Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Report City of Seward Upgrade of Transmission Line Environmental Assessment 1984PAN ALO REPORT CITY OF SEWARB UPGRADE OF TRANSMISSION LINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT JANUARY 1984 Maas Boazgy Bighority LIBRARY COPY ISSUED TO HIGHSMITH = #42-222L | z m Zz CITY OF SEWARD UPGRADE OF TRANSMISSION LINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED JANUARY 1984 ée TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF ‘CONTENTS waasnsveemaeweanv se nes os 2 © mw ® LIST OF TABLES «© se wc wi ww teem TH TS ww ew LIST OF FIGURES .. 1... 2. 2 2 ee ee ew ww ew ee we we we eee we INTRODUCTION © 6 cw wi we we rw ww ww ww ew mS 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION. ...........2.-2.224. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ... 2... 2... ee eee ee ee 1.2 PERMITS . 2... 2. eee ee ee ee 1.2.1 Forest Service Right-Of-Way Permit ..... 1.2.2 Other Permits ..........4-4.+4..206- Vad “SCOPING «. sauce we ee wane moe wm wwe mH e ® 1.3.1 Summary of Activities ....... 1 ball Objectives, Issues, and Concerns ........ 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .......... 2.1 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Zula South Kenai Lake . . 2.1.2 Underground Line. ...... 2uled Underwater Line ... 2... 2 1 ee ee ee ee 2.1.4 Parallel Highway ...... 2uled Tern Lake Reroute ...........-. 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 2.2... eee Queel Facilities ..........2-2.224 2.2.2 Routing Alternatives ........ 2.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES... ......-248- 2:00 Engineering and Cost Comparison. g.dat Environmental Comparison. ........-+.. 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .. 1... 1. ee ee ee eee 3.2 WATER RESOURCES .... 2... ee eee ee ee 3.3 VEGETATION . se ew we wm eww we 3.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE «6 6 wc te te we HTH ee Hw 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES... . 2... 2. 2 ee ee ee ee 3.6 RECREATION RESOURCES ........ 2.2. 1 ee ee eee 9.7 VISUAL RESOURCES . . sc ws aes tte ws Hew Hew 2 3.8 LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMICS =1i= NMMMNMM | WWNN— 9 G9) C9 9 G9 G2 G9 G9 Ounnwown— 1 . 2-1 ny I > TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . . 2. 2 2 1 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 1 2 3 4 aa 6 7 8 PPPHP pH SSL 5-0) LIST OF PREPARERS = 5 2 25 eg 2 ee er se eer 5a) Su REFERENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E GEOLOGY AND SOILS 2. 2. 1 ww ee wee te wwe we ws WATER RESOURCES 2. 2 5 c.5 eS ew ww ae VEGETATION Ce es eee se cl esr hla} 6 mee kos 2 FISH ANDIWILOLIFE 2 2 2a ase oe eh a oe : CULTURAL RESOURCES: = © 5 2 ee swe ew ew te ee RECREATION RESOURCES ... ~~. 2.2 2-2 ee ses svvese VISUALZRESOURCES 3 2 ser 5 oe 3 oe oe © LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMICS ..........-. Cn FOREST SERVICE PERSONNEL... .... ee te ees EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED PERSONNEL... ... PERMITS REQUIRED =e 536k aa ee ae ew wee AGENCY CONTACTS... ... 2... ee ee G PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES .......... ae STANDARD MITIGATION MEASURES .. ~~... 2... eee oe VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT METHODS. ....... 2... -11i- PH SHH HHL I S]=oOIYSWn— nn 1 a) 1 Oo wn 1 — ' LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Crossings of Anadromous Fish Streams .......... 2. . 3-4 Daves Creek - Seward Transmission Line 3-2 Existing Visual Quality -- Daves Creek ............ 3-7 Seward Transmission Line LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Wood Pole Tangent Structure... 2-6 2-2 Typical Double Circuit Structure 2-7 2-3 Existing Transmission Line Route .. . . 2-9 2-4 Seward Substation Approach and Daves Creek “substation Relocation... oe ee 2-12 2-5 Golden Fin Trail Reroute “and “Railroad Corridor. Reroute we ee 2-14 2-6 Snow River Crossing Reroutes AandB .........4.4 44.4. 2-16 2-7 Snow River Crossing 24.9 kV Underground Route ......... 2-17 2-8 Typical Underground Segments ...... 2.2. ee ee ee ee 2-18 2-9 Kenai Lake Avalanche Area Reroute ......... +++ 4+. 2-21 2-10 Kenai Lake Avalanche Underground ......... 4+ 4+ + + 2-22 2-11 Upper Trail Lake Reroute ..... 2... 2 ee ee ee ee ee 2724 2-12 Tern bake Area 2.3 3 wels wie we eee wwe ow ew wo we eo 2R26 2-13 Photo Simulation - Snow River Crossing Existing Alignment . . . 2-33 2-14 Photo Simulation - Snow River Crossing Reroute A ....... 2-34 2-15 Photo Simulation - Kenai Lake Avalanche Area Existing Alignment . 2... 1 1 ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee 2-36 2-16 Photo Simulation - Kenai Lake Avalanche Area Reroute .... . 2-37 2-17 Photo Simulation - Upper Trail Lake Reroute .......... 2-38 -iv- INTRODUCTION This environmental document was prepared by Ebasco Services Incorporated for the City of Seward. The format follows that recommended by the NEPA Regulations (40 CFR Part 1502.10). The proposed action is the grant of a utility permit for putting an electrical transmission line on national forest land. Section 1.0 is a discussion of the purpose of and need for action. It tells the who, what, when, where, and why of the project. Section 1.0 also includes a brief review of the permits needed for project approval, a summary of project planning activities, and a review of project objectives, issues, and concerns. Section 2.0 presents a discussion of the alternatives, including those dropped from consideration and those receiving further evaluation. A brief comparison is made of the alternatives with respect to several important environmental Parameters. These parameters include geology, soils, water resources, vegetation, fish, wildlife, recreation, visual resources, land use, and socioeconomics. Section 3.0 includes a description of the affected environment, while Section 4.0 discusses the environmental consequences of each alternative. Both sections follow the sequence of environmental parameters defined in Section 2.0. A list of preparers appears in Section 5.0. Brief resumes summarize each team Member's education, experience, and responsibilities in this project. A complete list of references follows Section 5.0. The Appendices include a list of agency contacts, a detailed discussion of permits required for the project, a summary of public involvement activities, a discussion of land use mitigation measures, and an explanation of the visual resource assessment and evaluation procedure. 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1. Project Description The City of Seward is proposing to upgrade their existing 24.9 kV transmission line. The 40-mile line connects the City's Seward Substation and Chugach Electric Association's Daves Creek Substation. Construction of the line is proposed for the 1984 construction season. It is proposed that the existing right-of-way will be used for most of the route. The proposed new system would transmit power at 115 kV. A 24.9 kV distribution line would also be included. New routes are proposed on some sections to minimize avalanche hazards and to improve access for repair crews. The existing transmission line is the City of Seward's main source of electric power. Recent growth in Seward is taxing the capabilities of the system, and the 24.9 kV line is already beyond its capacity limits by present-day standards. The City's current peak load of approximately 5 MW results in a line loss of approximately 20 percent. Three prior studies have concluded that prompt action is required to provide reliable service to the City. The City is expecting more economic growth in the future. The following load and energy requirements have been forecast for the year 2014 (Ebasco 1983): Low Growth Moderate High Scenario Growth Scenario Growth Scenario Peak Load in 2014 12.18 MW 16.56 MW 27.49 MW Energy in 2014 58387 MWH 68424 MW 82885 MWH The existing transmission system is incapable of serving the area's future electrical needs, even under low-growth conditions. The existing line is also exposed to avalanches, and has suffered avalanche damage in the past. Outages can last a week or longer. Repair crews must wait for the avalanche hazard to pass, and must sometimes wait for road clearing before the line is accessible. 5804B 1-1 The City's diesel generators serve as the interim power source while repairs are made to the transmission system. Diesel power is more expensive for the City, and will not completely serve the forecasted future load. 1.2 PERMITS 1.2.1 Forest Service Right-Of-Way Permit A survey permit was required for surveying the right-of-way. The necessary survey permit was issued in September, 1983. The proposed action is the grant of a special use permit for locating the transmission line on national forest land. Two special use permits are currently in effect: one for the City of Seward and one for Chugach Electric Association. One or both permits will have to be reissued. 1.2.2 Other Permits Several other permits are required by various federal and state agencies. They include the following: Agency Type of Permit Alaska Office of Management and Budget Coastal consistency determination Alaska Railroad Railroad right-of-way Alaska Dept. Fish & Game Habitat protection Alaska Dept. Natural Resources State lands right-of-way Alaska Dept. Transportation Utility permit & Public Facilities U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredge and fill (related to wetlands) Federal Aviation Administration Construction in vicinity of airport (notification only) In addition, air quality control permits are required by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for any burning of debris, brush, trees, or garbage. Burning permits are also required by the Forest Service. If a construction camp is needed, ADEC requires permits for solid waste disposal, 58048 waste-water disposal, and food service. A construction camp may be provided by the construction contractor under the provisions of the Outside Agreement between Associated General Contractors and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local #1547. A more detailed discussion of required permits appears in Appendix A. 163 SCOPING 1.3.1 Summary of Activities The project was initiated by the applicant, the City of Seward. As consultant to the City, Ebasco Services Incorporated provided a team of engineers and scientists to work with the applicant defining the scope of the project, identifying the objectives, issues, and concerns, and completing the project through the survey, design and permitting phases. Disciplines represented on Ebasco's planning team included electrical and civil engineering, surveying, economics, plant ecology, geology, hydrology, wildlife biology, visual resource management, archeology and land use planning. Brief resumes of the team members appear in Section 5.0, List of Preparers. The team analyzed the affected environment and estimated environmental effects using data provided by the applicant, other published and unpublished reports, aerial photographs, personal consultations, and on-site visits. Team members reviewed the 1974 Chugach National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1974a) and 1982 Draft Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 1982a) to see that the transmission line would not be in conflict with those plans. Two public meetings were held; one in Moose Pass and one in Seward. Interested federal and state agencies were contacted individually. A more detailed discussion of public involvement activities appears in Appendix C. Agency Contacts are discussed further in Appendix B. 5804B 1-3 All supporting data for the project and this environmental assessment, including memoranda, letters, reports, meeting summaries, maps, and photographs, are on file with Ebasco Services Incorporated, Bellevue, Washington. The entire file will be transmitted to the City of Seward upon completion of the project. 1.3.2 Objectives, Issues, and Concerns The City of Seward's objectives are: 1. To provide cost-effective, reliable electrical service to its current customers; 2. To construct a transmission system capable of handling forecasted load growth through the year 2014; a. To complete construction of the system in the 1984 construction season. Issues and concerns were identified by the City, by the public, and by interested federal and state agencies. The following summarize the significant issues and concerns: i Service Reliability - Can avalanche related outages be minimized through design or rerouting alternatives? - Can the line and substations be designed for easy Maintenance, enabling the City to keep the system in good repair? - Can rerouting make the transmission line more accessible to repair crews? 5804B 2. Environmental Concerns - Will the transmission line and substations be visually obtrusive? Can routes be selected that will minimize adverse visual impacts? - Can the system be built and maintained without undue environmental impact, particularly to wetlands, waterfowl, fish, and water resources? 3. Other Concerns - Will the system represent the most cost-effective method of providing reliable electrical service? - Will impacts on private landowners be minimized? 5804B 1-5 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY As a result of project team investigations and coordination with agency and utility personnel, four general guidelines were reached concerning selecting routing alternatives (Ebasco 1983). First, avalanche hazards were to be minimized where possible; second, clearing costs were to be minimized where possible; third, routing designs which necessitate extensive permitting requirements were to be avoided; and fourth, routes were to be chosen that would improve access for non-scheduled maintenance. Based on these considerations, five potential alternatives were eliminated from further study. Five potential reroutes and revisions at two substations were investigated further. 2.1.1 South Kenai Lake The possibility of constructing a transmission line from Chugach Electric Association's Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project to the City of Seward was investigated. A line from the Cooper Lake Project to Seward would proceed east along the south shore of Kenai Lake toward Block Mountain and then would run south along Kenai Lake to a point where it intercepts the existing line near Snow River. The advantage of this route is that it would reduce the overall length of transmission line required for the project by 10 miles. Line losses would probably be reduced, and the existing transmission system would be improved because two routes would be available to transmit power to Seward. The disadvantages of constructing a line along the south and west shore of Kenai Lake are as follows: a) the area is essentially unroaded; b) the terrain is steep; c) there are few landing areas on the shoreline of Kenai Lake from which to unload equipment and supplies; d) maintenance would be difficult; e) the avalanche hazard is severe along portions of the route; f) the extra costs associated with overcoming the foregoing disadvantages would be prohibitive; g) environmental impacts could be significant; and h) permits 5805B 2-1 would probably be more difficult and time consuming to obtain. Thus, the South Kenai Lake alternative was eliminated from detailed study. 2.1.2 Underground Line The potential for constructing an underground transmission line for the entire route, or at least in areas subject to severe avalanche damage, was investigated. Two major concerns influence the feasibility of constructing an underground transmission line. First, the voltage of the line greatly influences the type and cost of underground cable which would be required. Second, local conditions affect which installation techniques are practical and cost-effective. The cost of constructing a 69 kV or 115 kV transmission line is estimated to be 3 to 5 times greater than the equivalent overhead line (Ebasco 1983). For this reason, it would not be economically feasible to construct the entire 115 kV line underground. Transmission lines with a voltage of 35 kV or lower can be installed underground much more economically than higher voltage lines, although the cost is still greater than aboveground lines. It was not found to be economically feasible to construct the entire 24.9 kV line underground. Nevertheless, Ebasco investigated the cost-effectiveness of constructing segments of both the 115 kV and 24.9 kV lines underground where avalanche hazards prevail. Segments where one or both lines will be placed underground are discussed in Section 2.2. 2.1.3 Underwater Line The use of underwater cables across Kenai Lake would have the advantage of avoiding avalanche areas without significantly increasing the overall length of the line. However, several disadvantages make the use of underwater cables infeasible, including a) the need for cable laying equipment; b) the need to construct cable laying barges in sections at a shipyard and then transport them to Kenai Lake for assembly; c) the need to maintain the cable laying 5805B oe, barges at Kenai Lake for maintenance purposes; and d) the difficulty associated with correcting problems during winter months when the lake is partially or completely frozen. Due to the problems described above, underwater cables cost 5 to 8 times more to install than an equivalent overhead line. Because of the higher cost and the difficulty of providing Maintenance, the underwater cable option is not appropriate for use on the Seward transmission system. 2.1.4 Parallel Highway An alternative that was considered in order to minimize or eliminate access problems was the relocation of the proposed transmission line adjacent to the highway for its entire length. Disadvantages of this alternative include: a) the potential for causing significant visual impacts; b) the probable requirement that a full environmental impact statement would need to be prepared; c) the increased time and difficulty of obtaining right-of-way permits from the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; d) the requirement that a great number of angle points would be needed which would increase costs (angle points are places along the transmission line where the line turns, instead of going straight); and e) reliability may be decreased because the line would be more subject to damage from vehicles. For these reasons, the parallel highway alternative was eliminated from detailed study. The feasibility of using Alaska Department of Transportation and the Alaska Railroad right-of-way in specific areas was investigated. The only segment found to be potentially advantageous for a combined transmission line and transportation corridor was the Railroad corridor reroute. It is described in Section 2.2.2.4. 2.1.5 Tern Lake Reroute The slopes east and north of Tern Lake are avalanche hazard areas. Recent avalanches in the area have caused maintenance problems. An alternative was investigated which would reroute the transmission line away from the avalanche chute. The reroute would have located the transmission line at the southern edge of Tern Lake. It would have increased facility visibility by placing the 5805B 2-3 transmission line within the primary view of the Tern Lake Scenic Turnout, by increasing the number of road crossings in the area, and by directly affecting the Tern Lake campgound. Because of concerns for the alternative's impact on private land and because of Forest Service concerns, this reroute was dropped from further consideration. Pole design and underground cable options were considered to deal with the avalanche hazard in the Tern Lake area. Section 2.2.2.9. 22 A description of each alternative follows. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES They are discussed further in The alternatives are not mutually exclusive, and the proposal does not consist of any single alternative. The proposal is a composite of transmission facilities, substation facilities, part of the existing right-of-way (ROW) alignment, and several rerouted ROW segments. The status of each alternative is as follows: Section Alternative Status Radelal Transmission Facilities Proposed ee Substation Facilities Proposed Qs2aenit Existing Alignment Proposed, with exceptions 2.2a2iee Seward Substation Approach Proposed te Golden Fin Trail Reroute Proposed @.2.2.4 Railroad Corridor Reroute Not proposed; maintain existing alignment 252 eno Snow River Crossing Reroute A Proposed Snow River Crossing Reroute B Not proposed Zen 260 Kenai Lake Avalanche Area Proposed underground Buese.t Upper Trail Lake Reroute Proposed Zeweae Daves Creek Substation Relocation Not proposed S.ts208 Tern Lake Proposed existing alignment 5805B 2.2.1 Facilities 2.2.1.1 Transmission Facilities The proposed project would consist primarily of wood pole, narrow profile structures similar to the one shown in Figure 2-1. The three conductors, supported on the upper portion of the pole, together constitute a 3-phase, overhead, 115 kV transmission line. The 115 kV line is known as the primary line. The cross arm on the lower portion of the pole would support the 24.9 kV line. The 24.9 kV line, which is located underneath the primary 115 kV line, is referred to as “underbuild". The underbuild would provide local electrical service to individual customers along the route while the primary line would serve as the main transmission line serving the City of Seward. Although the type of structure shown in Figure 2-1 will be used along most of the route, special structures will be required in certain areas. At places where the line turns (angle points), structures would require guy wires for support. Another type of structure known as a double circuit structure is shown in Figure 2-2. This or a similar type would be used for the portion of the route immediately north of Seward Substation. This type of structure is known as a double circuit structure because it will accommodate two 3-phase transmission lines on each structure. The smaller lines serving local customers can be underbuilt on double circuit poles as well. Double circuit structures will be used between Seward Substation and Nash Road because each structure in that area must accommodate two transmission lines. One of the required lines is the 115 kV transmission line between Daves Creek and Seward, while the other one is the 69 kV line between the Industrial Park and Seward Substation. 2.2.1.2 Substation Facilities Changes are proposed for both the Seward and Daves Creek Substations. At the Seward Substation two new transformers and new buswork are needed. Al] the development planned for Seward Substation could be accomplished within the existing substation yard because much of the equipment within the existing substation will be removed. 5805B 2-5 CITY OF SEWARD WOOD POLE TANGENT STRUCTURE 115kV TRANSMISSION 14.4/24.9 kV DISTRIBUTION TELEPHONE «|| 65’ WOOD POLE [DATE OCTOBER 1063 | riauAeE 21 + EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED CITY OF SEWARD TYPICAL DOUBLE CIRCUIT STRUCTURE OUTLINE 115 kV TRANSMISSION 12.5 kV UB DATE OCTOBER 1983 FIGURE 2.2 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 2-7 At Daves Creek Substation, a larger substation yard is required. The proposed layout for the new facilities at Daves Creek involves the installation of three circuit breakers and additional buswork. The proposed changes at Daves Creek will be accommodated in an expanded substation yard located to the east of the existing substation. The existing substation will remain intact. The new substation development, including the access road and parking area, will occupy approximately one acre. 2.2.2 Routing Alternatives 2.2.2.1 Existing Alignment Alternative The existing alignment alternative runs from Daves Creek Substation to Seward Substation, a distance of about 40 miles. This transmission line is over 25 years old. The Chugach section of the line from Lawing to Daves Creek is built as 24.9 kV construction using wood poles with horizontal wood crossarms. The Seward section of the line from Lawing to Seward Substation is 69 kV construction on wood poles using various configurations such as wishbone with crossarms, and H-frame with crossarms. The existing transmission line corridor is shown in Figure 2-3. Except as noted in the reroute alternatives, the existing corridor is proposed for this project. 2.2.2.2 Seward Substation Approach The proposed Seward Substation routing alternative would shorten the length of the line and eliminate an expensive angle point. An additional advantage of this alternative is that the line would no longer parallel the Seward Highway northwest of the Seward airport. The reroute is shown in Figure 2-4. The proposed alignment would not affect the portion of the route which crosses the approach to the airport. This alternative would be less costly than the existing alignment and would slightly reduce visual impacts to travelers on the Seward Highway. 5805B 2-8 f// {/ Yi, eeu = a Uf . /// Yi / <= ( Hf (ffs I} Ny WT Mga _) Hie x Pires OK ee SQN S hi) 1. = WY M \g Y= t : 05 p= r fs SS SCALE IN FEET ) \ 4 | CITY OF SEWARD {CITY OF SEWARD j iF y) | i ‘EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE ‘GES ) __ HL--TDATE December 1068] FIGURE gaa] “=*1_ | EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED BNE pope ‘ \ if S A bo i\\ a lS , @Q) UR TEES FS 8 a Hs CITY OF SEWARD Tiliss SCALE IN FEET, ((o/* DATE DECEMBER 1983 FIGURE 2.38 * V4 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 300 SS “< \ ; ( \}) SY SCALE IN FEET _R\ YN AAR SAS Ww ~ CITY OF SEWARD ; UPGRADE OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE DATE DECEMBER 1983 [FIGURE 23C | EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED ALTERNATIVE SUBSTATION ” —< ftiw— a” “sn | meme EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE =eo— POSSIBLE REALIGNMENT SEWARD HIGHWAY aE ; JIE ( {/ ih TLS Pitt SN STATION lee 2 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SEWARD AND DAVES CREEK SUBSTATION AREA REVISIONS DATE OCTOBER 198 FIGURE 2.4 “| EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED The City of Seward has plans to develop an RV and trailer park on the property between the proposed new alignment and the old right-of-way. If the area is developed, the new alignment will create a better appearance and provide a safer environment than the old alignment would. 2.2.2.3 Golden Fin Trail Reroute At approximately Line Mile 11.5, the present transmission line traverses a muskeg area, which could restrict vehicular travel and maintenance of the line during summer months (see Figure 2-5). The muskeg is elongated with a north-south axis and lies in a small depression scoured into bedrock by glacial action. To the west a steep, predominately bedrock slope rises from the muskeg and to the east there is a moderately sloping glacial till over bedrock slope. Golden Fin Hiking Trail passes through the muskeg. The transmission line currently has several poles located in the muskeg and each of the poles has a triangular wooden brace system. Also, several poles are located in a creek. These poles stand very straight, indicating that the soils and brace supply adequate bearing strength and lateral support. The present alignment is not thought to have geotechnical problems, although the taller poles of the proposed line will require special design consideration and a lateral support system. Realignment to the east by several hundred feet would avoid the muskeg and would greatly improve access for line maintenance. It would also increase the number of angles, require additional clearing ina new corridor and may increase visual impacts. Because the additional construction cost of the reroute is only slightly higher than following the existing route, the Golden Fin Trail reroute is included in the proposed project. 2.2.2.4 Railroad Corridor Reroute The Railroad Corridor Reroute has the advantage of following the Alaska Railroad right-of-way (see Figure 2-5). The reroute segment would be about 1.7 miles long compared to about 1.6 miles for the existing alignment. Although the Railroad Reroute would cross about 0.2 miles less muskeg than the 5805B 2-13 PNA] 7 eV dd TN UV =mmes EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE || JS =—=o-— POSSIBLE REALIGNMENT SEWARD HIGHWAY 0 0 oO fol rds C | SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SITE GOLDEN FIN TRAIL & RAILROAD DATE OCTOBER 1983 _ | FiGuRE existing alignment, it would require construction of 1.7 miles of new road along the right-of-way. The reroute would cost about 30 percent more than following the existing alignment (see Section 2.3.1), and the required permits would be difficult to acquire before the 1984 construction season. The Railroad Corridor reroute is not included in the proposed project. 