The Tanana Flats ~ More than a quick and easy route for an industrial powerline?

Tanana Flats

GVEA Ratepayers Alliance

Update 3/1/01:
Money and power trump truth and beauty once again. Commissioner Pourchot permitted Rex/South.

info@gvea.com

1-800-770-GVEA

On mushing into Fairbanks from Cleary Summit in 1903 -- when Fairbanks consisted of six log cabins --

Alaska's great pioneer judge and delegate to congress, James Wickersham, wrote:

"It is the view across the fifty-mile valley of the Tanana which makes the blood race in one's veins. Here and there the boundless expanse of evergreen forest which covers this great valley, rising waters of the Tanana, in lake-like spaces, sparkle in the midday sun. To the east and west, as far as the eye can reach, and to the base of the snowy range along its southern bounds, the unfretted valley is carpeted with evergreen. Beyond this, the colossal Alaska Range, overtopped by many mighty peaks. ..far across the verdant valley, several sharp and symmetrical peaks, one of which is Mount Hayes, arrest the attention and delight the eye. The others, most prominent, were Mount Deborah and Mount Hess. To the westward the range rises, mountain upon mountain, to the greatest of all, Mount McKinley."

Read the reports online

Jan. 30 Ratepayers Letter to Gov. Knowles regarding GVEA management

Economic Analysis

Environmentalists' lawyer squeezed out

Letters to the News-Miner Editor

Bird Kills

GVEA Poll

News-Miner Articles

We are asking you yet again to step up and write one letter and make one phone call. We feel that it is crucial that DNR hears from hundreds of us, stating our case in a way that is clear, simple and civil. In your letter and phone call, be sure to include some of the following points:

• The Tanana Flats are public land.? The public has clearly and overwhelmingly said, in virtually every venue imaginable, keep the Intertie out of the Tanana Flats.? Other cities around the country and world are desperately trying to save or restore open space.? We have the option of doing things right the first time.We do not oppose the Intertie itself. Almost all of us use electricity, and depend on its reliability.? But we already have a developed Intertie corridor. Let's use that existing route, or a variation of it. Let's NOT put an industrial corridor up to 300 feet wide through our wild, unique and precious country.
• The Tanana Flats are home to a wealth of wildlife, and harbor the fens, a unique kind of bog in which a mat of vegetation floats over two to twelve feet of water. This type of bog is more extensive and better developed in the Tanana Flats than anywhere else in the world. The Rex South Intertie route crosses right through these fens.
• We strongly request an unbiased and thorough cost/benefit analysis of the best alternative to Rex South.? If that alternative proves to be feasible, we expect it to be utilized instead of sacrificing public lands through unnecessary development.
• One of the most effective things we can do is send a letter to the editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. GVEA can afford full-page newspaper ads promoting their vision. We can express public views and rebuttals to GVES?s campaign through the editorial page.

Letters to the News Miner can be e-mailed to: letters@newsminer.com

Dear Governor Knowles:

The Ratepayers Alliance wants to thank you for your continued interest in the Northern Intertie issue. Your intersection into this controversy provides the public with a vital analysis of route alternatives that were not addressed in the BLM's Environmental Impact Statement.

Attached is our press release regarding the recent meetings held in Fairbanks with engineers from RW Beck, the firm contracted by DNR to produce a technical analysis of alternative route questions. We believe that RW Beck now understands the full dimensions of the controversy. We're looking forward to a set of conclusions which validates our long-held views that a route alignment which avoids the Tanana Flats is
not only possible, but can be accomplished for significantly less than GVEA and BLM have estimated.

We also want to bring to your attention to recent and on-going developments that we believe demonstrate increasingly unrepresentative and unwise management of the Interior's electrical cooperative, Golden Valley Electric Association.

The Ratepayers consider the following as clear indications that our local cooperative is being mismanaged:

1. The sudden, unexpected departure of GVEA President and CEO George
Kitchens on Jan. 25. The Board of Directors tells us the resignation was "unexpected," but we understand Mr. Kitchens was presented with a letter of resignation to sign. He is seen within GVEA and by us as respectful, conciliatory, and seeking common ground. Under Rick Schikora, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Mr. Kitchens has been replaced by the most hard-line elements within the co-op: Steve Haagenson as acting president and Mike Kelly, returning under contract to work on intertie affairs.

