pole structures at lowered heights. Cumulative Impacts-The impacts of additional clearing along the Enstar Route would result in cumulative effects because of the wilderness status of adjacent lands.Unlike the Tesoro Route Option A,the Enstar Pipeline is not a designated transportation corridor for future use in the KNWR Comprehensive Plan.Mitigation would include blending right-of-way clearing with surrounding vegetation where possible.It would be more difficult to mitigate the impacts of the right-of-way appearance due to clearing in the dense,uniform forests north of Mystery Creek Road. Impacts on Visual Resources in Turnagain Arm (Enstar Route) Chickaloon Bay to Klatt Road (M4.1/Route Option I);Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park (Link M5.4);Chickaloon Bay to Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek (Link MS5.3/Route Option K);and Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell (Link M5.5/Route Option L) Summary of Visual Impacts The route options between Chickaloon Bay the Anchorage area would largely result in no identifiable visual impacts because much of these route options would consist of marine cables to span the Turnagain Arm.However,these route options result in relatively short areas of potentially significant and non-significant visual impacts where they cross through coastal marsh and would create vegetative contrast within the viewsheds of key travel routes such as Klatt Road,Old Seward Road,and the Alaska Railroad. Landscape Scenery These routes would result primarily in non-significant impacts on landscape scenery because they are underground or submarine.However Link M 4.1 would result in 0.5 km (0.3 mile)of non-significant impacts on landscape scenery where this link would cross through coastal marsh,resulting in vegetative contrast within the viewshed of Klatt Road and surrounding residences.Link 5.4 would result in 1.1 km (0.7 mile)of potentially significant and 0.5 km (0.3 mile)of non-significant visual impacts where this link crosses through coastal marsh near Oceanview Park.Link 5.3 would result in 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of non-significant impacts where this link crosses through coastal marsh near the Alaska Railroad. Viewers Potentially significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views from the Tony Knowles Coastal Trail would occur at Pt.Campbell (Link MS5.5). Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-202 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impacts on Visual Resources in the Anchorage Bow](Enstar Route) Pt.Campbell to Pt.Woronzof (Link PW1.1/Route Option M) See Tesoro route options-While Route Option M could be chosen as a portion of either the Enstar route or the Tesoro route,it is described as part of the Tesoro route options. Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road (Links I4.2,14.3,14.4,15.5/Route Options N,O,R,T,U, V,Z) Summary of Visual Impacts The Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road route option spans a distance of 7.7 km (4.8 miles),of which a total of 6.2 km (3.9 miles)of significant visual impacts were assigned.The remaining 1.5 km (0.9 miles)would result in potentially significant visual impacts. This route option would parallel Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road from Old Seward Highway to the International Substation.Significant visual impacts from the construction of this route option would result from strong Project/setting contrast within immediate foreground and foreground views from travelers on Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road and adjacent residences and recreational uses.This segment would consist of single-shaft,steel transmission line poles within the Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road right-of-way.The paralleling of Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road would result not only in structure contrast,but also vegetation contrast where widening into existing vegetation would occur. The more detailed visual impact discussion below is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently; therefore,the impacts described in these two sections completely overlap geographically.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Landscape Scenery Significant impacts along Minnesota Drive and O'Malley Road would occur on residential areas (Links 14.4 and I5.5),park-like (undeveloped landscapes)(Links 14.2, 14.3,14.4,and 15.5),and the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.5).Potentially significant impacts would occur on developed commercial office/retail areas (Link 14.3).The remaining industrial landscapes (Link 4.3)along Minnesota Drive and O'Malley Road would have non- significant impacts. Viewers Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground,foreground,and middleground open views from residences along near the intersection of O'Malley Road and Old Seward Highway (Link 14.3)and Minnesota Drive (Links 14.4 and 5.5).Potentially significant impacts would occur on foreground and middleground views from residences that are partially screened along O'Malley Road (Link 14.3)and Minnesota Drive (Links 14.4 and 5.5).The remaining impacts on residences along O'Malley Road and Minnesota Drive (Links 14.2,14.3, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-203 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 14.4,and 15.5)would be non-significant due to proximity to the route and the presence of screening from vegetation and development. Significant impacts on recreation areas along O'Malley Road and Minnesota Drive would occur to immediate foreground views from Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link I5.5)and Javier DelaVega Park (Link 15.5)located at the southwest corner of the intersection of International Road and Minnesota Drive.Potentially significant impacts on recreation areas would occur to partially screened foreground and middleground views from Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link I5.5),Javier DelaVega Park (Link 15.5),and a golf course driving range (Link 14.3)south of O'Malley Road. The remaining impacts on views from recreation areas would be non-significant due to proximity to the route and screening due to the presence of vegetation and development. -Significant impacts on travelways would occur where there are open views of the Chugach Mountains from O'Malley Road (Links 14.2 and 14.3)and Minnesota Drive (Link 15.5). Potentially significant impacts on views from these travelways would occur where view of the Chugach Mountains are partially screened. Alaska Railroad (Links 12.5,12.8,12.6,15.8,15.9,16.3/Route Options P,Q,R,S,T,V,W,Y, Z) Summary of Visual Impacts The Alaska Railroad route option spans a distance of 8.3 km (5.2 miles),of which a total of 1.3 km (0.8 mile)of significant visual impacts were assigned. Additionally 1.3 km (0.8 mile)of potentially significant and 5.5 km (11.4 miles)of non- significant visual impacts were assigned to this route option. This route option would parallel the Alaska Railroad from Oceanview Park to the International Substation.Significant visual impacts from the construction of this route option would result from strong Project/setting contrast within immediate foreground and foreground views from residences and recreational uses.This segment would consist of single-shaft,steel transmission line poles within the Alaska Railroad right-of-way.Due to the paralleling of Alaska Railroad, structure contrast is considered to be minimal and minimal clearing of vegetation would occur. The more detailed visual impact discussion below is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently; therefore,the impacts described in these two sections completely overlap geographically.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Landscape Scenery Significant impacts would occur on park-like (undeveloped landscapes) (Link 12.8),the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.9),and residential areas (Link 16.3). Potentially significant impacts would occur on residential landscapes north of Oceanview Park (Link 12.5),where the route would be underground.The remaining industrial (Links 12.6,I5.8, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-204 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 5.9,and 16.3)and commercial landscapes (Links 12.8,15.8,and 15.9)along the Alaska Railroad would have non-significant impacts. Viewers Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences along the Alaska Railroad south of the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.9). Potentially significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences that are partially to fully screened north of Oceanview Park (Links 12.5 and 12.8), south of the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.9),and east of International Substation (Link 16.3).The remaining impacts on views from residences would be low due to proximity to the route,the presence of screening from vegetation,and existing development. Significant impacts on recreation areas along the Alaska Railroad would occur to immediate foreground views from the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link I5.9).Potentially significant impacts would occur on partially to fully screened immediate foreground and foreground views from Oceanview Park (Link 12.5),where vegetation would be cleared for the underground route along the Alaska Railroad.The remaining impacts on views from recreation areas would be low due to proximity to the route and screening due to the presence of vegetation and adjacent development. Significant impacts on immediate foreground views from travelways would occur along the Alaska Railroad near the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Links 15.9).Potentially significant impacts on immediate foreground views from the Alaska Railroad would occur north of Oceanview Park (Links I2.5 and 12.8). Old Seward Highway/International Road (Links [2.4,12.8,12.7,15.6,16.1,15.7,15.3/Route Options S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z) Summary of Visual Impacts The Old Seward Highway/International Road route option spans a distance of 14.5 km (9.0 miles),of which a total of 4.3 km (2.7 miles)of significant visual impacts were assigned.Additionally,4.5 km (2.8 mile)of potentially significant and 9.1 km (5.7 miles)of non-significant visual impacts were assigned to this route option. This route option would parallel Old Seward Highway/International Road from the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range to the International Substation.Significant visual impacts from the construction of this route option would result from strong Project/setting contrast within immediate foreground and foreground views from travelers on Old Seward Highway/International Road and adjacent residences and recreational uses.This segment would consist of single-shaft,steel transmission line poles within the Old Seward Highway/International Road right-of-way.The paralleling of Old Seward Highway/International Road would result not only in structure contrast,but also vegetation contrast where widening into existing vegetation would occur. The more detailed visual impact discussion below is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently; Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-205 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 therefore,the impacts described in these two sections completely overlap geographically.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Landscape Scenery Significant impacts would occur on residential development along Old Seward Highway (Links 12.4 and 15.7)and International Airport Road (Link I5.3).In addition, significant impacts would occur on park-like landscapes including the Campbell Creek Greenbelt,a recreation complex at the northeast corner of the intersection of O'Malley Road and Old Seward Highway (Links I5.6),and vacant land north of Huffman Road (Link 12.8). Potentially significant impacts would occur on commercial development along Old Seward Highway (Links 12.4 and I5.6)and Airport International Road (Links 15.6).The remaining industrial (Links 12.4,15.6,and 15.3)and commercial landscapes (Links 12.4,15.6,and 15.3) would have non-significant impacts. Viewers Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences along Old Seward Highway (Link I2.4 and I5.3)and Airport International Road (Link 15.3).Potentially significant impacts would occur on foreground and middleground views from residences that are partially to fully screened along Old Seward Highway (Link 12.4,12.8, and 15.3)and Airport International Road (Link I5.3).The remaining impacts on views from residences would be non-significant due to proximity to the route,the presence of screening from vegetation,and existing development. Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground views from the Campbell Creek Greenbelt (Link 15.3).Potentially significant impacts would occur on partially screened foreground middleground views from the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range (Link 12.4).The remaining impacts on views from recreation areas would be non-significant due to proximity to the route and screening due to the presence of vegetation and development. Significant impacts on immediate foreground views from travelways would occur along the Old Seward Highway (Links 12.4)and Airport International Road (Link 15.3);this also would include middleground and background views of the Chugach Mountains (Links 12.4 and I5.3)and Turnagain Arm (Link 12.4).Potentially significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground views along the Old Seward Highway (Links 12.4)and Airport International Road (Link 15.3),where the route would be located in commercial or industrial settings. Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive (Links M3.2,13.1,I3.2/Route Option N),Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive #2 (Links M3.2,I3.1,13.3,14.4/Route Option O),Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad (Links M3.2,13.1,13.3,I4.3/Route Option P) Summary of Visual Impacts The Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive route options span distances of 2.4 km (1.5 miles)and 2.9 km (1.8 miles),respectively.The aboveground portions of these route options result in significant visual impacts,a total of 1.1 km (0.7 mile)and 1.6 km (1 mile), Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-206 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 respectively.The Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad route option spans a distance of 4 km (2.5 miles),of which 1.9 km (1.2 miles)would result in significant visual impacts. These route options would each parallel portions of Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive,and would be within immediate foreground and foreground views of residences.The Klatt Road to Minnesota Drive route options would link up to route options to parallel Minnesota Drive and result in further significant visual impacts.The Klatt Road to Alaska Railroad route options would link into a route option to be located in a more industrial setting along the eastern portion of Minnesota Drive and the Alaska Railroad. The more detailed visual impact discussion below is divided between landscape scenery and viewers.Potential impacts on landscape scenery and viewers were assessed independently; therefore,the impacts described in these two sections completely overlap geographically.These two impact discussions address the same distinct geographic area and cannot be considered to be additive. Landscape Scenery Significant impacts would occur on park-like landscapes including an undisturbed natural area located south of O'Malley Road (Link 13.2,13.3,and 14.4 Links I3.1 and M3.2 would result in non-significant impacts on the remaining residential landscapes since these links would be underground. Viewers Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences along the south side of Klatt Road (Links I3.2 and 13.3).Significant impacts would also occur to immediately foreground and foreground views from residences along Minnesota Drive (Link 14.4).Links I3.1 and M 3.2 would result in non-significant views from residences since these links would be underground. Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from a neighborhood park along Klatt Road (Links [3.2 and 13.3).Potentially significant impacts on foreground and middleground views from the golf course driving range at the northwest intersection of Klatt Road and C Street (Links [3.2 and 13.3). Significant impacts on immediate foreground views from travelways would occur along Klatt Road (Links I3.2 and 13.3)and O'Malley Road (Link I3.2,I3.3,and 14.4),this would also include middleground and background views of the Chugach Mountains.The remaining views from travelways would have non-significant or no impacts on views since the route would be underground. Cumulative Impacts of Anchorage Route Options-Because of the emphasis on aesthetics in long-range planning in Anchorage,the siting of overhead transmission lines will be of concern. The location of routes in industrial areas will provide the most compatible settings.Mitigation in sensitive areas,including the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge bluffs and recreation and residential areas have been planned for route options by combinations of underground facilities, Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-207 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 structure design,and siting.The success of mitigation will vary with some route options resulting in significant visual impacts. Transition Facility Sites and Substation Alternatives Tesoro Alternative Landscape Scenery The Bernice Lake and Soldotna substations would have non-significant to no impacts on scenic quality since these facilities exist in previously disturbed landscapes. Viewers The Bernice Lake and Soldotna substations would have non-significant to no impacts on views from residences,recreation areas,and travelways since these facilities exist in previously disturbed landscapes. Enstar Alternative Landscape Scenery Potentially significant impacts from construction of the Naptowne substation site would occur on scenic quality Class B and densely vegetated residential landscapes west of Sterling. Viewers Significant to potentially significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views of the Naptowne substation site from residences for Route Option C (Southern Soldotna).This would be a result of vegetation clearing and construction of new facilities adjacent to the existing 115kV transmission line.For Route Option B (Northern Soldotna),non-significant to no impacts on viewers would occur. Anchorage Bowl Landscape Scenery There would be non-significant to no impacts on industrial landscapes associated with the expansion of the existing International or Pt.Woronzof substations,due to the existing modifications. Viewers There would be non-significant to no impacts on viewers due to the expansion of the existing International or Pt.Woronzof substations. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-208 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Dave's Creek Substation Landscape Scenery Potentially significant to non-significant impacts would occur on scenic quality Class A landscapes due to the expansion of the existing Dave's Creek substation. Viewers There would be non-significant to no impacts on viewers due to the expansion of the existing Dave's Creek substation. Transition Facilities Tersoro Alternative Landscape Scenery Non-significant impacts would occur on heavily developed commercial landscapes from the transition facilities (riser pole)for undergrounding the line at the Rediske airstrip (Link T1.3)near Nikiski.Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on residential and scenic quality Class B landscapes from the transition facilities (riser pole)for undergrounding the line at the Johnson airstrip (Link T1.3)near Nikiski. Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on scenic quality Class A and Class B landscapes at Captain Cook SRA (Link 2.1),where the transition facilities would be located at the north and south boundaries of the SRA. Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on scenic quality Class A landscapes at Pt.Possession (Link 5.1)where the transition facilities would be located within the right-of-way for the transmission line. The transition facilities would have non-significant to potentially significant impacts on scenic quality Class B landscapes at Fire Island (Links T4.1 and T4.3). Viewers Non-significant impacts would occur on views of the transition facilities (riser pole) for undergrounding the line at the Rediske airstrip (Link T1.3)near Nikiski.Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on residential views of the transition facilities (riser pole)for undergrounding the line at the Johnson airstrip (Link T1.3)near Nikiski. Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on viewers along the North Kenai Road where the transition facilities would be located at the north and south boundaries of Captain Cook SRA (Link T2.1). Non-significant to no impacts would occur on views from residences near Pt.Possession (Link 5.1),which are screened due to terrain and heavy vegetation. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-209 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The transition facilities would have no impacts on views from seasonal residences at the north and south ends of Fire Island (Links T4.1 and T4.3)due to terrain and vegetation screening. Enstar Alternative Landscape Scenery Non-significant to potentially significant impacts would occur on scenic quality Class B landscapes near Burnt Island (Link MS.1),where the transition facility would be located within the transmission line right-of way. Viewers The transition facility would have non-significant to potentially significant impacts on views from a seasonal cabin and dispersed recreational activities on Burnt Island (Link M5.1), due to vegetation screening. Anchorage Bowl Route Options Landscape Scenery Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on residential landscapes along Old Seward Highway (Link 12.4),due to vegetation clearing required for the transition facility. Potentially significant to significant impacts would occur on park-like (natural)landscapes adjacent to Klatt Road (Link 13.3),as a result of the transition facility. The transition facility at Pt.Campbell (Link PW1.1)would have non-significant to no impacts on landscape scenery,due to the existing modifications (borrow pit and road)adjacent to this site. Non-significant impacts would result on commercial and industrial landscapes along 120" Avenue (Links 12.5 and I2.6)and Cross Road (Links MS.4 and I2.5). Non-significant impacts would result on park-like landscapes near the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range (Links MS5.3 and 15.3),where the transition facility would be located inside of a building adjacent to the shooting range buildings. Viewers The transition facility along the Old Seward Highway (Link 12.4)would have significant impacts on immediate foreground and foreground views towards the Chugach Mountains and Turnagain Arm from residences and travelers. Significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground and foreground views from residences and from Klatt Road (Link I3.3)due to the transition facility.Mitigation such as placing the transition facility within a building would substantially reduce impacts on viewers in this area. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-210 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Potentially significant impacts would occur on immediate foreground views along a cross- country ski area near Pt.Campbell (Link PW1.1). The remaining impacts on viewers along 120"Avenue (Links I2.5 and 12.6),Cross Road (Links MS5.4 and 12.5),and the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range (Links M5.3 and 15.3)would be non- significant. 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.10.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS Archeological and historic sites are extremely sensitive to physical disturbance and could be adversely affected by direct,indirect,or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project.The major potential impacts on cultural resources are loss or degradation of archaeological sites,either through direct disturbance by construction activities or indirect disturbance due to increase in public accessibility. Most of the cultural resources within the Project area are likely to be archaeological sites important for their potential to yield important information about human occupation of the region.If such sites cannot be avoided,there is high potential to satisfactorily mitigate Project impacts by conducting studies to recover important information before the sites are damaged or destroyed by construction activities. The generic mitigation measures adopted by the Project proponent include a commitment to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as implemented by regulations for Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800).Accordingly,cultural resources will continue to be considered during subsequent phases of project implementation. Once a final route is selected,cultural resources within the area of potential effect will be intensively inventoried.The National Register eligibility of identified resources will be evaluated and effects and significance will be assessed in consultation with appropriate land-managing agencies and the State Historic Preservation Office.Measures to avoid or mitigate identified effects would be developed and implemented in consultation with these same agencies.Some specific measures that could be used to avoid or minimize impacts include the following: making minor shifts in tower,access road,work area,and construction yard locations reducing the width of the right-of-way or minimizing right-of-way clearing not upgrading existing access roads in sensitive areas using helicopter construction to avoid new access roads in sensitive areas For the purposes of this impact analysis,impacts were defined as high if they were likely to be characterized as "adverse”by the Section 106 consultation regulations.Detailed inventory data are required for formal Section 106 consultations,so a determination of effect is not possible at Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-211 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 this time.However,because of the high potential for satisfactory mitigation a determination of "no adverse effect”is anticipated regardless of which of the alternative routes is selected,and therefore no high impacts are predicted.Because of the high mitigation potential,impacts within the modeled high sensitivity zones were characterized as only moderate impacts.Impacts within the low sensitivity zones are expected to be low,although some mitigation studies could be required in these areas as well. 4.10.2 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE Tesoro Route Alternatives Kenai Lowlands Region There are 18.8 km (11.7 miles)of moderate impact area and 52.1 km (32.4 miles)of low impact area in the Bernice Lake through Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA)to Pt.Possession. Seven prehistoric sites,all along Link T2.1,have been recorded along Bishop Creek and Swanson River.These sites consist primarily of house depressions and cache pits,although one is a hearth with an associated scatter of bone fragments and lithic flakes.Two other archaeological sites with house depressions have been recorded along Link 3.2.One also has cache pits and a refuse midden,and a possible grave has been noted at the other site. Turnagain Arm Region The submarine portions of the Turnagain Arm alternatives are rated as having no potential to affect cultural resources.The perimeter of Fire Island is rated as a moderate impact zone,as is the landing at Pt.Woronzof,where a late prehistoric or early historic village has been recorded just to the south of the substation.The Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell alternative crosses 0.2 km (0.1 mile)rated as a moderate impact zone.The Pt.Possession to Pt.Campbell alternative via Fire Island crosses 3.2 km (2.0 miles)of moderate impact zones,and 5.6.km (3.5 miles)of low impact zones.The Pt.Possession to Pt.Woronzof Route via Fire Island crosses 3.4 km (2.1 miles)of moderate impact zones,and 5.6 km (3.5 miles)of low impact zones.In contrast,the Pt. Possession to Pt.Woronzof submarine alternative crosses only 0.5 km (0.3 mile)of moderate impact zones and no low sensitivity zones.The Pt.Possession to Klatt Road option crosses 0.2 km (0.1 mile)of moderate impact zones and 0.3 km (0.2 mile)of low impact zones. Souther Intertie Project EVAL 4-212 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Enstar Alternatives Kenai Lowland Region The Northern Soldotna alternative includes 11.3 km (7.0 miles)of moderate and 23.5 km (14.6 miles)of low impact zones.No cultural resources have been recorded along this route.There are 3.7 km (2.3 miles)of moderate impact zones and 26.9 km (16.7 miles)of low impact zones along the Southern Soldotna alternative.Three prehistoric sites have been recorded adjacent to the Kenai River along the Southern Soldotna alternative.Little is known about one of these sites,and the other two have fire-cracked rock along with cache pits or midden deposits.The Enstar to Chickaloon Bay section traverses 12.6 km (7.8 miles)of moderate impact zones and 46.5 km (28.9 miles)of low impact zones.The only known cultural resource along this 59.1-km (36.7- mile)-long section of the Enstar route is a trapper's or miner's cabin near Little Indian Creek. Turnagain Arm Region The submarine portions of the Turnagain Arm alternatives are rated as having no potential to affect cultural resources.All four of the considered alternatives are projected to cross 0.6 km (0.4 mile)of moderate impact zone on the edge of Chickaloon Bay.The Chickaloon Bay-Klatt Road alternative also crosses 1.1 km (0.7 mile)of low impact zones,and the Chickaloon Bay-Alaska Railroad/Oceanview Park alternative crosses 2.1 km (1.3 miles)of low impact zones.The Chickaloon Bay-Alaska Railroad/Rabbit Creek and Chickaloon Bay to Pt.Campbell alternatives both cross 0.6 km (0.4 mile)of low impact zones. Anchorage Area Alternatives In general,all of the southern and central Anchorage Bowl is considered a low impact zone. There are 7.7 km (4.8 miles)of low impact area along the Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road alternative.The two options of the Alaska Railroad alternative include 2.9 km and 6.1 km (1.8 miles and 3.8 miles)of low impact area,respectively.There are 6.1 km and 9.2 km (3.8 miles and 5.7 miles)of low impact area along the two Old Seward Highway/International Road options.The three Bayshore-Klatt area options include 2.4 km,2.9m,and 4.0 km (1.5 miles,1.8 miles,and 2.5 miles)of low impact area,respectively. There is only one known cultural resource along any of the various links of the Anchorage area alternatives.This is a historic Alaska Engineering Commission cottage that is adjacent to Links 14.2,15.6,and 15.8.The cottage was originally in downtown Anchorage,but was moved to its present location just off the Old Seward Highway,1.6 km (1 mile)south of Dimond Boulevard, in the 1950s.Because the original setting of the building has been lost,any visual intrusions on the building are not expected to be significant. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-213 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Impact Summary No high impacts are projected along any of the alternatives.The Tesoro route through the Kenai Lowlands region crosses approximately 17.7 km (11 miles)of moderate impact zones,compared to about 16.1 km (10 miles)for Route Option B South and about 24.1 km (15 miles)for Route Option B North.Given the margin of error in the model used to define archaeological sensitivity and level of impacts,the difference between these three options seems negligible.Regarding potential impacts on cultural resources,none of the alternatives appear to have significant advantages or disadvantages. In the Turnagain Arm region,the submarine routes that avoid Fire Island,as well as Prt. Woronzof,are more likely to impact cultural resources than the other options.However,the degree of variation in cultural resource impacts among the alternatives is not a significant factor in choosing among the options. There is only one known cultural resource along any of the various links in the Anchorage area and impacts along all alternatives are expected to be low.From the perspective of impacts on cultural resources,none of the alternatives appear to be are more or less advantageous than the others. Cumulative Impacts-Based on available information on sites and predictive modeling, cumulative impacts are not expected for cultural resources for either the Tesoro or Enstar routes. 411 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS AND NOISE In recent years,interest has grown about what effects may be associated with the electrical environment around electric power lines.This includes concerns about the potential for audible noise,radio/television interference and questions about the possibility of health effects.TheelectricaleffectsassociatedwiththeProjecthavebeenevaluatedbyEnertechConsultants,and the results of the study are summarized in the following paragraphs. The two origins of transmission line electrical effects are electric and magnetic fields (EMF). Electric fields are due to the voltage on the transmission line and the magnetic fields are due to the current through the conductor.Electrical effects near transmission lines also include possible audible noise and radio/television interference. 4.11.1 AUDIBLE NOISE AND INTERFERENCE Concern about noise is related to negative impacts on humans and animals.Human response to noise is most commonly expressed as annoyance,and the level of annoyance may be affected by the intensity of the noise,its frequency (pitch),its duration of exposure,and/or its recurrence. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-214 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Ambient noise is the total noise in an environment and usually comprises sounds from many sources.The principal sources of ambient noise in rural and isolated settings are from wind, water,insects,birds and other wildlife,highway traffic,and occasional recreational users and airplanes. Audible noise discussions in this section are based on A-weighted sound levels.The A-weighted sound level is defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)as sound that is measured with a sound-level meter using the A-weighted response filter that is built into the meter circuitry.The A-weighting filter is commonly used to measure community noise and it simulates the frequency response to the human ear.” Typical audible sound levels®are as follows: m Factory 80 to 90 dB s Office with Machines 65 to 75 dB m Office without Machines 50 to 70 dB =»Retail Store 45 to 60 dB =»Home at Night 25 to 45 dB Alaska has no state noise regulations.There are no noise regulations for the Kenai Peninsula Borough.The Municipality of Anchorage noise regulations,when measured at or within the property boundary of the receiving land use,are as follows: =Residential -daytime (7 am to 10 pm)60 dBA -nighttime (10 pm to 7 am)-50 dBA #Commercial -daytime (7 am to 10 pm)70 dBA -nighttime (10 pm to 7 am)60 dBA s Industrial -anytime 80 dBA Construction Noise Audible noise will result from construction activities.However,construction noise will be short term at any one location. Noises associated with operation and maintenance of the Project will be minimal,confined to localized,short-duration activity by maintenance crews. 32 IEEE Standard C57.12.90-1993 Test Code for Liquid Immersed Distribution,Power,and Regulating Transformers and IEEE Guide for Short Circuit Testing of Distribution and Power Transformers 33 Transformers and Motors by George Patrick Shultz;publisher Howard W.Sams &Company Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-215 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Transmission Line Noise Transmission lines can generate a small amount of sound energy and radio/television frequency noise.The source of this electrical noise and interference is corona activity.Corona is a partial electrical breakdown of the air next to the energized conductors that can result in very small amounts of sound and radio/television noise.Corona occurs when the voltage gradient surrounding the conductors or hardware exceeds the breakdown strength of the air,resulting in electrical discharges at the conductor surface.Corona can occur during either rainy or icy weather conditions.Corona is normally not a problem on transmission lines below 345kV due to the lower voltages and surface gradients.Little or no corona activity would be expected for the proposed Project because the relatively low operating voltage,increased phase spacing,and larger diameter conductors result in very low conductor surface gradients. Since corona activity would be very low or non-existent for the proposed 138kV transmission line,audible noise and radio/television interference should not be a problem for operation of the line. The line voltage and the distance of prospective line routes from residences minimizes the likelihood of objectionable audible noise,radio interference,or television interference from the line.Should it occur,utility engineers can record and investigate any complaints reported,and take corrective action when necessary. Substation and Transition Site Noise Sources of audible noise within a substation or transition site can include transformers,reactors, voltage regulators,circuit breakers,and other intermittent noise generators.Among these sources,transformers and reactors have the greatest potential for producing noise.Reactors are similar to a transformer in terms of audible noise.The broadband sound from fans,pumps,and coolers has the same character as ambient sound and tends to blend in with the ambient noise.