2.2.2.5 Snow River Crossing The Snow River transmission line crossing is located at approximately Line Mile 18.7 and lies at the extreme southern tip of Kenai Lake where Snow River enters into Kenai Lake. This area has been identified for potential alignment change or special design due to the long span of the center channel of Snow River, extreme winds, and past avalanching and mud slides on the lower slopes of Sheep Mountain. Exposed bedrock and glacial till over bedrock was observed on both east and west sides of the flood plain. Soils across the floodplain itself consist of finer floodplain deposits of glaciofluvial outwash material. The river is subject to occasional glacial outburst floods which can cause extreme flooding levels. Currently, the transmission line spans approximately 1000 feet of the center channel of Snow River just upstream from the highway bridge. Guyed, wood H-frame structures are situated behind flood protection structures constructed by the Department of Transportation. Several design options were considered in order to reduce the potential of failure due to geologic hazards. The existing alignment is on the south side of Seward Highway. This alignment has the advantage of preserving the uninterrupted view of Kenai Lake from the Seward Highway. However, there is a serious avalanche hazard from Sheep Mountain. The second concept (Snow River Reroute A) would be to cross the Seward Highway north of the avalanche chute and then connect with the existing alignment on the south side of the highway (see Figure 2.6). The 115 kV line would be run overhead, while the 24.9 kV line would be buried alongside the road, as shown in Figures 2-7 and 2-8. Wood H-frame structures similar to the existing 5805B 2-15 s E if e o Der = I \ 3 6 ba R / \ . 4 = (3 RO _ eel etescony eee oe A q | a ) Ao 2 = = 4 cA ew 4 AN a ) Ve J tr ¢ ‘ > I~ a I, ) J by | S Ee vied Q 3 “2 A os Af XO \ ¢ ' i; / \ YY Tt Ty /; \ \ ay {| UNS = ,\\\O . Oip. vs . YANN eS %\ AS ay NK estes Z\ | a XS ty ! | Se f/f ( \ ISSION LINE PASS IB ' A E IGNMENT B ene ae “y “ € 8 198 ne 2 CY a {i 2 crt Ly | __GITY OF SEWARD _ 25kV \ UNDERGROUND 4) (SEE FIGURE 2.8] ) 3 askv MuD FLAT) yo ‘\ UNDERGROUND 4 [SEE FIGURE 2.8] 25kV UNDER BRIDGE A [SEE FIGURE 2.8 LEGEND aaees EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE |} eeceeee UNDERGROUND CABLE ausee=z UNDER BRIDGE CABLE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SITE mms SEWARD HIGHWAY ——> SNOW RIVER CROSSING SV] 25kV UNDERGROUND ROUTE SA DATE OCTOBER 1983 [rigure 2.7 \}i]] EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED TYPICAL CABLE INSTALLATION IN MUD-FLAT AREAS CHANNEL BRIDGE 25kV UNDERGROUND CABLE TYPICAL CABLE INSTALLATION UNDER BRIDGE Figure 2.8 2-18 structures would be used over the center channel. The advantage of this design is that it would move the line away from potential avalanche hazards along Sheep Mountain. It would also preserve the view of Kenai Lake from the Seward Highway. The disadvantages of this alternative are the cost of additional angle points required and the safety hazard inherent in crossing the Seward Highway two additional times. An economic analysis of the area indicates that the present value of cost for the reroute is lower than the present value of cost for constructing the line on the current alignment and repairing expected avalanche damage (Ebasco 1984). This alternative is therefore included in the proposed project. The third design option considered (Snow River Reroute B) was to relocate the transmission line to the north side of the highway right-of-way across the entire floodplain (see Figure 2-6). Wood H-frame structures would be used over the center channel. This realignment was considered in order to mitigate potential avalanche hazards along Sheep Mountain. This alternative would also improve the position of the transmission line with respect to flooding, but it would reduce the quality of the view of Kenai Lake. This alternative is not included in the proposal. 2.2.2.6 Kenai Lake Avalanche Area The Kenai Lake avalanche area is located at approximately Line Mile 21.9 about 3.8 miles north of the Snow River bridge. This area was identified for potential alignment change or special design because of past avalanche damage. The present alignment was moved from the original location after poles were taken out by a recent avalanche. Soils consist of avalanche deposits and granular alluvial fan material. The lower portion of the avalanche track is covered with low vegetation bordered by deciduous trees to the north and south. Records indicate that the highway, which is on the downslope of the transmission line, has been blocked by avalanches. The most recent occasion was during the winter of 1980 when an avalanche took out a guard rail west of the highway and ran into the lake (State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources 1982). 5805B 2-19 One design option is to relocate the transmission line further downslope and to selectively place poles on either side of the most active portion of the avalanche runout zone, thus spanning most of the problem area (see Figure 2-9). Furthermore, pole placement on the south end of the avalanche Zone could take advantage of a bedrock knob located directly upslope of the proposed alignment. This feature would act as a diversion structure, thus diverting the major impact of an avalanche to either side of the pole. The second design option is to place both the 24.9 kV and the 115 kV lines underground. This would protect the line and provide reliable electrical service regardless of avalanche activity. An economic analysis of several overhead and underground configurations was performed to evaluate this alternative (Ebasco 1984). The results indicate that when both construction costs and the expected cost of later repairs are considered, the present value of costs is minimized by the underground alternative. The proposed project includes a 2.6 mile segment of underground 115 kV and 24.9 kV line in this area. The underground cable would run from the north end of Lakeview to just beyond the Twin Gullies avalanche area, as indicated on Figure 2-10. 2.2.2.7 Upper Trail Lake Reroute The Upper Trail Lake muskeg area is located between Line Mile 32-34 and just to the west of the Upper Trail Lake fish hatchery. This area has been identified for potential alignment change due to poor accessibility for maintenance of the transmission line. The existing transmission line traverses a muskeg area at the Carter Creek inlet and along Moose Creek. Soil types are characterized as organic and floodplain materials overlying lacustrine deposits. Upper Trail Lake is located to the east of the proposed reroute area, and the lower slopes of L.V. Ray Peak are to the south. A relatively large alluvial fan which shows evidence of recent avalanche activity occupies the lower slope of L.V. Ray Peak. The present alignment will pose serious engineering problems because the taller and heavier poles for the proposed line will require specially designed lateral support systems due to the relatively shallow depths of the organic and lacustrine deposits. 5805B 2-20 ee i I y I ( 12 Se 3 x \g (GE ae WS CITY OF SEWARD . SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SITE KENAI LAKE AVALANCHE AREA REROUTE _ FIGURE \ LEGEND =sae= EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE aueeee UNDER BRIDGE CABLE euesnaee POSSIBLE REALIGNMENT wees SEWARD HIGHWAY | ‘SCALE: 1”=2000' / \ / i / 115kV AND 25kV UNDERGROUND \ 25kV UNDERGROUND [SEE FIGURE 2.8] \ \t eS i. ; \ v _~ ~~ > LEGEND \W CITY OF SEWARD \ \ TRANSMISSION SYSTEM =ame= EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE 2 \ w SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SITE eum SEWARD HIGHWAY eoeeee UNDERGROUND CABLE ~Y A KENAI LAKE AVALANCHE sees AREA UNDERGROUND DATE OCTOBER 1983 FIGURE 2,10 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED The proposed alternative to the existing transmission alignment is to extend the 115 kV line on the north side of the Seward Highway, crossing to the south side of the highway closer to the fish hatchery. It would cross the Highway about 0.1 miles west of the fish hatchery (see Figure 2-11). The advantage of this route is that by staying north of Seward Highway, it avoids the muskeg areas of Carter and Moose Creeks. Further, the proposed alignment would also minimize impacts to the muskeg area of Moose Creek south of the Highway and adjacent to Upper Trail Lake. Poles could be located on the existing fill for the water intake, which is situated along the margin of the muskeg. The 24.9 kV line would be buried along this segment to reduce the possibility of avalanche damage. Economic analysis indicates that it would not be economical to underground the 115 kV line in his area (Ebasco 1984). 2.2.2.8 Daves Creek Substation The Daves Creek Substation is located adjacent to Quartz Creek and has been exposed to flooding in recent years. The Highway Department maintains a berm adjacent to Quartz Creek to channel the flow so that the channel does not cut a new course which would undermine the Sterling Highway. The proposed design elevates the substation addition to the same height as the existing substation. If necessary in the future, it would also be possible to provide additional flood protection through the installation of some type of protective barrier such as gabions. The present substation has never had floodwaters inside the fence line. Another alternative would be to relocate the Daves Creek Substation to a point further north of the existing line and then connect a new transmission tap to the new substation (see Figure 2-4). The primary disadvantages of relocating the Daves Creek Substation are the increased costs associated with grading and developing a new substation site, as well as the additional cost associated with clearing a new transmission line right-of-way. Relocation of the substation is not included in the proposal. 58058 2-23 \ ("ality OF SEWARD X TRANSMISSION SYSTEM =me=m EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE . . Nee SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SITE set POSSIBLE REALIGNMENT 4 UPPER TRAIL LAKE SEWARD HIGHWAY ~W, ; REROUTE eeeeee UNDERGROUND CABLE d , FiGuRe 2.41 _ : = i EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 2.2.2.9 Tern Lake and Avalanche Acres The reroute alternative in this area was dropped from further consideration (see Section 2.1.5). The area was included, however, in a study of overhead versus underground construction options (Ebasco 1984). Economic analysis indicates that the present value of cost is minimized with overhead construction which includes heavy duty wood H-frame structures for the 115 kV line. The 24.9 kV line would be placed underground, as shown in Figure 2-12. Use of the H-frames will require a 100 foot right-of-way in this area, instead of the usual 30 feet. This alternative is included in the proposed project. 2.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 2.3.1 Engineering and Cost Comparison Engineering cost estimates were prepared for each alternative. The conceptual cost estimate for the existing alignment alternative was: Item Cost Land and Land Rights $ 30,000 Substation/Switching Station Improvements 90,000 Substation/Switching Station Equipment 1,844,000 Steel Towers and Fixtures 909,000 Wood Poles and Fixtures 2,760,000 Overhead Conductors & Devices 3,786,000 Total Direct Construction Cost (1983 $) $ 9,419,000 Indirect Construction Cost — 761,000 Total Construction Cost (1983 $) 10,180,000 Contingency @ 12% 1,221,600 Engineering/Construction Management 1,200,000 Total Cost (1983 $) $12,601,600 58058 2-25 2.12 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED ]} I FIGURE w ce oo z S & a = - n w > = a) < oO w a o AREA UNDERGROUND = WW = n > wn 2 2 n 2 = n z < a KF TERN LAKE AVALANCHE DATE OCTOBER 1983 25kV UNDERGROUND @ TYPICAL UNDERGROUND CABLE INSTALLATION MME LEGEND meses EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE |— eeeeee UNDERGROUND CABLE : meee SEWARD HIGHWAY The conceptual cost summary served as a base case for evaluating routing alternatives. Major reroutes tend to increase the capital construction cost. New routes generally require more clearing for the right-of-way. Some clearing might be necessary in large timber, which is more expensive to remove than the brush found in the existing right-of-way. Other factors influencing cost include the number of poles set in muskeg, the length of line along a railroad right-of-way, and the length of line located along a roadside. The conceptual cost summary for the base case assumed the transmission lines are aboveground for their entire length. Some of the proposed alternatives place some line segments underground to avoid avalanche damage. Undergrounding the 24.9 kV line costs slightly more than running the line overhead. Burying the 115 kV line costs more per mile than the equivalent overhead alternative, but saves repair costs in the long run and provides more reliable electrical service. The final cost estimate for the line, including some underground segments, will be greater than the conceptual cost estimate used as the base case. The following table summarizes cost differences for the major reroute alternatives. Where a reroute is involved, the present value of capital costs alone are compared. Where overhead versus underground options are considered, the present value of capital, operation and maintenance, repair, and outage costs are compared. Present Value of Capital Alternative Cost per Segment (1983 Existing Alignment Reroute Alignment Seward Substation Approach $ 89,400 $ 57,000 Golden Fin Trail Reroute 63,100 75,700 Railroad Corridor Reroute 291,300 381,400 Present Value of Total Alternative Expected Cost per Segment (1983$) Overhead Underground Snow River Crossing 639,500 1/ 1,110,100 Upper Trail Lake Reroute 283,800 779,200 Kenai Lake Avalance Area 2,526,800 2,325,700 Tern Lake/Avalanche Acres 1,707,900 2,109,200 1/ Includes Snow River Reroute A 5805B 2-27 In general, the more expensive route was proposed only where it offered important long term advantages over the cheaper alternative. The Golden Fin Trail reroute is more than the existing alignment, but provides much better access for maintenance and removes the line from the muskeg. In the avalanche areas, undergrounding was proposed for the 115 kV line only in the Kenai Lake avalanche area, where the savings in expected repair costs more than compensate for slightly higher capital costs. 2.3.2 Environmental Comparison 2.3.2.1 Geology and Soils Geology and soils impacts would be slight for all of the alternatives considered. Because access road locations have not been finalized, particularly for temporary construction access, it is not possible to quantitatively evaluate erosion effects of the alternatives. In general, realignment of the transmission corridor requires more access roads, more clearing, and more land disturbance than the existing ROW location. Erosion impacts would, therefore, be least for the existing ROW, and would increase somewhat for most proposed ROW realignments. Possible exceptions are the Golden Fin Trail and Upper Trail Lake reroutes. None of the proposed alternatives cross areas that are known to be particularly susceptible to soil erosion (Davidson 1983). Mitigation measures as discussed in Section 4.1 should, therefore, effectively control soil impacts. The alternative crossing of the Snow River on the north side of the highway (Snow River Reroute B) would require additional construction activity in the Snow River channel and Kenai Lake area. Use of heavy equipment in the channel would increase erosion of the streambank and streambed, resulting in Minor increases in erosion as compared to the proposed plan. The net erosion impact, however, is expected to be slight, and virtually imperceptible given the Snow River's current sediment load. 58058 2-28 2.3.2.2 Water Resources As discussed in the previous section, sedimentation effects would be slightly greater for most alternatives involving realignment of the ROW, or construction affecting the Snow River channel and Kenai Lake area. Installation of steel towers in the Snow River channel could increase suspended solids concentrations and turbidity of the Snow River during the construction phase. Long-term sedimentation impacts to wetlands for the alternatives that reroute the line out of muskeg areas would be slightly less than those for existing ROW. The net water resources impacts after mitigation Measures are employed would be insignificant, however, for all alternatives. 2.3.2.3 Vegetation The Railroad Corridor reroute, the Upper Trail Lake reroute and the Daves Creek Substation relocation would all substantially reduce the area of wetlands within or adjacent to the ROW. Other alternatives would have no noticeable impact. 2.3.2.4 Fish and Wildlife The Upper Trail Lake reroute would reduce the number of crossings of Moose Creek, an anadromous fish stream (Table 3-1). Other alternatives would have no noticeable impact on fish or wildlife. 2.3.2.5 Cultural Resources The cultural resources work plan has been developed with the U.S. Forest Service and was submitted in January, 1984. Field work will occur in March through May, 1984. The vicinity of the transmission line right-of-way will be investigated and sites with potential archaeological or historical value will be identified. If such sites are located, adequate protection procedures will be followed, in full compliance with 36 CFR 800.7. 5805B 2-29 2.3.2.6 Recreation Resources All of the alternatives are nearly identical with respect to recreation. Two alternatives have minor differences. The existing line does not cross Johnson Pass trail, while the Upper Trail Lake reroute alternative would cross the trail within one-quarter mile of the trailhead, near where the trail passes the fish hatchery. The closest structure would be approximately 50 feet from the trail. The Golden Fin Trail reroute alternative crosses the Golden Fin Trail at a slightly different point than the existing trail crossing. Recreation-related comparisons are discussed further in Section 2.3.2.7, Visual Resources. 2.3.2.7 Visual Resources The transmission line alternatives have been evaluated using the existing alignment alternative as a baseline. The comparison process focused on differences in potential facility visibility for each of the alternative sites. This focus reflects the site specific nature of the alternatives resulting in similar visual quality levels and viewer sensitivity and landscape compatibility factors for each set of proposals. Photographic simulations depicting the existing condition, existing alignment alternative and reroute alternatives have been used in the comparison process. Existing Alignment Alternative. The proposed transmission line would occur within the existing right-of-way and replace existing transmission facilities. Some of the structures used would be approximately 5 to 15 feet taller than the existing structures. The greatest changes in height would occur in structures located north of the Lawing metering station. Proposed towers would be dark in color. This would aid in reducing overall facility visibility. In general, the existing alignment alternative would increase facility visibility only slightly. 5805B 2-30 Seward Substation Approach. This alternative is in the Seward Landscape Unit. The land use pattern within this valley and mountain landscape is composed of a mixture of commercial and residential land uses and spruce and flood plain vegetation. A moderately high level of visual quality occurs in the unit (Jones & Jones 1983). The proposed alternative would reduce the potential visibility of the transmission line from the Seward Highway (1575 Average Daily Traffic), but would place the line closer to residential and recreational uses. Golden Fin Trail Reroute. The Golden Fin Trail Alternative occurs within the Narrow valley and mountain area in the Divide Landscape unit. The land use pattern in the area is spruce open space. A moderately high level of visual quality occurs within the area (Jones & Jones 1983). The Forest Service has identified the area as a Variety Class B (common) landscape (USDA Forest 5 V/ Service n.d.(b)).— The proposed alternative is within an area which is not visible from the Seward Highway because of vegetation and topographic screening. Both the existing and alternative alignments cross the Golden Fin Trail. This trail had 400 visitor use days during 1982 (USDA Forest Service 1982b). Railroad Corridor Reroute. This reroute alternative occurs at the boundary between the Snow River and Divide landscape units. The visual quality in the area is high (Snow River) and moderately high (Divide) (Jones & Jones 1983). The Forest Service has identified the area as a Variety Class B (common) landscape (USDA Forest Service n.d.(b)). The reroute alternative would be potentially visible to southbound travelers on the Seward Highway (1155 ADT). Snow River Crossing. The Snow River crossing occurs at the boundary of the Kenai Lake and Snow River Landscape Units. The land use pattern is densely vegetated valleys dominated by the Snow River and Kenai Lake. The existing V/ n.d. indicates no date specified. 5805B 2-31 visual quality for both Landscape Units is high (Jones & Jones 1983). The Forest Service has identified a Variety Class of B (Common) for the Snow River area and Class A (Distinctive) for the Kenai Lake area (USDA Forest Service n.d.(b)). Both the existing alignment and the reroute alternatives would be visible from the Seward Highway (765 ADT) and portions of the Primrose Campground (3000 visitor days). In general, the alternative crossing on the north side of the Seward Highway (Reroute B) would have a greater visual impact than either the existing alignment or reroute A because the line would be in full view of travelers on the Seward Highway. Reroute A would affect the easternmost portion of the view. Figures 2-13 and 2-14 present photo-simulations of the existing condition, the existing alignment alternative, and Snow River Reroute A. The steel towers appearing in the photo-simulations of the existing alignment alternative and Reroute A are no longer being proposed. Wood H-frame structures will be used instead. In addition, the 24.9 kV line is being proposed for undergrounding in this area, rather than as the underbuild shown on the poles. The photo- simulations represent “worst case" visual effects for each alignment alternative. Kenai Lake Avalanche Area (Milepost 21). This reroute alternative occurs within the Kenai Lake Landscape Unit. The land use pattern within the area is vegetated open space and scattered roadside development. A high level of visual quality occurs in this area (Jones & Jones 1983). The Forest Service has defined a Class A (Distinctive) Variety Class for the area. Both the existing alignment alternative and the reroute alternative would be visible from the Seward Highway (765 ADT). The reroute alternative would place the transmission line closer to the Seward Highway. The amount of vegetation remaining between the right-of-way and the Highway will greatly influence the transmission line visibility. The underground alternative would remove all visible structures in the area and would improve visual quality. 5805B 2-32 Existing Condition Existing Alignment Alternative JONES 2-33 Figure 2-13 Existing Condition Reroute A Alternative joys SNOW RIVER CROSSING 2-34 Figure 2-14 Figures 2-15 and 2-16 present photo-simulations of the existing alignment and one reroute alternative. The underground alternative would eliminate the structures in this area. Upper Trail Lake Reroute. This reroute alternative occurs in the Upper Trail Lake Landscape Unit. The land use pattern within the area is composed of vegetated open space and roadside residential and commercial development. The area is dominated by Upper Trail Lake. The existing visual quality of the area is moderately high (Jones & Jones 1983). A Forest Service Variety Class A (distinctive) (USDA Forest Service n.d.(b)) has been identified for the area. A photo-simulation of the Upper Trail Lake Reroute appears in Figure 2-17. The Trail Lake Fish Hatchery, salmon interpretive sign, and Upper Trail Lake wayside occur in the immediate area of the alternative. The location of the alternative alignment road crossing north of the Fish Hatchery was selected to place the line just north of the point where Upper Trail Lake is in the primary view of southbound travelers on the Seward Highway (860 ADT). Daves Creek Substation. Daves Creek Substation is located in the Quartz Creek Landscape Unit. Vegetated open space is the dominant land use within the area. This unit has a moderately high visual quality (Jones & Jones 1983). At the reroute site the Forest Service has identified a Variety Class A (Distinctive) landscape (USDA Forest Service n.d.(b)). The potential visibility of the facility from the Sterling Highway (685 ADT) would be reduced by the relocation alternative. This is due to placement of the substation in a less visible location. A road would be required, however, which would be visible from the highway. 2.3.2.8 Land Use and Socioeconomics A description of the land uses and types of land ownership traversed by the existing transmission line is presented in Section 3.8. The proposed alternative alignments vary only slightly from the existing alignment. None 58058 2-35 Existing Alignment Alternative MILEPOST 21 AREA Figure 2-15 Existing Condition Rerouting Alternative MILEPOST 21 AREA Figure 2-16 Reroute Alternative ae UPPER TRAIL LAKE JONES 2-38 Figure 2-17 of the four proposed alternative alignments (Seward Substation Approach, Golden Fin Trail Reroute, Snow River Crossing Reroute A, and Upper Trail Lake Reroute) would result in a change in land ownership from the existing alignment. All alternatives are expected to have essentially the same effect on the local economy. Reasonably priced, reliable electrical service adds comfort and security to the lives of everyone in the affected community. Reliable service is also necessary to support local economic growth. Actual construction of the line might have some impact on local employment and income, but the effect would be small and limited to one construction season. 5805B 2-39 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project area is characterized by steep-sided U-shaped valleys, deep outwash deposits, and hummocky high valley bottoms. Bedrock consists mostly of graywacke and shale, with slate, argillite, conglomerate, volcanic detritus and malic volcanic rocks also occurring. Approximately half of the transmission line corridor length crosses areas classified by the Forest Service as the Forested Ice Scoured Landtype (USDA Forest Service 1980). This landtype consists of low elevation bedrock-controlled terrain with soils formed on glacial till deposits over bedrock. Ponds and muskegs are found in low areas and elongated depressions. Approximately one quarter of the corridor length occurs on the Glacial Side Slope Landtype, located on the sides of glacial U-shaped valleys. Soils in these areas are generally well drained, loamy soils formed from glacial till over graywacke and shale. The remainder of the corridor length is divided fairly evenly between glacial outwash plains and alluvial fans. Both of these landtypes are associated with active stream channels and consist of alluvial silts, sands and gravels, glacial outwash, and reworked till. 3.2 WATER RESOURCES The project transmission corridor crosses or parallels numerous streams, lakes, and wetlands between Daves Creek and Resurrection Bay. Major stream crossings occur at the Resurrection River one mile north of the Seward substation, at the Snow River immediately south of Kenai Lake, and at Trail River immediately south of Upper Trail Lake. In addition, the transmission line crosses seven small first-order streams (containing no tributaries) : Moose, Carter, Falls, Ptarmigan, Rocky, Victor, and Lost creeks. The transmission line closely parallels for at least one mile the first-order streams of Daves Creek, Moose Creek, Lost Creek, and Salmon Creek, as well as the 200-ft. wide Trail River. 5806B 3-1 3.3 VEGETATION Approximately one half of the vegetation crossed by the transmission line ROW is mature coniferous forest, with some areas of deciduous forest and brush (USDA Forest Service n.d.(a)). The area of wetlands within or adjacent to the ROW is relatively small and is discussed separately below. From Seward the transmission line ROW parallels the highway on level terrain through developed areas for about five miles. The ROW then leaves the highway, crosses an area of Sitka spruce forest behind Grouse Lake and traverses forested slopes to the Snow River crossing. Approximately one half of the forest in this area is classified as mature, unproductive spruce/hemlock forest while the other half is classified commercial forest. The spruce species present is Sitka spruce until the route parallels the Snow River valley; at this point Sitka spruce is replaced by white spruce. Stands of poplar, alder and willow are crossed at the Snow River. Along the east shore of Kenai Lake, the ROW is on steep slopes which have a narrow band of forest along the lake. The forest is interrupted by alder in avalanche areas. The forest through which the ROW passes is a mosaic of hemlock/Sitka spruce, white spruce and birch forest. The ROW crosses the Trail River and runs along an east-facing slope through hemlock, white spruce/hemlock, birch/white spruce forest, and birch forest to the end of Trail Lake. After crossing wetlands at the upper end of Trail Lake, the ROW travels on south to steep, southwest facing slopes with poplar and aspen stands in addition to mixtures of birch, hemlock and white spruce. The area of wetlands within the ROW is very smal] (USDA Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). Approximately two miles of wetlands are crossed, including river channels. Near Seward, the transmission line route crosses 4 miles of palustrine scrub shrub and palustrine emergent wetland. Three very smal] wetland areas of the same type are crossed in the area between Grouse Lake and the Snow River. Also the ROW is adjacent to a wetland area important for salmon rearing (see Section 3.4). At the Snow River, palustrine forested and palustrine scrub shrub wetlands are crossed in addition to the river channels. At the end of Upper Trail Lake, the ROW crosses five areas of palustrine scrub shrub and palustrine emergent wetland associated with Moose Creek, an important anadromous fish stream (see Section 3.4). The Daves Creek Substation is located within the flood plain of Quartz Creek. 