2. Member dissatisfaction reaching such a level that a large number of co-op member/owners are forced to form their own ratepayers organization to have their dissenting views discussed. In response, GVEA is using co-op funds to mount an extensive advertising campaign to resist the views of the majority of its members.

3. GVEA negotiations to walk away from the troubled Healy Clean Coal Project that could lead to a loss of a substantial financial investment (the price tag of the entire project is $293 million including cost of the retrofit).

4. GVEA put pressure on the Northern Alaska Environmental Center's law firm to withdraw from the intertie case or risk losing future legal work from GVEA and other utilities in Alaska. When the Environmental Center's lawyer refused to drop his client, he lost his job at the firm.

5. Current federal investigation into evidence of embezzlement of a
"significant" amount of Co-op money.

6. A recent "organizational health assessment" at GVEA reveals extremely low morale among GVEA employees.

7. Board of director meetings are increasingly held in executive sessions. Members are assured that we run the co-op, but we can't even get answers to why our popular CEO was ousted, how much money was embezzled, or how much the advertising campaign promoting an intertie route most members don't want is costing.

While we realize you are aware of some of these developments, when viewed in total these points illustrate our contention that GVEA is experiencing management lapses which must be fully exposed before public confidence in the utility can be restored. As a poorly- funded ad hoc organization, our effectiveness in this area is limited. We do realize that the ideal method to deal with these problems is to actively promote and elect board members who more honestly represent co-op members and we are committed to doing that. However, we will continue to speak out in an effort to provide the public and policymakers with information that may prompt corrective action.

In the meantime, we value your continued attention to our primary concern: selecting an alternative route for the Northern Intertie that avoids the Tanana Flats.

Sincerely,

The Steering Committee of the GVEA Ratepayers Alliance

PO Box 84997
Fairbanks, AK 99708
(907) 457 - 5230
email: admin@gvearatepayers.com

Breaking the Intertie Tie

If the controversy over the Northern Intertie were to be summed up in one
word, the most appropriate word is uncertainty. For years, there has been
serious uncertainty about the cost and configuration of project alternatives
and their respective environmental impacts. Uncertainty is a bugaboo for any
decision maker.

Consequently, it is not surprising that the Department of Natural Resources
opted for more studies before making their final decision. Better information
tends to reduce uncertainty and the risk of making the wrong choice. The
reports just completed by R.W. Beck and ABR will provide DNR with better
information on construction costs and environmental impacts.

The Beck report estimates that the base construction costs for the Rex/South
route, which goes through the Tanana Flats, are $37.7 million and that costs
for the least expensive version of the Upland route are $42.9 million. It
should be noted that for the main portion of each intertie, the Upland route
is the least expensive. The $24.2 million needed to build 40.5 miles of
Upland line amounts to $597,530 per mile. The $29.3 million needed for 42
miles of Rex/South route equals $697,619 per mile.

While each estimate may be more accurate than previous, uncertainties still
linger. The Rex/South doesn't include all environmental mitigation costs
(e.g., an underground cable across the Tanana River to reduce bird strikes),
and the Upland route apparently does not include the cost of all the land that
is needed. Nevertheless, the important conclusion that can be made from the
Beck study is that there is no significant difference in construction costs
between the two alternatives. While not exactly a tie, the difference is too
close to call based on construction costs alone. I base this statement on the
observation that the low estimate for the Upland route ($37.3 million) is less
than the base estimate for the Rex/South route, which may be more prone to
problems. Also, the cost variance between the alternative routes is less than
the margin of error used in the some of the cost estimates. For example, the
base estimate for Upland route is 13.8% higher than the Rex/South route, but
each has a 15% contingency for labor (which comprises most of the intertie
cost).

The need for contingency costs raises an important question about the risk, or
exposure to cost overruns, of each alternative. The ABR report clearly raises
a red flag about problems that the Rex/South route may encounter due to
project-imposed permafrost degradation; if not during construction then soon
after. While the ABR report is not meant to be a risk-analysis per se, to
some degree, it serves this purpose.