* At a distance of 15 meters (approximately 50 feet),a large transformer has an audible noise level of about 57 A-weighted decibels (dBA).At a distance of 30 meters (approximately 100 feet)this noise level would be about 51dBA,which is similar to an urban residence.The noise level for a small-town residence is about 45dBA.*° As a general rule,substation noise will not be a problem if,when combined with the ambient noise,it is less than SdBA above the ambient noise level.*®Based on the above example and a 34 Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers,Thirteenth Edition,by Donald G.Fink and H.Wayne Beaty, published by McGraw-Hill 35 Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control,Third Edition,by Cyril M.Harris,published by McGraw Hill 36 REA Bulletin 65-1,Design Guide for Rural Substations Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-216 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 calculation method for combining noise levels from the Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control,the following noise level increases would occur at 15 meters (50 feet)from a large transformer: m for an urban residence the combined noise level would increase approximately 1dBA =for a small-town residence the combined noise level would increase approximately 0.25dBA In the above examples the combined noise levels are less than the 5dBA above the ambient noise level,and therefore audible noise is not expected to be a problem. Sound levels attenuate (lessen)with distance.Approximately a 6dBA reduction can be obtained with each doubling of the distance between the source and the point of measurement.This is equivalent to a decrease of 20dBA for each increase in distance from the source by a factor of ten.” Substation modifications for the Project could take place at the existing International,Pt. Woronzof,Soldotna,Dave's Creek,or Bernice Lake substations.The proposed modifications are not anticipated to result in a noticeable change in audible noise from these substations.The proposed Naptowne Substation siting area is remote from existing residences,and so should not cause any audible noise problems.The transition sites proposed,with the exception of the Pt. Possession South site which would contain a reactor,do not contain transformers or reactors and would not cause an increase in ambient audible noise.The Pt.Possession South siting area is located away from existing residences,and audible noise is not expected to be a problem. 4.11.2 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS The change in voltage over distance is known as the electric field.The units describing an electric field are volts per meter (V/m)or kilovolts per meter (kV/m).The electric field becomes stronger near a charged object and decreases with distance away from the object. Electric fields are a very common phenomenon.Static electric fields can result from friction generated when taking off a sweater or walking across a carpet.Almost all household appliances and other devices that operate on electricity create electric fields. An electric current flowing in a conductor (electric equipment,household appliance,or otherwise)creates a magnetic field.The most commonly used magnetic field intensity unit is the Gauss or milliGauss (mG),which is a measure of the magnetic flux density (intensity of 37 Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control,Third Edition,by Cyril M.Harris,published by McGraw Hill Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-217 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 magnetic field attraction per unit area).As a reference,the earth has a natural static magnetic field in the Anchorage area of about 0.56 Gauss,or 560 mG. The magnetic fields under transmission and distribution lines and near substations are relatively low,at least in comparison with measurements near many household appliances and other equipment.The magnetic field near an appliance decreases with distance away from the device. The magnetic field also decreases with distance away from electrical power lines and substation equipment (such as transformers and capacitor banks). Fields Due To Proposed 138kV Line EMF levels have been calculated for each of the possible configurations that may be used in the Project.The calculations are based on a secure transfer limit of 125 megawatts (MW),between the Anchorage area and Kenai Peninsula,which would result in a maximum load of 92.4 MW or 387 Amperes on the new Southern Intertie Project 138kV line,when operated in parallel with the existing Quartz Creek line,which would carry the balance of the load. The electric field calculation results are summarized in Table 4-27 for each of the assumed configurations.Values are reported for each edge of the assumed right-of-way and the maximum value on the right-of-way.Values can differ between the two right-of-way edges because of asymmetric placement of circuits within the right-of-way.There will be no electric fields above ground for any of the underground cables (configurations 1-5)due to shielding from the earth and the cable's metallic sheath. TABLE 4-27 ELECTRIC FIELD VALUES FOR ASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY Electric Field on Right-of-Way -kV/m Right-of-Right-of-Way Left Right Way Width Used for Configuration Edge Edge Maximum Calculations Submarine Cable:Water (3-Phase Flat Type)N/A Submarine Cable:Land (3-Phase Flat Type)9.1 m (30 ft) Submarine Cable:Water (Single-Phase Type){(No Electric Field for Underground Cables)|N/A Submarine Cable:Land (Single-Phase Type)15.2 m (50 f)t Land Cable (PVC Conduit)9.1 ms (30 ft) X-Tower -138kV 0.40 0.40 1.30 45.7 m (150 ft) Steel Pole -138kV 0.54 0.62 0.88 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole:Double Circuit,138kV/115kV 0.58 0.53 1.57 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole:138kV w/12.47kV 0.44 0.45 0.49 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole:Double Circuit 138kV w/12.47kV 0.36 0.28 0.66 18.3 m (60 ft) Wood H-Frame:138kV 0.33 0.33 1.19 45.7 m (150 ft) Steel Pole:138kV W/34.5kV and 12.47kV 0.44 0.42 0.46 18.3 m (60 ft) Parallel H-Frames:138kV and 115kV 0.76 0.45 1,22 60.1 m (200 ft) Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-218 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 The magnetic field calculation results are summarized in Table 4-28 for each of the assumed configurations.Values are reported for each edge of the assumed right-of-way edge and the maximum value on the right-of-way.Values can differ between the two right-of-way edges because asymmetric placement of circuits within the right-of-way and/or different loadings for configurations with multiple circuits. TABLE 4-28 MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES FOR ASSUMED RIGHT-OF-WAY* Magnetic Field on Right-of-Way -mG Right-of-|Right-of-WayWayWidthUsed Configuration Left Right Maximum for Edge Edge Calculations Submarine Cable:10'Water Depth 0.07 0.07 748 N/A (3-Phase Flat Type)25'Water Depth 0.07 0.07 1.20 N/A 50'Water Depth 0.06 0.06 0.30 N/A Submarine Cable:Land (3-Phase Flat Type)1.68 5.12 16.26 30 ft Submarine Cable:10'Water Depth 22.07 22.07 253.9 N/A (Single-Phase Type)25°Water Depth 21.51 21.51 101.5 N/A 50'Water Depth 19.80 19.80 50.6 N/A Submarine Cable:Land (Single-Phase Type)52.19 122.3 350.4 15.2 m (50 ft) Land Cable (PVC Conduit)24.51 24.51 136.8 9.1 ms (30 ft) X-Tower -138kV 16.2 16.2 65.7 45.7 m (150 ft) Steel Pole -138kV 18.67 19.9 31.0 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole:Double Circuit 138kV 30.7 30.2 43.6 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole:138kV w/12.47kV 15.43 14.80 20.9 18.3 m (60 ft) Steel Pole:Double Circuit 138kV w/12.47kV 30.47 23.67 41.9 18.3 m (60 ft) Wood H-Frame:138kV 13.57 13.57 61.9 45.7 m (150 ft) Steel Pole:138kV W/34.5kV and 12.47kV 18.15 17.23 33.6 18.3 m (60 ft) Parallel H-Frames:138kV and 115kV 26.52 10.29 60.0 |60.1 m (200 ft) *For Undersea Cable configurations,field values are given at +100 feet from outside cable. Substations Electric power substations also create electric and magnetic fields.Usually,electric fields outside the fenced area of a substation are low compared to those inside the fence.This occurs because shielding by metallic substation components themselves and the metal fencing surrounding the substation can reduce the field magnitudes considerably.Additional shielding also may be provided by nearby shrubbery and trees. Substation magnetic field attenuation characteristics are similar to electric fields.At distances on the order of 15 meters (50 feet)or more from the substation fence,the external magnetic field will have decreased to a much lower level than the level inside the substation.In contrast to Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-219 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 electric fields,the substation magnetic fields are not shielded significantly by most common objects (e.g.,shrubbery and trees). EMF Standards There are no national or federal government standards in the United States for EMF exposure.A few states have some type of electric field guideline and two states have a magnetic field standard.These guidelines are summarized in Table 4-29. The International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA)has published "Interim Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to 50/60-Hz and Magnetic Fields”in the January 1990 issue of Health Physics.The guidelines were approved by the council on May 3,1989;those guidelines relating to the general public are summarized in Table 4-30. TABLE 4-29 STATE REGULATIONS THAT LIMIT FIELD STRENGTHS ON TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY Field Limit 1kV/m at edge of right-of-way in residential areas 8kV/m maximum in right-of-way 3kV/m at edge of right-of-way 16 kV/m at edge of right-of-way;200 mG at edge of right-of-way 9kV/m maximum in right-of-way 9kV/m maximum in right-of-way 10kV/m maximum for S00kV lines in right-of-way;2kV/m maximum for 500kV lies at edge of right-of-way;8kV/m maximum for 230kV and smaller lines in right-of-way;3kV/m maximum for 230kV and smaller lines at edge of right-of-way;200 mG for 500kV lines at edge of right-of-way;250 mG for double circuit 500kV lines at edge of right-of-way;and 150 mG for 230kV and smaller lines at edge of right-of-way State Montana Minnesota New Jersey New York North Dakota Oregon Florida TABLE 4-30 IRPA GENERAL PUBLIC EXPOSURE GUIDELINES Exposure Electric Field Magnetic Field Up to 24 hours/day 5kV/m 1,000 mG Few hours/day 10kV/m 10,000 mG EMF Health Effects The issue of health effects due to EMF exposure to EMF has been raised.EMF exposure in residential and occupational situations has been studied for a wide variety of sources,including 4-220SouthernIntertieProjectEVAL Chapter 4 -Environmental!Consequences July 1999 transmission lines,distribution lines,household wiring,electric appliances,electrically operated equipment or machinery,and others. A number of studies over the last 20 years or so generally have found no conclusive evidence of harmful effects from typical power line and substation EMF.Some studies during this period did report the potential for harmful effects.The evidence for such an association is inconclusive,and the most recent independent comprehensive review of the scientific literature by the National Academy of Sciences,Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields (1997),reached the following conclusions: CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE "Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells,tissues,and organisms (including humans),the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard.Specifically,no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer,adverse neurobehavioral effects,or reproductive and developmental effects. The committee reviewed residential exposure levels to electric and magnetic fields, evaluated the available epidemiologic studies,and examined laboratory investigations that used cells,isolated tissues,and animals.At exposure levels well above those normally encountered in residences,electric and magnetic fields can produce biologic effects (promotion of bone healing is an example),but these effects do not provide a consistent picture of a relationship between the biologic effects of these fields and health hazards.An association between residential wiring configurations (called wire codes)and childhood leukemia persists in multiple studies,although the causative factor responsible for that Statistical association has not been identified'No evidence links contemporary measurements of magnetic-field levels to childhood leukemia.” 4.11.3 PROJECT CONCLUSIONS =The EMF from the 138kV transmission line and substations will be similar to,or less, than other 138kV electric power facilities which have been in service for many decades. The EMF levels due to the Project would be less than all existing EMF standards or guidelines. =The proposed facilities should have little or no corona activity under most operating conditions and therefore should not cause audible noise or radio/television interference. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-221 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 m=There is nothing unusual or unique about the proposed design of the Southern Intertie 138kV Project.The Project is to be designed to be in compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)and should produce a well-engineered facility that will have minimal impact. 4.12 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Table 4-31 summarizes the Project's potential cumulative impacts on the study area's resources and issues,which were discussed in detail in the previous sections of this chapter.These include the following: ™geology ™socioeconomics =water m rate impacts =marine m™environmental justice ®watershed m subsistence B biology -m visual m land use resources B®cultural resources ™recreation and tourism =electric and magnetic fields and noise The table is organized to highlight regional issues and the cumulative impact differences and similarities between alternative routes. The greatest potential for cumulative impacts appears to be on biological and visual resources, especially in the Kenai Peninsula region.Mitigation will reduce or minimize these impacts. Cumulative impact issues that differentiate the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives are influenced by the uses associated with existing and foreseeable future effects to the northern Kenai Peninsula from development associated with the Kenai Peninsula Borough versus the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR).The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)has administered the KNWR since it was established in 1941 to protect moose populations.In 1964,the settled lands encompassing the communities of Sterling,Soldotna,and Kenai and a strip of land along the shore of the Cook Inlet were removed from the refuge to exclude these privately developed areas. This provided a future corridor for transportation and utility development on the Kenai Peninsula.The Tesoro Pipeline currently follows this corridor area north to Anchorage.The Kenai Peninsula Borough developed a plan for the future development of the coastal area to include the Moose Point and Gray Cliff subdivisions. In addition to the Tesoro Pipeline,the Kenai Peninsula Borough has planned a transportation corridor,a separate road,and several large residential parcels for rural development. Cumulative impact issues along the Tesoro Route Option A center on potential land use,visual, and biological impacts.With the opportunity to utilize the rights-of-way of the North Kenai Spur Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-222 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 Road,the planned transportation corridor and parallel the Tesoro Pipeline right-of-way,land use conflicts will be minimized or avoided.Visual impacts on existing and planned residents could be significant,although there is the potential for vegetation screening to reduce the effects.The quality of the wildlife habitat is in transition based on current and planned development on borough lands.The strip of borough lands north of the Moose Point and Gray Cliff subdivision area is more remote and future development is less foreseeable.As a result,habitat quality may be more stable based on the lack of development pressure in this area of the coast. The cumulative effects on wildlife,vegetation,recreation,and visual resources within the KNWR along Route Option C are considered to be long-term and significant.The existing and future foreseeable development along the western portion of the KNWR in the cumulative impact study area is occurring within the highest quality of habitat for importing moose,wolves, lynx,black bears,and brown bears.As this habitat gradually lowers in habitat quality,there will be additional importance to improve the quality of the area along the Enstar Pipeline corridor with prescribed burn program.Any conflicts between the ability to diversify the habitat,and presence of the proposed transmission line would be considered significant cumulative impacts. Southern Intertie Project EVAL 4-223 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences July 1999 TABLE 4-31 CUMULATIVE IMPACT SUMMARY TOPIC REGIONAL CUMULATIVE ISSUES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -TESORO ROUTE OPTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -ENSTAR ROUTE OPTIONS Kenai Lowlands None None Geology Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Kenai Lowlands None None Water Resources Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Marine Turnagain Arm None None Kenai Lowlands None ¢Potential erosion from right-of-way clearing will be minimized as a result ofeProtectionofKenaiRiverwatershedforwaterqualityandfisherieswinterconstructionanderosioncontrolmitigation ¢Protection of Chickaloon River and other watersheds in the KenaiWatershed;Lowlands Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Biology Moose Kenai Lowlands Issues Issues Relative Abundance in Cumulative Study Area -Winter Moose Distribution ©Possible increase in harvest of moose north of Moose Point (Route e Potential disruption to fire management plans within KNWR (Route Option C)Super High Option A)could conflict with plans for habitat improvement in low abundance areas¢Developed/Future Development 89%(KNWR 81%)e Loss or modification to habitat Possible increase in harvest of moose e Protected 