5806B 3-2 3.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE Waterbodies along the transmission line route are used as spawning and rearing areas by sockeye, king, coho, pink and chum salmon (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1983). The existing ROW makes a minimum of 20 crossings of anadromous fish streams and also parallels or passes near several streams, sloughs, and ponds used for spawning and/or rearing (Table 3-1). Important areas include the ponds and freshwater sloughs along the Snow River, Ptarmigan Creek, Trail River, the Moose Creek area around the Fish Hatchery and the Tern Lake area. No bald eagle nests are near the proposed route, although bald eagles reside jin the general area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983) and congregate near salmon streams. Brown and black bears, wolves, moose, mountain goat and Dall sheep are present in the area (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1973). Brown bears are present in the general area, but are not abundant in the vicinity of the transmission line. Black bears are more common and concentrate on all anadromous fish streams along the route during spawning. Moose use much of the area as fall and winter habitat. They are found in the Resurrection River valley and the Salmon Creek area near Seward, the Snow River valley, the Lawing and Moose Pass area, and the Trail Lakes to Daves Creek Substation valley areas, particularly where the transmission line crosses riparian vegetation and mixed hardwood forests on sideslopes. However, no areas in the vicinity of the ROW have been identified as moose calving areas. Mountain _ goats and Dall sheep are present at elevations above the transmission line. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The cultural resources work plan was developed and is being accomplished in full cooperation with the Forest Service. A comprehensive literature search has been conducted, and an inventory of known and reported cultural resources in the vicinity of the powerline corridor have been prepared. Field work is scheduled for March through May, 1984. 58068 3-3 TABLE 3-1 CROSSING OF ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS DAVES CREEK-SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE Number of Crossings Number of Adjacent to Description ADF&G Number Crossings Road Existing Route Tributary Resurrection River 2021 1 1 Resurrection River 2040 3 channels 3 Tributary Salmon Creek 3011 1 1 Tributary Salmon Creek 3019 1 1 Grouse Creek 3029 2 1 Outlet Bear Lake 3039 1 1 Meridian Lake Stream 3024 1 Snow River 2250 2-3 channels Ptarmigan Creek 2231 1 1 Falls Creek 3010 1 1 Trail River 2225 1 1 Moose Creek 3013 7 1 Carter Creek 4009 1 Quartz Creek 2117 2 Upper Trail Lake Reroute Moose Creek 3013 3 2 Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1983. 5806B 3-4 3.6 RECREATION RESOURCES Popular recreation activities in and around the Seward Ranger-District include camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, snow machining, cross country skiing and berry picking. The existing transmission line right-of-way crosses several trails. The line also crosses the access road to Primrose campground about 3/4 mile from the campground. Neither the right-of-way nor its access roads is generally used for recreation. A list of nearby recreation areas is included in Appendix E. The recreation environment is discussed further in Section 3.7, Visual Resources. 3.7 VISUAL RESOURCES The proposed facility passes through an extensive valley system, which is part of the Kenai-Chugach Mountain Section of the Pacific Border Province (Wahrhaftig 1965). The area is composed of heavily glaciated U-shaped valleys and passes, rock-basin lakes and grooved topography. The landscape features include horns, aretes and cirques. Glaciers, glacial lakes, braided streams and rivers make up the waterbodies along the study corridor. Dense stands of spruce, muskeg bogs, tundra and floodplain vegetation occur in the area. The Sterling and Seward Highways, the Alaska Railroad and the existing transmission line pass through the area. Several small communities occur adjacent to the highways. In addition, numerous trailheads, scenic turnouts, public and private campgounds and recreation areas occur within the corridor. Appendix E includes a list of nearby recreation areas. Existing Visual Quality The existing visual quality of the area has been evaluated by the Forest Service as part of their management recommendations for the Chugach National Forest. Approximately 44% of the corridor area within Chugach National Forest has been identified as Variety Class A (Distinctive), while 56% of the area has been defined as Variety Class B (Common). Since portions of the study area are not included in the Forest Service evaluation, a separate inventory of the entire route was conducted. The inventory included an evaluation of the existing visual quality of the ten study corridor landscape units. 5806B 3-5 The visual quality levels along the corridor range between high (36%), moderately high (46%) and moderate (18%). Table 3-2 presents the existing visual quality levels for each landscape unit. Appendix E identifies the critical factors used in the visual quality evaluation process. The landscape features and associated visual resources within the area are a resource for extensive resident and tourist recreation. Viewers in the Study Area The principal viewer groups in the study corridor are residents, recreationists and highway and railroad travelers. The Forest Service has identified the highest sensitivity level (Level 1) for the area within the study corridor (USDA Forest Service, n.d.(b)). This level reflects people's concern for the scenic quality of the Chugach National Forest. Many people view the study area as they drive the Sterling and Seward Highways. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts have been used to estimate the number of highway viewers. The most highly traveled highway segment in the study area is at Milepost 37, where use traffic volume is 1460 ADT. The least traveled segment is at Milepost 24, where the volume is 750 ADT (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 1982). The Alaska Railroad parallels the highway system through the study corridor. With the exception of several annual excursion trains from Anchorage to Seward, the railroad is used for freight transport. Many people view the area at numerous recreation sites, scenic turnouts and trails in the area. Appendix E includes a list of the recreation areas and user day counts for each area (USDA Forest Service 1982). 5806B 3-6 TABLE 3-2 EXISTING VISUAL QUALITY Landscape Begin End Jones & Jones Forest Service Unit Milepost Milepost Rating!/ Rating2/ Quartz 44.5 38.5 MH Variety Class A - 12% Creek Variety Class B - 83% Tern 38.5 32.4 H Variety Class A - 61% Lake Variety Class B - 39% Upper Trail 32.4 28.2 MH 3/ Lake Lower Trail 28.2 24.6 MH 3/ Lake Crown 24.6 22.6 M 3/ Point Kenai 22.6 T2538 H Variety Class A - 100% Lake Snow Med 12.6 H Variety Class B - 100% River Divide 12.6 9.2 MH 3/ Bear 9.2 asa M 3/ Lake Seward 3.2 Seward MH 3/ 1/ = High, MH = Moderately High, M = Moderate (Jones & Jones 1983) Ino / USDA Forest Service, n.d.(b) lwo / No Forest Service information in immediate area of transmission line 5806B 3-7 Existing Transmission Line Visibility The existing transmission line is totally or intermittently visible from the Sterling or Seward Highways for approximately 50% of the study corridor length. This figure includes approximately 10 miles of existing alignment adjacent to the highway. In addition, 10.4 miles of the existing alignment are intermittently visible, with views often blocked by landforms and vegetation. 3.8 LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMICS Land uses in the study area between Daves Creek Substation and Seward Substation include scattered residences and cabins, small farms, a small airstrip at Lawing, and Forest Service recreation facilities. Moose Pass and Seward are the most significant settlements along the right-of-way. Two subdivisions, Goat Haven and Toklat Estates, are located between Tern Lake and Moose Pass. The transmission line also passes within the northwest approach to the Seward Airport, near the Seward Highway. There are no undeveloped areas within the vicinity of the transmission line. Due to the proximity of mountains and lakes (e.g., Upper Trail Lake and Kenai Lake), most settlement occurs along the Seward Highway. The Alaska Railroad parallels the Highway for about 13 miles, between the City of Seward and Upper Trail Lake. At Upper Trail Lake the railroad continues northward, while the Highway heads west toward Moose Pass. Land ownerships affected by the transmission line corridor include the following: Private land 11.6 miles Federal land 26.8 miles City of Seward land 0.5 miles State land 0.4 miles The people served by the existing transmission line live in the communities of Seward and Moose Pass, and in locations along the Seward Highway. Seward had a population of 1,839 in 1982; the Moose Pass population was 315 (Alaska Department of Labor 1982). The estimated total population of the Seward 5806B 3-8 Census Division in that year was 3058 (ISER 1983). Most of the homes, businesses, and industrial concerns in the area receive their electrical power through the City's existing transmission/distribution system... Major employment sectors in the Seward Census Division include state, local and federal government; services; retail trade; commercial fishing and fish processing; and the forest products industry. Both services and retail trade are partially dependent on the locally important tourist industry. The seasonal nature of tourism, fishing, and forest products contributes to a large transient population. The population rises during the summer months and falls off through the winter. Population and employment projections through the year 2010 have been made for the Seward Census Division (ISER 1983). The forecast for population and employment follows. Basic employment includes mining, some construction, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, some transportation, tourism, and proprietor's income. Government employment includes all federal, state, and Jocal government, both civilian and military. All other employment, such as services and local transportation, is included in the support sector. SEWARD REGIONAL POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Basic Government Support Total Total Year Emp. Employment Emp. Emp. Population 1982 414 445 375 1244 3058 1990 542 506 469 1517 3731 2000 582 539 563 1685 4364 2010 666 523 700 1889 4896 Source: ISER 1983 as adjusted in Ebasco 1983. The current and future economy of the region depends a great deal on three important transportation facilities: Seward's ice-free deep water port; the Alaska Railroad; and the Seward Highway. The deep water port supports the fishing industry and a bulk cargo facility linked by railroad and highway to Anchorage and points north. The City's economic growth plans include a shiplift facility, coal port, and the reopening or expansion of existing businesses. Such growth is partially dependent on the availability of reliable electrical service. 5806B 3-9 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The major soils impact of the transmission line upgrade will be increased erosion rates and subsequent sedimentation of water bodies. Construction of additional access roads is the primary cause of increased erosion, because it is the activity that exposes the most bare soil to erosive forces. Existing access roads will be used to the extent possible, so that new road construction will be limited to new right-of-way corridors. Structure locations will be chosen that avoid unstable soils, steep slopes, and wetlands wherever possible. The draft Forest Service Soil and Water Requirements for Best Management Practices Guidelines (BMP) (USDA Forest Service 1983) will be incorporated into road location and construction techniques. Included in the draft BMP are requirements to avoid slopes where there is evidence of tension cracks, natural slumps, landslides, deep V-notches or other indicators of Slope instability. No highly erodent fine and/or organic matter will be used for fill material. Construction activity will be limited to the smallest possible area. Access roads will be located at least 100 ft. from stream channels, and will incorporate well-designed drainage systems as discussed in the water resources section. These mitigation measures will effectively minimize erosion effects. Construction related impacts will be limited to the summer of 1984, when the line is scheduled for construction. After that period, the roads will be used only for infrequent maintenance. Research conducted in other areas indicates that erosion rates from roads decrease to near background levels when road use is low and drainage systems are adequate (Cederholm 1981). Nther activities associated with transmission line construction and maintenance will not significantly increase erosion rates. Right-of-way clearing will not expose bare soil and, therefore, will not appreciably increase erosion. Similarly, wood pole installation, performed with augers, does not require significant disruption of the soil. Installing new wood poles at the Snow River crossing would utilize the existing support bases, if 58078 4-1 necessary, and would not significantly increase streambank erosion. Equipment required for pole installation, line stringing, and line tensioning will utilize tracked vehicles where access roads are not available. Because these vehicles will be used over a short time period and over a limited area, they will not result in a significant disruption of the soil structure, or in significantly increased erosion rates. The net erosion impacts from construction and operation of the transmission line is expected to be insignificant if the appropriate mitigation measures described above are employed. A slight adverse impact cannot be avoided. No irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources will occur. There will be no significant effect on long term resource productivity. 4.2 WATER RESOURCES The primary water resources impact of the transmission line upgrade would be potential sedimentation increases in nearby streams, lakes, and wetlands. As discussed in the previous section, new roads represent the largest potential source for increased sedimentation. To minimize detrimental effects on water resources, several mitigation measures will be employed during road construction as described by the draft Forest Service Best Management Practices Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1983). An undisturbed strip of land, generally 100 to 200 ft wide, will be maintained between access roads and stream channels. Roads will cross streams at right angles at stable stream reaches. Activity in and near stream channels will be limited to the smallest possible area. Road drainage will be carefully controlled and Maintained, including the use of adequate culvert spacing, water bars, and ditching. Access roads will be located to avoid affecting the clear backwater eddies of the Snow River, where important salmon rearing habitat occurs. Where the transmission line crosses small streams, the poles will be set back from the channel sufficiently so that the stream is not directly affected. For the Snow River crossing, placing structures within the stream channel cannot be avoided, but the existing pole support bases will be used, minimizing streambank disruption. For this stream crossing, care will be taken to minimize activity in the streambed. 58078 4-2 The existing ROW crosses several wetlands in addition to the Snow River channel. Equipment used to install poles, and to string and tension the line will be brought into these areas on tracked vehicles where access roads are not available. The construction activity will potentially cause some sedimentation of these wetlands, as discussed in Section 4.3, but because the duration would be short-term, the impacts would not be significant. The proposed transmission line will not affect water use, water rights, or water supplies. Groundwater quantity and quality will not be affected. The net water resources impact, with the above mitigation measures employed, is expected to be insignificant, although a slight adverse impact cannot be avoided. No irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources will occur. There will be no significant effect on long term resource productivity. 4.3 VEGETATION Since the proposed transmission line will follow the existing transmission corridor for most of its length, the impacts to vegetation are reduced. The new ROW will be cleared to an average width of 30 feet. Variable width Clearing will be used as applicable. The practice is discussed further in Appendix D, Standard Mitigation Measures. In non-forested areas impact to vegetation will be minimal. Forest areas will be converted to plant communities consisting of herbs, shrubs and small trees for the life of the project. All of the forest types impacted are widespread in the area and the percentage removed is insignificant. Vegetation may be removed by vehicles in small areas in the ROW during construction. All such areas will be stabilized to prevent erosion. Natural revegetation is expected to be rapid in this area, particularly,since there is an excellent seed source from colonizing species present on the existing transmission line ROW. If required to prevent erosion, grass will be planted. 58078 4-3 Wetlands may be damaged by vehicle traffic or by sedimentation from construction on adjacent slopes. Vehicle traffic in wetland areas will be avoided or minimized. Sedimentation can be reduced by limiting removal of vegetation adjacent to wetlands, and by prompt restoration of erodible areas following construction. Removal of vegetation from the right-of-way cannot be avoided. Where the land is capable of producing sawtimber, long term resource productivity is reduced. No irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources will occur. 4.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE Fish. Sedimentation in anadromous fish streams may occur where the transmission ROW crosses streams or is upslope of streams. Sedimentation is caused by vehicle disturbance of stream bed or banks, or by exposure of Mineral soil on slopes above streams during clearing and construction. There is a pond on the stream to Meridian Lake, which is a coho salmon rearing area. The ROW is close to (100 to 200 feet) and upslope of this pond. Construction planning and monitoring will be designed to prevent removal of the vegetation in this area. There is a similar area where the ROW lies upslope of Grouse Creek. The same care will be taken to prevent removal of the vegetation. Buffer strips, generally 100 to 200 feet wide, will be Maintained between access roads and stream channels. At many anadromous fish stream crossings such as at Resurrection River and tributaries, Salmon Creek and tributaries, the outlet of Bear Lake, Ptarmigan Creek, Falls Creek, and Trail River, the line is close to the road and vehicle stream crossing or disturbance will be unnecessary. At crossings where the road is not close to the creek, such as at Grouse Creek, Snow River, Quartz Creek, and most crossings of Moose Creek, access for clearing and construction will be planned to minimize stream crossings. Vehicles will include a wire reel or rope reel truck, a pickup truck, an auger truck, and a boom truck, or tracked vehicles weighing 8 to 15 tons. At most streams vehicle traffic will be limited to two crossings, one entry and one exit, per vehicle. 5807B 4-4 Fish streams can also be impacted if slash from clearing is left in the streams. Clearing will be designed and monitored to keep debris out of streams. New access roads which cross streams also have a potential to affect fish. Stream crossings will be minimized. If required, access road crossings will be designed to ensure fish passage and to maintain or restore stream velocity, gradient and configuration in conformance with state of the art techniques and Alaska Department of Fish and Game criteria (1980). Impacts of the transmission line on wildlife are expected to be insignificant. Species most likely to be affected, but still in a minor way, are waterfowl] and bald eagles. Waterfowl. The potential for waterfowl] mortalities from collisions with conductors or overhead ground wires exists, but it is not expected to be significant because of the lack of major waterfowl] concentration areas along the route (Schemph 1983). Greatest potential for collisions would be at the Snow River crossing. A study conducted for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) indicated that transmission lines caused some alterations in bird flight behavior (Meyer 1978). Most waterfowl, however, crossed well above the transmission lines and less than 1 percent of waterfowl observed altered their flight path to avoid flying across the line. Studies of 500 kV, 130 kV, and 115 kV transmission lines at several sites in Oregon and Washington have shown that less than 1 percent of those birds flying at or below ground wire height collided with the lines (James and Haak 1979, Meyer and Lee 1981). Most of these collisions were believed to occur with the small overhead ground wires rather than the larger, more visible conductors. Several BPA-sponsored studies of transmission line collision mortality have been conducted in recent years at ten sites in Oregon and Washington (Lee 1978, Meyer 1978, James and Haak 1979, James 1980, Willdan Associates 1981, Beaulaurier 1981). Several of these sites were selected to represent “worst case" situations because of the frequent presence of large numbers of waterfowl and other birds (Meyer and Lee 1981). To date, however, the levels of avian mortality from collision with the line studied have not been biologically significant (Beaulaurier et al. 1982). Similar results are expected with this project. 58078 4-5 Bald Eagle. The bald eagle, which is not federally listed as threatened or endangered in Alaska, but is protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 688 et. seq.), appears seasonally in the project area. Bald eagles regularly appear during the spring through fall in varying numbers throughout the water systems associated with the transmission line corridor (Schemph 1983). Nesting occurs in the region, but there are no documented nest sites within 330 feet of the corridor; a memorandum of understanding (1968) between the USFWS and USFS defines a 330 foot protection zone between a nest site and any disturbance (Schemph 1983). Nor are there any roosting sites reported along the corridor. The absence of nesting and roosting sites in the project area, in conjunction with maximum use of the existing corridor, should result in no significant impact to bald eagle habitat. There is, however, a potential for eagle electrocution with the proposed pole structure. This potential can be eliminated by following proven design procedures for raptor protection on powerlines (Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. 1975). Although a variety of other raptors (great horned owl, red-tailed hawk, etc.) occur in the vicinity of the project area, impacts are expected to be minimal because of the small amount of habitat alteration anticipated from the proposed project. Large Mammals. The impact on large mammals will not be significant. The replacement of the mature forest with a plant community of herbs, shrubs, and young trees in the cleared ROW will provide additional forage for moose and bear. Maintenance of the line will provide a continuing source of moose browse for the life of the project. The net erosion impact from construction and operation of the transmission line is expected to be insignificant if the mitigation measures described above are employed. The effect of sedimentation on anadromous fish streams cannot be avoided, but is expected to be insignificant. Minor adverse impacts on waterfowl, bald eagles, and other raptors are similarly unavoidable. The project will require no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of fish and wildlife resources. There will be no significant effect on long term resource productivity. 5807B 4-6 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES As part of the cultural resource survey plan, any new sections of the right- of-way will be surveyed for cultural resources by walking over them and shovel testing at appropriate intervals. All old sections of the right-of-way which will be used will also be walked over. Shovel testing along the old corridor will be limited to areas of high cultural resource potential, such as the margins of lakes and wetlands, the banks of streams and rivers, and the vicinities of historic trails. All test holes will be backfilled. Field collection of artifacts will be limited to significant materials which, if not recovered at the time, are likely to be lost or destroyed. Upon completion of analysis, any such materials will be delivered to the responsible agency. Methods and results of the survey will be summarized in a report to be submitted to the Forest Service, the State Historic Preservation Office, and any other parties or agencies deemed appropriate. The project will require no significant irretrievable or irreversible commitment of cultural resources. Some artifacts may be destroyed, however, if they are not located prior to construction. 4.6 RECREATION RESOURCES All of the alternatives are expected to have little or no long-term impact on recreation. Where the transmission line right-of-way and recreation trails are contiguous, some noise and congestion might occur during the 1984 construction season. The Upper Trail Lake Reroute alternative would have some impact because the right-of-way would cross Johnson Pass Trail. The crossing would occur within one-quarter mile of the trailhead, near where the trail passes within view of the fish hatchery and its outbuildings. The additional impact of the transmission line in that area would be minimal. 58078 4-7 The existing right-of-way crosses the Golden Fin Trail. The Golden Fin Trail Reroute alternative crosses the trail at a slightly different point. No additional impact is expected. A slight impact on recreation, particularly during construction, cannot be avoided. There will be no significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment of recreation resources. There will be no significant effect on long term resource productivity. Impact on recreation resources is discussed further in Section 4.7, Visual Resources. 4.7 VISUAL RESOURCES The existing alignment alternative would replace the existing transmission line with single wood poles approximately 5 to 15 feet taller than the existing poles. The new towers would occur within the existing right-of-way. The right-of-way width and vegetation management techniques would be similar to the existing condition. Generally, the existing alignment alternative would slightly increase facility visibility because increased tower height will increase conductor visibility. This impact could be accentuated during low-sun angle periods of the year. The Forest Service has identified the area immediately adjacent to the study corridor as a Visual Retention Area. This visual management recommendation allows management activities (land uses) which are not visually evident. Figures 2-13 and 2-15 present photo-simulations of the existing condition and existing alignment alternative for the Snow River Crossing and Kenai Lake Avalanche Area (Mile Post 21). Steel towers shown in the photo-simulations would not be used, however. Reroute Alternatives Environmental consequences have been evaluated for each reroute alternative. The analysis has focused upon changes in facility visibility, landscape compatibility and the level of visual impact. 