So if the construction costs for the two alternatives are about equal, how
does DNR decide? One way is to compare the life cycle costs of each
alternative. Life cycle costs normally include expected operation and
maintenance costs over the life of the project. Unfortunately, Beck
explicitly stated that it was not their intent to provide life cycle costs.
Consequently, any operation and maintenance cost reductions that might occur
because of the new and shorter version of the Upland route will be left out of
the decision-making process.

Another approach is to account for environmental impacts, hence costs. The
Northern Intertie DEIS shows that the Rex /South route impacts the greatest
number of swans and raptors, crosses the most miles of winter habitat for
nearly all species, and is ranked the highest in terms of wetlands impacts.
When these impacts are added to the strong objections being voiced by many to
building an intertie across the Tanana Flats, it seems that environmental
costs should be the tie breaker. Unfortunately, the DEIS did not attempt to
put some sort of economic value on environmental costs, a common practice in
other places with projects of this size. Consequently, environmental costs
were not incorporated into the benefit/cost analysis. To compensate, DNR
needs to come up with a solid approach for incorporating environmental values
in their decision-making process.

While there may be no significant difference in construction costs between the
two routes and no relevant comparison for operation and maintenance costs, one
thing that is certain is that there are big differences in environmental
costs. The choice should be fairly clear. This project is being built on
public land with a considerable amount of public money. The only alternative
that meets all aspects of public interest is the Upland route.

Sincerely

George Matz
14345 Cody Circle
Anchorage, AK
(907) 345-3139

George Matz, d.b.a. Eco Analysis, consults on economic and ecological
matters. He is a former resident of Fairbanks and has extensive experience
with energy issues, having worked as a budget and policy analyst for the
states Office of Management and Budget, and as a project analyst with the
Alaska Energy Authority. He served on the board of Glacier Highway Electric
Cooperative when living in Juneau. He is also a natural history free lance
writer and photographer. He wrote three articles for the next issue of Alaska
Geographic, which is on birds.

Dear Commissioner Pourchot,

The most recent reports by R.W.Beck and Alaska Biological Research, Inc (ABR) present new information that supports the GVEA Ratepayers Alliance position on selection of the Northern Intertie route. We would like to direct your attention to what we consider to be the most compelling information from these studies that suggests the Northern Intertie should be routed through the uplands between Nenana and Fairbanks.

R.W. Beck confirms both the technical and fiscal feasibility of alternate routes through the uplands. Beck estimates base construction cost, including substations, of Rex/South (R0) at $37.7 million and the R1 (primarily following the existing corridor) at $42.9 million, with a 15% margin of error depending on construction costs. This 13.8% difference in estimated construction costs is less than the margin of error. Cost differences between the two routes are, therefore, negligible.

The Beck report disputes GVEA's claim that excessive additional right of way would be required for the upland alternative. Section. 5-1 of the report recommends that to "have the least impact on adjacent private property in Ester, we recommend under this scenario that the circuits be combined (on a single tower) …. A double circuit 230-kV structure with restrained insulator strings can fit in a 100-ft right of way." A single tower system near private property holdings eliminates the need to extend the right of way and offers the same degree of reliability currently provided (which is extremely high).

ABR's report highlights the potential problems associated with the "warm" permafrost and "highly sensitive" soils of the fens and the Tanana Flats. The environmental damage that would result from major construction in the flats must be weighed in DNR's decision-making process. If some of the worst case scenarios outlined in the ABR report occur, the maintenance costs would be significantly increased and may result in a shorter project life span than other alternatives. It would significantly reduce the benefit/cost ratio of Rex/South.

Building an intertie through the fens constitutes a large uncontrolled experiment, with an outcome that cannot be predicted. We know that the foundations for the existing uplands towers have been stable for the last 34 years! We also know that the almost $300 million HCCP experiment has been a dismal failure.

The environmental costs of Rex/South are much greater than building in the existing upland corridor. The DEIS shows that Rex/South impacts the greatest number of migrating birds and adversely affects habitat for nearly all species. (The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has been on record since 1995 opposed to the Rex/South route.) The destruction of wetlands and habitat plus the vehement public opposition to Rex/South clearly tilts the decision in favor of choosing the R1 route through the uplands.