11%(KNWR 19%)-Route Option A -193 hectares (478 acres)Loss or modification to habitat High e Route located in North Kenai Spur Road right-of-way and planned -Route B north and C -313 hectares (774 acres)(65%in low abundance) ©Developed/Future Development 57%(KNWR 39%)transportation corridor through Gray Cliffs and Moose Point -Route Option C -274 hectares (676 acres)(69%in low abundance) e Protected 43%(KNWR 61%)subdivisions -Route Option B south -no changeModerate«Foreseeable reduction in general habitat quality due to planned Potential to improve habitat from right-of-way clearing ©Developed/Future Development 59%(KNWR 33%)residential development Significant impacts to KNWR e Protected 41%(KNWR 67%)©Potential to improve habitat from right-of-way clearing Low ¢Developed/Future Development 23%(KNWR 17%) ©Protected 77%(KNWR 83%) Issues e The patterns of abundance would change due to KNWR prescribed fire management or natural fire. Much of the moderate to super high abundance in existing or future development ©Maintaining healthy moose populations within protected KNWR lands will depend on improving currently low abundance Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage -Moose population in Kincaid Park None None Caribou Kenai Lowlands None None KLH in Cumulative Study Area e Developed/Future Development 47%(KNWR 15%) e Protected 53%(KNWR 85%) KMH in Cumulative Area e Developed/Future Development 0%(KNWR 0%) ©Protected 100%(KNWR100%) Issues «Continued development in Soldotna area is likely to result in KLH herd remaining on the KNWR Tumagain Arm NA NA Anchorage NA NA -Southern Intertie Project July 1999 \WDM_PHX I\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\CumImpactSumTable.doc 4-224 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-31 CUMULATIVE IMPACT SUMMARY TOPIC -REGIONAL CUMULATIVE ISSUES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -TESORO ROUTE OPTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -ENSTAR ROUTE OPTIONS Brown Bear Black Bear Kenai Lowlands General Habitat in Cumulative Study Area e Developed/Future Development 36%(KNWR 23%) e Protected 64%(KNWR 77%) Riparian Habitat in Cumulative Area e Developed/Future Development 45%(KNWR 29%) ©Protected 55%(KNWR 71%) Issues -Management Strategy for Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears (1989) e Retain large area of continuous suitable habitat e Eliminate or minimize disturbances ¢Set conservative harvest e Reduce destruction of life and property conflicts ¢Seasonal road closures and prohibiting e Aircraft use along much of Enstar pipeline e No roads through riparian zones Issues ; e Brown Bear are limited along coastal portion of study area due to -human disturbance -distance from high quality foraging and denning habitats to the east e Disturbance to riparian corridors -Route Option A -53 hectares (153 acres) -limited valued habitat for brown bears e Not a cumulative affect Issues e Increased risk of human/brown bear conflicts e Disturbance to riparian corridors -Route B north and C -148 hectares (366 acres) -Route Option C -126 hectares (310 acres)(no clearing on Option B south) e Significant cumulative impacts within KNWR Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Kenai Lowlands General Habitat in Cumulative Study Area and KNWR e Developed/Future Development 40% @ Protected 60% Issues e Value of devil's club in closed mixed and white spruce forests Issues e Loss of potential devil's club--not a cumulative affect e Potential increase in human/black bear encounters Issues e Loss of potential devil's club--not a cumulative effect e Potential increase in human/black bear encounters Turagain Arm None None Anchorage Indiscernible impacts Indiscernible impacts Gray Wolf Kenai Lowlands Wolf Abundance in Cumulative Study Area High e Developed/Future Development 99%(KNWR 99%) e Protected >1%(KNWR >1%) Moderate e Developed/Future Development 28%(KNWR 15%) e Protected 72%(KNWR 85%) Low «Developed/Future Development 45%(KNWR 26%) e Protected 55%(KNWR 74%) Issues e Low wolf abundance and no pack area crossed where access may be improved at the northern portion of Route Option A-not a cumulative affect Issues Potential for increased hunting and trapping of wolves Increased human/wolf conflicts Benefits from habitat improvements providing improved winter range Wolf abundance is low,but route crosses the middle of Big Indian Wolf Pack Cumulative affects on KNWR Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Canada Lynx Kenai Lowlands Canadian Lynx Relative Abundance in Cumulative Study Area High e Developed/Future Development 99%(KNWR 99%) e Protected >1%(KNWR >1%) Moderate e Developed/Future Development 30%(KNWR 16%) e Protected 70%(KNWR 84%) Low «Developed/Future Development 43%(KNWR 23%) ®Protected 57%(KNWR 77%) Issue--Hunting and Trapping Issues e No discernible effect on lynx Issues e Potential increased harvest Southern Intertie Project July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\CumImpactSumTable.doc 4-225 Chapter 4 --Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-31 CUMULATIVE IMPACT SUMMARY TOPIC REGIONAL CUMULATIVE ISSUES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -TESORO ROUTE OPTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -ENSTAR ROUTE OPTIONS Tumagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Trumpeter Swan Kenai Lowlands Issues Issues Issues e An estimated 8 swan nesting and brood rearing areas are crossed by e One swan nesting and brood rearing area along Route Option B north would be e Potential collision with transmission lines in proximity to nesting and brood rearing areas *An estimated 6 swan nesting and brood rearing areas are crossed by existing transmission and distribution lines within the study area Route Option A e Long-term cumulative affects potential when combined with future development in the Moose Point and Gray Cliff subdivisions affected by a second parallel line along the Moose River e One swan nesting and brood rearing area is crossed by Route Option C north of Trapper Joe Lake e No long-term cumulative effects Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None General Waterfowl Kenai Lowlands Potential collision of waterfowl at stream crossings and near water bodies Similar to swans Similar to swans Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Bald Eagle Kenai Lowlands Issues Issues Issues ©Potential increased disturbance to nest sites along Route Option A e Possibility of increased disturbance at nest sites e Potential collision with fiber optic cable e Possibility of increased levels of human disturbance at nest sites e Long-term collision potential to young eagles from fiber optic cables crossing the Kenai River (Route Option B south);and the Moose River and Soldotna Creek (Route Option B north) e Potential increased disturbance to nest sites along Route Option C will be mitigated by seasonal road closure along the Enstar Pipeline within the KNWR Turnagain Arm Anchorage None None Anadromous Fish Kenai Lowlands Issues -Potential erosion from construction None -winter construction and directional boring under Swanson Creek None -winter construction Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Beluga Whale Kenai Lowlands Turnagain Arm None Issues -No cumulative impacts by avoiding calving season Issues -Distrubance during calving season (mid-June to mid-July)in Chickaloon Bay Anchorage Kenai Lowlands Issues Issues Issues «Impacts to adjacent land uses and parcels would be mitigated on Route e Impacts on Route Option B south would be mitigated by rebuilding within anDevelopmentPatternswithintheKenaiLowlandCumulativeStudyAreaOptionAbyutilizingexistingrights-of-way including North Kenai .existing transmission line right-of-wayincludeRoad,the planned transportation corridor in Moose Pt./Gray Cliffs e Local cumulative affects would occur along Route Option B north resulting fromeDeveloped7%(KNWR 3%)Subdivisions paralleling an existing transmission right-of-way e Potential future development 33%(KNWR 22%)®Cumulative affects would occur along Route Option C by paralleling the Enstar e Parks and open space 1.0%Pipeline through the KNWR ©Protected lands -59%(KNWR 75%) Land Use e Development types within the Kenai Peninsula Borough include the communities of Kenai,Soldotna,Sterling,and Nikiski and associated industrial uses.Planned development is associated with the Moose Point and Gray Cliff subdivisions north of Nikiski e Development within the KNWR includes:state roads and highways, access roads,transmission lines,telephone lines,buried pipelines, seismic exploration lines,communication towers,sand and gravel sites, airstrips,and oil and gas fields. e Future development within KNWR on corporation lands include timber harvest,oil and gas,and tourism. Southern Intertie Project July 1999 \DM_PHXIASYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\CumImpactSumTable doc 4-226 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-31 CUMULATIVE IMPACT SUMMARY TOPIC -REGIONAL CUMULATIVE ISSUES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -TESORO ROUTE OPTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -ENSTAR ROUTE OPTIONS Land Use (continued)Turnagain Arm Anchorage e Each of the alternative route options in Anchorage are located along rights-of-way adjacent to developed or developing areas Issues -see Recreation Issues ©Impacts to adjacent land uses and parcels would be mitigated by utilizing existing rights-of-way,including Minnesota Drive/O'Malley Road,Old Seward Highway/International Road,Klatt Road,and the Alaska Railroad for Route Options N-Z Recreation and Kenai Lowlands Issues e Disruption to genera!tourism and recreation use e Conflicts with recreation uses --Route Option A -Captain Cook Recreation Area -Route Option B south -Kenai River Crossings/Bings Landing -Route Option C--KNWR,Mystery Creek Road/Enstar Pipeline Road Issues e Cumulative effects along Route Option A to Captain Cook SRA will be mitigated by undergrounding along road edge e General impacts to tourism will be mitigated by winter construction for Route Option A Issues e Cumulative effects would be mitigated along the Kenai River by replacing an existing transmission line along Route Option B south «Cumulative effects would result along Route Option C from right-of-way widening and clearing along the Enstar Pipeline Tourism :Turnagain Arm Anchorage Issues Issues Issues e Cumulative effects to Kincaid Park will result from right-of-way e Impacts to ACWR and Ocean View Park will be mitigated by direction boringeAnchorageCoastalWildlifeRefugewidening/clearing adjacent to Tesoro Pipeline and undergrounding e Kincaid Park e Ocean View Park Picnic Site Kenai Lowlands None None Socioeconomics Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Rate Impacts Kenai Lowlands Turnagain Arm Aggregate cost savings to Railbelt customers =$11.7 million Average savings per customer =$61.70/year Aggregate cost savings to Railbelt customers =$9.0 million Average savings per customer =$47.50/yearAnchorageIncrementstopurchasingpower,while beneficial,are too small to have a Increments to purchasing power,while beneficial,are too small to have a discernible discernible impact on the region's economic performance impact on the region's economic performance Kenai Lowlands None None Environmental Justice |Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None Kenai Lowlands None None Subsistence Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage NA NA Kenai Lowlands Issues Issues Issues e Cumulative impacts along the North Kenai Spur Road in the Nikiski area ¢Cumulative visual impacts to residences adjacent to the Soldotna B/North routeeViewsfromrecreation,residential,and roadway areas would occur where Route Option A is across the road from the existing option would occur due to the effects of two parallel transmission lines e Maintenance of scenic quality 34kV transmission line e Replacement of an existing transmission line along Route Option B/South would the use of the planned transportation corridor in Moose Point and Gray avoid cumulative impacts Cliffs developments is consistent with planned uses,although the line e Cumulative effects to Route Option B would occur within the KNWR due towouldbethefirstuseofthenewcorridor.Vegetation screening should additional vegetation clearing along Enstar Pipeline from both ground and aerialmitigatelocalimpactstoresidencesviews Vi ¢Cumulative impacts of aerial views along Route Option A will be seen inisual....context to other right-of-way clearings in the adjacent portions of the KNWR Turnagain Arm --NA NA NA Anchorage Issues Issues Issues e Residential and recreation views *Cumulative impact concems for widening the right-of-way to the Tesoro Pipeline in Kincaid Park e Emphasis on aesthetics in long-range planning in Anchorage,there is a concern for additional overhead transmission lines Southern Intertie Project July 1999 \NDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJW9203\009\CumImpactSum Table.doc 4-227 Chapter 4 -Environmental Consequences TABLE 4-31 CUMULATIVE IMPACT SUMMARY TOPIC -REGIONAL CUMULATIVE ISSUES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -TESORO ROUTE OPTIONS _CUMULATIVE IMPACTS -ENSTAR ROUTE OPTIONS Kenai Lowlands None None Turmagain Arm None NoneCulturalResourcesAnchorageNoneNone Audible Noise Kenai Lowlands None None Turnagain Arm None None Anchorage None None EMF Kenai Lowlands None None Turnagain Arm None None None NoneAnchorage Souther Intertie Project July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROA09203\009\CumimpactSumTable.doc 4-228 Chapter 4 --Environmental Consequences Fe ee ing aR ET Re er TSF Ter ee Iaitaad alcatel T o heath: FE TE, eee CAG TENT Ty Te a mee a REFERENCES fEF } : ° 4 FE } ' 7 . 41 [ {q f 1{4 \. 4 i F F { iEffaakbo . : 7i lt Lon! t -. we boos. ce et me: a ese bones a era ante ab Lb. pet at eo " cn a ilta aoat REFERENCES AAA.1997.Tour Book for Western Canada and Alaska.American Automobile Association. Heathrow,Florida. Alaska Biological Research,Inc.1991.Alaska Over-the-Horizon Backscatter Radar System:A synthesis of the avian research program,1987-1990.Final Report Prepared for the Artic Environmental Information and Data Center and U.S.Air Force. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs "Community Database”(data on visitor accommodations and other facilities from DCRA Internet website- htt://www.comregaf.state.ak.us\CF BLOCK.cfm). Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,Municipal and Regional Assistance Division.1996.Community Database.Juneau,Alaska. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,Research and Analysis Section (DCRA).1997a.Copper Valley Intertie Feasibility Study,Vols.1 and 2. .1997b.Anchorage,Community Information Summaries,Juneau. .1997c.Kenai,Community Information Summaries,June 1997. .1997d.Nikiski,Community Information Summaries,June 1997. .1997e.Soldotna,Community Information Summaries,June 1997. ___.1994.Copper Valley Intertie Feasibility Study,Vols.1 and 2,April 1994. Alaska Department of Fish &Game (ADF&G).1999.Unpublished brown bear data. ___.1998.Anadromous Fish Stream Catalogue database.Unpublished data. ___..1997,Division of Subsistence.Community Profile Data Base -3/17/97. ____.1996a.Alaska's Threatened and Endangered Species.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service,Bureau of Land Management,and USDA Forest Service.Juneau,Alaska. ___.1996b.Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Areas,Draft. ___.1994,Alaska's Threatened and Endangered Species.U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service,Bureau of Land Management,and USDA Forest Service.Juneau,Alaska. Southern Intertie Project R-1 References July 1999 F.ADATA\PROJ09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Alaska Department of Fish &Game (ADF&G).1991.Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan. .1990.Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan.Public Review Draft. Division of Habitat and Wildlife Conservation.Anchorage,Alaska.65 pp. .1985a.Alaska Habitat Management Guide.South-Central Region,Map Atlas Division of Habitat and Wildlife Conservation. .1985b.Alaska Habitat Management Guide.South-Central Region,Map Atlas Division of Habitat and Conservation. .1978.Alaska's Fisheries Atlas,Vols.1 and 2. .1976.Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat.Division of Habitat and Wildlife Conservation. Anchorage,Alaska. .1973.Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat Division of Habitat and Wildlife Conservation. Anchorage,Alaska. Alaska Department of Highways.1972.Basic Research,Analysis,and Exploratory Investigations,Knik Arm Highway Crossing.Anchorage,Alaska. Alaska Department of Highways,Engineering Geology Section,Materials Division.1969. Engineering geology and foundation report:field and laboratory soils data,Turnagain Arm Crossing,Project No.F-021-2(10),Anchorage District. Alaska Department of Labor,Demographics Unit.1996.Alaska Population Overview:1996 Estimates.Table 4.2 Population of Places by Borough and Census Area 1990-1996. Alaska Department of Labor,Research and Analysis Section,Demographics Unit.1997.Alaska Population Overview:1996 Estimates. .1991.Alaska Population Overview -1990 Census and Estimates.Juneau,Alaska. Alaska Department of Labor,Research and Analysis Section (ADOL).1997a.Annual Rental Market Survey,Juneau. .1997b.Personal communication with Neil Fried. .1996a.Alaska's Median Household Income Number One Nationwide,News Release No. 97-26,dated November 7,1996. .1996b.Kenai Soldotna Area Employment:1980-1995,September 1996. Southern Intertie Project R-2 References July 1999 F \DATA\PRONK09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Alaska Department of Labor,Research and Analysis Section (ADOL).1995.Employment and Earnings Summary Report. .1994.Employment and Earnings Summary Report. Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Land.1998.Kenai Area Plan -Public Review Draft. ____.1994a.Kenai Area Plan,Public Review Draft. ___.1994b.Turnagain Arm Management Plan for State Lands. ____.1994c.Kenai Area Plan,Vol.1 -Public Review Draft. ____.1994d.Kenai Area Plan,Vol.2 -Background Information. ___.1994e.Kenai Area Plan,Vol.3 -Fish and Wildlife Habitat Information. ___.1993.Kenai Easement Atlas. .1993,1980.Public Interest Land in the Kenai Peninsula Borough,Parcel by Parcel Descriptions.Updated 1993. .1986.Chugach State Park Trail Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Oil and Gas.1999.Preliminary Best Finding Proposed Cook Inlet Area Wide Oil and Gas Lease Sale. Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.1994a. Catalog of the Alaska State Park System. .1994b.Turnagain Arm Management Plan. .1993-1996,1999.Recreation data for Captain Cook SRA and Bing's Landing SRS. .1980.Chugach State Park Master Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Kenai Peninsula Borough.1998.Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. .1986.Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. Southern Intertie Project R-3 References July 1999 F.\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,and Federal Highway Administration.199la.Environmental Assessment and Final Section 4(f)Evaluation, Seward Highway,Bird Point to Girdwood.F-031-2(50). Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,and Federal Highway Administration.1991b.Revised Environmental Assessment.Sterling Highway MP 157 to MP 174,Anchor Point to Homer,F-021-1-(34). Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT).1998.Alaska.Surface Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP)for 1998-2000. ____.1997.Final Environmental Impact Statement for Kenai River Crossing.December. .1996.Seward Highway MP 53 to MP 59.3,Section 4(f). .1995.Airport Layout Plan for Anchorage International Airport. .1994a.Bird Point Scenic Overlook and Pedestrian Facilities. .1994b.Sterling Highway MP 37 to 60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. .1994c.Sterling Highway MP 37 to 60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. ___.1989.Seward Highway MP 50 to MP 65.5,Final Environmental Assessment. Alaska Division of Tourism.1997.Alaska Tourism,August 12,1997. Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).1991.Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study,Final Report.March ___.1990.Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt. Alaska Geological Society.1987.A Field Guide to the Geologic Hazards of Anchorage and Turnagain Arm,Alaska.Jim McCaslin Brown,Kristine J.Crossen,Jacqueline Holzman, eds.Alaska Geological Society,P.O.Box 101288,Anchorage,Alaska 99510. .1985.Guide to the Geology of the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.Includes 3 Maps.Alexander Sisson,ed. Alaska Legal Services.1992.Statements of Ninilchik Tribal Council Members Regarding Subsistence Hunting and Fishing.Eleven interviews conducted during October 1992. USFWS 1993. Alaska Mountain Safety Center,Inc.1991.Comprehensive Avalanche Atlas. Southern Intertie Project R-4 References July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Alaska Power Authority.1989.Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study.Eleven Volumes and Addendum. .1987.Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study.Vols.1 and 2. Volume Number Volume Title 1 Economic and Demographic Projections for the Alaska Railbelt:1988-2010 2 Forecast of Electricity Demand in the Alaska Railbelt Region:1988-2010 3 Analysis of Electrical End Use Efficiency Programs for the Alaskan Railbelt 4 Fuel Price Outlooks:Crude Oil,Natural Gas,and Fuel Oil 5 Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Project 6 Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Expansion and Upgrade Project 7 Railbelt Stability Study,Power Technologies,Inc. 8 Northeast Transmission Intertie Project 9 Estimated Cost and Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fire Power Plants in the Alaska Railbelt Region 10 Estimated Cost and Environmental Impacts of a Natural Gas Pipeline system Linking Fairbanks with the Cook Inlet Area 11 Benefit/Cost Analysis Addendum*Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Transmission Line in the Railbelt *This volume includes revised benefit/cost analysis and critiques by independent reviewers. Alaska,Pacific-Northwest Laboratory.1980.Preliminary Evaluation of Wind Energy Potential Cook Inlet Area.May. Alaska Tidebook Co.1997.Thompson's Tide Table,South-Central Alaska Edition.Pioneer Publishing,Kenai,Alaska.111 pp. Alonso,J.C.D.,J.A.Alonso and R.Munoz-Pulido.1994.Mitigation of Bird Collisions with Transmission Lines Through Groundwire Marking.Biological Conservation 67(1994):129-134. Ambrose,S.1997.Personal communication between Dave Erikson,Dames &Moore,and Skip Ambrose,Raptor Biologist,USFWS,Fairbanks,Alaska. American Automobile Association.1977.Tour Book for Western Canada and Alaska. Anchorage Yellow Pages.1997.Anchorage &Mat-Su Valley Regional Phone Directory 1996- 1997.Phone Directories Company,Inc. Anderson,B.A.and S.M.Murphy.1988.Lisburne terrestrial monitoring program -1986 and 1987.Effects of the Lisburne power line on Birds.Prepared for Arco,Alaska. Anderson,G.S.and S.H.Jones.1972.Water Resources of the Kenai-Soldotna Area,Alaska. USGS Water Resources Division,Alaska District Open-File Report. Southern Intertie Project R-5 References July 1999 F \DATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Anderson,S.H.,K.Mann,and H.H.Shugart,Jr.1977.The Effect of Transmission-line Corridors on Bird Populations.The American Midland Naturalist.97(1):216-22. Anderson,W.L.1978.Waterfowl Collisions with Power Lines at a Coal-fired Power Plant. Wildl.Soc.Bull.6:77-83. Anderson.S.1997.Personal communication between Geoff Pool,Dames &Moore,and Sandra Anderson,Scenic Byways Coordinator,ADOT&PF.September. Andres,B.1999.Personal communication between Dave Erikson,Dames &Moore,and Brad Andres,USFWS,Anchorage,Alaska. Armstrong,R.H.1995.Guide to the Birds of Alaska.Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage,Alaska. .1983.Guide to the Birds of Alaska.Northwest Publishing Company,Anchorage,Alaska. Avery,M.L.,P.F.Springer,and N.S.Dailey.1978.Avian Mortality at Man-made Structures: Annotated Bibliography.USFWS Biological Services Program.FWS/OBS-78-58. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC).1994.Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines:the State-of-the-Art in 1994.Edison Electric Institute.Washington,D.C. Bailey,Bonnie J.and Jacqueline A.McIntire.1993.Levels of Lakes in the North Kenai Area, Alaska 1970 to 1992.USGS Open-File Report 93-644. Bailey,T.1999.Personal communication between Tim Tetherow,Dames &Moore,and Ted Bailey,Wildlife Biologist,KNWR. .1997.Personal communication between Dave Erikson,Dames &Moore,and Ted Bailey, Wildlife Biologist,KNWR.Soldotna,Alaska. .1996.Personal communication between Dave Erikson,Dames &Moore,and Ted Bailey, Wildlife Biologist,KNWR.Soldotna,Alaska. Bailey,T.N.1984.Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife Species.Technical Supplement to Kenai Comprehensive Conservation Plan,EIS and Wildlife Review.Prepared for USFWS, Region 7,January,1984.USFWS,Anchorage,Alaska.72 pp. .1978.Moose Populations on the Kenai National Moose Range.Fourteenth North American Moose Conference.20 pp. Southern Intertie Project R-6 References July 1999 F.A\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Final Refs DOC Bailey,T.N.and A.Fischbach.1995.Characteristics,Patterns of Use,and Management of Territories of Nesting Trumpeter Swans on the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska,1957-1994. Draft Report.Prepared for USFWS,Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Soldotna,Alaska. June 1,1995.Not for Publication. Bailey,T.N.and E.E.Bangs.1980.Moose Calving and Use on the Kenai National Moose Range,Alaska.Proceedings of 16th North American Moose Conference and Workshop, Prince Albert,Canada.USFWS.21 pp. Bailey,T.N.,E.E.Bangs,J.C.Malloy and M-F.Portner.1983.Feasibility of Studying Lynx (Lynx canadensis)on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Alaska.Refuge Management Project. Annual Progress Report.Prepared by USFWS,Soldotna,Alaska.12 pp. Bailey,T.N.,E.E.Bangs,M.F.Portner,J.C.Malloy and.R.J.McAvinchey.1986.An Apparent Overexploited Lynx Population on the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.Journal of Wildlife Management.50(2):279-290. Bakus,G.,M.Orys and J.Hendrick.1979.The Marine Biology and Oceanography of the Anchorage Region,Upper Cook Inlet.Astarte 12 (1):13-20. Bancroft,Hubert H.1970.History ofAlaska,1730-1885.Hafner,Darien,Connecticut.Originally published 1886. Bangs,E.E.,S.A.Duff,and T.N.Bailey.1985.Habitat Differences and Moose Use of Two Large Burns on the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.Alces.21:17-35. Bangs,E.E.and T.N.Bailey.1982.Interrelationships of Weather,Fire,and Moose on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Alaska.Proc.North American Moose Conference and Workshop 16:255-274. Bangs,E.E.,T.H.Spraker,T.N.Bailey and V.D.Berns.1982a.Ecology of Nesting Bald Eagles on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Alaska.Proceedings of the First Annual Raptor Management Symposium,Anchorage,Alaska.Prepared by USFWS,Soldotna,Alaska.8 Pp. .1982b.Effects of Increased Human Population on Wildlife Resources of the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.Transactions of the 47th American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,Washington,D.C.605-616 pp. Barry,Mary J.1973.A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula.Alaska Northwest Publishing, Anchorage,Alaska. Bartsch-Winkler,Susan (ed).1985a.Physiography,Texture,and Bedforms During June-July 1981 in Turnagain Arm Estuary,Upper Cook Inlet,Alaska.USGS Open File Report 85- 503. Southern Intertie Project R-7 References July 1999 F \DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Bartsch-Winkler,Susan (ed).1985b.The United States Geological Survey in Alaska: Accomplishments During 1984.USGS Circular 967. .1985c.Tidal Bores in Turnagain Arm.In Sission,A.,ed.,Guide to the geology of the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.Alaska Geological Society field trip guidebook,prep.In conjunction with 60"annual meeting,Pacific Sect.,American Assoc.Petroleum Geologists,Anchorage,Alaska.May 22-24.138 pp.and 2 plates. Bartsch-Winkler,Susan and Henry L.Schmoll.1984.Guide to the Late Pleistocene and Holocene Deposits of Turnagain Arm.Alaska Geological Society field trip guidebook, prep.In conjunction with 80"annual meeting,Cordilleran Sect.,Geological Society of America,Anchorage,Alaska.May 30 -June 1.70 pp.and 2 maps,Scale 1”=1 mile. Batten,A.R.,D.F Murray and S.Murphy.1980.Definition of Alaskan Coastal Wetlands by Floristic Criteria.Institute of Arctic Biology,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,Alaska. Beaulaurier,D.L.1980.Mitigation of Bird Collisions with Transmission Lines.Bonneville Power Administration,U.S.Department of Energy,Portland,Oregon.82 pp. Bevanger,K.1994.Bird Interactions with Utility Structures:Collision and Electrocution, Causes and Mitigating Measures.Ibis 136:412-425. Boraas,Alan.1978.Archaeological Survey of Alaska Pipeline Company Pipeline Right-of-Way, Trapper Joe Lake to Burnt Island,Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.Submitted to Alaska Pipeline Company,Anchorage.Man &Earth Alaska,Soldotna. .1975.Archaeological Survey Report,Proposed Tesoro Pipeline,Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.Submitted to Gulf Interstate Engineering Company,Houston.Man &Earth Alaska,Soldotna. Bower,D.1998.Personal communication between Bob Mott,Dames &Moore,and Dick Bower, City of Soldotna.December. Brabets and Wittenberg.1983.Surface-Water Quality in the Campbell Creek Basin,Anchorage, Alaska.U.S.Geological Survey Water-Resource Investigations Report 83-4096. Bradley,Dwight C.and Timothy M.Kusky.1989.Geologic Studies in Alaska by the US. Geological Survey,1989.USGS Bulletin 1946. Braund,S.R.and S.R.Benke.1980.Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios Sociocultural Systems Analysis.Stephen R.Braund &Associates.Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management,Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.Technical Report No.47. Southern Intertie Project R-8 References July 1999 F \DATA\PROJ09203\009\F inai\Final Refs.DOC Braund,Stephen R.&Associates.1994.Whittier Access Project Subsistence Technical Report. Prepared for HDR Engineering,Inc. Brown,W.M.and R.Drewian.1995.Evaluation of Two Power Line Markers to Reduce Crane and Waterfowl Collision Mortality.Wildlife Society Bulletin.23(2):217-227. Carberry,Michael E.1979.Patterns of the Past:An Inventory of Anchorage's Historic Resources.Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission,Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage,Alaska., Caulkins,D.G.1989.Status of Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet.Pages 109-112 In The Gulf of Alaska,Cook Inlet,and North Aleutian Basin Information Update Meeting,L.E.Jarvela and L.K.Thorsteinson,ed.Anchorage,Alaska. Cederstrom,D.J.,Frank W.Trainer and Roger M.Waller.Geology and Ground-water Resources of the Anchorage Area,Alaska.USGS Water-Supply Paper 1773. Chase,M.1997.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Mark Chase,Deputy Refuge Manager,KNWR.July. Christopher,L.1998.Personal communication between Bob Mott,Dames &Moore,and Ms. Linda Christopher,Best Western King Salmon Motel and RV Park,Soldotna,Alaska. December . Chugach Electric Association,Hope/Sunrise Advisory Planning Commission.1992.Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands. .1988.Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands in Sunrise. Chugach Electric Association,Inc.(CEA).1996a.Color stereo aerial photographs of Southern Intertie Project corridors.Flight Lines 1 through 31.Scale 1”=2,000'.May 6-10. .1996b.Southern Intertie Route Selection Study-Phase I,Draft Environmental Summary Report. .1996c.Southern Intertie Route Selection Study-Phase I,Draft Economic Section Report. .1992a.Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands. .1992b.Chugach Transmission Long Range Planning Study -Final Report.December. 1990.Borrower's Environmental Report,138kV Submarine Cables.Department of Environmental Engineering and Hazardous Material. Southern Intertie Project R-9 References July 1999 F.ADATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Chugach Electric Association,Inc.(CEA).1989.Environmental Report,138kV Submarine Cables.Department of Environmental!Engineering and Hazardous Material.53 pp. Chugach Electric Association,Manager of Power Control.1997. .1996.138kV Submarine Cables Description and History of the Field.October. Chugach Electric Association,Resource Planning Department.1993.Girdwood Community Impact Study,August 1993., .1990.Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program,June 1990. .1982.Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan. City of Soldotna.1995.Soldotna Comprehensive Plan. Clark,S.H.B.1973.The McHugh Complex of South-Central Alaska.Contributions to Stratigraphy,U.S.Geological Survey Bull.1372-D.11 p. Cobb,Edward H.1984.Map showing occurrences of lode gold and silver in Alaska.USGS Mineral Investigations resource map MR-84. Cobb,J.N.1911.The Salmon Fisheries of the Pacific Coast.Bureau of Fisheries.U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C.Document No.751. Colson &Associates.1994.Alturas 345 kV Transmission Line Project;Preliminary Report on Bird Electrocution/Collison potential.Prepared for:Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Compton,Donna,T.N.Bailey,M.F.Portner,E.E.Bangs,W.W.Larned,R.A.Richey,and R.L. Delaney.1988.Proceedings and Papers of the Eleventh Trumpeter Swan Society Converence.Summer and Migratory Movements of Trumpeter Swans Using the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Alaska.Everette,Washington. Connant,B.,J.I.Hodges,D.J.Groves and J.G.King.1991.Alaska Trumpeter Swan Status Report,1990.USFWS,Migratory Bird Management,Juneau,Alaska. Cook Inlet Region,Inc.1982.Map:Regional and Village Lands. Cowardin,L.,V.Carter,F.Golet and E.Laroe.1979.Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.USFWS,Biological Services Program,Report FWS/OBS- 79/31. Cyr.P.1999.Personal communication between Dave Erikson,Dames &Moore,and Paul Cyr, Fishery Biologist,ADF&G.Anchorage,Alaska. Southern Intertie Project R-10 References July 1999 F\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\F inal Refs.DOC Dames &Moore.1995.Report,Slope Stability and Contaminant Risk Assessment,Cook Inlet Bluff Site,Kenai,Alaska.Prepared for Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co.,Dames &Moore Job No.06792-030-005.46 pp.with app. .1984.Knik Arm Crossing:Technical Memorandum No.16,Freshwater and Terrestrial Habitat Studies.Prepared for U.S.Department.of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. .1983.Knik Arm Crossing Technical Memorandum No.15,Marine Biological Studies. Prepared for U.S.Department of Transportation.Federal Highways Administration, Alaska. Davis,V.1997.Personal communication between E.L.Smith,Dames &Moore,to V.Davis, KNWR.November. Decision Focus,Inc.(DFT).1989a.Benefit/Cost Analysis.June .1989b.Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Lines in the Railbelt.December 1989.Addendum to the June 1989 Decision Focus,Inc.Benefit/Cost Analysis. Degernes,Chris.1996.Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool,Dames & Moore,to Chris Degernes,Kenai Area Superintendent,Alaska State Parks.August. Del Frate,G.G.1994.Brown Bear Survey-Inventory Activities,Units 7 and 15,Kenai Peninsula. ADF&G Fed.Aid.in Wildl.Restor.Project W-23-4. DFI -Aeronomics.1998.Update and Reevaluation of the Economic Benefits of Southern Intertie Project.March. .1997.Utility Rates Impact Analysis.November. Dixon,George.1968.A Voyage Round the World.De Capo,New York.Originally published 1789,G.Goulding,London. Dobrovolny,E.and H.R.Schmoll.1974.Slope-stability Map ofAnchorage and Vicinity,Alaska. In Folio of the Anchorage and vicinity area.USGS publication,Map 1-787-E.Scale 1:24,000. Dowl Engineers.1983.Environmental Assessment for Sterling Highway to Soldotna to Mile Post 79 F-021-2 (19)F-021-2 (16).Prepared for the State of Alaska,Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Dryden and LaRue.1991.Cost Estimate,Kenai/Anchorage and Healy/Fairbanks 138kV Transmission Line Interties.March. Southern Intertie Project R-11 References July 1999 FADATA\PROJ09203\009\Final\Final Refs DOC Dumond,Don E.and Robert L.Mace.1968.An Archaeological Survey Along Knik Arm. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 14(1):1-21. Dutile,Denise.1998."Visitor Use Counts for Kenai Peninsula State Parks”(monthly statistics for 1997,by park).Sterling,Alaska.Personal communication and FAX,24 November 1998. Eldridge,W.D.1997.Waterbird Utilization of Upper Cook Inlet:August-October 1996. Unpublished report prepared for USFWS.February 25,1997.4 pp. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).1998.Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Concerns in EPA'S NEPA Compliance Analysis.April. Environmental Systems Research Institute.1982.Final Report:Turnagain Arm Integrated Terrain Unit Mapping,Automation and Analysis. Erickson,A.W.1965.The Brown/Grizzly Bear in Alaska:its Ecology and Management.Alaska Department of Fish and Game.Juneau,Alaska. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).1989.Standard for Determining Ostruction.14 CFR, Part 77, Faanes,C.A.1987.Bird Behavior and Mortality in Relation to Power Lines in Prairie Habitat. USFWS,Fish and Wildlife Tech.Rep.7.24 pp. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).1990.Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Municipality of Anchorage,Alaska.Anchorage Division.Panels 235,240,241,243,and Index.Revised March 15. .1988.Flood Insurance Rate Map,Kenai Peninsula Borough,Alaska.Map Index Revised June 3. .1987.Flood Insurance Rate Maps,Municipality of Anchorage,Alaska,Anchorage Division.Panels 230,242,360,370,400,500,505,510,520,and 600.Revised September 18. .1983.Flood Insurance Rate Map,Kenai Peninsula Borough,Alaska.Panel 2045. Revised July 5. .1981.Flood Insurance Rate Maps,Kenai Peninsula Borough,Alaska.Panels 1125,2030, 2035,2040,2065,2070,2090,2125,2150,and 2175.Revised May 19. Southern Intertie Project R-12 References July 1999 FADATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Federal Subsistence Board.n.d.Subsistence Management Regulations For the Harvest of Fish and Wildlife on Federal Public Lands in Alaska.USFWS,Office of Subsistence Management.Anchorage,Alaska. Fesler,Doug and Jill Fredston.1991.Comprehensive Avalanche Atlas:University-Quartz Ck. 115 KV Transmission Lines,Daves Ck.-Lawing 69 KV Transmission Line,Indian- Girdwood 24.9 KV Distribution Line,and Hope 24.9 KV Distribution Line.Prepared for Chugach Electric Assoc.,Inc.by Alaska Mountain Safety Center,Inc. Fink,D.and H.Beaty.1993.Handbook for Electrical Engineers,13"edition.McGraw-Hill. Gardner,D.1999.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Dave Gardner,Director of Parks and Recreation Department,Municipality of Anchorage. April. .1997.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Dave Gardner,Director of Parks and Recreation Department,Municipality of Anchorage. October. Gatto,Lawrence W.1976.Baseline Data on the Oceanography of Cook Inlet,Alaska.CRREL Report 76-25. Golder Associates,Inc.1996.Results of Reconnaissance Geophysical Survey,Turnagain Arm, Alaska.Report prepared for Power Engineers,Inc.,Golder Reference No.963-65298.7 pp.and 9 dwg.sheets.September. Gregory,M.1998.Personal communication between Bob Mott,Dames &Moore,and Mark Gregory,Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic District.December. Haeussler,P.J.1996.Personal communication:discussion regarding location of Little Susitna River fault,and activity of folding and buried reverse faults in Upper Cook Inlet Basin. USGS.October 16. Haeussler,Peter J.and Ronald L.Bruhn.1995.Js There Significant Earthquake Hazard in the Upper Cook Inlet Basin,Alaska.Geological Society of America.Abstracts with Programs,V.27,No.5,p.23. Hansen,Wallace R.,Edwin B.Eckel,William E.Schaem,Robert E.Lyle,Warren George and Genie Chance.n.d.The Alaska Earthquake March 27,1964:Field investigations and reconstruction effort.USGS Professional Paper 541. Harding-Lawson Associates (HLA).1979.Geotechnical Hazards Assessment,Municipality of Anchorage,Anchorage,Alaska.Report prepared for Municipality of Anchorage.102 pp. and 15 plates,Scale 1 inch =1.5 miles. Southern Intertie Project R-13 References July 1999 F.ADATA\PROJ09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Harris,C.1991.Handbook ofAcoustical Measurements and Noise Control,3™edition.McGraw- Hill. Hazard,K.1988.Beluga Whale.Pages 195-235 In J.W.Lentfer,ed.,Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska:Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations.Marine Mammal Commission,Washington,D.C. Hilderbrand,G.V.1998.Studies of the Nutritional Ecology of Coastal Brown Bears.Ph.D. Thesis,Washington State University.Pullman., Holvert,Marilyn.1998.Personal communication with Bob Mott,Dames &Moore,to Marilyn Holvert,Alaska Department of Public Assistance.September. Homer Electric.1993.Long Range Plan -1993.April. Holtz,R.D.and Kovacs,W.D.1981.An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.Prentice - Hall,Inc.Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey.733 pp. Hulten,E.1968.Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories.Stanford University Press. Stanford,California. Jacobs,Michael J.1989a.An Initial Population Analysis and Management Strategy for Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears.M.S.Thesis,West Virginia University,Division of Forestry. .1989b.A Management Strategy for Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears.Interagency Brown Bear Study Team.Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.110 pp. James,B.W.and Bruce A.Haak.1979.Factors Affecting Avian Flight Behavior and Collision Mortality at Transmission Lines.Bonneville Power Administration.Portland,Oregon. 109 pp. Johnston,R.1998.Personal communication between Tim Tetherow,Dames &Moore,and Danielle Stearns,Dames &Moore,and Rick Johnston,KNWR.September. .1997a.Personal communication between Niklas Ranta,Dames &Moore,and Rick Johnston,KNWR.October. .1997b.Personal communication between Geoff Pool,Dames &Moore,and Rick Johnston,KNWR.June. Jozwiak,E.A.1997.Wolf Pack Dynamics and Movements in Response to Harvest on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Alaska,1982-1993 and Accuracy of Aerial Telemetry.Master of Science Thesis,Colorado State University.Fort Collins,Colorado. Southern Intertie Project R-14 References July 1999 F.ADATA\PRON\09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Karlstrom,Thor N.V.1964.Quaternary Geology of the Kenai Lowland and Glacial History of Kenai the Cook Inlet Region,Alaska.USGS Professional Paper 443. National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR),United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a.Unpublished bird-powerline strikes data. .1998b.Unpublished swan data. .1998c.Unpublished bald eagle survey data. .1998.The Economic Analysis of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. .1997,Unpublished bald eagle survey data.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. .1996a.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Mystery Creek III Prescribed Burn. 1996b.Final Moose/Habitat Management Plan.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Soldotna,Alaska. .1995a.Land Protection Plan for Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Soldotna,Alaska. .1995b.Fishery Management Plan,Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,FY 1996-2000.89 pp. June. .1988a.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Fire Management Plan .1988b.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. .1988c.Wolf Management Operational Plan,Game Management Unit 15A,Northern Portion of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge., .1988d.Final Environmental Assessment for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Furbearer Management Plan.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.Soldotna,Alaska. .1985a.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement,Wilderness Review.Vols.1 and 2. .1985b.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement. .1984.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.Technical Supplement -Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife Species.Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan,Environmental Impact Statement,Wilderness Review. Southern Intertie Project R-15 References July 1999 F ADATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Final Refs DOC Kenai Peninsula Economic Development Department.Kenai,Alaska."The Visitor Industry” (report by KPBEDD,August 1998),Ms.Becky Hultberg.Personal communication and FAX,23 November 1998. Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development District,Inc.(KPBEDD).1997a."The Visitor Industry:Kenai Peninsula Borough,Alaska.”July 1997. .1997b.Economic Analysis of Primary Borough Industries,1997.Kenai. Kenai Peninsula Borough,Cooper Landing Advisory Planning Commission.1998.Land Use Classification Recommendations for Borough Selected Lands,Draft. .1996.Land Use Classification Recommendations for Borough Selected Lands,Draft. .1992.Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands. Kenai Peninsula Borough,Department of Finance.1995.Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30,1995. Kenai Peninsula Borough,Hope/Sunrise Advisory Planning Commission.1995.GIS Land Use Data. .1992.Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands. .1988.Community Recommendations on a Land Use Plan for Borough Lands in Sunrise. Kenai Peninsula Borough,Planning Department.1999,1997,1996.GIS Land Use Data. .1992.Kenai Peninsula Borough Comprehensive Plan. .1990.Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program. Kenai Peninsula Borough.1990.Control Management Program,Final Document.June. Kent,Ronald J.,Roland D.Navarro and Peter M.Bowers.1996.Data Synthesis and Mapping of ANCSA 14(h)(1)Application AA-11096,Located near the Confluence of the Russian and Kenai Rivers,Alaska.Prepared for Bureau of Indian Affairs,ANCSA Office.Anchorage. Northern Land Use Research,Inc.,Fairbanks,Alaska. Kesterson M.B.1988.Lynx Home Range and Spatial Organization in Relation to Population Density and Prey Abundance.Master of Science Thesis,University of Alaska,Fairbanks, Alaska. Klinkhart,E.G.1966.The Beluga Whale in Alaska.Prepared by ADF&G,Juneau,Alaska.11 pp. Southern Intertie Project R-16 References July 1999 F \DATA\PRONN09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Laguna,Federica de.1976.The Archaeology of Cook Inlet,Alaska.Reprinted.Alaska Historic Society,Anchorage.Originally published 1934,University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia. Lewis,J.C.1993.The USFWS and Bird-Power Line Interactions.In Proceedings of International Workshop on Avian Interaction with Utility Structures.EPRI Tech.Rep.1032668,Palo Alto,California. Madison,R.J.,T.J.McElhone and Chester Zenone.1987.Alaska Ground-Water Quality.USGS Open-File Report 87-0712., Magoon,L.B.,W.L.Adkison and R.M.Egbert.1976.Map Showing Geology,Wildcat Wells, Tertiary Plant Fossil Localities,K-A,Age Dates,and Petroleum Operations,Cook Inlet Area,Alaska.USGS Misc.Investigations Series.Map I-1019. Mahoney,B.,NMFS.1998.Personal communication via telephone between Barbara Mahoney, NMFS,and Danielle Stearns,Dames and Moore.December. Malcolm,J.M.1982.Bird Collisions with a Power Transmission Line and Their Relation to Botulism at a Montana Wetland.Wildlife Society Bulletin 10.297-304 pp. March,G.D.and L.G.Robertson.1982.Snow Avalanche Atlas,Seward Highway,South-Central Alaska.Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys,Professional Report 81. McCarty,S.1981.Survey of Effects of Outercontinental Shelf Platforms on Cetacean Behavior. Appendix C,Vol.II In R.S.Gales,ed.Effects of noise of offshore oil and as operations on marine mammals.An introductory assessment.Naval Oceans Systems Center,San Diego,California,Tech.Rep.844:C1-C31. McCulloch,D.S.and M.G.Bonilla.1969a.Maps and Aerial Photographs of Ground Cracking in the Portage Area,Alaska,That Resultedfrom the Marcy 27 Earthquake.\n Effects on the Alaska Railroad.USGS Publication,Plate 4,Scale 1:4,800. .1969b.Topographic Map,Bore-Hole Data,and Features of the Potter Hill Slide Area, Alaska.In Effects on the Alaska Railroad.USGS Publication,Plate 3,Scale 1 inch =25 feet. Mears,A.J.and D.Fesler.1989.Avalanche Dynamics and Exposure Analysis in the Ptarmigan Creek Area:A Response to the School Bus Avalanche of 1988. Mears,Arthur I.1998.Avalanche Stagnation Pressure Calculations -Chugach Electric Association Summit Lake Transmission Line.Prepared for Dryden &LaRue,Inc. Southern Intertie Project R-17 References July 1999 F.ADATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Mears,Arthur I.,P.E.,Inc.1982.Anchorage Snow Avalanche Zoning Analysis.Prepared for Municipality of Anchorage. Meiners,Al.1997.Personal communication between Geoff Pool,Dames &Moore,and Al Meiners,Chugach State Parks Superintendent,Alaska State Parks.January. Meyer,J.R.1978.Effect of Transmission Lines on Bird Flight Behavior and Collision Mortality. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration,U.S.Department of Energy,Portland, Oregon.220 pp., Meyer.J.R.and J.M.Lee,Jr.1981.Effects of Transmission Lines on Flight Behavior of Waterfowl and Other Birds.In Proceedings of a second symposium,environmental concerns of right-of-way management.October 16-18,1979.Ann Arbor,Michigan. Electric Power Research Institute.Palo Alto,California Pub.No.WS 78-141. Middendorf,Tom.1999.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Tom Middendorf,Airport Manager,Anchorage International Airport.April. .1997.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Tom Middendorf,Airport Manager,Anchorage International Airport.September. Miller,Robert D.and Emest Dobrovolny.1959.Surficial Geology of Anchorage and Vicinity, Alaska.USGS Bulletin 1093. Morkill,A-E.and S.H.Anderson.1993.Effectiveness of Yellow Aviation Balls in Reducing Sandhill Crane Collisions with Power Lines.In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures.EPRI Tech.Rep.1032668,Palo Alto,California. Morris,R.J.1992.Status Report on Cook Inlet Belugas (Delphinapterus leucas).Prepared by the Alaska Region of the NMFS,Anchorage,Alaska.22 pp. Municipality of Anchorage,Department of Community Planning and Development.1999 and 1994.GIS Land Use Data. ___.1998.South Coastal Trail Facility Concept Report Draft. .1997.Anchorage Indicators 1997,Volume 1,May 1997. .1996a.Area Wide Trails Plan,Draft. .1996b.Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1996 to 1998. .1995.Girdwood Area Plan. Southern Intertie Project R-18 References July 1999 F \DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Municipality of Anchorage,Department of Community Planning and Development.1994.GIS Land Use Data. .1993.Girdwood Community Impact Study. .1991.Anchorage Bowl Long-Range Transportation Plan. .1990.Utility Corridor Plan. .1986.Tudor Road Public Lands and Institutions Plan (PL). .1982.Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Development Plan. Municipality of Anchorage,Department of Finance.1996a.Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,December 31,1996. National Academy of Science.1997.Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential and Magnetic Fields.4-215 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.1996a.Cook Inlet,Approaches to Anchorage,Alaska,5"Edition,Nautical Chart No.16665,Scale 1:50,000.February 3. .1996b.Cook Inlet,East Foreland to Anchorage,Alaska,4"Edition,Nautical Chart No. 16663,Scale 1:100,000.April 6. .1994.Cook Inlet,Northern Part,26"Edition,Nautical Chart No.16660,Scale 1;194,154,January 22. North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC).1998.Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems of the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council,1997-2006.August. .1996.Glossary of Terms.Prepared by the Glossary of Terms Task Force.August. .1990.Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems of the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council. Oldemeyer,J.D.,A.W.Franzmann,A.L.Brundage,P.D.Arneson and A.Flynn.1977.Browse Quality and the Kenai Moose Population.Journal of Wildlife Management,41(3):533- 42. Southern Intertie Project R-19 References July 1999 FADATA\PROA09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Oldemeyer,J.L.and W.L.Regelin.1984.Forest Succession,Habitat Management,and the Moose on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.Prepared by Denver Wildlife Research Center for USFWS.Denver Wildlife Research Center.23 pp. Orth,Donald J.1967.Dictionary of Alaska Place Names.U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper No.567.U.S.Government Printing Office,Washington,D.C. Osgood,Cornelius.1966.The Ethnography of the Tanaina.Yale University Publications in Anthropology No.16.Reprinted.Human Relations Area Files,New Haven.Originally published 1937,Yale University,New Haven. Parker,Lisa.1999.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Lisa Parker,Planning Director,Kenai Peninsula Borough.April. .1998.Memorandum (Revised Environmental Analysis Comments.July 21,1998)from Lisa Parker,Planning Director,Kenai Peninsula Borough,to Tim Tetherow,Dames & Moore. .1997.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Lisa Parker, Planning Director,Kenai Peninsula Borough.August. Payne,Thomas G.and J.Thomas Dutro,Jr.1958.Mineral Resources of Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.USGS Bulletin 1094.Plates 1-5. Pearson,D.C.1993.Avifauna Collision Study in the San Jacinto Valley of Southern California. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Avian Interactions with Utility Structures.EPRI Technical Report 103268.Palo Alto,California. Peterson,David L.and Associates.1971.4A Comprehensive Plan for Water Resource Management.The Cook Inlet Basin/Kenai Peninsula Region.Vols.1 and 2.Prepared for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Peterson,R.O.,J.D.Woolington and T.N.Bailey.1984.Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska. Wildlife Monographs,88:1-52. Plafker,G.,J.C.Moore and G.R.Winkler.1994b.Geology of the Southern Alaska Margin.In G. Plafker and H.C.Berg,eds.,The Geology of Alaska,Vol.G-1 of The Geology of North America (The Decade of North American Geology (DNAG)).Geological Society of America.389-449 pp. Plafker,George,L.M.Gilpin and J.C.Lahr.1994.Neotectonic Map of Alaska.In Plafker,G., H.C.Berg,eds.,The Geology of Alaska:Boulder,Colorado,Geological Society of America,The Geology of North America,v.G1,pl.12,with 3 tables and text. Southern Intertie Project R-20 References July 1999 F \DATA\PROJ09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Price,K.1998.Personal communication between Bob Mott,Dames &Moore,and Kathy Price, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation.September. Pittenger,M.Dean,and Elizabeth A.Thomas.1980.Cultural Resources Reconnaissance in the Chignik Village Area.In Archaeological Survey Projects,1978,edited by Timothy L. Dilliplane,pp.24-31.Miscellaneous Publications,History and Archaeology Series No. 22.Office of History and Archaeology,Alaska Division of Parks,Anchorage,Alaska. Pollock,R.1997.Personal communication between Bob Mott,Dames &Moore,and Randy Pollock,Power Engineers.October. Poole,K.G.1994.Characteristics of an Unharvested Lynx Population During a Snowshoe Hare Decline.Journal of Wildlife Management 58:608-618. Portlock,Nathaniel.1789.Voyage Around the World,1785-1788.London. Post,A.and L.R.Mayo.1971.Glacier Dammed Lakes and Outburst Floods in Alaska.USGS Hydrologic Investigations,Atlas HA-455 (3 map sheets).Scale 1:1,000,000. Power Engineers,Inc.and Dames &Moore.1996.In five separate reports.Southern Intertie Project,Route Selection Study,Phase I. Power Engineers,Inc.and Hart-Crowser.1987.Anchorage -Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study.Vols.1 and 2.Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Power Engineers,Inc.1998.Southern Intertie Project,Cost Summary Report Phase 1-B. ____.1997a.Southern Intertie Project,Cost Summary Report.January. .1997b.Southern Intertie Project,Phase 1-B. .1997c.Southern Intertie Route Selection Study Phase 1B,Studies Section Report. .1996a.Southern Intertie Project,Route Selection Study,Phase I. .1996b.Southern Intertie Project,Route Selection Study,Phase I.Final Studies Section Report. Quimby,R.L.1972.Waterbird Habitat and Use of Chickaloon Flats.University of Alaska, College,Alaska.Master Thesis.86 pp. Rural Electric Association (REA).1978.Design Guide for Rural Substations.REA Bulletin 65- 1.June. Southern Intertie Project R-21 References July 1999 FADATA\PROJ09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC R&M Consultants,Inc.1982.Turnagain Arm Landform (Terrain Unit)Mapping.Prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage. Rappeport,M.L.1982.An Analysis of Oceanographic and Meteorological Conditions for Central Lower Cook Inlet,Alaska.USGS Open-File Report 82-128. Reed,C.1985.The Role of Wild Resource Use in Communities of the Central Kenai Peninsula and Kachemak Bay,Alaska.