5807B 4-8 Seward Substation Approach. This reroute would reduce facility visibility from the Seward Highway by 1500 linear feet, but would increase the visibility from the residential and recreational uses within the area. The reroute would not cause a significant change in the visual quality of the area. Golden Fin Trail Reroute. Assuming that the reroute alternative right-of-way would be similar to the existing alignment right-of-way at the Golden Fin trail crossing, no significant change in the visual resources of the area would occur. Railroad Corridor Reroute. This reroute could potentially increase facility visibility from the Seward Highway by approximately 1500 feet. This increase could have a slight impact on the visual resources within the immediate area. Snow River Crossing. The location of the reroute Alternative B to the north side of the Seward Highway would place the facility within the primary view of a highly scenic area. In addition, such placement would locate the facility closer to the Primrose Creek campground and boat launch. This reroute alternative could significantly reduce the visual quality of this area. Figures 2-13 and 2-14 presented photo-simulations of the existing alignment Proposal and reroute alternative A. Reroute alternative A preserves most of the Kenai Lake view, with the exception of the easternmost corner. Kenai_Lake Avalanche Area (Mile Post 21). The reroute alternative would place the facility closer to the Seward Highway. This placement would increase facility visibility by approximately 2500 linear feet. The level of visual resource change would depend upon the amount of vegetation to remain between the right-of-way and the Seward Highway. If the vegetation were cleared, moderate levels of visual resource change could occur. Figure 2-16 presents a photo-simulation of the reroute alternative. The underground alternative would remove the existing visible structures, and would improve the visual quality of the area. 58078 Upper Trail Lake Reroute. The reroute occurs in a concentrated area of visitor facilities. In addition to occurring within an area of high viewer sensitivity, transmission line visibility would be increased because of the placement of the facility adjacent to the highway. Moderate levels of visual resource change could accompany this alternative. Daves Creek Substation. This reroute alternative would decrease facility visibility. This reroute alternative would have no significant vegetative changes on the visual resources of the area. Some impact on the visual resource cannot be avoided, as noted above. The proposed reroutes create only minor changes, however, compared to the existing situation. There is no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of visual resources. 4.8 LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMICS The potential land use impacts of a transmission line include removal of existing structures, interference with other productive uses of the right-of-way, and reduction of the visual quality in residential and recreational areas. Since the proposed project involves an upgrade of an existing transmission line, no significant adverse impacts are expected. With certain exceptions, the upgrade will occur within the existing right-of-way. No structures have been identified that would be affected by construction, either within the existing right-of-way or in any of the alternative reroutes. Existing transmission line poles will be removed from the ground and hauled away. Poles, crossarms, and insulators from the old line will be stored or disposed of by the City of Seward. The productivity of agricultural and forested lands will not be affected beyond existing conditions. No undeveloped land will be affected. 58078 4-10 There is no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. No significant restriction of subsistence uses will result from this action. Several studies have found the existing transmission system inadequate by today's standards (Ebasco 1983). Upgrading the line while remaining entirely within the existing corridor would improve service reliability, but would also leave some problems uncorrected. Each proposed reroute alternative was chosen to improve access to the line or to avoid avalanche hazards. The reroutes were planned so that service disruption could be minimized. All alternatives would satisfy current electrical needs, and would be sufficient to handle future economic growth. 5807B 4-11 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 5.1 FOREST SERVICE PERSONNEL Ron Quilliam Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Leader. Kurt Nelson Interdisciplinary Team Wildlife Biologist Charles Starner Interdisciplinary Team Engineer Steve Hennig Interdisciplinary Team Landscape Architect 5.2 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED PERSONNEL Donald Sandiforth, Project Manager Bradford Technical College, England - Higher National Certificate of the Institution of Electrical Engineers - London Licensed Professional Engineer with thirty-four years experience in engineering, design, sales, manufacturing and application of electrical power equipment. Responsible for overall project management. William D. Kitto B.S. Civil and Geological Engineering, Princeton University M.S. Forest Resources, University of Washington Nine years of experience in conducting and supervising engineering, environmental and energy planning, and environmental impact assessment in both the public and private sectors. Responsible for supervising and coordinating the environmental assessment project team. Tom Atkins B.L.A., Landscape Architecture, Louisiana State University M.R.P., Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania Fourteen years of technical and supervisory experience in recreation resource planning and visual resource assessment. Responsible for visual resource evaluation. 5808B 5-1 5.2 EBASCO SERVICES (Continued) Caroline Berry B.A. Urban Planning, University of Washington Five years experience in land use and socioeconomic planning and environmental assessment. Responsible for determining permit and license requirements. Jay Brueggeman B.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Idaho M.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Washington Seven years experience in wildlife biology, including study design, analysis of terrestrial investigations, and impact assessment. Responsible for evaluating impact on waterfowl] and bald eagles. F. Mike Carson B.S. Electrical Engineering, Oregon State University Registered Electrical Engineer with over twelve years experience designing transmission and distribution systems for Rural Electrification Administration Cooperatives and Public Utility Districts. Responsible for defining transmission system design and routing parameters. Roseann Densmore B.S. General Science, University of Iowa M.S. Botany, University of Alaska Ph.D. Plant Ecology, Duke University Fourteen years experience in resource management and research in Alaska with emphasis on vegetation and erosion control, vegetation mapping, habitat evaluation, fire effects, and forest regeneration following logging. Responsible for evaluating impacts on vegetation, fish and wildlife. 5808B 5=2 5.2 EBASCO SERVICES (Continued) Louise Dressen B.S. Chemistry, University of Idaho Ten years experience in research, regulation, technology development, and facility development for radioactive waste management, and for preparation of various applications for Federal, state and local permits and licenses. Responsible for determining permit and license requirements. Karol Erickson B.S. Geology, University of Minnesota M.S.E. Hydrology, University of Washington Four years experience in geology, soils and hydrology including development of suitability studies, reviews of environmental plans, and computer modeling of reservoir operations. Responsible for geology, soils, and water resource evaluation. Ellen Hall B.S. History, Clemson University M.A. Agricultural Economics, Clemson University Ph.D. Natural Resource Economics, Michigan State University Nine years experience in energy and natural resource planning, economic analysis, financial planning, economic development and social impact assessment. Responsible for economic evaluation, social impact assessment, and compiling the environmental assessment report. R. John Little B.S. Botany, University of Utah M.A. Biology, California State University - Fullerton Ph.D. Botany, Claremont Graduate School Thirteen years experience in terrestrial ecology and vegetation analyses, including three years experience in conducting and supervising transmission line routing and impacts analyses involving agriculture, forestry, land use, and land ownership resource evaluations. Responsible for land use evaluation, mitigation report, and compiling the draft environmental assessment report. 5808B 5-3 5.2 EBASCO SERVICES (Continued) Michele Urban B.S. Government, Franklin and Marshall College Three years experience in permitting and licensing on large energy projects, including the development, implementation, and operation of computer programs for tracking government authorizations. Responsible for making agency contacts and coordinating the public involvement program. 58088 5-4 REFERENCES Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1973. Alaska's Wildlife-and Habitat. - 1980. Preliminary Review Draft of Proposed Regulations Governing Fish and Game Habitat Protection. 1983. Anadromous Waters Catalog. Alaska Department of Labor, 1982. Alaska Population Overview. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 1982. Planning and Programming Division, Average Daily Traffic Counts. Beaulaurier, D.L. 1981. Mitigation of Bird Collisions With Transmission Lines. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Beaulaurier, D.L., B.W. James, P.A. Jackson, J.R. Meyer, and J.M. Lee, Jr. 1982. Mitigating the Incidence of Bird Collisions With Transmission Lines. Paper to be presented at the Third Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, San Diego, California, February 15-18, 1982. 21 pp. Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Visual Resource Management System. U.S. Department of Interior. Washington D.C. Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, and E.0. Salo. 1981. Cumulative Effects of Logging Road Sediments on Salmonid Population in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In: Proc. Conference on Salmon Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest, October 6, 1980. Seattle, Washington. Davidson, Dean. 1983. Personal Communication. USFS, Anchorage, Alaska Ebasco Services Incorporated 1982. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. - 1983. City of Seward, Alaska, Transmission System Alternative Report. 1984. City of Seward Upgrade of Transmission Line Economic Evaluation of Avalanche Zones. Federal Highway Administration. 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington D.C. 89 pp. Institute of Social and Economic Research. 1983. APA Reference Case for City of Seward. Memorandum from 0.S. Goldsmith to Bill Hutchinson, September 16. REFERENCES (Continued) James, B.W. 1980. Impact of the Ashe-Slatt 500 kV Transmission Line on Birds at Crow Butte Island: Preconstruction Study. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, Colorado. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 98 pp. James, B.W., and B.A. Haak. 1979. Factors Affecting Avian Flight Behavior and Collision Mortality at Transmission Lines. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 110 pp. Jones, G.R., Jones. I., et al. 1975. A Method for the Quantification of Aesthetic Values for Environmental Decision-Making. Nuclear Technology, 25(4) :582-713. Jones & Jones. 1976a. Visual Impact of High Voltage Transmission Facilities in Northern Idaho and Northwestern Montana. Bonneville Power Administration. Seattle, Washington 176 pp. 1976b. Measuring the Visibility of High Voltage Transmission Facilities in the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville Power Administration. Seattle, Washington 55 pp. 1983. Visual Quality Assessment of Study Corridor. Lee, J.M., Jr. 1978. Effects of Transmission Lines on Bird Flights: Studies of Bonneville Power Administration Lines. Pages 53-68 in M.L. Avery (Ed.). Impacts of Transmission Lines On Migratory Birds, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 1978, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Stock Number 024-010-00481-9. Meyer, J.R., and J.M. Lee, Jr. 1981. Effects of Transmission Lines on Flight Behavior of Waterfowl and Other Birds. In: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Environmental Concern in Rights-of-Way Management. October 16-18, 1979. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, California. pp. 62.1-62.15. Raptor Research Foundation. 1975. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines. Brigham Young University. 19 pp. Schemph, P. 1983. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, Raptor Management Studies. Personal Communications. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. National Wetland Inventory Maps. USDA Forest Service. 1974a. Chugach National Forest Plan. 1974b. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1: The Visual Management System. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 47 pp. REFERENCES (Continued) 1975. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 2: Utilities. U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Washington, D.C. 147 pp. 1980. Soil Resource Inventory of the Kenai Peninsula, Chugach National Forest, Alaska. Alaska Regional Report Number 110. U.S. - 1982a. Chugach National Forest Draft Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement. 1982b. Chugach National Forest, RIM Information. + 1983. Soil and Water Requirements for Best Management Practices. Unpublished preliminary draft. Anchorage, Alaska. No date(a). Chugach National Forest. Vegetation Maps. No date(b). Chugach National Forest, Visual Resource Management Mapping. Department of Transportation. 1982. The Alaska Railroad, Fiscal Year 1982 Annual Report. Wahrhaftig, Clyde. 1965. The Physiographic Divisions of Alaska, Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Wexelman, D. 1983. Personal communication. U.S. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Seward, Alaska, September 27, 1983. Willdan Associates. 1981. Impact of the Ashe-Slatt 500-kV Transmission Line on Birds at Crow Butte Island: Post-Construction Study. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration by Willdan Associates, Portland, Oregon. APPENDIX A PERMITS REQUIRED APPENDIX A PERMITS REQUIRED Based on experience with similar projects, Ebasco compiled a list of permits that could potentially be required for a transmission line. Interviews were then conducted with the state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction to determine whether those permits will be required for the Seward transmission line upgrade project. In the sections that follow, the applicability, procedures, and requirements for each permit are discussed and the steps Ebasco has taken to prepare applications are described. This information is summarized in Table A-1. A.1 Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit Authority: Section 404, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Regulations: 33CFR Parts 320, 323, 325-327; 40 CFR Part 230 Agency: U.S Army Corps of Engineers Contact: Ms. Chris Godfrey Regulatory Functions Branch Alaska District Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 (907) 552-4942 Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be authorized by a Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These waters include navigable waters, lakes, rivers, and streams, tributaries, adjacent wetlands, isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent streams, and other waters. The existing and potential routes for the Seward transmission line do not cross any navigable waters but do cross other waters covered by Section 404. Much of the project will be covered by a nationwide permit for buried cable and for repair or Maintenance of an existing transmission line. However, if the design calls for new access roads or pads for support structures in wetlands, a Section 404 permit will be required. A-1 0164A TABLE A-1 PERMITS REQUIRED FOR SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE Agency of Contact Person/ Regulations/ Review Time Type of Permit Jurisdiction Address Phone Sections Cost ($) (Days) Comments Dredge and Fill Army Corps of Ms. Chris Godfrey, Section 404 of the 100 60 permit applicability dependent upon design. Engineers Regulatory Functions Clean Water Act - Permit required for new roads and pads in the Branch, Pouch 898, (36 USC, 1344) wetlands. Anchorage, AK 99506 - Corps will forward copies of application to (907) 552-4942 AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation for compliance with Clean Water Act; AK Division of Policy Developments-Coastal Zone Management Program;,AK Dept. of Fish and Game; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency; National Marine Fisheries; interested citizens. Navigable Bodies Army Corps of Ms. Chris Godfrey, Section 10, River -- -- - Not applicable because transmission Jine does of Water Engineers Regulatory Functions and Harbor Act 1899 not cross Kenai Lake, Branch, Pouch 898, Anchorage, AK 99506 (907) 552-4942 National Forest U.S. Forest Mr. Geoff Wilson, 1. Survey Permit 5% of land 1. Survey Permit required for surveying the Land Right-of-Way Service District Ranger, 2. Special Use value right-of-way. Either the contractor or U.S. Forest Service Permit the City of Seward may apply for permit. Seward, AK (Regulation 11A) 2. Right-of-Way Permit (907) 224-3374 -Two permits now exist: one for City of Seward and one for Chugach Electric Association, At a later date a decision should be made whether one or two permits will be issued. -A charge will be based upon 5% of the land value of the easement. -Forest Service is preparing requirements for application and will provide direction. Airport Federal AK Regional Office FAA Part 77 0 28-42 - Must maintain 20:1 profile. Construction or Aviation Div. of Air Traffic Subchapter B Alteration Administration Control 701 “C" Street Anchorage, AK 99513 or P.O. Box 14 Anchorage, AK 99513 (907) 271-5892 TABLt A-1 PERMITS REQUIRED FOR SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE Agency of Contact Person/ Regulations/ Review Time Type of Permit Jurisdiction Address Phone Sections Cost ($) (Days) Comments Railroad Right- AK Railroad Mr. Merle Akers, $50 - All crossings within a terminal or railyard of-Way Manager , should be minimum of 50'-55' over top of rail. Industrial Development - Transmissions may cross tracks; agency and Real Estate discourages parelleling within the right-of- Anchorage, AK way. Crossing problems may be alleviated (907) 265-2465 through engineering and design (e.g., Ptarmigan Creek, Snow River, and Lawing crossings). - Keep application brief; include construction plans such as typical tower cross sections, amount of power, number of lines, number of voltage, and slack between spans. - Federal government is in process of selling railroad to state. However, permitting process should remain the same. Habitat AK Nept. of Philip J. Brna, Title 16 0 30-40 days - Design must define which streams must be Protection Fish & Game Habitat Nivision, .05.870 crossed, 333 Raspberry Road Title 16 - Permit required to cross anadromous streams; Anchorage, AK -05,840 limited to winter or 5/15-7/15. (907) 344-1541 - Permit required if non-anadromous fish passage affected. - Must maintain 100' undisturbed vegetation along stream when clearing in coastal zone. - Must determine if moose calving or sheep lambing areas along project. State Lands AK Dept. of Mike Budville, A.A.C. Depends on use 90-365 - City of Seward must select whether it wants Right-of-Way Natural Div. of Land & Section 38,05.330 restrictions public or private right-of-way. Resources Water Management - Permit review could take up to one year. - Survey may be required. - Must submit as-builts. - DNR must concur on right-of-way for state-selected lands. ais Utility Permit AK Dept. of Rick Pettit, A.A.C. Title 17 0 3-21 Must be 45' from centerline of highway. Transportation Permits Officer and Chapter 15 Highway crossings must be 20' high; and Public Pouch 6900 parallel lines 18' high, Facilities Anchorage, AK - Buried lines must be 4' deep at crossings (907) 266-1522 and 3' for parall.:1 line. A-3 5809R Type of Permit Coastal Consistency Netermination 5809B Agency of Jurisdiction Contact Person/ Address Phone TABLE A-1 PEPMITS REQUIRED FOR SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE Regulations/ Sections Review Time Cost ($) (Days) Comments AK Office of Management and Budget Mr. Jack Heesch 3301 Eagle Street Suite 307 Anchorage, AK (907) 272-3504 $0 50 Coastal Consistency Determination required from OMB when at least one federal agency or at least two state agencies involved in permitting activity in the Coastal zone. Send federal applications simultaneously (USFS and COE) to federal agency and OMB. Send state applications (ADF&G, ADNR, ADOT, and PF) to OMB only, not directly to the agency, FAA and Alaska Railroad applications do not need to go to OMB In addition to specific requirements for each permit, include maps of a size that can be easily copied for all reviewers. Include a coastal consistency questionnaire. Once a permit application (ENG Form 4345) has been submitted to the Corps of Engineers, the review process would take about 60 days. The new Coastal Consistency Determination required from the Alaska Office of Management and Budget stipulates a maximum response period of 50 days, however. A fee of $100 must be paid at the time of application. The Corps will solicit comments on the application from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries, and interested citizens and environmental groups. Before issuing a permit, the Corps must also obtain a Section 401 certificate from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, stating compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Alaska Office of Management and Budget must also determine that the project is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The permit application must include a detailed description of the project, including cross-section drawings, quantities of fill to be used, locations, soils data, wetlands, etc. Names and addresses of adjoining property owners must also be provided. Ebasco has obtained the application form and guidance brochures on information to be provided. The applicable regulations have been reviewed so that the project design can factor in the specified conditions. Wetlands maps have been obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and names and addresses of property owners in the area have been identified from the tax assessor's rolls. The permit application has been prepared based on the transmission line route, the design, and an evaluation of where the route affects any rivers, streams, or wetlands. 0164A A.2 Section 10 - Navigable Waters Permit Authority: Section 10, River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C--401) Regulations: 33 CFR Parts 320, 321-322, 325-329 Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States or dredge and fill activities in such waters requires a Section 10 permit. None of the water bodies that may be crossed by the Seward transmission line is classified as navigable by the Alaska District of the Corns of Engineers. Therefore, no Section 10 permit will be necessary. A.3 National Forest Land Right-of-Way Regulation: Regulation 11A Agency: U.S. Forest Service Contact: Mr. Geoff Wilson District Ranger Seward, Alaska (907) 224-3374 A Permit was obtained for surveying the right-of-way on U.S. Forest Service land. Survey markers will be removed after construction is complete. Another permit is needed to conduct archeologic field studies. That permit application was submitted to the Forest Service in the name of the City of Seward in January 1984. Two Special Use right-of-way permits are currently in force for the transmission line. The City of Seward and the Chugach Electric Association each hold one permit. A decision will be made at some time in the future on whether one or two permits would be issued for the current project. The fee far this Special Use permit is based upon 5 percent of the land value of the easement. The Forest Service will draw on information prepared by Ebasco to establish conditions to be included in the permit. The Forest Service will also use information provided by Ebasco's Environmental Assessment Report in Making its decision to issue a special use permit. nriecan A.4 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Authority: Section 1101, Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1101) Regulation: 14 CFR Part 77 Agency: Federal Aviation Administration Contact: Alaska Regional Office Division of Air Traffic 701 C Street P.O. Box 14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 (907) 271-5892 For any structure that is more than 200 feet high, that is in an instrument approach area, or that is of greater height than a surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a 20,000 foot horizontal distance, a notice of proposed construction or alteration must be filed with the FAA Regional Office. A portion of the Seward transmission line is in the vicinity of the Seward airport. Therefore, any design changes such as increased pole height or rerouting of the line will require that this notice be filed. The line is also in the approach path to the Lawing airstrip. A separate notice will be required. Each notice must be submitted on FAA Form 7460-1 at least 30 days before the date of proposed construction. The application must include a detailed description of the size and configuration of the transmission line and a map showing the location of the line with respect to the airport. The Air Traffic Division in the Alaska Regional Office will require 4-6 weeks to review the notice. FAA may suggest certain stipulations on the project such as placement of obstruction notices on wires crossing the airport approach zone. Although FAA cannot enforce compliance with these stipulations, failure to do so will make the applicant liable for future accidents involving the transmission line. Ebasco has obtained the necessary application forms for this notice. The considerations of pole height and maintenance of the 20:1 profile for the airport approaches have been factored into the project design as much as possible. A-7 N1A44A A.5 Railroad Right-of-way Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad: Administration Contact: Mr. Merle Akers Manager, Industrial Development and Real Estate The Alaska Railroad Pouch 7-2111 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 (907) 265-2465 For sections of the Seward transmission line that either cross the Alaska Railroad track north of Seward or that are proposed to share the railroad right-of-way, a permit will have to be obtained from the railroad. The permit process is initiated by writing to the Railroad Engineering Department and providing project construction plans, including typical cross-sections for crossings, amount of power, total number of lines, total voltage, and slack between the plans. Fees for the permit will be $50 for document preparation and plan review and $12/year for a limit of 55 years. The Alaska Railroad is being sold by the federal government to the state and the transaction will be completed in about 5 months. However, the requirements for the permit will not change. These requirements are outlined in the contact report in the Appendix. Ebasco has met with officials of the Alaska Railroad to determine permit requirements and procedures and to explore any restrictions on sharing the right-of-way for a parallel transmission line route. The latter concept will require a demonstration of the engineering need. The Engineering Department of the Railroad has been contacted to confirm the construction requirements. 