The evidence presented in both reports leaves no doubt that construction of the intertie across the Tanana Flats would likely result in serious environmental degradation and increased economic burdens to ratepayers. A massive power line between Fairbanks and the Alaska Range would be a constant reminder of shortsighted planning for one of the most important land-use issues the Interior has ever faced. We expect DNR to preserve the public's trust by making the only right decision, the one that is in the public's best interest. The evidence DNR sought from these expert consultants favors building on stable soils that are not subject to the increases in global warming and permafrost degradation. In the long run it will be a win-win situation for GVEA and the public if route selection is based on science, economics, and the values of the majority of co-op members. The choice clearly lies in favor of the Uplands route.

Respectfully,
Steering Committee, GVEA Ratepayers Alliance
Dan Adams, Ed Davis, Stacey Fritz, Coert Olmsted, Sean McGuire, Dan Swift

Fens' and the Flats

August 20, 2000, Fairbanks Daily News Miner

By Andrew Balser

Any Fairbanksan who hadn't heard of the Tanana Flats before this year has
likely heard of it by now given the breadth of the intertie debate.

The Flats is Fairbanks' front yard, the platter serving up our view of the
mountains. But what's in the Flats themselves? Some trees, shrubs, a
number of moose; the things you would naturally guess. Plus there's a whole
lot more.

My interest in the Tanana Flats centers around the work I did to earn my
master's degree at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. My goal was to
develop an improved method for mapping large wetlands, and in the course
of my research I learned a great deal about the unique "floating-mat fen"
wetlands that cover about 40 square miles.

What makes these fens unique is that they are essentially a series of lakes
covered from shore to shore by a floating mat of vegetation.

The water comes from upwellings scattered throughout the fens and is held
in by the forested soils along the south bank of the Tanana River. There are
several places where the water slowly trickles out into the river, spilling
down miniature waterfalls four to six feet high.

This area is unusually productive for vegetation, and offers prime wildlife
habitat, including breeding grounds for swans. Everyone I have spoken with
considers these floating-mat fens entirely unique.

In all the debate over the Intertie, I have heard very little about these fens,
even though the proposed route would run over roughly twelve miles of this
terrain. The best interest finding and the environmental impact statement say
nothing more than that they A) plan to disturb the landscape as little as
possible in constructing an intertie, B) they know there are some 'fens' out
there, and C) they don't expect there will be a problem.

There is no discussion of the specific rationale. They do mention having
looked at some ecological research done by Chuck Racine and Jim Walters
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as partial justification.

I helped collect some of the information used in that study, and I am plenty
familiar with their work, and I know of nothing in that research that suggests
those fens are a good or stable place to build an intertie. Further, I can point
out some reasons why it might be a very poor choice.

The first reason is that such construction carries a very real risk of
eliminating those fens. The proposed route weaves in and out of the soil
banks that hold the water. In many areas those soil banks are less than 100
feet wide, and should they tear out, the fens behind them would presumably
drain.

Also, landforms within the fens can and do change rapidly. Large tracts of
forest slump into the wetlands, going from dry land to ten foot deep water in
just a few years. For example, aerial photography taken by NASA in 1978
and 1986 shows segments of birch forest, each the size of a couple football
fields, slumping into the fens within that eight-year period. One area in
particular, about 300 feet wide by 400 feet long, lies directly beneath the
route of the proposed intertie. Field visits in 1993, 1994 and 1995 showed
that this sort of thing had also been happening elsewhere in the fens.

I am certainly no engineer, so I cannot predict exactly what pitfalls a project
like the proposed intertie might face on the Tanana Flats. The trouble is, I
haven't seen anything in the best interest finding, the environmental impact
statement or elsewhere in which anyone, much less an engineer, does
address these impacts to our public trust resources.

This lack of consideration for how the fens and the proposed intertie might
affect each other, in concert with prevalent public sentiment against the
proposed route, suggest to me that pursuing it is a poor idea, and GVEA's
reasons for so stubbornly pursuing it are a mystery to me.

Andrew Balser studied the Tanana Flats as a graduate student at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks.

POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES TO THE REX/SOUTH ROUTE ACROSS THE TANANA FLATS

After years of looking at the Intertie issue, why didn?t DNR and BLM come up with a successful alternative route that didn?t cross the Tanana Flats? Our sense of this question is that when they began the process, the agencies set forth the several alternatives to be examined.? They undertook a thorough examination of these routes and the impacts associated with each of them.? But when the two major sticking points became apparent with the non-Tanana Flats alternatives, i.e. private property impacts and cost, the analysis stopped there.? The agencies threw up their collective hands, concluded that the route would have to cross the Tanana Flats, and have been locked in a mental straightjacket ever since. They did not ask the essential followup question necessary to find a viable alternative?what can we do to reduce those impacts and costs

Thus, critical issues and possibilities were never examined, such as:

* Stitching together segments of the EIS alternatives to develop a route which avoids most private property impacts, a simple step.

* Narrowing the Intertie corridor to reduce the level of impact to those private properties where conflict is unavoidable, even though it is a common practice in the Lower 48 to place transmission towers close together, and to do it safely, reliably, and in a manner that satisfies electric codes and standards.

* Examining the possibilities of a cross town route to eliminate the additional expenses of the loop around Fairbanks.

* Minor route alterations to cut costs. According to GVEA it is far more expensive to build in the uplands because concrete has to be poured for tower foundations there. Some of the key EIS alternatives run through a lot of upland adding millions to their cost.? Yet, looking at a map, it appears that by slight adjustments these could be run through lowlands instead of hills.

Because the agencies never performed these analyses, it is not possible for the public to put together a definitive alternative and associated costs.? Nevertheless, using the figures, the work done to date and the analysis prepared by William Mazotti, the engineer that the GVEA Ratepayers Alliance hired to study this issue, it is possible to put a strong case together.?

Two such alternatives now exist.?The first is Mr. Mazotti?s analysis, which recommends using the existing corridor to the Goldhill substation just outside Fairbanks and then follow a route across town.? This cross town route would run along the existing corridor from the substation to where it intersects the Parks highway near the University, then 2.3 miles underground along the edge of the Parks Highway to the other side of the airport runway where the existing underground line resurfaces.? From there a double circuit (one tower holding two lines) would be run along the Parks/Mitchell to the point where it reaches the existing double circuit. From that point or near that point, the line would run down to the levee system south of town and thence to South Cushman and up to the new Wilson substation.? By staying outside town, this route minimizes impacts to private property and residences.

To minimize impacts to private properties and reduce costs, Mazotti recommends placing towers closer together in those areas where there are private property conflicts.? GVEA objects to this approach, though it is a common practice in the Lower 48 in areas where space is limited.

The second is an amalgamated route, which was put together to avoid the greater number of private properties near the existing Intertie.? As opposed to 222 private parcels within 150 feet of the existing corridor(our unofficial count), only 29 do so with this route. It relies on the same cross town route as Mazotti and would use the same corridor narrowing techniques to reduce impacts.

The cost estimate for this route is detailed below. Importantly, this route and its associated costs were presented to GVEA to see where the utility disagreed with the numbers and to make sure that it would not claim that they were inaccurate.? GVEA does not disagree with the figures presented in this outline.

Length of amalgamated route to Goldhill ? 102 miles substation?

Cost (based on comparison to North route,? $50 M(million) attached chart)

Saved cost by minor route adjustments ? -$3 M

Total to Goldhill substation ? $47? M

Goldhill substation improvements? $8? M

2.3 miles underground @ $2.1 million/mile ? $5? M

8 miles above ground ?$2.5? M

Total cost $62? M

State Grant to GVEA (discussed below) $56? M

Extra cost to GVEA ?$6.5 M

Cost of Rex/South route $49.5 M

(This number is based on GVEA?s current cost estimate for the Intertie, which is

?$47-52 M; personal communication, Steve Haagenson )

State Grant to GVEA--The legislature granted GVEA $43 million in 1993.? According to GVEA, that money has been invested in interest bearing bonds, and as of last September had grown by $11 million.? By a conservative straight line extrapolation, that will be worth nearly $13 million next month, and growing at the rate of roughly $2 million per year.? Thus, the state grant has expanded to 56 million, which will absorb most of the additional expenses of avoiding the Rex/South route.? This is a point that both the EIS and BIF have not considered in their cost calculations.

Thus, even working with the sometimes questionable numbers in the EIS, which often show a bias towardsRex/South, this route is clearly cost competitive, adding a fiscal burden of only $6.5 million to GVEA, a far cry from the $34 million extra which the utility has claimed would be necessary.