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Subsistence Technical Report No.106., Reger,D.1997.Personal communication:discussion regarding Quaternary paleontologic resources of Anchorage and Kenai lowlands.Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. June 9. Reger,Douglas R.1996.Archaeology of the Northern Kenai Peninsula and Upper Cook Inlet. Office of History and Archaeology,Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Anchorage,Alaska. .1980.Report of Archaeological Field Survey in the Willow-Wasilla Area,1978.In Archaeological Survey Projects,1978,Timothy L.Dilliplane,ed.Pages 1-23. Miscellaneous Publications,History and Archaeology Series No.22.Office of History and Archaeology,Alaska Division of Parks,Anchorage,Alaska. Reger,Douglas R.and Joan M.Antonson.1977.Girdwood Archaeological and Historic Site Survey.In Archaeological Survey Projects,1976,Pages 1-13.Miscellaneous Publications,History and Archaeology Series No.16.Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Division of Parks,Anchorage,Alaska. Reynolds,P.,H.Reynolds,and E.Follmann.1986.Responses of Grizzly Bears to Seismic Surveys in Northern Alaska.In Bears-Their Biology and Management.Sixth International Conference on Bear Research and Management. Richardson,W.J.and C.R.Greene.1987.Noise and Marine Mammals.Pages 271-282 in P.R. Becker,ed.Proceedings of a synthesis meeting:the Diapir Field environment and possible consequences of planned offshore oil and gas development;Chena Hot Springs, Alaska 25-28 January 1983.U.S.Department of Commerce,NOAA,National Ocean Serv.,Ocean Assess.Division,Alaska Office,Anchorage,Alaska. Richardson,W.J.,C.R.Green Jr.,C.I.Nalme,and D.H.Thompson.1995.Marine Mammals and Noise.Academic Press.San Diego,California. Rigg,Diana.1998.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Diana Rigg,Anchorage Area Planner,ADOT&PF.April. Southern Intertie Project R-22 References July 1999 FADATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Final Refs DOC Rigg,Diana.1997.Personal communication with Geoff Pool,Dames &Moore,and Diana Rigg, Anchorage Area Planner,ADOT&PF. Right-of-Way.1996.Transmission Line Impact on Residential Property Values:A Study of Three Pacific Northwest Metropolitan Areas.By J.R.Cowger,Steven C.Bottemiller, MAI,and James M.Cahill.September/October 1996,Pages 13-17. Rollins,A.M.1978.Census Alaska:Number of Inhabitants 1792-1970.University of Alaska, Anchorage Library.Anchorage,Alaska., Rosenberg,D.H.1986.Wetland Types and Bird Use of Kenai Lowlands.Special Studies, USFWS-Region 7.Anchorage,Alaska. Rusz,P.J.,H.H.Prince,R.D.Rusz,G.A.Dawson.1986.Near a Power Plant Cooling Pond. Wildl.Soc.Bull.14:441-444. Schommer,Jack.1998.Personal communication between Niklas Ranta,Dames &Moore,and Jack Schommer,Airspace and Procedures,Federal Aviation Administration.April. .1997.Personal communication between Geoff Pool,Dames &Moore,and Jack Schommer,Airspace and Procedures,Federal Aviation Administration.June. Schwartz,C.C.1997.Personal communication between E.Linwood Smith,Dames &Moore, and Charles C.Schwartz,USF WS.October. Schwartz,C.C.and A.W.Franzmann.1991.Interrelationship of Black Bears to Moose and Forest Succession in the Northern Coniferous Forest.Wildlife Monographs No.113. pp.1-58. .1980.Black Bear Predation on Moose.Prepared for ADF&G.Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Research Annual Report -Project W-17-11 and W-21-1.82 pp. Schwartz,C.C.and S.M.Arthur.1996.Cumulative Effects Model Verification,Sustained Yield Estimation,and Population Viability Management of the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska Brown Bear.Prepared for ADF&G.Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Research Progress Report July 1,1994 -June 30,1996.9 pp. Schwartz,C.C.,A.W.Franzmann and D.C.Johnson.1985.Population Ecology of the Kenai Peninsula Black Bear.Prepared by ADF&G,Juneau,Alaska.15 pp. Scott,K.M.1982.Erosion and Sedimentation in the Kenai River,Alaska.USGS Professional Paper 1235. Southern Intertie Project R-23 References July 1999 F \DATA\PROJ09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Seitz,J.,L.Tomrdle and J.Fall.1994.The Use of Fish and Wildlife in the Upper Kenai Peninsula Communities of Hope,Whittier,and Cooper Landing.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage,Alaska.January 20,1994 Draft Technical Report No.219. .1992.The Use of Fish and Wildlife in the Upper Kenai Peninsula Communities of Hope, Whittier,and Cooper Landing.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Anchorage, Alaska.Draft Technical Report No.219. Selkregg,L.L.1974.Alaska Regional Profiles,South-Central Region.State of Alaska,Office of the Governor,in cooperation with Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission. 255 pp. Sellmeyer,Scott.1995.A Diversified Economy -The Kenai Peninsula in Alaska Economic Trends.ADOL,Research and Analysis Section.February. Shepard,F.P.1973.Submarine Geology,Third Edition. Simmons,L.1998.Personal communication between Bob Mott,Dames &Moore,and Larry Simmons,Finance Director,City of Soldotna.December. Sinclair,Jack.1996.Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool,Dames & Moore,to Jack Sinclair,District Ranger-Captain Cook SRA,Alaska State Parks.August. Sinnot,Rick.1999.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,to Rick Sinnot,Alaska Department of Fish and Game.April. .1996.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Rick Sinnot, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.September. Sinnott,R.1996.Personal communication between Mark Vania,Dames &Moore,and Rich Sinnott,Wildlife Biologist,ADF&G.Anchorage,Alaska. Smith,E.L.1981.Effects of Canoeing on Common Loon Production and Survival on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,Alaska.Masters Thesis submitted to Colorado State University. May 1981.Fort Collins,Colorado.40 pp. Smith,R.1998.Personal communication between Bob Mott,Dames &Moore,and Randy Smith,Soldotna Chamber of Commerce.December. Sokolowski,T.1996.Personal communication:discussion regarding tsunami potential in upper Cook Inlet.Director,Alaska Tsunami Warning Center. Spalding,John.1996.Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool,Dames & Moore,and John Spalding,Alaska Airmen's Association.December. Southern Intertie Project R-24 References July 1999 FADATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Spraker,T.,1996.Personal communication between Mark Vania,Dames &Moore,and Ted Spraker,Wildlife Biologist,ADF&G,Soldotna,Alaska. Stanley,Kirk W.1968.The Alaska earthquake,March 27,1964:Regional Effects;Effects of the Alaska Earthquake of March 27,1964 on Shore Processes and Beach Morphology. USGS Professional Paper 543-J. Staples,W.R.,III.1995.Lynx and Coyote Diet and Habitat Relationships During a Low Hare Population on the Kenai Peninsula,Alaska.Mastet's Thesis.University of Alaska, Fairbanks,Alaska. Staples,W.and T.Bailey.1998.Disturbance of,and a Human Fatality Related to,Brown Bears in Dens During Winter Seismic Exploration on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.USFWS,KNWR,Soldotna,Alaska.Unpublished report. Stout,IJ.and G.W.Cornwell.1976.Nonhunting Mortality of Fledged North American Waterfowl.Journal of Wildlife Management.40:681-693. Stratton,B.and P.Cyr.1997.Annual Management Report for the Anchorage Area,1995, Prepared by ADF&G,Division of Sport Fish.Fishery Management Report,March 1997. Anchorage,Alaska.60 pp. Suring,L.H.,K.R.Barber,C.C.Schwartz,T.N.Bailey,W.C.Shuster and M.D.Tetreau.1997. Analysis of Cumulative Effects on Brown Bears on the Kenai Peninsula.South-Central Alaska International Conference,Bear Resources and Management.Volume 10. Tai,Bill.1996.Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool,Dames &Moore, and Bill Tai,Land Manager,Cook Inlet Region,Inc.August. Thompson's Tide Table.1997.South-Central Alaska Edition. Thurber,J.M.,R.O.Peterson,T.D.Drummer and S.A.Thomasma.1994.Gray Wolf Response to Refuge Boundaries and Roads in Alaska.Wildlife Society Bulletin.22:61-8. Tikhmenev,Petr A.1978.A History of the Russian-American Company.Translated and edited by Richard A.Pierce and Alton S.Donnelly.University of Washington Press,Seattle. Tobish,Thede.1999.Personal communication between Mike Doyle,Dames &Moore,and Thede Tobish,Planner,Municipality of Anchorage.April. .1997.Personal communication between Geoff Pool,Dames &Moore,and Thede Tobish, Planner,Municipality of Anchorage.June. Souther Intertie Project R-25 References July 1999 F \ADATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC Tysdal,R.G.and J.E.Case.1979.Geologic Map of the Seward and Blying Sound Quadrangles, Alaska.Misc.Investigations Series Map I-1150. U.S.Census Bureau.1993.U.S.Census of Population and Housing. .1991.U.S.Census of Population Housing. ."1990 U.S.Census of Population and Housing,Summary Tape File 3A,”Using 1990 Census Lookup;<http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup>(October 1997). .1980.U.S.Census of Population and Housing. U.S.Department of Agriculture,Chugach National Forest.1996.Sixmile Salvage Sales Environmental Assessment,June 1996. ___.1995.Resource Information Data Dictionary,March 1995. _.1993.Seward Highway Scenic Byway Interpretative Plan,November 1993. .1984a.Land and Resource Management Plan. .1984b.Land and Resource Management Plan,ROD,July 1984. .1984c.Land and Resource Management Plan,Summary. U.S.Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service (SCS).1979.Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska. .1979.Metropolitan Anchorage Urban Study Final Report.Volume 7:Soils of the Anchorage Area,Alaska.Prepared for the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Alaska District and the Municipality of Anchorage,Alaska. .1962.Soil Survey:Kenai-KasilofArea,Alaska.Series 1958,No.20. U.S.Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service.1963.Report of Reconnaissance Soil Survey,Kenai National Moose Range.Soil survey by Bobby B.Hinton,Norman B. Hulbert,C.Erwin Rice,and Eugene P.Davis.Report by Samuel Rieger. U.S.Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Weather Service.1981.Sea Ice Conditions in the Cook Inlet,Alaska During the 1978-79 Winter.Francis W.Poole,NWS Forecast Office.NOAA Tech.Memo.NWS AR 30. .1972.Sea Ice Conditions in the Cook Inlet,Alaska During the 1970-71 Winter.Richard J. Hutcheon,Marine meteorologist.NOAA Tech.Memo.AR 7. Southern Intertie Project R-26 References July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC U.S.Department of the Army,Alaska District,Corps of Engineers.1979.Water Quality,Knik Arm -Upper Cook Inlet Volume 3.Prepared in conjunction with the Municipality of Anchorage. U.S.Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)Office of Subsistence Management.1993.Draft Kenai Peninsula Units 7 and 15 Customary and Traditional Use Determination Report.Anchorage,Alaska.December 8,1993. .1995.Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concerns in the United States:The 1995 List.USFWS,Washington,D.C. U.S.Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service,(USFWS).1994.National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)Maps for Anchorage Quadrangles,1:24,000.Anchorage,Alaska. .1993.Bald Eagle Basics -Alaska.USFWS,Alaska Region. .1988a.Wolf Management Operational Plan,Game Management Unit 15A,Northern Portion of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. .1988b.Final Environmental Assessment for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Furbearer Management Plan.Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.Soldotna,Alaska. .1986.Survey of Waterfowl Staging Areas in Upper Cook Inlet.Unpublished report. Migratory Birds,USFWS,Anchorage,Alaska. .1985.Comprehensive Conservation Plan. .1982.National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)Maps for Anchorage,Kenai,Seward and Tyonic Quadrangles.Anchorage,Alaska. .1980.Terrestrial Habitat Evaluation Criteria Handbook -Alaska.Division of Ecological Services. U.S.Department of the Interior,Minerals Management Service,Alaska OCS Region.1996.Cook Inlet Planning Area,Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149.Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vols.1 and 2.MMS 95-0066.OCS EIS/EA.January 1996. .1995.Cook Inlet Planning Area,Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149,Draft Environmental Impact Statement.Vols.1 and 2.OCS EIS/EA MMS 94-0066. U.S.Department of Transportation,Federal Aviation Administration.1996.Alaska Supplement, August 15,1996 -October 10,1996. .Aeronautical Maps ofSouth-Central Region and Anchorage. Southern Intertie Project R-27 References July 1999 F\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\F inal Refs.DOC U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).1999.Letter from Brian Anderson,USFWS Division of Realty,to Tim Tetherow,Dames &Moore.June 23,1999. U.S.Geological Survey.1997a.Daily mean discharge data for Bishop Creek near Kenai,Alaska from 03/01/1977 -09/30/1979,streamflow gauging station 15267000.USGS Internet Address http://222-water-ak.usgs.gov. .1997b.Daily mean discharge data for Rabbit Creek at New Seward Highway at Anchorage,Alaska from 10/01/1983 -03/31/1986,streamflow gauging station 15273105. USGS Internet Address http://www-water-ak.usgs.gov. .1997c.Daily mean discharge data for Little Rabbit Creek at Anchorage,Alaska from 05/01/1979-09/30/1998,streamflow gauging station 15273102.USGS Internet Address http://www-water-ak.usgs.gov. .1996.Water resources data for Alaska,water year 1995:streamflow gauging station 15266300,Kenai River near Soldotna.USGS Water Data Report AK-95-1.278 pp. .1994.Water resources data for Alaska,water year 1993:streamflow gauging station 15274600,Campbell Creek near Spenard.USGS Water Data Report AK-93-1.373 pp. .1971.Map of Hydrologic Investigations.Atlas HA-455 (3 Sheets). .n.d.The Next Big Earthquake in Southern Alaska May Come Sooner Than You Think. Are You Prepared?USGS/Alaska Division of Emergency Services/Alaska Geological and Geophysical Surveys. .Topographic Maps:Tyonek,Anchorage,Seward,Kenai.Scale 1:250,000 and 1:63,360. Updike,Randall G.,Harold W.Olsen,Henry R.Schmoll,Yousif K.Kharaka and Kenneth H. Stokoe,II.1988.Geologic and Geotechnical Conditions Adjacent to the Turnagain Heights Landslide,Anchorage,AK.USGS Survey Bulletin 1817.Includes Plates 1-5. Updike,Randall G.,Nagisa Yamamoto and Peter W.Glaesman.1984.Alaska Report of Investigations 84-20.Moisture-density and Textural Analyses of Modern Tidal-Flat Sediments,Upper Knik Arm,Cook Inlet,Alaska.Prepared for Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Vancouver,George.1967.A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World,Vol.3.De Capo,New York.Originally published 1798,G.G.and J.Robinson, London. Southern Intertie Project R-28 References July 1999 F \DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\Final Refs.DOC Viereck,L.A.,C.T.Dyrness,A.R.Batten and K.J.Wenzlick.1992.The Alaska Vegetation Classification.USDA Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Research Station.General Technical Report No.286.278 pp. Viereck,L.A.,Schandelmeier.1980.Effects of Fire and Alaska and Adjacent Canada - literature review.USDOI,BLM,Alaska Technical Report No.286.278 pp. Wardleigh,Thomas.1997.Personal communication between Geoff Pool,Dames &Moore,and Thomas Wardleigh,Chairman Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation.January. West,G.1994.Bird Finders Guide to the Kenai Peninsula.Birchside Studios,Homer,Alaska. West,Robin.1996.Personal communication between Mike Doyle and Geoff Pool,Dames & Moore,and Robin West,Refuge Manager,KNWR.August. Winkler,G.R.1992.Geologic Map and Summary Geochronology of the Anchorage 1°x 3° Quadrangle,Southern Alaska.USGS Misc.Investigation Series,Map I-2283.Scale 1:250,000. Wood,Katie.1998.Personal communication with Kathy Tarr,Executive Director of the Kenai Visitors and Convention Bureau. Woodall.1996.Woodall's Western Campground Directory.Woodall Publications Corporation, Lake Forest,Illinois. Zenone,Chester and Gary S.Anderson.1978.Summary Appraisals of the Nation's Ground- Water Resources-Alaska.USGS Professional Paper 813-P. Zenone,Chester.1974.Geology and Water Resources of the Girdwood-Alyeska Area,Alaska. Open-File Report.Prepared by USGS in cooperation with the Greater Anchorage Area Borough. Southern Intertie Project R-29 References July 1999 F \DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Final Refs.DOC i - on an is } f| _ mL , =: - Xm |= + = a aie. LIST OF ACRONYMS 4 Dan oSce et ietherDaealreOTDeCRTCONOICLarOOS ACRONYMS AC alternating current ACMP Anchorage Coastal Management Program ACSR aluminum covered steel reinforced ACWR Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADOL Alaska Department of Labor ADOT/PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities AEA Alaska Energy Authority AEC Alaska Engineering Commission AEIDC Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center AGL above ground level AHFC Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AML&P Anchorage Municipal Light and Power ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ANILCA Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act ANSI American National Standards Institute APA Alaska Power Authority APS Alaska Priority System ARR Alaska Railroad ASCC Alaska Systems Coordinating Council BESS Battery Energy Storage System bp before present C-celsius CC cycle combustion CDP census designated place CEA Chugach Electric Association CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CIRI Cook Inlet Region,Inc. cm centimeters CT combustion turbine CMS cubic meters per second CWG Community Working Group dBA A-weighted decibels DC direct current DCRA Department of Community and Regional Affairs Southern Intertie Project 1 July 1999 \WDM_PHX1\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\ACRONYMS doc DFI Decision Focus,Inc. DLP defense of life and property DNR Department of Natural Resources DSM Demand Side Management EIS environmental impact statement EMF electric and magnetic fields EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESA Endangered Species Act EVAL Environmental Analysis F Farenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FY Fiscal Year GIS geographic information system GWh gigawatt hour HDD horizontal directional drill HEA Homer Electric Association HLA Harding-Lawson Associates HVAC heating,ventilating and air conditioning HVED high-voltage extruded dielectric HVUG high-voltage underground IBBST Interagency Brown Bear Study Team IPG Intertie Participants Group IRPA International Radiation Protection Association Kg kilograms KLH Kenai Lowlands herd km kilometers KMH Kenai Mountain herd KNWR Kenai National Wildlife Refuge KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough KPBCMP Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan KPBEDD Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development District kV kilovolt kV/m kilovolts per meter kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hour Southern Intertie Project 2 July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\ACRONYMS.doc LWCFA Land and Water Conservation Fund Act m meter mG milliGauss mg/L milligrams per liter MLLW mean lower low water mLO,/L milliliters of oxygen per liter MMS Minerals Management Service MOU Memorandum of Understanding MVA megavolt-amperes MW megawatt MWh megawatt hour mybp million years before present NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERC North American Electric Reliability Council NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTAM Notice of Airmen NTSB National Transportation Safety Board NWI National Wetlands Inventory OPGW _optical groundwire PNL Pacific Northwest Laboratory ppt parts per thousand Project Southern Intertie Transmission Line Project PVC polyviny]chloride PW present worth RM river mile RUS Rural Utilities Service RV recreational vehicle SCFF self-contained fluid-filled SCS Soil Conservation Service SHS State Historic Site SMA Special Management Area SMS Scenery Management System SRA State Recreation Area SRS State Recreation Site Southern Intertie Project 3 Acronyms July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\ACRONYMS doc STIP Surface Transportation Implementation Plan SVS static var system TCSC thyristor-controlled series capacitor USFWS US.Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S.Geological Survey V/m volts per meter VORTAC VHF Omnidirectional Range Tacan XLPE cross linked polyethylene Southern Intertie Project 4 Acronyms July 1999 \\DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\F inal\ACRONYMS.doc SEEeP TPM PEE REPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS INTRODUCTION The individuals listed below prepared or contributed to the preparation of this EVAL document. Name/Title Education/Experience Involvement Power Engineers Randy Pollock,P.E.,P.ENG.BS,Electrical Engineering =27 years of experience Project Manager,Purpose and Need, Overhead Lines Mike Walbert,P.E.BS,Electrical Engineering =14 years of experience Project Coordinator Dave Boutelle BS,Engineering m 24 years of experience Overhead Lines Bill Riali,P.E.BS,Electrical Engineering Underground,Submarine, m=30 years of experience Transition Sites Bill Hansen,P.E.BS,Electrical Engineering Underground,Submarine, =20 years of experience Transition Sites Tom Alexus 12 years of experience Underground,Submarine, Transition Sites Ron Beazer,P.E.BS,Electrical Engineering =12 years of experience System Studies Jerry Johnson MS,Electrical Engineering BS,Electrical Engineering =7 years of experience System Studies Stanley Sostrom BS,Electrical Engineering =20 years of experience Substation/Reactive Compensation Sites Frank Rowland MED,Environmental Education Right-of-way Acquisition BS,Biology m==:14 years of experience Mike Silva,P.E.MS,Engineering Electric and Magnetic Fields BS,Engineering @ 22 years of experience Dryden &LaRue Del LaRue,P.E.BS,Electrical Engineering m 32 years of experience Overhead Lines Land Field Services P.J.Sullivan BS,Political Science a §=©39 years of experience Right-of-way Acquisition Dames &Moore Garlyn Bergdale MLA,Landscape Architecture BS,Geography m 24 years of experience Principal-in-Charge Tim Tetherow MLA,Landscape Architecture BS,Natural Sciences =26 years of experience Project Manager/Visual Resources Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 \WDM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\List of Preparers.DOC Preparers and Contributors Name/Title Education/Experience Involvement Niklas Ranta MS,Multi Resource Management Project Coordinator/ (pending)Public Involvement BS,Forestry =7 years of experience Michael Doyle BS,Environmental Design Project Coordinator/ =6 years of experience Land Use/Recreation E.Linwood Smith PhD,Zoology MS,Zoology BS,Zoology =26 years of experience Biology David Erickson MS,Biology BS,Wildlife Biology =28 years of experience Biology/Wetlands Michelle Schuman MA,Environmental Science BS,Range Management and Wildlife Habitat B 18 years of experience Biology/Wetlands Mark Vania BA,Wildlife Management =13 years of experience Biology Danielle Stearns MRNR,Wildlife and Fisheries Science BA,Biology =7 years of experience Biology A.E.(Gene)Rogge PhD,Anthropology MA,Anthropology BA,Anthropology =26 years of experience Cultural Resources Mike Yarborough PhD coursework Cultural Resources MA,Archaeology BA,Anthropology =23 years of experience Steve Braund MA,Anthropology Subsistence BA,Northern Studies/English m=28 years of experience Randy Simpson BSLA,Landscape Architecture BS,Environmental Design =7 years of experience Visual Resources Randall Palmer MLA,Landscape Architecture BSLA,Outdoor Recreation/ Landscape Architecture =15 years of experience Visual Resources Joe Merkel BSLA,Landscape Architecture =9 years of experience Visual Simulations Teresa Suter BSLA,Landscape Architecture =6 years of experience Visual Resources/Simulations Geoff Pool BSLA,Landscape Architecture =6 years of experience Land Use/Recreation Southern Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 \DM_PHXI\SYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\List of Preparers DOC Preparers and Contributors Name/Title Education/Experience Involvement Nancy Darigo MS,Geology BS Geology m 14 years of experience Marine Environment/Geology James Dietzman BS,Watershed Sciences Minor,Soil Resource and Conservation =5 years of experience Marine Environment/Geology Robert Mott MA,Economics BA,Economics =34 years of experience Socioeconomics Mitch Meek BFA,Graphic Design =17 years of experience Graphics John Qoyawayma Industrial Technology and Manufacturing =15 years of experience Graphics Shirley Wiley Business Management Technical Editor =32 years of experience Keryn Darr BA,English Technical Editor =3 years of experience Scott Woods BS,Geography,Urban/GIS Environmental Planning =8 years of experience Roy Baker BS,Geography GIS m=3 years of experience Jennifer Wennerlund BS,Geography,Cartography/Remote GIS Sensing/Land Use Planning =12 years of experience Daniel Willard AA,Visual Communications GIS =8 years of experience Margaret Schaff BS,Political Science Subsistance,Socioeconomics Juris Doctor ==§=-:10 years of experience Karen Kishbaugh BS,Geology Juris Doctor m 11 years of experience Comparison of Alternative Routes Souther Intertie Project EVAL July 1999 \WDM_PHX IASYS\DATA\PRON09203\009\Final\List of Preparers DOC Preparers and Contributors ee er ee eeBROTreeeoe 5chee taniakSelina aaaneie aieeeeiieaad Serer er ey we IN Ee eeerweI ro ayo Fr pt eens - r * 7 ssCT GE VE r. oO : . 4 . : y . : : ; . ; z . : : . a . : . : . . .. . : . +, . . .i . an : i: : . . . I : : : . 1. . + : +. ie us nm GLOSSARY Be ai te ee an _Pe Wal SO TEi ey OeSE GLOSSARY GLOSSARY A-Weighted Sound Level-Sound that is measured with a sound-level meter using the A-weighted response filter that is built into the meter circuitry.The A-weighted filter simulates the frequency response to the human ear. Anadromous-Ascending from the sea into rivers for breeding. Anticlines-An arch of stratified rock in which the layers are folded upwards. Bald Eagle Primary Zone-An area within 330 feet radius of a bald eagle nest which is essentially a restricted area within which disruptive activities are limited.Disruptive activities include home construction,road building,mining,timber harvest,and construction of transmission lines. Bald Eagle Secondary Zone-An area between 330 and 660 feet radius of a bald eagle nest within which long term or permanent facilities,or that are likely to disturb nesting bald eagles,are limited. Bathymetric-A measure of underwater depths. Biomass-The amount of living matter,both vegetative and animal,in an area. Borough-A civil division in the State of Alaska corresponding to a county in most other states. Bus (electrical)}-A conductor or assembly of conductors for collecting electric currents and distributing them to outgoing feeders. Capacity-The rated continuous load-carrying ability,expressed in MW or megavolt-amperes (MVA)of generation,transmission,or other electrical equipment. Circuit-A complete closed conducting path over which electric current may flow. Colluvial-Soil and rock detritus accumulated at the bottom of a slope. Conductor-A material,usually in the form of a wire or cable,suitable for carrying an electric current. Contrast-The effect of a striking visual difference in the form,line,or texture of an area being viewed. Corona Activity-Electrical interference and noise resulting from the partial electrical breakdown of the air next to energized conductors.Occurs when the voltage gradient surrounding the conductors Southern Intertie Project 1 Glossary July 1999 FADATA\PRON\09203\009\F inal\Glossary.doc or hardware exceeds the breakdown strength of the air,resulting in electrical discharge at the conductor surface. Corridor-A continuous trace of land of defined width through whicha utility route passes.ew stee Cultural Resources-Any site or artifact associated with cultural activities. Cumulative Impact-Effects that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future actions., Direct Impact-Effects that are caused by the action (i.e.,construction)and occur at the same time __and place (see Indirect Impact). -Duct Bank-Containment system for underground transmission lines.? Economic Dispatch-See Generation Capacity Sharing Economy Energy-Energy produced and supplied from a more economical source in one system and substituted for that being produced or capable of being produced by a less economical source in another system. Electric Field-Electric effect resulting from the voltage on a transmission line.Measured as volts per meter (V/m)or kilovolts per meter (kV/m). Electric System Losses-Total electric energy losses in an electric system as a result of transmission,transformation,and distribution.Electric energy is lost primarily due to heating of transmission and distribution elements. _Electromagnetic Field (EMF)-A space or region within which magnetic forces are present around"*"an electrical current.. oar Emergent (vegetation)-Aquatic plants which project above the surface of the water. _Endangered Species-Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion'fits ratigk!Federal endangered species are protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended. 19.8 tuarine-Saltmarsh habitats that occur typically at low-lying coastal area,such as mouths of river systems or tidal areas. Etknography-That aspect of cultural and social anthropology devoted to the first-hand description of particular cultures. Southern Intertie Project July 1999 Glossary FADATA\PROJ\09203\009\Final\Glossary.doc Fault-A fracture or fracture zone in the earth's surface layers along which,there -has,beendisplacementofthesidesrelativetooneanotherparalleltothefracture. Forest Edge Effect-The forest "edge”is the zone where different plant and animal communitiesandsuccessionalstagesmeet.Widening of the right-of-way wouldincrease the "edge effect”by further changing the composition of the biotic communities.neg is tees Frost Heave-An upthrust of ground or pavement caused by freezing on moist soil... Frost Jacking-Upward displacement of pilings or other buried structures as a result of frost heaving.2 Fuel Cells-Power generating systems that produce DC electricity by combining hydrogen 'and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction.Compared with traditional generating technologies that usecombustionprocessesfirsttoconvertfueltoheatandmechanicalenergy,fuel cells convert the chemical energy of a fuel to electric energy directly.,pace Gauss-Measurement of the magnetic flux intensity (intensity of magnetic field attraction per unitarea)..'i” Generation Capacity Sharing-The sharing of generation capacity between load areas,such that a deficiency or inefficiency in one area can be overcome through the use of another area's generation resources.Also known as Economic Dispatch. Generic Mitigation-Mitigation measures or techniques to which the Project has made a commitment on a non-specific basis. Graminoid-Relating to grass. Habitat Fragmentation-A reductionin area of undisturbed,continuous.habitat.COften,affectsinteriorforestspeciesthatdependonunbrokenexpansesofmatureconiferousforest. ne eT Halophyte-A plant that grows in salty soil. LaweodsbadHydrothermalCoordination-The operation of hydro and thermal generation sain,a,waythatresultsinoveralllowersystemoperatingcosts._waar s Indirect Impact-Effects that are caused by the action and occur laterin time_or,are.fartherremoved,but are still reasonably foreseeable (see Direct Impact).Lorre.ipbis i eenese . Lacustrine-Lakes and ponds more than 2 acres in surface area.8 IS tac mint OL an Jorsq toLithicFlakes-Stone chips and flakes resulting from preparation of stone tools.vw Southern Intertie Project 3 01sorstal mnlOSSarYJuly1999G01viu! F:AADATA\PROJ\09203\009\F inal\Glossary.doc one OH SG AOA 2 Ege 'Load!Shedding-The.process of deliberately removing,either manually or automatically, preselected loads from a power system in response to an abnormal condition in order to maintain the integrity of the system and minimize overall outages. Lip ; Magnetic Field-Electric effect resulting from an electric current flowing in a conductor.Unit of measurement is a Gauss. daie a ae .Mesic-Relating toa moderate amount of moisture. Mitigation-A means to alleviate or render less intense or severe. Moment Magnitude-??dhe are cerMuskegs-Bog dominated by sphagnum moss.?? Paleontology-The science that deals with the life of past geological ages through the study of the fossil remains of organisms. Palustrine-Freshwater or nontidal wetlands dominated by woody plants or emergent vegetation and include shallow ponds,forested wetlands and are less than 20 acres in surface area. Permafrost-Permanently frozen layer of soil. Power Transfer Capacity-The measure of the ability of interconnected electrical systems to move or transfer power in a reliable manner from one area to another.The units of transfer capability are generally expresses in MW. Reactive Compensation-Provides transmission system voltage stability and facilitates power transfers.Reactive compensation is provided by reactors and capacitors located within substations or transition stations. SLMnT th Refuse Midden-An archeological site containing a refuse or trash pile. Residual Impact-The adverse impact of an action remaining after application of all mitigation Wheasuremocete Ta ts stebing Une din te:abe, Might-of-Way+Strip of land over which the transmission line,access road,and maintenance road will pass. iRing Bus-Amsubstation arrangement of circuits and breakers whereby each breaker is shared by two circuits;therefore,two breakers must open to clear each line fault. Riverine-Relating to,or within the limits of river or stream channels. Souther Intertie Project 4 Glossary July 1999 FADATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Glossary.doc Scenery Management System-A U.S.Forest Service methodology system used.to 'describe.andanalyzeimpactstovisualquality.Loe ae Ig Da ars uw fp 19 e.guy or uy Wels Scenic Quality Classes-Class A,lands of outstanding or distinctive scenic quality;Class B,typicalscenicquality;and Class C,undistinctive scenic quality.Je Ea sae iy peWee68,Ga AG 2SecurePowerTransfer-The maximum power transfer permissible for the system to remain stableandoperationalwithasuddenlossofthetransferredpower.Co dia sales 7 Seiches-Oscillations of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea that varies in period froma few minutes to several hours.Analogous to tsunamis in marine environments.SBM ibsgf"tesraieSeismicity-The likelihood of an area being subject to earthquakes.The¢phenomenon of earthmovements.SEL te ee aslbe Selective Mitigation-Mitigation measures or techniques to whichi-the <Project:hasi:made commitments on a case-by-case basis after impacts were identified and assessedi-+.ncns.Jiglu Significant (impacts)-Term used to describe any impact that would cause a substantial adverse change or stress to one or more environmental resources.CM LILA MG Le Let Spinning Reserves-A portion of the operating power reserves that are maintained by utility companies in order to maintain consistent energy supply in response to consumer demand and failures of the generation and transmission system.Spinning reserves are unloaded generation which is synchronized and ready to serve additional demand.Spinning reserves improvereliabisity.but areexpensivetomaintain.a RE At Teas Static Lines-Small diameter wires that are placed above the phase wires on a transmission line to intercept lightning. HOU de GOO RETESubsidence(soil)-The sinking of the earth's surface because of the withdrawal of water or mineralresources.WhO aT ea peat Subsistence-"The customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of valdj tenéweble resources for direct personal consumption as food,shelter,fuel,clothing,tools,or transportation:for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption;and for customary trade”,as defintd4n:Sebtish 803 of ANICLA.(eee Chive Substation-A facility in an electrical transmission system with the capability.to route andcontral electrical power,and to transform power to a higher or lower voltage.-..s70:019c5 t2:ngoo GW? NWR 9...ine sario A Southern Intertie Project 5 orssiren|Glossary. July 1999 :OO}yu FADATA\PRON09203\009\Final\Glossary.doc BR MEO on ORT AT Systém Siability-That property of a power system that enables it to remain in a state of operating equilibrium under normal operating conditions and to regain an acceptable stateof equilibrium afterbeingsubjected-to a disturbance. Threatened Species-Any species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable futurethroughoutallorasignificantpartofitsrange.Federal threatened species are protected by the-Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended. Tidal Boreé-A solitary,tidally-generated wave that typically moves up a slowly moving estuary with thé-incoming tide: Transitiort Site-Facility that changes transmission line from overhead to underground or to a-submarine cable. VigWshed-The visible portion of the landscape seen from a viewpoint or viewing area. Wetlands-Those!areas that'are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient tosupport'vegelative lifé:that-requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions. "+Southern Glossary.Haiyigo9F'Dat apRonOsns G0 xe