0164A A.6 Habitat Protection Permit Authority: Alaska Statutes, Title 16 Agency: Alaska Department of Fish and Game Contact: Mr. Phil Brna Habitat Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska (907) 344-0541 Projects located in or affecting important wildlife habitats must obtain a habitat protection permit from Fish and Game. The Department will review potential impacts on moose, ducks, geese, fish, other animals, and their habitats. The area around the transmission line is not designated as critical winter habitat, although it is used by moose as winter range. The area near Seward has many eagles so the project design will include protection against electrocution. The primary concerns of Fish and Game focus on anadromous fish streams. All streams south of Lakeview are considered to support anadromous fish. A permit will be required to cross these streams as well as others where the stream crossing could affect fish passage. The permitting process is initiated by writing to the Habitat Division and including a project description and maps of the transmission line route. The permit will describe conditions on the timing when stream crossings can be made and the maintenance of undisturbed vegetation along streams in the coastal zone. Ebasco has compiled information on important wildlife habitats in the area of the transmission line to support an evaluation of potential environmental effects of the project. This evaluation was used in preparing the final project design and construction plans to mitigate impacts on important wildlife and their habitats. A-9 0164A A.7 State Lands Right-of-Way Authority: Section 38.05.330, Alaska Administrative Code Agency: Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Contact: Mr. Mike Budville Division of Land and Water Management Frontier Building, Room 1090 Anchorage, Alaska (907) 786-2273 To cross state lands, whether to gain access for construction or maintenance or for a permanent structure, DNR must issue a right-of-way or easement permit. The Seward transmission line crosses state lands in a number of areas. In addition, a state selection of land near Moose Creek was to be transferred to the state from the U.S. Forest Service on or soon after November 1, 1983. The line also crosses other state-selected lands further south. These lands are not expected to be transferred to the state at this time but may be sometime in the next 5 years. Existing encumbrances, such as rights-of-way, go with the land and would not be affected by a transfer to the state. A permit application (Form 10-112) must be filed with DNR and include a description of the width, length, and nature of the right-of-way needed. Separate permit applications will be required for: 1) temporary right-of-ways for construction; 2) permanent access for line maintenance; and 3) permanent transmission line structures. It will also be necessary to define the use restrictions that the applicant wants on the right-of-way. Formerly, the permit review process could be relatively lengthy. When an application was received, DNR would review it for completeness. Once the application was determined to be complete, other state agencies (Fish and Game, Policy Development and Planning - Coastal Management Program, Transportation, Railroad, etc.) would be asked to review and concur on the application within 15-30 days. DNR then required about 2 weeks to review the input of other agencies and make a preliminary decision. The public was given 30 days to review and comment on the preliminary decision and request a public hearing. Any public comments and hearings could result ina A-10 0164A determination that mitigation was required. A final survey of the right-of-way could then be required before DNR issued its final decision. This process could take as long as one year. Since January 3, 1984 a new Process-has been in effect. Applications to all federal and state.agencies, including DNR, are sent to the Alaska Office of Management and Budget. That agency coordinates all responses and makes a single determination on the permits within 50 days. Ebasco has obtained the necessary application forms. Preparation of the application and supporting plat map is complete. A.8 Utility Permit Regulation: Alaska Statutes 19.25.010 and 19.25.020 Title 17, Chapter 15, Alaska Administrative Code Agency: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities DOT) Contact: Mr. Rick Pettit Permits Officer Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska (907) 266-1522 To place, construct, and maintain a transmission line within or across a state highway right-of-way will require the issuance of a utility permit from DOT. Much of the existing Seward transmission line is currently in the Seward highway right-of-way but a utility permit will be required for upgrading the line. The application must be filed with the Alaska Office of Management and Budget and include detailed plans showing where the line will be within the highway right-of-way. The locations of the line must comply with a series of requirements regarding distance from the highway centerline, height of wires above the ground, and depth of buried lines. Transmission lines that parallel the highway are acceptable but must be at least 45 feet from the centerline and preferably within the outer 5 feet of the right-of-way. A-11 0164A A.10 Coastal Consistency Determination Regulation: Alaska Administrative Order 78 Agency: Alaska Office of Management and Budget Contact: Mr. Jack Heesch 3301 Eagle Street Suite 307 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 272-3504 Activities which require state or federal permits must also receive a Determination of Coastal Consistency if they take place in the coastal zone. The Seward transmission line lies in the coastal zone from Seward to the area near Divide, a distance of about 8 miles. When one or more federal permitting agencies are involved and/or if two or more state agencies are involved, the Coastal Consistency Determination is made by the Alaska Office of Budget and Management. The agency serves as a clearinghouse and provides a single decision on whether to grant all permits applied for. This procedure went into effect January 3, 1984. The agency has, by law, 50 days from receipt of the application to make its determination. Requests for additional information from the applicant must be made within 25 days. The applicant must submit a coastal consistency questionnaire, along with all the application materials required by the various federal and state agencies. Permits and agencies of interest include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sec. 404 Clean Water Act and Sec. 10 River and Harbor Act permits, the USDA Forest Service national forest land right-of-way permit, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game habitat protection permit, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources state lands right-of-way permit, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities utility permit. OMB does not need to review FAA airport construction approvals or Alaska Railroad right-of-way permits. A-12 0164A APPENDIX B AGENCY CONTACTS Page 1 of 4 Date 9/23/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: U.S. Forest Service, Seward Ranger District DATE OF CONTACT: September 17, 1983 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: Cooper Lake Alternative and Study Coordination Activites DISCUSSION WITH: Geoff Wilson OTHERS PRESENT: Don Sandiforth Ron Quilliam, Kurt Nelson _Bob Walker The meeting began with an introduction of those in attendance at the meeting and a review of their responsibilities. Geoff Wilson explained that Ron Quilliam was responsible for lands, Kurt Nelson was responsible for fish and wildlife, and Bob Walker was responsible for engineering and recreation. Don Sandiforth explained that he was the project manager on the project and that Bill Kitto was responsible for the environmental and permitting studies. Don Sandiforth then said that one of the primary purposes of this meeting was to review the merits and permitting requirements of an alternative that Ebasco was asked to consider by the City of Seward during the contract negotiation process. The specific alternative was one that had been identified by Chugach Electric Assocation and involved building a line from the Cooper Lake Project east and then south toward the existing line near the point where it crosses the Snow River. This alternative was identified on a map although Don Sandiforth explained that Ebasco had done little study of this alternative as it had not been included in Ebasco's proposal. Don Sandiforth explained that the primary consideration in evaluating this alternative related to its potential for reducing costs and the fact that it would have certain advantages from an electrical system perspective. The Forest Service staff present had several questions and comments regarding the Cooper Lake alternative. In general, it was the opinion of the Forest Service personnel that constructing a line on the south side of Kenai Lake would be difficult. They felt that the steep slopes along the shoreline would make access difficult and that future maintenance problems would be difficult to deal with because of the inaccessiblity of the area. It was pointed out that not only are there no roads in the area, but that access would be difficult by boat during certain periods of the winter when the lake is partially frozen. Also, in many areas along the shoreline it is difficult to land a boat because of the fact that there is no beach or other area where landing would be possible. An alternative that was suggested by the Forest Service was the use of a submarine cable for the entire length of the project. It was indicated by the Ebasco personnel that such an alternative would likely be very costly and difficult to install. 4906B B-1 Page 2 of 4 The topic of avalanches was also discussed and the Forest Service personnel pointed out that there were areas of extreme avalanche danger along the potential route from the Cooper Lake project. These areas were reviewed on the USGS map and on air photos the Forest Service had of the area. In general, the avalanche danger appears to be very high on the slopes for the first 10 miles east of the Cooper Lake project. These first 10 miles are much more rugged, having slopes in excess of 100% in places, than the more gentle forested slopes visible from the Seward Highway. The section visible from the Seward Highway, from Black Mountain south, is less steep and is forested by conifers. The segment from Black Mountain south is generally far more favorable for transmission line construction that the section to the west of Black Mountain. It was noted, however, that snow accumulations on this route would be comparable to those on the other route, even though the route from Cooper Lake would be primarily along north facing slopes. There was also considerable discussion about the permitting considerations associated with the Cooper Lake route. Forest Service personnel indicated that a route through this area would be far more controversial and require more analysis than a route which followed the existing corridor. In response to a question regarding whether the Cooper Lake route would require a full environmental impact statement, Forest Service personnel said that they could not make such a determination at this time. It was indicated, howerver, that the Cooper Lake route would cross a roadless area that had been recommended for further planning in the RARE II wilderness evaluation process. Forest Service staff indicated that because this area had been identified as roadless, any development proposed in the area would be challenged. It was also indicated that the Forest plan itself prepared for the Chugach National Forest might be challenged regarding the way in which it analyzed roadless areas. For all of these reasons, the general opinion was that the chance that a route from the Cooper Lake project east and south along Kenai Lake could be successfully permitted in time for the 1984 construction season was quite slim. Discussion then turned to conditions along the existing route. Specifically, Forest Service officials indicated that in the past there had been some problems with the existing line resulting from trees falling on to it. The Forest Service said that it was their policy to have the least amount of clearing possible on the right-of-way. Forest Service personnel indicated that most problems with the trees occurred from Mile 18 toward town on the existing line. U.S. Forest Service personnel also identified several areas of avalanche concern along the existing route. The existing avalanche chute near Mile 20 is the one of greatest concern to the Forest Service. In discussing how the proposed design might accommodate the existing avalanche conditions, Ebasco personnel indicated that one option would be to underground the lower voltage (24.9 kV) line through the avalanche area so that that system could operate in the event of an outage of the overhead 115 kV system. Forest Service personnel said that soil conditions along the avalanche area near Mile 20 should be favorable for undergrounding as the area is composed primarily of soil in which it would be relatively easy to trench. Another area of avalanche concern, according to the Forest Service, occurs near Mile 38 in the vicinity of Tern Lake. Forest Service personnel indicated that Chugach Electric Association had recently relocated structures in this potential avalanche area. The Forest Service said that they had relayed concerns to Chugach regarding potential avalanche concerns in this area, but that Chugach had determined that the location that was selected was the most economic one considering all factors. 4906B B-2 Page 3 of 4 During discussions of potential impacts, it was indicated that visual impacts would likely be of utmost concern to the Forest Service. In addition, Forest Service personnel said that it would be much more desirable to construct all new lines on the existing corridor. Forest Service personnel also indicated that the agency would not look favorably on constructing two parallel lines, as opposed to consolidated lines. Don Sandiforth indicated that Ebasco would likely look seriously at underbuilding lower voltage lines on the existing system. Further discussion of the avalanche concerns revealed that the most recent modifications of the avalanche crossing near Snow River had been somewhat successful in that the line was not taken out of service during the past few years. During the meeting, the proposed approach of Ebasco (for Ebasco to prepare the environmental assessment for the Forest Service) was discussed. Forest Service personnel in attendance at the meeting were supportive of the concept, but indicated that they would need to check with individuals in the Forest Supervisor's Office for approval of the proposed approach. Geoff Wilson said that he would be in Anchorage next week and would check on the proposed approach at that time. Bill Kitto then indicated that certain materials would be needed in order to prepare the permit application and environmental assessment in the required format. Specifically, a sample environmental assessment, Forest Service environmental assessment guidelines, and guidelines for preparing permit applications were requested. Forest Service personnel agreed to provide these Material to Ebasco early in the week of September 26, 1983. Forest Service personnel also stated that it was important to identify areas where rerouting was being considered as soon as possible. Such areas would be the focal point of the environmental analysis and permitting process and should be thoroughly evaluated prior to the recommending that reroutings occur. Ebasco then asked the Forest Service officials what role the Forest Service would like to have in the upcoming public meetings. It was indicated that Forest Service personnel would likely attend the meetings, but that there was no need for the Forest Service to co-sponsor the public meetings. The Forest Service did, however, offer to assist Ebasco in setting up the public meetings and agreed to provide a copy of its mailing list to Ebasco. Ron Quilliam also indicated that he would be happy to set up the meeting in Moose Pass as he is a resident of that area. It was agreed that once a date had been established for the Moose Pass meeting, Ron Quilliam would be informed and would make the necessary arrangements for conducting such a meeting. An issue the Forest Service identified as likely to arise in the public meeting in Moose Pass would be the possible effect of the project on the cost of power from the proposed project. Currently, Moose Pass purchases its electricity from Chugach Electric Association whose residential rates are somewhat lower than those of the City of Seward. Residents of the Moose Pass area may be concerned that this project could affect their situation and possibly increase their rates. Ebasco should be prepared to address such a question at the meeting. It was further suggested that Ebasco determine who would control the line from Lawing north to Dave's Creek after the project was completed. 4906B B-3 Page 4 of 4 Forest Service personnel then identified contacts with other agencies who would likely be concerned with the proposed transmission line project. -Several agencies were identified as having an interest in this project. These agencies, and individuals who should be contacted, are identified below. . The first agency discussed was the Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service indicated that they had relatively few dealings with the Corps of Engineers and did not know the names of the individuals who Ebasco should contact. It was indicated the Corps' official dealing with this project would be located in Anchorage. The contact with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game identified by the Forest Service was Phil Brna. Phil Brna is currently with the Habitat Division, and would likely be involved in the proposed Seward transmission line project. Forest Service officials also said that Ebasco would need to contact representatives of the state of Alaska regarding state selected lands. The individual with the state with whom Ebasco personnel should discuss this matter could be identified by Beulah Bowers of the Forest Service in Anchorage. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities contact identified by the Forest Service was John Corbin in Anchorage. Ebasco indicated the desire to work with Forest Service staff and use Forest Service air photos during the upcoming field trip by its environmental staff. Forest Service officials said that Ebasco is welcome to use the air photo files at the Forest Service office in Seward. Ebasco also said that it would be giving one set of project maps to the Forest Service during its upcoming visit to Seward. Forest Service staff also indicated that it would like a more detailed discussion of the project schedule after it had been finalized. It was indicated that this would be discussed with Forest Service staff during the site visit in the upcoming week. A final subject area, soils and water, was discussed, and it was indicated that this activity would be handled primarily by Kurt Nelson and soils scientists in the Forest Supervisor's office. Dean Davidson and Dave Blachett are the Forest Service's soils scientist and hydrologist, respectively. Ebasco personnel were encouraged to contact these individuals, if necessary. Distribution: D. Sandiforth M. Carson J. Szablya C. Lawson K. Erickson R. Densmore C. Berry M. Urban P. Bergmann T. Atkins 4906B B-4 Page 1 of 4 Date 9/27/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: U.S. Forest Service, Seward Ranger District DATE OF CONTACT: September 27, 1983 BY TELEPHONE: _X_ PERSONAL VISIT: __ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: Permit Application Materials DISCUSSION WITH: Ron Quilliam OTHERS PRESENT: I called Ron Quilliam to follow up on unresolved issues raised at the September 17, 1983, meeting in Seward. The topics we discussed are summarized below: 1. Ron Quilliam informed me that he obtained information about the Forest Service mailing list and found out that there were thirty-five hundred names on the total mailing list. He thought we would likely only need a portion of that and indicated that the mailing list could be sorted so that we could be provided Names and addresses according to ten categories. The ten categories were state agencies, federal agencies, community governments, native groups, environmental groups, general organizations, and zip codes. Ron and I discussed thoroughly all of the interest the various groups would have. I decided that we should get the Forest Service mailing list sorted so that we had all individuals on the mailing list in Seward, Moose Pass, and Cooper Landing. In addition, I requested a listing of environmental groups, state agencies and federal agencies. After additional discussion regarding the possible interest of officials from the Kenai Burrough, we decided that it might be best to get zip code listings for Kenai and Soldotna also. Ron Quilliam said that he would request the mailing list be sorted according to the categories I had identified, and that he would request a list from Anchorage so that Geoff Wilson, who was in Seward when I called Ron Quilliam, would be able to bring the mailing list back with him to Seward prior to September 29, 1983. 2. Ron Quilliam said that he had recently learned that the Moose Pass State Selection was tentatively approved and will likely be in effect by November. He indicated that it would be possible that there could be objections to the State Selection but that that would be unlikely. He said that for this reason, Ebasco personnel should be certain to work with the State of Alaska officials regarding the status of this selection. He indicated that this could delay the process of preparing the permit materials. Related to the state land selection is the possible selection by the Grass Creek Native Group. Ron Quilliam indicated that he had heard recently that the claims of this Seward based native group had been denied. He indicated, however, the the decision could be appealed and he was not certain as to the time limit for such an appeal. Ron Quilliam indicated that he would be looking into the status of this appeal process. 4906B B-5 Page 2 of 4 4. Ron Quilliam also said that we would need to work with the Alaska Railroad as the Transmission Line crossed the railroad at Mile 18-and Mile 23.5. 5. Another item needed for the permit application, according fo Ron Quilliam, is a map and listing of all distribution lines off the main line. He said that appropriate information describing where these facilities were would be needed for the permit application. 6. Ron Quilliam also informed me that the U.S. Department of Energy approval is required prior to the issuance of all right-of-way permits on lines greater than 33 kv. He is not certain where the Department of Energy official was responsible for participating in the review process, but that some time would be required for their involvement. 7. He also indicated that slightly different information would be required if the first transmission line was “a primary" transmission line. He stated that he was not certain if the line was a primary transmission line and in the example he related to me regarding the determination of what was a primary line, he referred to lines of the Bonneville Power Administration. Ron Quilliam indicated that information on wheeling arrangements might need to be included in the permit application. Ron Quilliam indicated that he was not certain exactly what information would be required and was working with officials in Anchorage in order to determine exactly what information he would need to include in the permit application. We agreed to discuss the matter further when we meet later this week. 8. The point was brought up by Ron Quilliam that there are presently two permits for the existing transmission line. One permit is held by Chugach Electric Association and the other by the City of Seward. Ron explained that a decision would have to be made regarding whether one or two new permits should be issued. 9. Ron Quilliam told me that the new right-of-way permits will be charged permits. A charge will be made for the permit in accordance with new federal regulations. The charge for the permit will be five percent of the land value for the easement. Thus, the annual charge will be greater the wider the easement. Ron Quilliam informed me that the change to a charge permit would have been made regardless of whether the proposed project goes forward. In fact, Chugach Electric Association's permit was converted to a charge permit last year and the Seward permit portion of the line was scheduled for conversion this year. I discussed with Ron Quilliam who would be developing information on assessed land value and learned that the Forest Service would make this assessment themselves. He informed me that the level of effort to make such an assessment was minimal and that development of an assessed value would not delay the process. 4906B Page 3 of 4 10. We then discussed the availability of a sample environmental assessment for us to use in our work and whether approval had been received for Ebasco to actually prepare a draft environmental assessment. Ron Quilliam informed me that Geoff Wilson was meeting in Anchorage to discuss this matter and would be back in Seward on Thursday, September 29, 1983. At that time, we would learn what decision the Forest Service had made regarding Ebasco participation in the preparation of the environmental assessment. Also, at that time, we can receive a sample environmental assessment that will aid us in our efforts. 11. I asked Ron Quilliam whether we would also be able to pick up a copy of the sections of the Forest Service manual dealing with permit applications. Ron Quilliam told me that requirements for an application were scattered in a number of sections as the Forest Service manual was currently being revised. He said he was pulling this information together and would be able to provide us more precise direction of what was required in the future. 12. I told Ron Quilliam that we had tentatively identified areas where we would be examining relocating the existing transmission line. I said in several cases we were looking to relocate the line to avoid flood areas where access would be difficult. I also said that we were looking closely at the potential avalanche areas. Regarding the avalanche areas, I told Ron Quilliam that they were quite extensive and that there does not appear any way to avoid avalanche problems. Specifically, I told Ron Quilliam that we would welcome suggestions regarding wheel alignments to reduce the avalanche hazard. I mentioned the Tern Lake area as one concern that had been identified to us by the Forest Service and said that we were examining options in that area. I indicated, however, that there were no good solutions other than moving the existing line to the south side of the highway adjacent to Tern Lake. I said that it was our opinion that such a relocation, although reduciing the avalanche hazard, had serious other visual problems, including visual impacts. Ron Quilliam responded by saying the Forest Service would certainly see the relocation of the line to the south side of the highway in a similar light and that it was doubtful the Forest Service would issue a permit for a line in that area. I then asked Ron if it would be appropriate to report in project report that this alternative had been identified but eliminated because of potential visual impacts and difficulties in obtaining Forest Service approval. Ron Quilliam indicated that we could include that in our report. 13. We also discussed the potential rerouting areas in light of requirements to avoid wet lands and the need to work with the Corps of Engineers. I indicated that rerouting the line in the wet land appears to be a case where a trade-off decision was required beween potential visual impacts and potential impacts on wet lands. I said we would be conferring with the Corps of Engineers regarding this matter and would need to discuss this matter further with the Forest Service. Ron Quilliam said that he would be interested in learning where these areas were located. 4906B Page 4 of 4 14. We then discussed the best manner to meet and discuss the approach we would be using in preparing the environmental documents and to review the specific areas where rerouting was being considered. After some discussion, we determined that it would be best to meet at the Ebasco-Seward office on Thursday, September 19, 1983, at 9:00 a.m. This would afford Ron Quilliam the opportunity to review these issues with Geoff Wilson on Thursday morning. Ron Quilliam also indicated he might not need to examine the potential rerouting areas with us as he was quite familiar with the area and would likely be able to talk to us about it without examining the areas in the field. I told Ron Quilliam that we had sketches and would identify these areas on a map with him during our meeting on Thursday, September 19, 1983. Ls | ¢ Df tn “yy lane Kk 4906B B-8 Page 1 of 3 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT Date 9/29/83 CONTACT: U.S. Forest Service, Seward Ranger District DATE OF CONTACT: _9/29/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ____ SUBJECT: _Forest Service Coordination Activities DISCUSSION WITH: Bill Toskey, Acres/Hanscomb OTHERS PRESENT: Geoff Wilson, U.S. Forest Service Ron Quilliam, U.S. Forest Service Bill Kitto Caroline V. Berry RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: The meeting began with an introduction of those in attendance at the meeting. Bill Kitto reviewed the transmission line corridor. Areas of concern, including muskeg and avalanche, were identified by the U.S. Forest Service specialists. For example, due to the muskeg located near the fish hatchery, it is difficult to access the transmission line. Possible solutions for the fish hatchery site include: 1) relocate lines closer to the road, 2) relocate lines to the right of the road, 3) relocate structures behind rock knobs, vegetation, etc. Also discussed were permitting procedures. A letter is expected from Chugach Electric Association the week of October 3, 1983, clarifying procedures for permit processing and billing. Ron Quilliam said he will provide a map identifying property ownership for the upper trail. He also informed those in attendance that a Bear Lake area decision will soon be announced. Topics for the upcoming public meetings were discussed. Key issues are visual impact of the transmission line and potential avalanche hazards. Water quality, soil and vegetation impacts will be of lesser concern. Ron Quilliam suggested limiting the transmission line corridor to 60 feet and feathering vegetation in visually sensitive areas to reduce ground and air traffic visibility. y Associate Resource Planner Caroline V. Berry 4906B B-9 Page 2 of 3 Access roads were discussed. Ron Quilliam recommended an inventory of existing access/service roads be made. Geoff Wilson suggested temporary and permanent construction roads should be included in the inventory. Bill Kitto stated underground transmission lines through avalanche areas will be addressed and will probably only be used as part of the backup system. Overhead lines will have a break-away capability. The design of the structures will be reviewed as part of the study; however, it is likely a single line pole will be recommended. Bill Kitto said an environmental assessment of the project will be completed prior to final design decisions. It is Ebasco intent to work closely with the U.S. Forest Service throughout the process, resulting in a reliable design, addressing key concerns such as aesthetics. Ron Quilliam said the Forest Service will provide examples of similar projects' environmental impact statements, including: o Helena E.A. o Petersburg-Wrangle E.A. oO New Mexico E.A. Oo Timber Sales E.A. Bill Kitto stated two public meetings are tentatively scheduled for discussion of the transmission line project: Wednesday, October 19, 1983, at 7:30 in Seward Thursday, October 20, 193, at 7:30 in Moose Pass The meetings will include a 1/2 hour presentation of the project and approximately 1 hour for general discussion. Ron Quilliam said he will arrange the Morse Pass meeting and confirm the dates with Ebasco. Bill Kitto returned the aerial photographs to the U.S. Forest Service. Ron Quilliam said there is a new right-of-way (ROW) application form which doesn't have instructions for filling out. He suggesting referencing the environmental assessment and attaching detailed structure illustrations. Ron Quilliam gave Bill Kitto a copy of the “Code of Federal Regulations." Questions regarding the code should be directed to the Department of Energy (DOE) in Juneau, Alaska. Ron Quilliam stated the fee for the right-of-way is $553 per year. The right-of-way is 55 miles long and 40 feet wide. Ron reviewed the status of the project including that Bill Kitto is preparing the archeology permit; a fish stream map is available at City Hall; and Roseann Densmore, Ebasco, will review clearing specs covered in the fish and game permit. Ron Quilliam will make the fish stream and above environmental assessments available to Ebasco following the meeting. 