Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS Intertie EIS Process and Enviromental Work Plan 1997CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. —( Ga ) kectric Dear ASSOCIATION, INC. DSnamne Geo September 4, 1997 D E GC E | VE } Alaska Industrial Development SED and Export Authority SEP - 9 1997 480 West Tudor Road Alaska Industrial Selemen Anchorage, Alaska 99503 and Export Authority Attention: Mr. Randy Simmons, Acting Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie, EIS Process Scoping Report Dear Mr. Simmons: Enclosed is a copy of the Scoping Report and the Work Plan prepared by Dames and Moore in response to issues raised during the scoping process for the EIS phase of the above subject project. It includes documentation of all comments received as well as how they will be addressed in the EIS. This report has been accepted by the federal agencies involved in the EIS preparation and forms the basis for the EIS itself. If you have any questions please contact Dora Gropp, Project Manager at (907) 762-4626 by phone, or by e-mail to dora_gropp@chugachelectric.com or by fax to (907) 762-4617. = a Bjornsta General Manager evn fe Enclosures: Scoping Report and Work Plan Sincerely, C: Lee Thibert Mike Massin IPG Technical Committee, w/ Dennis McCrohan W.O. E9590081, Sec.2.1.2.1 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive * RO. Box 196300 * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WORK PLAN SEPTEMBER 1997 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT FINAL EVAL WORK PLAN prepared for Rural Utilities Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared by Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Dames & Moore POWER Engineers, Inc. September 2, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction a -11-r-t-1 eee eRe eee er eee ere eee Re EER riaeiaer 1 TASKS oxo oFe eo or ev ere Ta + yes oRSIE C= -TT SOIT Te YR <TSIO TT STATS IEE Brae yo ose ee 3 Scoping eaceemmcrn nner reir seerreraooee ener aeeeaen care 3 EnvironmentalrAnalysisaaeretrrayrioe Ciesla ere sia eee seirr sibilities 3 INVentOry merarererersterer etter Teel ltt eiltr eee eee ee Cerys err 3 Impact Assessment and Mitigation Planning .............. 00.0 eee ee eee eee eee 5 ImpactYAssessment scr -roro ot tele eciiel eis o ee iro eles) alia eiee aie 5 Site-specific Models ..... 0... cece eee eee eee nee ene tenn e ee eeenees 7 Mitigation: Planning yep gcce re teree where o tole er are Kore coe iecia feed overeV oreo Te lave) ayers seieiore e021 7 Alternatives Comparison and Ranking ......... 0.0... cece cece eee eee eens 8 BIS) Preparation merayoyepeyeseretel- oot tore te torctolorereie tore Ieper carers sree 8 FEIS Preparation and Record of Decision ................ 0s eee eee e eee e ee eens 9 Public/Agency Involvement ......... 0... eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eeeeees 9 Engineering Supportiacye cr rrtetetcleltetteteioiertelorrierr erro teretels terre ikke elvosiostt: 9 Project Schedule eyaperereversratormieusis eieaorarecencrere <latoreiojeyataislaieha1o1 4) lave wicrere( acl aise lesa 10 Appendix A - EVAL Table of Contents Appendix B - Environmental Laws, Authority, and Related Statutes and Orders LIST OF FIGURES 1 Alternative Corridors Map ......... 0... eee eee eee ee eee eee e enna 2 2 ProjecttApproach ~ qaaammun sass cis same icisiisireicireieielereieieleteleloreleleletersicteleleleraters 4 3 Impacts Assessment/Mitigation Planning Process.............. cece cece eee eee eee 6 P:\09203\000\EVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD 1 INTRODUCTION The proposed Southern Intertie Project (Project) Environmental Analysis (EVAL) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared under the guidance of the following documents: = Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) = Work Plan = Scoping Report The MOU identifies the purpose for preparing the EVAL and EIS, and the procedures and responsibilities of each party. The EIS will be prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The seven utilities that are collectively known as the Intertie Participants Group (IPG) are jointly identified as the Applicant. The Lead Federal Agency is the Rural Utilities Service (RUS); and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and USDA Forest Service (USFS) are Cooperating Agencies. The Scoping Report describes the public scoping process, identifies issues, and explains the technical approach to address the issues identified in the EVAL. This Work Plan is an attachment to the MOU, and presents the study tasks, schedule, and format for preparing the EVAL. The Route Selection Study (1996) identified potentially feasible alternative routes between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage (Figure 1). P:\09203\009\EVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD THN TWN TBN TON T4N Noi Alternative Corridors Studied NOL Ned NOL Nel Southern Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage to Kenai 2||_ Peninsula Transmission Line Resource Legend State Park (=) Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 2 Chugach National Forest C1 Private, Borough, or State Selected Lands Source Data / Description: | Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chug: Netonal Fort (is93). Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994). USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. General Reference Features /\/ Inventory Corridor Section Grid /\/ _— Abtecnative Route Ree @ e[s[sjaje|s ICANN aa 7/6] @ 10 [12/0 A va] 7 6) 16) 14) 19] = ‘Substations 10|20]21/22| 20/24] AE colt '30/26|28|27|20|26] = Pipeline 31]32|33|94|98|96 Study Area Boundary Rivers and Streams ee A Oi Platform o4 3 6 Miles () Lakeoftatet i a Bt Hakoon/siplwcope 1pt6-91ckd-com. ml 092030000020 18/97/ Figure 1 TASKS The tasks for the Southern Intertie Work Plan include scoping, EVAL and EIS preparation, as illustrated in Figure 2, Project Approach, and are described in the following sections. SCOPING The first step of the NEPA process is “scoping,” which is open to the public and conducted early in the project to identify the range of alternatives and issues to be addressed during the preparation of the EIS (40 CFR 1501.7). A Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed in the Federal Register on October 9, 1996; and scoping meetings were held on November 12, 13, and 14, 1996 in Anchorage, Cooper Landing and Soldotna respectively. During scoping, comments were solicited from the relevant agencies and the public in order to identify the issues and concerns associated with the Proposed Project. Final alternatives will be examined for environmental issues, public concern, and engineering criteria. The scoping report documents the results of the scoping process. The issues identified during scoping will be addressed in the EIS. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The purpose of the EVAL is to conduct an environmental inventory, assess impacts and compare alternatives in order to determine an environmentally preferred alternative for the Project and provide information for the EIS. The results of these studies will be documentedin an EVAL report, which will be organized for use in preparing the EIS (refer to Appendix A for a detailed outline). Inventory The objectives of the resource inventories are to develop a database of environmental resources within the alternative corridors in sufficient detail to (1) prepare the affected environment section of the EVAL and (2) 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 will be incorporated into the inventory and refined through current (1996) aerial photography, field verification (as appropriate), additional research, agency contact, and public input. The major natural, human, and cultural resources to be studied are listed below. P:\09203\0ONEV AL\WORK-PLN.WPD 5 SCOPING CORRIDOR STUDIES EIS PREPARATION ee SCOPING TASKS INVENTORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DRAFT EIS FINAL EIS MITIGATION PLANNING SELECTION ANALYSIS REPORT (EVAL) LEAD AGENCY ick i i agency ion, evie iew and app aera ence Oe athe) MOL its) Rio ay (eo COOPERATING FXO) (OLN) ¢ US. Fish and Wildlife Service ¢ US. Forest Service MUS BLO PARTICIPANTS GROUP ENGINEERING CONSULTANT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/ AGENCY CONTACT PROGRAM PROJECT APPROACH SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT EIS Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Dames & Moore Figure 2 = Human Environment - land use - recreation management areas and facilities - visual resources - socioeconomics - subsistence uses = Natural Environment - climate and air quality - biology - marine environment - geologic hazards - avalanche hazard = Cultural Environment - history - archaeology - Native American The results of the resource inventory of the alternative corridors will be documented in the EVAL, and will be incorporated into the affected environment section of the EIS. The inventory sections and inventory maps will be distributed to the Federal Lead and Cooperating agencies. mpact e: nd Mitigati annin 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 in Figure 3, Impacts Assessment and Mitigation Planning Process. Impact Assessment Impacts can be beneficial (positive) or adverse (negative), and can result from the project action 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 beyond. 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, P.\09203\000°XEVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD 5 Alternative Proposed Affected Selection Action Environment Environmen tal Conseq juences PROJECT DESCRIPTION * Design * Construction © Operation * Maintenance * Abandonment ACCESS ROADS GENERICALLY COMMITTED MITIGATION EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL ¢ Natural Environment Air quality Climate 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 RESOURCE SENSITIVITY CRITERIA Determine the sensitivity of environmental resources to changes associated with the proposed project. IMPACT TYPES Determine how the proposed action would specifically affect the environment. IMPACT LOCATIONS Determine where the proposed action would specifically affect the environment. INITIAL IMPACTS Apply impact criteria and determine degree to which environment would be affected. MITIGATION ASSESSMENT Determine whether mitigation is warranted. Identify key areas where data refinement is needed to recommend mitigation. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend selective mitigation measure(s) and describe effectiveness. RESIDUAL IMPACTS — PRELIMINARY— Reassess impacts and determine impact level after recommended mitigation is applied. SELECTIVELY COMMITTED MITIGATION Review and selectively commit to recommended mitigation. RESIDUAL IMPACT — FINAL — Assess final residual impact level and determine any unavoidable significant adverse impacts remaining after committed mitigation is applied. * SCREEN AND COMPARE ALTERNATIVES «SELECT ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT EIS Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Dames & Moore Figure 3 to a full modification of the environment. Significance of impacts will be established based on the context and intensity of the anticipated change (40 C.F.R. 1508.27). Impact assessment and mitigation planning will require a complete understanding of the proposed action 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. Qualitative and quantitative variables of resource sensitivity, resource quantity, and estimated ground disturbance will be considered in predicting the magnitude of impacts, which are described in three levels—low, moderate, and high. A low impact results when the proposed action is expected to cause slight or insignificant adverse change to the resource. A moderate impact results when the proposed project action is expected to cause some adverse change that may be substantial and selective mitigation may be warranted. A high impact results when the proposed action is expected to result in substantial or significant change to the resources and selective mitigation is warranted in most cases. The significance of environmental impacts from the Project will be defined based on the context and intensity as defined in NEPA. Site-specific Models Impact models will be developed as appropriate to (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 will be documented on maps, 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 will be summarized by resource for each alternative. Mitigation Planning Once initial impacts are identified for each resource along alternative routes, specific (or selective) mitigation measures will be recommended where warranted. The impacts remaining after assigning mitigation are referred to as “residual” impacts. Two types of mitigation will be 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 will be incorporated into the initial impact levels. Selective mitigation will be determined on a case by case, or “selective” basis after initial impacts are identified. P:\09203\009\EV AL\WORK-PLN.WPD 7 Alternatives Comparison and Ranking The objectives of the alternatives comparison process is 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) ranking of alternatives, and (3) provide the basis for the alternative comparison in Chapter 2 of the EVAL and subsequently in the EIS. The comparison of alternatives is centered around a screening approach designed to assist in narrowing options for the ranking of alternative routes. The screening process will result in (1) characterization of the impacts of alternative routes, (2) comparison of alternative routes, and (3) the environmental ranking of alternative routes. The concept of characterizing impacts is central to the comparison of alternatives. Simply stated, the purpose is to assign general impact levels to segments or routes to distinguish the magnitude of potential impacts. The basis for characterizing impacts will include a combination of (1) baseline data; (2) levels of 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 this data will be synthesized into general levels of potential impact (low to high), and used to characterize one overall impact level for entire route segments. The comparison process will be conducted with input from Community Working Groups (CWG), and the Agencies. As a result of the comparison of alternatives an environmentally preferred alternative will be identified. The IPG’s proposed alternative which incorporates considerations for environmental, feasibility/cost and public/agency factors may also be included in the EVAL. EIS PREPARATION The EIS will be organized in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 40 CFR 1500 - 1508. The general outline for the EIS is described below. Cover Sheet Summary Table of Contents Purpose & Need Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Affected Environment Environmental Consequences List of Preparers To Whom Copies Are Sent Index Appendix P:\09203\009\EVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD 8 The Title 11, Transportation/Utility Systems Permit Application as