4906B B-10 Page 3 of 3 Ron Quilliam suggested Ebasco retouch photographs of the area indicating alternatives in the environmental statement (i.e., Snow River, Fish Hatchery, Mile 5). Bill Kitto suggested Snow River may be difficult due to the steel design.- Overall, Ron Quilliam feels the project will be viewed favorably by the public because of the increase in electrical power and that the project should not have any negative controversy. Bill Kitto gave copies of the potential transmission line reroute and U.S.G.S. maps to Ron Quilliam. 4906B B-11 Page 1 of 1 Date 10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage DATE OF CONTACT: _10/4/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER __ SUBJECT: _Seward Right-of-Way DISCUSSION WITH: _Dennis Ogren OTHERS PRESENT: _Louise Dressen Envirosphere After discussing permitting concerns with Dennis Ogren, he provided us with information on the right-of-way for the Seward Highway. He also gave us blueline drawings of the Seward Highway and Sterling Highway within the project area. In response to a question I posed regarding the availability of abandoned rights-of-way for use as a potential transmission line corridor, Dennis Ogren informed me that he was not aware of the extent of such rights-of-way. Dennis stated that, in general, Highway Department rights-of-way on Forest Service land reverted to the Forest Service upon abandonment of the right-of-way. Similarly, Department of Transportation rights-of-way on private land could be returned to the private landowner upon abandonment, if so requested by the landowner. In response to my questions concerning the availability of information on abandoned highway rights-of-way, Dennis Ogren said I should speak with his supervisor, Laverne Buller. Laverne Buller would know the status of abandoned rights-of-way in the Seward area, but would not be in the office until Wednesday, October 18, 1983. The phone number at which Ms. Buller can be reached is 907/266-1649. In discussions with Dennis Ogren, the topic of flood control activities along Quartz Creek also was discussed. Mr. Ogren indicated that the Highway Department frequently repaired the berm along Quartz Creek. He said that we should contact Mr. Chris Keppler regarding these stream channel control measures. Mr. Keppler is head of operations and maintenance on the Kenai Peninsula, and he can be reached at 907/266-1692 in Soldotna. Yi Me 4 Lo 4906B B-12 Page 1 of 2 Date _10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska DATE OF CONTACT: _10/14/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: Permit Requirements to Cross State Lands DISCUSSION WITH: _Jim McAlister OTHERS PRESENT: Division of Land & Water Management South Central District Frontier Bldg., Rm. 1090 (907) 786-2273 RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: I outlined the Seward project and Ebasco's role in upgrade design and permitting; Mr. McAlister indicated he was generally familiar with the project. I told him the purpose of my visit was to ascertain permit requirements to cross state and state-selected lands. Mr. McAlister outlined the procedure for state selection of lands. He said the state can select up to 400,000 acres under the program. For forest lands such as of concern in the Seward project, the U.S. Forest Service first determines if these lands are conveyable. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) then keeps track of conveyances. For platted records of these lands, Mr. McAlister suggested I contact Willa Mae Schorr or Lane Wilde at the BLM office (see BLM contact report). Once BLM has given the selections tentative approval, public comment must be solicited before completing the conveyance. Mr. McAlister said even if state-selected lands have not received tentative approval, DNR must provide a letter of concurrence before USFS could grant a right-of-way permit. To cross state lands, DNR must issue a right-of-way or easement permit, pursuant to Section 38.05.330 of the Alaska Administrative Code. A key question to be addressed in the permit application is the restrictions the City of Seward wants on the right-of-way. If the right-of-way is to be public, there is no fee for the permit. However, a privately-held, nonexclusive-use right-of-way will be assessed at fair market value. Mr. McAlister will check on the authorities that can be used for a T-line and the standard for a public right-of-way and call me with this information. By A Spans Drsassid Principal Resources Planner A. Louise Dressen 4906B B-13 DISCUSSION WITH JIM MCALISTER (cont.) Page 2 of 2 Separate permits will be required for permanent access across state lands to the transmission lines. In addition, temporary right-of-ways will be necessary for construction that involves a bigger plat of land. Mr. McAlister provided two copies of the form for right-of-way permit applications (attached). He said we will need to describe the width, length and nature of the right-of-way needed. ONR may require a survey of the corridor if one has not already been obtained. In addition, they will require that the permittee submit as-builts after a letter of entry is granted. With respect to the Seward project, he suggested we also look closely at whether any additional substations and feederlines will be necessary for step-down for smal] communities along the route. If so, it will be easier to include these in the overall permit application than to seek additional right-of-ways later on. Mr. McAlister raised a major concern with proposed construction schedules. The state does not currently have any permit coordination procedure and DNR must seek interagency review on right-of-way permit applications regardless of whether those agencies are reviewing the same project for a different permit. He said a project such as this that largely involves an existing route can be reviewed faster than a new one, but he estimated the permitting process could take as long as one year. I asked for clarification of the procedural steps that add up to this timeframe. He said that when DNR receives an application, it first reviews the application for completeness. Once it determines the information is complete, DNR issues the application to other state agencies (e.g., Fish and Game, Coastal Zone Management Program, Transportation and Utilities, Railroad, etc.) for review and concurrence within 15-30 days. DNR then reviews the input from other agencies and makes a preliminary decision within 2 weeks. The public must be given 30 days to review and comment on DNR's preliminary decision. This May result in a request for public hearing and a determination of whether mitigation is required. A final survey of the right-of-way may then be required before the agency issues its final decision. Mr. McAlister conceded this process could be completed in as little as 3 months but said their experience has been that some complication often lengthens the schedule. He also emphasized that the DNR staff has a large backlog of applications to process now. He pointed out that the applicant will be required to pay for the public notice, any required surveys, and appraisals of land values. He said our primary contact in the future will be Mike Budville (who was on jury duty). 4906B B-14 Page 1 of 1 Date _10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska DATE OF CONTACT: _10/14/83 BY TELEPHONE:__ PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: _Status of State-Selected Lands DISCUSSION WITH: _Willa Mae Schorr OTHERS PRESENT: Lane Wilde Division of Conveyances BLM Division of Conveyances RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: I outlined the Seward T-line project, Ebasco's role, and my previous contacts with U.S.F.S. and DNR. I told them the purpose of my visit was to ascertain the status of state-selected lands in the Seward-Daves Creek area and obtain detailed plat maps. Ms. Schorr examined our state-selection map and said our drawings are as accurate as any BLM has. She said that the litigation over the northern Grouse Creek selection will hold up BLM's adjudication process by 6-12 months. However, the lower Grouse Creek selection that overlaps the state's does not depend on the appeal process. The state has not given this land a priority rating on its list so no action is currently being taken. Once the Grouse Creek appeal is settled, the state will have to prioritize its selections in this area since the state has overselected. Ms. Schorr will send me the public notice of tentative approval for Moose Pass, which is expected to be issued in early November. Mr. Wilde also pointed out that in Section 34 (near Seward), a small piece of land near the railroad track has been identified for state selection. This piece is referenced as #AA2382. He had no information on its status. oy a Shyvsandas Dw Principal Resources Planner A. Louise Dressen 4906B B-15 Page 1 of 1 Date _10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Alaska Railroad, Anchorage, Alaska DATE OF CONTACT: _10/14/83 BY TELEPHONE:_X_ PERSONAL VISIT: __ OTHER SUBJECT: _Effect of T-Line on Railroad Communication DISCUSSION WITH: _Jim Lemke OTHERS PRESENT: Communications Division (907) 265-2401 RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: I had been unable to reach Dan Lommell, the contact recommended by Merle Akers, but Mr. Lemke indicated he could probably help me. I told him we had asked Mr. Akers about the potential effect of a T-Line on nearby railroad communications. Mr. Akers had indicated most of the system as being converted to microwave to avoid any such problems. I asked Mr. Lemke the status of the conversion on the line between Daves Creek and Seward. Mr. Lemke said that entire line has been converted to microwave except the stretch between Moose Pass and Portage. That piece will be converted but not in the near future. He said that with the microwave system, the only problem with interference occurs where the T-line crosses the railroad. For more information on that issue, he suggested contacting 0. B. Weeks on 265-2456. By NY a8 =o D tecssan sc Principal Resources Planner A. Louise Dressen 4906B B-16 Page 1 of 1 Date _10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage, Alaska DATE OF CONTACT: _10/14/83 BY TELEPHONE:___ PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER _ SUBJECT: _Status of State-Selected Lands DISCUSSION WITH: _Beulah Bowers OTHERS PRESENT: Chugach National Forest 2221 E. Northern Lights (907) 279-5541 RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: I contacted Ms. Bowers to ascertain the status of the state selection process on lands along the potential route for the Seward transmission line. She is very familiar with the project and gave me a quick status report. The Moose Creek and Coopers Landing areas shown on our map have received tentative approval and public comment is being solicited. Based on comments received to date, she expects the transfer of these lands to the state will be approved by November 1. She suggested I contact Margaret Hayes, DNR South Central District Manager, for more information. For those parts of the T-line right-of-way on state-selected lands, U.S.F.S. will amend the permit and transfer its responsibility to the state. She reported that the Grouse Creek selections have been determined to be ineligible but the natives had just filed an appeal. While those lands are under appeal, U.S.F.S. will have to get concurrence from the natives before issuing any right-of-way permits. In the area where there is overlap between state and Grouse Creek selections, she expects no resolution within the next 5 years. Thus, during the period of concern for project construction, these lands will likely remain under Forest Service control. However, the Forest Service will obtain concurrence from both the state and the natives before issuing any permit. She does not expect a public service such as a T-line will have any problem getting concurrence from these two organizations. Although the CNI selection is not expected to affect the T-line route, Ms. Bowers said the transfer of the Alaska Railroad to the state (see contact report with Merle Akers) is holding up that selection. Once that selection is completed, CNI will control both surface and subsurface rights. Ms. Bowers confirmed that no BLM-controlled lands are involved along the potential routes for the T-line. YK & Wim Principal Resources Planner A. Louise Dressen 4906B B-17 Page 1 of 2 Date _10/20/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities DATE OF CONTACT: _10/14/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: _Highway Right-of-Way DISCUSSION WITH: _ Paul Davis OTHERS PRESENT:_Bill Kitto Division of Utility Permits Envirosphere (907) 266-1549 RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: I explained the Seward project and Ebasco's role and asked Mr. Davis about permits that may be required. He noted that much of the existing transmission line is currently in the highway right-of-way. DOT will require a utility permit for upgrades of the line. There is no fee for this permit. The permit review takes anywhere from a few days to 2-3 weeks. The DOT permit requires that other permits (e.g., Forest Service right-of-way) be acquired. Mr. Davis gave us a sample permit and an application form (see attached). The application must be accompanied by a set of plans showing where the transmission line will be within the highway right-of-way. Future contact on the application should be with Mr. Rick Pettit, the Permits Officer, on 266-1522. Mr. Davis outlined a series of requirements for the permit. These requirements are outlined in Title 17 and Chapter 15 of the Alaska Code and in “Accommodations of Utilities in State Rights-of-Way," which is available from the Juneau office of DOT, Utilities Section. The line must be at least 45 feet from the center of the highway and DOT would prefer that the line is in the outer 5 feet of the right-of-way. DOT only clears 10 feet from the roadway so some logging may be required. The permit may require that when clearing land the applicant must log, chip, and haul stumps away. In addition, Mr. Davis pointed out that a right-of-way adjacent to a highway must be “flush cut." In other words, because snow machines and other vehicles use the right-of-way in the winter, the state likes to see that potential hazards on the right-of-way are kept to a minimum. DOT requirements follow the National Electric Code so transmission lines crossing the highway must be at least 2 feet high and those that parallel the highway must be 18 feet high. is >> Principal Resources Planner A. Louise Dressen 4906B B-18 DISCUSSION WITH PAUL DAVIS (cont.) Page 2 of 2 Buried transmission lines must be 4 feet deep where they cross the highway and 3 feet deep where they parallel the highway. If it is necessary to cut the road to lay the line, it will be necessary to build a detour. The patch may have to be concrete rather than asphalt. Mr. Davis said DOT has no objections to realigning the transmission line within the right-of-way, provided the above requirements are met. He also said that if the line is built where DOT wants it and later has to be moved because of road changes, or other reasons, the state will pay for the move. Mr. Davis then took us down to the maps section to get copies of maps showing both the old and new Seward highway right-of-way. 4906B B-19 Page 1 of 3 Date _10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Alaska Railroad; Anchorage, Alaska DATE OF CONTACT: _10/13/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: _Railroad Crossings and Ground Clearance DISCUSSION WITH: _Merle Akers, Manager OTHERS PRESENT: A. Louise Dressen Industrial Development and Envirosphere Co. Real Estate (907) 265-2465 RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: The purpose of this meeting was to discuss with the Alaska Railroad their requirements for railroad crossings and ground clearance for the potential transmission line alternatives. Louise Dressen introduced Caroline Berry and herself as representatives of Ebasco Services Incorporated and gave a brief background of the project. Mr. Akers suggested that we refer to the Association of America Railroad Standards for construction requirements. It is a national publication used as a general guideline by the Alaska Railroad. He also suggested that we contact Ted Trueblood (265-2457) in the Alaska Railroad Engineering Department for more information. (Author's Note: Mr. Trueblood was unavailable during our 2-day visit, so he will have to be contacted by telephone.) Mr. Akers reviewed the railroad heights and right-of-way width requirements, Maintenance standards, property ownership and other concerns that the railroad May have concerning the transmission line project. The height of all railroad crossings within a terminal or railyard should be a minimum of 50'-55' over the top of the rail. The height should be sufficient to clear any cranes that may be working in the yard. All power lines must meet or exceed these standards so that they will clear any oversized equipment that may be within the railyard. The same requirement applies when near a bridge structure. The width of the right-of-way for a railroad is, in general, 100 feet on each side of the centerline of the railroad track and 25 feet outside communications lines. No surveys of the right-of-way have been done for the railroad and no legal descriptions exist. As a matter of policy, transmission lines may parallel only on the outer perimeter of the right-of-way. This is for safety reasons, j.e., should a train wreck occur, it will not interfere with the transmission lines. There are no plans to change the existing railroad corridor, but a new corridor will be added to extend a spur to Fourth of July Creek. Caroline V. Berry B-20 DISCUSSION WITH MERLE AKERS (cont.) Page 2 of 3 Railroad communication lines will not be an issue with the Seward Transmission Line Project because Alaska Railroad is currently in the process of changing their communication facilities to a microwave system. Mr. Akers suggested that within the time frame of the Seward Transmission Line Project, the railroad will have made complete transition to the microwave system and the current communication lines will no longer be in service. (See contact report for Jim Lemke, Alaska Railroad.) However, Mr. Akers noted that at railroad crossings, pe T-line may cross telephone lines and he was uncertain if that would have any effect. Aesthetics will not be a concern of Alaska Railroad because there are very few trains that pass through the area, of which even fewer are used for passengers (4-5/year). Mr. Akers stated that the Alaska Railroad would appreciate any clearing that may occur for the transmission line because it will increase the visibility along the railroad track. However, it is expected that the number of trains per week will increase from one train per week to several trains per day because of the new business coming into Seward. The Suneel Corporation is building a coal port and there has also been a move to put a container slip in Seward. Mr. Akers said this will require upgrading of the track for faster, 80-car trains. We asked Mr. Akers about restrictions on use of the railroad right-of-way for the T-line route. He said their first desire would be to have the line not on their right-of-way at all. However, there are no prohibitions against use of the right-of-way. He said it would be necessary to demonstrate that such use is based on engineering requirements rather than simply ease of getting transmission line route approval. Generally, the railroad does not like to have a transmission line parallel the track but crossings are acceptable. He noted that on the existing route, the highway is generally between the railroad and the transmission line and suggested contacting the Alaska Department of Transportation about the highway right-of-way. He also pointed out that the U.S.G.S. map on which the route is shown is out of date; the railyard in Seward has been moved to the north end of the inlet. Mr. Akers suggested that the key concerns of the Alaska Railroad may include the safety of the Pearimigan Creek, Snow River, and Lawing crossings. These concerns should be alleviated through engineering design. Alaska Railroad is concerned about the safety of the transmission line in conjunction with the railroad, but otherwise probably will not become overly involved in the project. The Alaska Railroad is being sold from the federal government to the state government. The transaction will be completed in approximately five months. However, the criteria for the permit application will not change. Permit applications should be coordinated through the Alaska Railroad Engineering Department and should include construction plans, including the typical tower cross sections of the crossing, amount of power, total number of lines, total voltage, and slack between the spans. Mr. Akers suggested keeping the application simple with brief explanations of one or two sentences per question. 4906B B-21 DISCUSSION WITH MERLE AKERS (cont.) Page 2 of 3 Fees are nominal for entering the right-of-ways for utilities that are owned by a municipality. They are as follows: $50 for document preparation and plan review and $12/year for a limit of 55-year permit. The fees should be paid in advance and are non-refundable for the entire project as submitted. Revisions to the permit are fee-gratis. For example, a permit to use the right-of-way for 55 years would be $50 plus $12 x 55, for a total of $750. In closing the meeting, Mr. Akers noted that an engineer from CH2M Hill had received application materials approximately one year ago for the Seward project. 4906B B-22 Page 1 of 2 Date _10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska DATE OF CONTACT: _10/13/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER __ SUBJECT: _Habitat Protection Permit Requirements DISCUSSION WITH: _Philip J. Brna OTHERS PRESENT: Habitat Division 333 Raspberry Rd Anchorage, Alaska 99502 (907) 344-0541 RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: I described the project to upgrade the transmission line between Seward and Daves Creek and outlined Ebasco's role in design and permitting. I explained that the purpose of my visit was to ascertain whether a habitat protection permit would be required for this project and to discuss the conditions which might be required in such a permit. After examining a map showing the transmission line route, Mr. Brna said that all streams south of Lakeview are considered to be salmon streams. He showed me a series of maps from the Anadromous Waters Catalog, prepared pursuant to Section 16.05.870(a) of the Alaska Administrative Code. Maps A-7, B-7 B-8, C-7, and C-8 are applicable to the Seward project. These maps show whether the stream is primary, secondary, or tertiary and the predominant fish species of concern. Mr. Brna said copies of these maps could be obtained from Anchorage Petrographics. (Author's Note: A subsequent contact with Anchorage Petrographics revealed that Fish and Game had put a hold on the maps until after October 15 but after that date we could place an order for them. Ms. Berry has been asked to prepare a purchase order for the 5 maps). Mr. Brna said that a habitat protection permit will be required to cross anadromous streams. In addition, if a stream crossing could affect a non-anadromous fish passage, a permit will also be needed. He said Michelle Urban has the materials on information needed in a permit application. If we send the division a letter with a project description and maps of the transmission line route, they can tell us what Fish and Game's concerns with this specific project will be; he said he would prefer this approach. By \ ‘A CARS AS Dyas saoM Principal Resources Planner A. Louise Dressen B-23 DISCUSSION WITH PHILIP J. BRNA (cont.) Page 2 of He did outline the general nature of the concern to be expected on a project of this nature. With regard to stream crossings, the timing is the only major concern. Fish & Game would prefer that any such crossings be made during the winter when they occur on ice. Otherwise, Fish and Game would probably limit them to the period between May 15 and July 15; some exemptions have been granted in the past but Mr. Brna indicated Fish & Game has received some criticism for too many exemptions. When clearing is necessary near a stream within the coastal zone, Fish and Game will also require up to 100 meters of undisturbed vegetation on either side of the stream. If all or part of the project is in the coastal zone, a separate permit will not be required; Fish and Game will put the condition on vegetation protection in the permit. He showed me the coastal zone map for the Seward area (#465-3562) and said a copy can be obtained by contacting Dorothy Douglas or Jan Cerise in the Juneau Coastal Zone Management office. Mr. Brna also raised two other concerns. He noted that there are large numbers of eagles near Seward so it will be necessary to design the line to protect them from electrocution. He also said that the Daves Creek area contains many moose. He thought this was mostly a wintering area but if there are any moose calving or sheep lambing areas along the route, Fish and Game may impose a constraint that there be no construction during those seasons. 4906B B-24 Page 1 of 2 Date _10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Anchorage, Alaska DATE OF CONTACT: _10/13/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: _Permitting and Licensing Procedures DISCUSSION WITH: _Chris Godfrey OTHERS PRESENT: Louise Dressen 907) 552-4942 Envirosphere Co. RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: Louise Dressen began the meeting by explaining the background of the project, Ebasco's role in the project, and potential transmission line routing alternatives. She then inquired about permits and licensing required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. Godfrey said that much of the project may be covered by the nationwide permit for buried cable and for repair or maintenance of an existing transmission line. However, a Section 404 permit is required for new roads and pads in wetlands areas. This includes roads used for access or maintenance purposes or pads used for support structures that involve discharge of fill or gravel. Ms. Godfrey explained the 404 permitting process. The process takes approximately 60 days and a fee of $100 for commercial or public projects is to be paid at the time of application. She recommended reviewing the brochure U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program - A Guide for Applicants to learn what information should be provided in the application. The application should include an attached 8 1/2" x 11" map of the area, cross-sections showing the depth and dimensions of fill, roads, etc. The Corps will issue one 404 permit to cover the project. The permit will be based upon a "typical" drawing of the fills to be used which should be provided by the applicant. The applicant should also specify the total cubic yards of fill to be used in the project. The application should include all information necessary to describe the project to help the Corps understand the application. In particular, Ms. Godfrey said the Corps does not have a wetlands map of the Seward area and will need soils data in the application. The Corps then forwards copies of the application to other departments of jurisdiction, including 1) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, which must issue a certificate of compliance with the Clean Water Act, 2) Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning, which determines consistency with the Coastal Management Program, 3) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5) Environmental Protection Agency, and 6) National Marine Fisheries. There is no need for separate applications to these agencies. Copies are also provided to interested citizens and environmental groups. Caroline V. Berry 4906B B-25 Page 1 of 1 Date _10/19/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Anchorage, Alaska DATE OF CONTACT: _10/13/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: _FAA Review and Approval of Project Plans DISCUSSION WITH: _Jim Perham, FAA OTHERS PRESENT: Louise Dressen Airports Division Envirosphere Co. (907) 271-5438 RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: The meeting was initiated by outlining the existing transmission line project and the proposed changes and requesting input from FAA regarding the project. Mr. Perham responded that the Seward Airport is under state jurisdiction and that Reed Gibby, Regional Planning Director, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, should be contacted. Mr. Perham reviewed various slides of the Seward transmission line taken near the Seward airport with us, and also a profile map of the airport, which he gave to us. He said the land approach pattern must maintain a 20:1 profile and noted that FAA had earlier forced the state to buy a larger piece of property for this purpose. He said the present transmission line presents no problem but our engineers should study the profile to determine if extra pole heights will violate the profile surface. If they do, it may be necessary to move the line further away from the airport. Because of this issue. Mr. Perham felt any efforts to straighten out the jog in the line near the airport would probably be unacceptable. Upon a cursory review, Mr. Perham suggested the highest transmission line be no taller than 32'5" near the end of the runway. Mr. Perham gave us a permit application for construction or alteration to be approved by FAA. The Air Traffic Office will be prime contact and it will coordinate with the Airports Division. This review will take four to six weeks and there would be no fee. At the end of the review, Air Traffic Control may suggest certain stipulations on the project. Without compliance to these stipulations, the applicant becaomes liable for any future accidents that may occur. Such stipulations may include placement of balls on wires crossing the airport approach zone. By. Caroline V. B 4906B B-27 Page 1 of 2 Date 11/11/83 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: _Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) DATE OF CONTACT: __ 11/8/83 BY TELEPHONE: PERSONAL VISIT: _X_ OTHER ___ SUBJECT: ADEC Requirements and Permits DISCUSSION WITH: _Bob Flint, Regional OTHERS PRESENT: Program Coordinator (907) 274-2533 RECORD AND INFORMATION RECEIVED: I went to the ADEC office to find out if there were any permits we needed from them or if there were any environmental requirements we needed to be aware of. Gina Kriete, Permit Information Center Specialist, gave me a list of all permits relevant to transmission lines, plus a list of federal and state agency contacts. She also gave me a set of pamphlets dealing with various regulations, such as land fill, food service, etc. There is apparently no single document listing all the regulations. Nor is there a single list of all the relevant pamphlets. Ms. Kriete said that the list of permits for transmission lines which she had given me was our best, most comprehensive source of information. She introduced me to Bob Flint, then left. I briefly explained the proposed plan to upgrade the Seward transmission line. I told Bob Flint that I wanted to find out if there were any permits we needed from them, or if there were any environmental requirements we needed to meet. I mentioned that we had seen several references to ADEC regulations in a Terror Lake report, and that some of my specific questions were related to those references. Bob Flint said that their main concern was with work camps. I was under the impression we were not going to have a work camp, so we did not discuss this point in great detail. Mr. Flint said there were several requirements which would have to be met and several permits would be needed. Their concerns are with food service, correct disposal of burnable waste, disposal of other garbage, and sanitary facilities. He mentioned that the Terror Lake FERC license applicaton proposed to backhaul their camp debris; then plans were made to burn the debris instead. This gets into ADEC's burning and landfill requirements - in other words, such a shift in plans is not a minor matter. — Cd SN Yall, Senior Resources Planner Ellen J. Hall 4906B B-28 Page 2 of 2 Mr. Flint pointed out that any burning as a result of land clearing should include only material from the land, with nothing added. He specifically said that no rubber tires were to be added to fires. Assuming we stick to material cleared-from the land, Forest Service permission to burn will satisfy ADEC also. I asked if there were any special requirements regarding wetlands. Mr. Flint said that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) handles those permits. The COE also handles coastal zone permits. The COE sends review copies of necessary documents to ADEC as a routine part of COE's review. Copies need not be submitted by the applicant directly to ADEC. ADEC's main concern is to minimize impact for stream crossings and wetlands. Bob Flint also mentioned that ADEC receives review copies of State land right-of- way permit applications. He said we should contact Alaska Department of Fish and Game if the line will cross any salmon streams. I told him we had already made that contact. I asked if there were any ADEC requirements regarding 011 spills or oi] spill containment facilities. He responded that EPA has a requirement for a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan. He suggested I go by the Anchorage EPA office to get the details. ADEC has no specific requirement for facilities, except those storing more than 420,000 gallons (10,000 barrels). For smaller facilities, the only requirements are EPA's. Regarding EPA's oi] spill control requirements, Mr. Flint said that ADEC does like to see a worst case, “what if" analysis concerning rupture of oi] storage containers. ADEC can take enforcement action if an oi] spill occurs. The offending company's oi] spill containment plan is considered in ADEC's evaluation of the problem and in their enforcement recommendation. The lack of a plan, ora superficial plan, would count against the company in ADEC's evaluation. Mr. Flint said the lack of a sound plan indicates a “don't care" attitude on the part of the company, and could lead to ADEC's requesting stronger action from the Attorney General's office. He said ADEC is really looking for preventive action rather than corrective action. While at the office I asked both Gina Kriete and Bob Flint if there is a compendium of all Alaska environmental regulations. Neither of them felt that such a document exists. 4906B B-29 Page 1 of 1 Date 1/27/84 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Alaska Department of Fish & Game DATE OF CONTACT: January 26, 1984 BY TELEPHONE: _X_ PERSONAL VISIT: __ OTHER __ SUBJECT: Permit Requirements DISCUSSION WITH: Phil Brna OTHERS PRESENT: (907) 344-0541 I called to ask about the agency's response to the pre-application materials we sent last month (ref. D. Sandiforth's letter to ADF&G, 12/8/83). Mr. Brna said he had briefly reviewed the materials and thought our approach is okay. More of the same should be adequate. Mr. Brna asked if I knew that the State had just instituted a new clearinghouse for all permits related to the coastal zone. I said I had not heard of it. He explained that the new system went into effect January 3, 1984. Anyone requiring a permit from at least one federal agency or at least two state agencies would be affected by the new law. Mr. Brna checked his coastal zone map and said that the Seward T-line is within the coastal zone from Seward to the area near Divide, at Benchmark 508. The whole project would therefore be covered by the new law. Mr. Brna suggested I contact Jack Heesch at OMB for more details. He gave me two phone numbers at OMB: (907) 274-3528 and (907) 272-3504. By: CQIew A Word Sr. Resources Planner Ellen J. Hall 4906B B-30 Page 1 of 1 Date 1/30/84 SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTACT REPORT CONTACT: Office of Management & Budget DATE OF CONTACT: January 26, 1984 BY TELEPHONE:_X_ PERSONAL VISIT: __ OTHER __ SUBJECT: Permit Requirements - OMB Clearinghouse DISCUSSION WITH: Jack Heesch OTHERS PRESENT: (907) 272-3504 I called to ask about new permitting requirements concerning activities in the coastal zone. Mr. Heesch explained that all activities taking place in the coastal zone, if they require certain state or federal permits, also require a Coastal Consistency Determination from the Governor's Office of Management & Budget (OMB). The law making this mandatory became effective January 3, 1984. I told Mr. Heesch which agencies we planned to apply to: FAA, FS, COE, DNR, RR, DOT, and AF&G. He said all those except FAA, the Railroad, and possibly DOT fall under the new ruling. The procedure is as follows: 1. Federal permits: Simultaneously submit one application to the federal agency and one to OMB. 2. State permits: Submit one application to OMB only. The requirements for each permit have not changed. The only additional requirement is that we fill in a Coastal Project Questionnaire. He is sending us a copy. The law stipulates that OMB must make a determination within 50 days, unless the issue is very controversial and requires a lot of public meetings and time to consider public comments. Any request for additional information must come within 25 days of their receipt of the applications. He said they are already processing some permits for oil and gas drilling under the new law, and the process seems to be working. I mentioned that we had already sent in our state lands right-of-way application to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Heesch said he would ask them to return the materials to us, if they have not done so already. That is the normal procedure under the new law. By: CRQ ew A Wath Sr. Resources Planner Ellen J. Hall 4906B B-31 APPENDIX C PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES APPENDIX C PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Ebasco scheduled and conducted two meetings for the purpose of obtaining public comment on the project's design and route alternatives. Comments obtained will be evaluated along with other project concerns, resulting in the best plan for the project. A public hearing was held the evening of Tuesday, October 25, 1983 in the City of Seward Council Chambers. The following evening, Wednesday, October 26, 1983, a public meeting was held in the community hall in Moose Pass. Meeting Format The meeting formats were similar. Each meeting began with Mr. Dennis Dooley, Department of Engineering and Utilities, describing background information concerning the project's status and previous activities conducted. He explained that the City had contracted with Ebasco Services Incorporated to conduct design studies of the proposed transmission line. He explained that Ebasco was gathering public input that would be used in the design process, and that no decisions had been reached regarding the proposed designs. Mr. Dooley further explained that the City sought to obtain public views on the project and to formally see that these views were incorporated into the planning and design process. It was explained to the audience that Ebasco Services Incorporated was responsible to Acres/ Hanscomb, who was the City's construction manager on a number of projects being conducted within the City of Seward at the present time. Mr. Dooley concluded his remarks by introducing Don Sandiforth, the Ebasco project Manager; Bill Kitto, the Ebasco representative responsible for right-of-way, permitting, and environmental studies; and Jim Landman, the technical reviewer with Acres/Hanscomb. After introducing the Ebasco and Acres/Hanscomb personnel, Mr. Dooley turned the program over to Don Sandiforth of Ebasco. c-1 O1A4A Don Sandiforth's presentation began with an overview of topics to be covered during the Ebasco presentation. He then described the relationship of the public meeting to the design process and schedule. The presentation of system alternatives began with a description of conditions on the existing transmission system serving the City of Seward. It was explained that there were significant problems related to voltage drop and line losses with the current system. Don also explained that industrial growth would lead to even more severe problems in 1984 and 1985, and as an example cited problems associated with operation of the shiplift facility. Although the proposed shiplift facility does not add a major load to the current system, its motor starting requirement cannot be accommodated without special coordination. It will be necessary to start the City's existing diesel system prior to operation and even then voltage fluctuations would occur, causing a flicker in the lights of all utility customers. Although the shiplift facility example was cited as an important problem of the City of Seward's transmission system, it was emphasized that it was not the installation of the facility per se that caused the problem. Rather, the shiplift facility is an example of the type of problem that is expected with continued growth in the City of Seward's electrical demand without adequate correction of the transmission system. Don then discussed the study that was used to determine the best method to plan for the City of Seward's future needs. Three load growth scenarios were presented and the assumptions behind each of them were explained. It was noted that it was difficult to project future energy requirements and, therefore, a range of projections was developed. In general, the high forecast was used to size the facilities required, whereas the economic evaluations were conducted using the moderate growth scenario. The characteristics of the old and proposed transmission systems were then compared in terms of voltage drop and line losses. It was explained that, based on these studies, Ebasco was recommending that a 115 kV transmission line be built from Daves Creek Substation to the City of Seward. Don Sandiforth concluded his remarks by showing a figure which depicted a 115 kV transmission line and the underbuilt 24.9 kV transmission line. It was c-2 0164A explained that this structure was typical of the type to be employed under Ebasco's preferred alternative. Following Don Sandiforth's remarks, Bill Kitto reviewed the environmental, permitting and routing studies which had been conducted. He began his remarks by presenting a slide presentation on routing and other considerations along the transmission line route. He reviewed existing conditions along the current transmission line route and pointed out areas where problems had led to the identification of routing alternatives. Following the slide presentation, Bill described seven permits which would need to be acquired from various agencies in order to construct the proposed transmission line. Bill also described each of the rerouting study areas which were being investigated by Ebasco. These included the Daves Creek Substation relocation, the Tern Lake reroute, the Upper Trail Lake fish hatchery reroute, the Milepost 21 avalanche area, the Snow River Crossing avalanche area, the railroad reroute option, the Golden Fin Lake option, and the Seward Substation approach reroute. Bill reviewed the issues associated with each reroute area by reviewing maps that had enlarged aerial Photographs. Comments on each of the specific routing alternatives were encouraged from the audience. Bill concluded his remarks by reviewing the issues which influence project planning. Bill emphasized that public input, particularly as it related to mitigation measures, was being actively solicited so that it could be incorporated into the project planning and design. Comments were encouraged at the meeting and attendees were also encouraged to send their written comments to the Seward office of Ebasco. Following review of these issues, the meeting was opened to public questions and comments on the proposed project. Summary - Seward Public Meeting, October 25, 1983 Verbal Comments and Questions - Seward Meeting 1. One individual present was concerned that the proposed transmission line would affect satelite TV reception. 0164A Response: The response was given that the proposed line would be located in the same right-of-way as the existing one and that it was not anticipated that there would be an adverse effect on TV _reception. A question was raised concerning the consideration being given to maintenance practices on the proposed line. Response: It was recognized that maintenance access was difficult for much of the route and routing alternatives were being developed, in part, because of this concern. It was also pointed out, however, that other design and permitting considerations were also considered in the routing evaluation. Written Comments - Seward Meeting Mary A. Bryan, Box 1153 - Mile 6-1/2, Seward Highway, 224-5905 I live and have property in Mile 6-1/2 area. I am in favor of a power line upgrade. Only concern, there are a lot of people living in the area, and view of mountains is getting less, due to trees growing so high. Don't really want to look at power lines too. Is there a possible chance of burying the line along the highway in the area? 0164A Attendance List - Seward Meeting Name/Organization Mary A. Bryan Al Lakey L.G. Neilson/L.D.S. Church I.W. Darbyshire Tim Pflum Ann Painta Marshall Ronne D.W. Baker 0164A Address Mile 6-1/2 Box 1153 Seward Highway Seward, Alaska Seward, Alaska Mile 5-1/2 Seward, Alaska P.O. Box 1012 P.0. Box 1876 S.R. Box 501 Box 723 Acres/Hanscomb c-5 5472 3886 288-3143 224-5902 Summary - Moose Pass Public Meeting, October 26, 1983 Numerous questions and comments were presented during the Moose Pass public meeting. These comments and responses are summarized below. Verbal Comments and Questions - Moose Pass Meeting 1. A concern expressed by a number of attendees at the meeting was that the Tern Lake route identified in the alternatives report prepared by Ebasco should not be developed. Comments focused on the fact that private land, containing homes, exists on the south side of the highway near Tern Lake and that a transmission line going through these properties would affect these properties. Response: Ebasco is presently recommending that the existing alignment be followed at the Tern Lake route, partially as a result of the concerns on the effect of private property and because of concerns expressed by the Forest Service. It was generally indicated that should this route or other highly controversial reroutes be included in the proposed route, it was quite likely that future public meetings would be held. 2. The question was asked about who would maintain the transmission line after it was constructed because the project apparently involved both Chugach Electric Association and the City of Seward. Response: An agreement between Chugach Electric Association and the City of Seward had not yet been finalized and it was not known who would maintain the line. 3. A question was asked regarding what percentage of the power serving Moose Pass and the City of Seward came from the Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project. c-6 0164A 0164A Response: It was impossible to say how much power from a specific plant was transmitted to the particular node because the output of all plants is transmitted into the power grid. -Several individuals also asked who would actually be building the line, the City of Seward or Chugach Electric Association. Response: At the present time the City of Seward was sponsoring the project although it was recognized that the right-of-way from the Chugach Electric Association would be required. Further, it was explained that although the funding from the state had not been secured, it was presently anticipated that the City of Seward would be constructing the proposed transmission line. Will Moose Pass ever be fed electricity from the City of Seward? Response: The City of Seward has in the past provided power to Moose Pass and could in the future. The City of Seward could provide power to Moose Pass when the transmission line between Daves Creek Substation and Moose Pass is out of service. Why isn't Chugach Electric Association building the proposed transmission line? Response: Although the proposed transmission line would benefit all electric customers in the area, the City of Seward was the prime beneficiary and the project sponsor. It was also indicated that funding considerations made it difficult for Chugach Electric Association to fund the line. Will Moose Pass residents have to pay for the line? Response: No, although it was pointed out that the funding for the line had not yet been secured. C-7 10. 0164A Is it possible that there will be many places where the 115 kV transmission line and the 34.5 kV transmission line would be located on different structures? “Response: It was indicated that there could be locations where the lines would be located on separate structures. In most cases, however, the 115 kV and 24.9 kV transmission lines would be built on the same structure. Who will contact property owners regarding easements? Response: Ebasco's responsibilities were to provide information concerning the right-of-way requirements to the City of Seward through Acres/Hanscomb. Property owners were encouraged to contact Ebasco regarding their concerns so that such concerns could be incorporated into the design, but the actual contact regarding the acquisition of easements would be by representatives of the City of Seward. Will there be any disruption in electrical service as a result of the construction of the proposed transmission line? Response: It was indicated that Ebasco planned to design the line so that construction could be sectionalized and interruptions to local service minimized. Construction would likely require the use of temporary diesel generated power to provide power to local residents while portions of the line were deenergized to allow construction to occur on lines which were not "hot." It was indicated, however, that moderate disruptions to service could occur. Will there be corona noise? Response: It was indicated that lines of the voltage contemplated (115 kV) could produce corona noise, but generally these noise levels NN. 12. 13. 14. 0164A were below what is recognized as acceptable. It was indicated that corona noise would be more pronounced during cloudy periods when the humidity was higher. The comment was made that avalanche hazards in the Tern Lake area were not as great as might appear as there had only been one avalanche in the area which affected the transmission line in recent years. This comment was made in support of the fact that the Tern Lake reroute option should not be pursued. There were objections to crossing the Snow River on the north side of the highway as identified on the enlarged air photos. Response: It was recognized that visual impacts were the primary concern with the routing option on the north side of the Snow River crossing and it was indicated that views of Kenai Lake would be impacted by a line on the north side of the Seward Highway, but the extent of the impact had not been analyzed in depth. Were potential impacts on waterfowl] considered in evaluating the Snow River crossing? Response: It was indicated that previous studies are available which show that waterfowl could be affected by a transmission line. The level of impact, however, was generally minor, depending on the line's design. It was indicated that this consideration would be analyzed in the environmental analysis being prepared by Ebasco. The comment was made that fast winds often accompany avalanches and that these should be considered in the project design. Response: Ebasco personnel indicated that this factor was a major concern in evaluating potential avalanche avoidance and mitigation strategies. 15. 16. We 18. 19. 0164A Will herbicides be used on the proposed transmission line? Response: Representatives of the City of Seward and Chugach Electric _ Association each indicated that it was not their standard practice to use herbicides. Consequently, it was recognized that herbicides would not be used on the proposed project during construction or maintenance of the proposed project. The comment was also made that special procedures should be adopted so that potential impacts associated with hydraulic oi] spills could be effectively prevented. Procedures should be set forth to prevent and control such spills, if they were to occur. The comment was made that consideration should be given to the effect of glacial dumps on the proposed line. Glacial dumps are a Phenomenon which causes the level of water in Kenai Lake to raise several feet during a period of a few hours. It was suggested that this factor be analyzed by Ebasco during the course of its design of the project. Residents of Moose Pass indicated that surface water rights on the slopes west of the existing transmission line were important because water supplies were obtained from this area. Residents stated that it was important that construction practices recognize that water supply facilities in the area should not be disturbed. Would the proposed line be helicopter constructed? Response: It was indicated that the exact method of construction of the proposed transmission line had not yet been determined. It was recognized that helicopters could be used during construction, but the exact level of their use had not yet been determined. c-10 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 0164A Will the proposed transmission line be accessible to off-road vehicles? Response: Access to the transmission line will be required during “construction and operation. It was indicated that different levels of access were needed for construction than for operation and maintenance but an exact access plan had not yet been developed. It was indicated, however, that preventing access to the right-of-way by off-road vehicles would be difficult. How quickly can the line be built? Response: It was indicated that the proposed line could be built in one construction season. What is the reason for rapid growth in 1984 and 1985? Response: Industrial development associated with the Fourth of July Industrial Park will cause significant load growths in 1984 and 1985. Have coal plants been studied as an alternative to the transmission line? Response: Coal plants have not been specifically evaluated for use in the City of Seward, but generally, coal plants are not cost effective for loads of the size expected in Seward. How do the Grant Lake and Bradley Projects affect the need for the proposed transmission line to the City of Seward. Response: The need for the transmission line to the City of Seward is independent of any other project development, although it is likely that any other projects would be interconnected to the Railbelt Transmission Line grid which would also be connected to the proposed transmission line to the City of Seward. c-11 25. 26. 27. 28. 0164A It was suggested that Ebasco engineers consider the use of special materials to prevent the transportation of frost-susceptible materials into the areas surrounding the proposed line's wood poles. Such an approach would prevent frost jacking problems which could otherwise “be expected on the project. Response: Ebasco was investigating potential problems relating to frost jacking, although preliminary indications were that frost jacking would not be a problem on the proposed line. Would the establishment of this transmission line and its interconnection with the Railbelt grid affect other projects such as the Susitna Hydroelectric Project? Response: Establishing an interconnected transmission grid would improve service to all customers in the Railbelt region; it would be difficult to say whether establishment of a grid would make it more or less likely that individual projects would be developed. If Ebasco makes recommendations regarding the proposed transmission line, who actually makes the decision regarding the proposed facility? It was indicated that Ebasco would make its recommendation, through Acres/Hanscomb, to the City of Seward. Numerous organizations and individuals would review that recommendation and would likely voice their opinions to the City of Seward. It was also indicated that the Forest Service, in issuing the right-of-way permit, would have jurisdiction over the route. What consideration had been given to the submarine alternative to Kenai Lake and why was this alternative considered? Response: An underwater cable through Kenai Lake was considered because at one point of this study the option of interconnecting with the Cooper Lake project had been considered. Such a route would have involved an overhead line on the south and west shore of Kenai Lake. C-12 Such a route crosses steep avalanche-prone slopes and was generally a poor location for a transmission line. The underwater alternative had been identified as a means to avoid such problems that had been investigated. An underwater option in Kenai Lake would also possibly “avoid avalanches and other concerns at Milepost 21 and the Snow River crossing. Therefore, if economically feasible, the underwater option would be highly desirable. The cost of the underwater option is, however, very high and was discarded for economic reasons. 