required by Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), will be prepared in conjunction with the EIS and will be filed with the USFWS and USFS 16 months prior to an anticipated Record of Decision. FEIS Preparation and Record of Decision Comments received during the public review of the DEIS will be summarized and responsibility for developing responses will be appropriately assigned. Following development of the responses, both comments and responses will be incorporated into the preliminary Final EIS (FEIS). Based on the comments on the preliminary FEIS, the FEIS will be finalized and filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), followed by public review and comment. Following the release of the FEIS the Agencies will prepare their Record of Decision. Public/Agency Involvement Public and agency involvement will be an integral part of all the activities described above and will include the following: Agency meetings CWG meetings scoping meetings agency and special interest group presentations public hearings newsletters media relations/public announcements Engineering Su rt Technical informationneeded for the alternative analysis, project description, impact assessment and mitigation sections of the EIS, as well as for public meetings, will-be provided as a part of the engineering support. This information will include the following: purpose and need statement alternatives project facilities construction activities and schedule operation characteristics (including electric and magnetic fields and noise characteristics) maintenance procedures cost estimates P.\09203\00°\EVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD 9 PROJECT SCHEDULE Key scheduled activities include the following: = Submit Draft EVAL October 13, 1997 = Submit ANILCA Application November 1997 = Submit Final EVAL November 17, 1997 = Draft EIS and review August 1998 (completed within 9 months of ANILCA Application) m Final EIS and review November 1998 (completed within 12 months of ANILCA Application) = Record of Decision March 1999 (within 16 months of ANILCA Application) P:\09203\000\EVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD 1 0 APPENDIX A EVAL TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A EVAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary Introduction Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need Background Planning Requirements, Environmental Review Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study Alternatives Studied in Detail No-action Alternative Proposed Action Project Description Alternative Routes Chapter 3 - Affected Environment Introduction Avalanche Climate Submarine Conditions Earth Resources Water Resources Biological Resources Land Use Socioeconomics Subsistence Visual Resources Cultural Resources Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Introduction Avalanche Submarine Conditions Earth Resources Water Resources Biological Resources Land Use Socioeconomics Subsistence P:\09203\009\EVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD A-l Visual Resources Cultural Resources Electric and Magnetic Fields and Effects Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Cumulative Effects Short-term Uses Versus Long-term Productivity Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination Introduction Agency and Public Scoping Co-lead Agencies Community Working Groups Agency Contacts Public Participation Environmental Justice Formal Consultation References Preparers and Contributors Acronyms Glossary Index Appendices A - Route Selection Process B - Alternative Routes Added and Eliminated C - Description of Alternative Routes P:\09203\000°\ EV AL\WORK-PLN.WPD A-2 APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, AUTHORITY, AND RELATED STATUTES AND ORDERS it APPENDIX B 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 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 5610.1c, 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. 1241 et seq., National Trails System Act 16 U.S.C. 1452, 1456, Sections 303 and 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq., Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 16 U.S.C. 1536, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 25 U.S.C. 3002, Section 3© 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 VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 4332 ANILCA (Section 810) Subsistence Evaluation P:\09203\000"\EVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD B- 1 43 U.S.C. Coastal barriers Resources Act of 1982 Executive order 11514, Protection and Environment of Environmental Quality, as amended by Executive Order 11991, dated May 24, 1977 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Environment of the Cultural Environment, dated May 13, 1971 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May 24, 1977 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, dated May 24, 1977 Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice, dated February 11, 1994 P:\09203\009\EVAL\WORK-PLN.WPD B-2