29. Several individuals expressed concern regarding clearing practices along the right-of-way should the proposed line be upgraded. It was suggested that special clearing practices be adopted along the road so as to minimize clearing to the level absolutely required for viable operation of the transmission line. Written Comments - Moose Pass Meeting Judith E. Dopp, Mile 35-1/2, Moose Pass, AK (No Phone) Considering the threat of avalanches is not one of dire emergency (when was the last one?), I feel that any movement of service lines in the Tern Lake area would be aesthetically and economically unsound. I live at Mile 35-1/2 and think the existing lines has worked well enough in the past and should stay where they are. I've worked very hard for my homestead and view and it would be a bitter disappointment to have it obstructed by unnecessary electric lines. C-13 0164A Attendance List - Moose Pass Meeting Marion Beaudain Box 42 Moose Pass, AK 99631 288-3608 Mike Wiley P. 0. Box 505 Moose Pass, AK 99631 288-3114 Betty Bair Star Route Box 511 Seward, AK 99664 288-3627 Emma B. Merritt Star Route Box 545 Seward, AK 99664 288-3188 Jeanne Follett Mile 36 Moose Pass, AK 99631 288-3184 Tom Clarke Mile 23 Seward, AK 99664 288-3636 John Taylor Mile 35-1/2 Seward, AK 99664 288-3640 Judith Dopp Mile 35-1/2 Seward, AK 99664 Jeff Rutkowski Mile 35-1/2 Seward, AK 99664 Molly Wilson Mile 28-1/2 Seward, AK 99664 288-3109 Ed and Julie Kam Mile 30 Seward, AK 99664 288-3632 Glenda McHenry Mile 25 Seward, AK 99664 0164A C-14 Steve Cervantes . Kenai Peninsula Borough P. 0. Box 850 Soldotna, AK 99669 Jeff and Edward Estes Box 326 Moose Pass, AK 99631 288-3151 Bruce and Carole Jaffa Box 107 Mile 35.5 Moose Pass, AK 99631 288-3175 Don Lanourd Box 93 Moose Pass, AK 99631 288-3189 J. Richard Holoubek P. 0. Box 503 Moose Pass, AK 99631 Steve Hackett P. 0. Box 600 Mile 35.3 Moose Pass, AK 99631 Margie Anderson (representing Irene & Ray Girves) Box 1614 Mile 20 Seward, AK 99664 APPENDIX D STANDARD MITIGATION MEASURES APPENDIX D STANDARD MITIGATION MEASURES As a result of agency contacts, field studies and preliminary design activities, specific mitigation measures have been identified for this project. Specific measures include variable width clearing, visual impact mitigation, and centerline adjustment. Other general construction, operation, and maintenance practices are discussed as well. D.1 Variable Width Clearing Variable width clearing of the right-of-way is a method of mitigating the edge effect created by even-width right-of-way clearing. Although even- width clearing has been extensively used in the past, it is now recognized that the “tunnel" effect created by such clearing methods is not esthetically pleasing. Therefore, the use of variable widths along a right-of-way breaks up its straight lines. Medium sized trees can extend into the right-of-way where they do not interfere with line sway and sag. Service access can be provided through a zone in the right-of-way that is kept free of woody vegetation. A sketch of this type of clearing is shown in Figure D-1. Right-of-Way Clearing - The right-of-way will be cleared at variable widths. The width of right-of-way cleared will depend on the tree height and the minimum conductor clearances required by the National Electrical Safety Code. The right-of-way must be of sufficient width to allow the phase conductor to blow out to the edge of the right-of-way under extreme wind conditions, such as the 50 or 100 year mean wind. Actual clearing widths will vary with phase spacing, conductor swing, and vegetation height. A sketch of this type of clearing is shown in Figure D-1. Danger Trees - Dead, dying or leaning trees which could fall onto the conductor, but are outside of the cleared right-of-way, constitute danger trees. The contractor shall fall such danger trees and see that they are removed in accordance with the standards described under Timber Waste Disposal, page 0-10. D-1 0164A Source: PATTERNS OF CONDUCTOR SWAY SERVICE ACCESS CAN BE PROVIDED VIA A ZONE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY KEPT FREE OF SUBSTANTIAL WOODY VEGETATION Structure type shown in this drawing is for illustrative purposes only and a different design will be used on the Seward project. U.S. Forest Service National Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 2, 1975. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (NOT THE CLEARING MEDIUM SIZED TREES CAN EXTEND INTO THE THEY DO NOT INTER- FERE WITH LINE SWAY AND SAG CITY OF SEWARD VARIABLE WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING Figure D-14 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED D.2 Potential Visual Impact Mitigations Basic strategies for reducing visual impacts of transmission lines involve keeping them out of view or reducing their contrast with the surrounding environment, thus reducing the facility visibility. Insulator Selection - ANSI 70 insulators in a sky gray color can be used. The color will blend in with the background sky when viewed from the ground. Towers - The use of wood poles will reduce the visibility of the facility by blending the towers into the surrounding landscape. Route Location - Where paralleling an existing highway, the facility should be located so as to allow a band of vegetation between the highway and the cleared right-of-way. The width of the band of buffer vegetation is dependent upon vegetation type and density. Right-of-Way - As described earlier, the variable width clearing will, where possible, eliminate the "edge" effect by feathering the right-of-way edge. Such feathering allows “transition height" vegetation to occur within the right-of-way. Another measure is to protect buffer vegetation at the road and river crossings and in areas where the facility parallels the highways. This measure would provide vegetative screening to limit or control views of the right-of-way. At these points, clearings should be limited to danger trees and a minimum cleared width for access. Road and River Crossings - Where possible, the transmission line should intersect road, railroad and river crossings at as close to 90° as possible. This perpendicular crossing concept reduces both length and duration of potential views for the facility. Access Roads - Alignment of access roads should reflect topographic and vegetation patterns wherever possible. Cut and fill side-slopes should be kept to a minimum and vegetation clearing limited. 0164A In densely vegetated areas, access road alignment should be “dog-legged" near intersections with highways and major roads. This “S" alignment will allow existing vegetation to screen views down the access road. 0.3 Centerline Adjustment Construction of an upgrade transmission line allows an opportunity to make improvements by making minor adjustments to the alignment of the existing line and to structure placements in order to avoid potential adverse impacts. For example, the centerline of the right-of-way could be adjusted away from houses or other structures in areas where widening of the right-of-way would result in it being closer to such structures. Potential impacts could also be avoided by not placing structures close to roads that cross the right-of-way. Thus, potential impacts to certain property owners could be avoided by making slight adjustments to the centerline and through careful placement of structures. D.4 Construction, Operation and Maintenance Practices, and Mitigation Measures General The contractor's construction and clearing activities shall be performed by methods that prevent entrance or accidental spillage of solid matter, contaminants, debris, and toxic wastes into streams, lakes, bays, watercourses, flowing or dry, and underground water sources. Such pollutants and wastes will include, but will not be restricted to refuse, earth and earth products, cement, concrete, sewage effluent, industrial waste, radioactive substances, oi] and other petroleum products, aggregate processing tailings, and mineral salts. Pollutants and wastes will be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the agencies having jurisdiction. 0164A All construction plans could not be finalized prior to the submittal of this report. Forest Service representatives will be given an opportunity to review all project plans before they are implemented. The Forest Service will review plans submitted by the City, rather than deal directly with the contractor. Access Road Plan The contractor will prepare an access plan which will be submitted to the City for subsequent transmittal to the Forest Service. The access plan will identify the location of temporary roads to be used for construction and permanent roads to be used for operation and maintenance. The access plan submittal will include a set of plan and profile drawings with the following categories of road identified: 1. Existing road for temporary (construction) access. 2. Existing road for permanent (construction, operation and Maintenance) access. Proposed temporary (construction) access road. 4. Proposed permanent (construction, operation and maintenance) access. Permanent access roads identified by the design engineer are shown on the plan and profile drawings. These are to be revised as necessary by the contractor. Along with the drawings showing the access roads, the access plan will include a description of the design requirements and rehabilitation techniques to be employed on all temporary roads. The design requirements for temporary roads will identify what equipment is to travel on each road and the expected frequency and duration of use. The rehabilitation plan will describe both rehabilitation and revegetation activities. 0-5 0164A For each section of the road to be constructed or upgraded, the clearing, grading, and surfacing requirements will be specified. The number and size of culverts to be installed will also be described. Soil Erosion Control A. The contractor shall exercise care to preserve the natural landscape and shall conduct all his operations so as to prevent any unnecessary destruction, scarring or defacing of the natural surroundings in the vicinity of work areas. B. After excavation of any open cut slope, slope protection measures shall be provided by the contractor to minimize erosion of the cut slopes and transport of silty materials. This may be done by introducing suitable vegetation placed to reduce adverse channelization of flows, or by the use of other approved methods. C. The construction of the temporary access trails and the preparation of the various staging areas shall be planned and conducted in such a Manner that all trees not approved for removal shall be preserved and adequately protected from either direct or indirect damage by the contractor's operations. The contractor's camp work area shall be planned so as to reduce the removal of trees and shrubs to a minimum. D. The contractor shall conduct all operations in a manner which will cause the least disturbance to the topsoil. Indiscriminate bulldozing, scraping, movement of equipment, and other operations which will result in unnecessary destruction of vegetation and unwarranted erosion will not be permitted. E. The pollution level increases in rivers, streams, and bays shall be controlled as described in Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Regulations. 0164A F. The contractor's construction of the transmission line shall be performed by methods that will prevent entrance, or accidental spillage of solid matter, contaminants, debris and other objectionable pollutants and wastes into any streams or watercourses. : G. The contractor shall maintain the existing access trails throughout the construction period, whether constructed by the contractor or made available for his use by the landowner or land manager. While performing trail maintenance work, the contractor shall avoid permanently fouling gravel or rock surfaces through covering them with earth or debris from side ditches, slides, or other sources. H. Upon completion of construction, all work areas shall be smoothed and graded in a manner to conform to the natural appearance of the landscape. If any scarring or damage occurs outside of approved areas as a result of the contractor's operations, the areas shall be repaired and reseeded, or otherwise corrected as necessary. Stream Crossings A. Erosion control shall be provided throughout the project to insure protection of water quality and fishing values. Stream banks shall be restored to pre-project integrity during the construction season in which they are damaged. No debris will be placed in streams or water bodies without permission, before the fact, by resource management agencies. Buffer strips of undisturbed vegetation, 100 feet in width, will be provided at stream crossings. B. Specific stream crossing activity, timing, or method alteration shall occur through the Construction Manager. Any questions relating to the permit or streams shall be directed to the Construction Manager's offices. C. No vehicles or equipment shall enter, cross or interfere with beaver dams, houses, or impoundments. D-7 0164A D. No fuel conveyance shall cross any stream without the written approval of the Construction Manager. E. There shall be no blasting within 1/4 mile of any stream, lake or bay without written approval of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. F. Contractor's equipment shall not be permitted to cross any streams without written permission of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as required by AS-16 for the protection and maintenance of anadromous fish streams. G. Culverts or bridges will be designed to carry a reasonable peak flow if required for temporary road crossings over water courses, unless waived by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Stream channels will be restored as close as possible to the original condition if culverts and bridges are removed after construction. Waste Water Disposal Each system in this section shall meet all requirements of State regulation 18 AAC 72 of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) dealing with waste water disposal. Burnable Waste A. All solid wastes generated by the camp and construction activities that can be burned shall be burned daily in accordance with Title 18, Chapter 60, Section 40 of the ADEC regulations. All burning also requires Forest Service approval. Burnable refuse shall include, but will not be limited to the following: 1. Wood and paper wastes generated by the camp and construction activities. 0-8 0164A 2. Food wastes generated away from the camp. 3. Household wood and paper wastes. B. The contractor shall not be restricted to what is burned provided that the incineration process is operated so that emitted air contaminants, including odors, gases and particulate matter do not exceed standards established in ADEC regulation 18 AAC 50-040 (a)(i) as defined in the Air Quality Protection Plan, Section III-B. C. The incineration shall be performed in a burn box of a design approved by the ADEC for the purpose. Sanitary Landfill A. All solid wastes generated by the camp and construction activities that cannot be burned shall be disposed of in a sanitary landfill site in accordance with ADEC regulation 18 AAC 60-050, Paragraphs 1 through 12. Such location(s) will be subject to appropriate interagency review and approval. B. Solid wastes shall include, but will not be limited to the following: glass, ceramics, plastics, rubber, scrap metal, and scrap concrete. C. The contractor shall deposit the waste in a manner that will prevent waste materials, leachate or eroded soil particles from entering any State waters. He shall compact and cover the solid waste with earth or other approved material at a frequency as required and he shall make certain that surface water drainage from areas outside the landfill site are not allowed to flow over or through the site. D. At the end of the construction phase, all scraps and waste material shall be collected and disposed of in an approved landfill. E. Petroleum products, batteries, battery acid, and antifreeze shall be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. 0164A Air Pollution Control A. General: The contractor shall utilize available methods and devices to control, prevent and otherwise minimize atmospheric emissions or discharges of air contaminants from equipment and other sources. Construction Equipment: The contractor shall ensure that Sections 050 and 070 of Title 18 of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulations, Chapter 50, are adhered to. State regulations outlined in 18 AAC 50-050 and 18 AAC 50-070 apply to equipment used in construction and diesel electric generators, respectively. Regulations 18 AAC 50-050A(a)(1) state that visibility through the exhaust emission may not be reduced by more than 20% for more than three minutes in any one hour. Regulation 18 AAC 50-070(b) applying to heavy diesel construction equipment emissions state that the visibility at the source of emission may not cause a reduction in visibility greater than 40% for any five consecutive seconds. Incineration of Refuse: All refuse incinerated shall be burned in accordance with Title 18, Chapter 60, Section 40 of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. Should the contractor choose to use an incinerator with a rated capacity of 200 pounds/hour or more, he must comply with State regulation 18 AAC 50-040(a)(i1) which dictates that the visibility through the exhaust effluent may not be reduced by any more than 20% for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour. Liquid and solid residues generated by the incineration shall be treated or disposed of in a manner approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Timber Waste Disposal A. Trees: 1. Trees that have to be removed for the required construction or where they present a hazard to the construction activities shall be felled after approval. 0-10 NIKAA All reasonable precautions shall be taken during operations to prevent unnecessary damage to residual trees. _Merchantable timber 9" dbh and larger shall be paid for by the City of Seward at property values determined by a Forest Service appraisal. This timber shall become the property of the City. A reasonable effort shall be made to salvage this natural resource. Trees shall be limbed and all slash scattered to lie within 24 inches of the ground. Uprooted stumps shall not be piled and shall be placed so as not to roll. Unless released by the Forest Service in writing, logs from all trees 9' dbh and larger which are not removed, because of unmerchantability or for any other reason, shall be treated to a 6" diameter top as follows: a. Spruce: Logs shall be cut into 20 inch maximum length sections. Sections shall be scattered (not piled) in open areas of the right-of-way to permit rapid drying to prevent barkbeetle outbreak. Sections shall not be covered by slash, brush, or other residue. b. All other Tree Species: Logs shall be cut into 10 to 15 feet sections and placed so they cannot roll. Sections shall not be piled on top of each other. B. Brush: 0164A Removal of brush and immature trees will be accomplished by any of the following three methods: 1) spreading and scattering in the adjacent brush area without damaging other trees, 2) chipping and scattering in such a way as to preclude their being washed into any watercourse; 3) piling and burning in accordance with procedures and practices established by the Forest Service and air quality 0-11 regulations of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Burning permits shall be obtained from both agencies. All unmerchantable logs shall be limbed and cut into 10 to 15 foot sections; logs and stumps shall be placed so they cannot roll, and ~ shall not be piled on top of each other. Slash shall be limbed and scattered to reduce concentrations. 2. The contractor shall attempt to avoid letting any brush enter any waterway. In the event brush is deposited in a waterway, the contractor shall remove all brush deposited in waterways and dispose of it by spreading and scattering in the surrounding forests, or if chipped, on the surrounding ground. Storage and Disposal of Petroleum Products A. Before commencement of any on-site activities associated with the transmission line, the contractor must submit and have agency and Construction Manager approval of Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan), in accordance with the requirements of Federal Regulation Vol. 38 No. 237, Part II, EPA 011 Pollution Prevention, Title 40, Part 112. B. The SPCC Plan shall cover spill prevention, prevention of water contamination and emergency clean-up procedures, approved storage tanks, secondary means of containment for the entire contents of the largest tank with sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation, and a method of draining precipitation from the diked area in such a way as to ensure that no discharge of polluted effluents will enter rivers, lakes, ponds, estuaries, or their tributaries. C. Petroleum products covered in Title 40, Part 112 include gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, lubricants, heating oils, and refined and used oil. During project construction, all petroleum products shall be stored in such a way as to prevent contamination of all ground and surface waters. 0-12 0164A D. If the total volume of stored oi] is greater than 1,320 gallons, then the contractor shall provide secondary containment facilities utilizing a barrier of impermeable material, or other appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures or equipment as provided in Title 40, Section 112.7. Used lubricating oi] shall be stored in steel drums, or other approved means, and shall be returned to the supplier for disposal. It shall not be burned or otherwise disposed of at the project area. E. Fire suppression equipment and spill clean-up equipment shall be available. Adequate precautions shall be taken to protect any buried fuel facilities from corrosion, with regard given to the expected length of service. Archaeological/Historical Sites In the event that any sites with potential archaeological or historical values are found, the following procedures shall be initiated to insure adequate protection of the site. All work in the area would be halted until compliance with 36 CFR 800.7 is completed. The Construction Manager shall notify all authorities deemed necessary and work will continue only after a written clearance from the Construction Manager or the owner. Pesticides Herbicides will not be used on the transmission line right-of-way during its construction or operation. Nor will herbicides be used at the substation sites. The use of all other pesticides (e.g., insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and other similar substances) will conform with all applicable federal and state laws regulations. No pesticide shall be used without prior approval of the Forest Service. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) PCBs will not be used in any of the transformers or other electrical devices required for the operation or maintenance of this project. 0-13 0164A Wildlife and Fish The contractor will comply with applicable federal and State laws and regulations regarding the protection of plant and animal species and will conduct construction activities in a manner to avoid or minimize their disturbance. If federal or State endangered, threatened, or rare species occur in areas that would be adversely affected by the construction, operation, or maintenance of the transmission line, the contractor will coordinate appropriate mitigation measures with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Forest Service. The contractor will cover or temporarily fence the holes excavated for poles or tower footings at the end of each working day in the interest of protecting wildlife and for public safety. No artificial structure or stream channel change that may cause a permanent blockage to the movement of fish will be constructed. The contractor will take all reasonable precautions to protect fish species as determined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Mobile ground equipment will be kept out of the waters of lakes, streams or rivers except as permitted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Buffer strips of undisturbed vegetation, generally 100 feet wide, will be maintained at all stream crossings. Protection of Property Any property or resource harmed or damaged by the contractor in connection with the line will be reconstructed, repaired or rehabilitated by the contractor. Public lands used for temporary access roads, equipment storage, and other construction activities will be restored by the contractor. 0-14 0164A C. The contractor will work closely with representatives of all governing agencies in solving access road problems. D. The contractor will minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public and private lands. Damaged improvements will be restored to at least their original state. Functional use of these improvements will be maintained at all times. E. All construction and vehicular traffic will be confined to the right-of- way or designated access routes, roads or trails unless otherwise authorized by the Forest Service in writing. All temporary work roads to be used for construction will be rehabilitated after construction. All permanent access roads on public lands will be restored to conditions acceptable to the Forest Service. Any drainage deficiencies will be corrected to reduce future soil erosion. F. Reasonable precautions will be taken to protect all public land survey Monuments, private property corners, and forest boundary markers. Al] state markers will be replaced if damaged during construction. G. Contact will be attempted with directly affected property owners and residents to inform them of the planned project and what may be expected during each construction phase, such as the hours of operation and types of construction equipment that would be used in the area. Representatives of the City of Seward will contact property owners regarding the acquisition of easements. H. The transmission line and associated facilities will be maintained to standards of repair and safety criteria acceptable to the Rural Electrification Administration and in accordance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code. The public will be informed in advance of the date, and approximate time of occurrence and duration of outages that would occur during the construction phase of this project. 0-15 0164A Fully contained sanitation facilities in personnel and material marshalling areas will be installed. Construction personnel will be required to utilize existing sanitary facilities where possible. All waste from temporary sanitary facilities will be transferred in appropriate containers to an approved disposal area. Guy wires located close to conductors will be insulated with a fiberglass sheath. The transmission line and associated facilities will be maintained to standards of repair and safety criteria acceptable to the Rural Electrification Administration and in accordance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code. The public will be informed in advance of the date, and approximate time of occurrence and duration, of outages that would occur during the construction phase of this project. Noise The line will be designed to reduce electric and audible noises from operation to practical levels. The transmission line will be designed to meet requirements of the National Electric Safety Code. Noise producing equipment will be located to minimize sound radiating to the surrounding areas. If usage of pneumatic-tools or equipment used in chipping operations during tree removal or trimming is necessary near residential properties, such use will be restricted to daylight hours. 0-16 0164A APPENDIX E VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT METHODS APPENDIX E VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT METHODS Data Collection Visual resource information has been obtained from published and unpublished sources, including topographic maps, existing physiographic studies, and landscape inventories. Transportation and recreation plans have also been used to characterize the visual resources of the project area. Field Observation Fieldwork was carried out during October 27-29, 1983. This involved driving the Seward and Sterling Highways to obtain information on potential facility visibility and landscape compatibility. Recreation sites, scenic overlooks and other key viewpoints within the study area were visited and photographed. Existing Visual Quality Environmental psychology research has indicated that it is possible to objectively evaluate visual quality if well defined criteria are used (Jones & Jones 1974). Many objective systems have been successfully applied in the visual resource assessment process. These systems include those developed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Jones & Jones. For purposes of this project, Forest Service Visual Management System information has been used. For those areas along the transmission line route which are not within the Chugach National Forest, additional visual quality ratings were developed using the Jones & Jones visual resource assessment system. 5828B E-1 The Forest Service Visual Management System deals with variety class, sensitivity levels and quality objectives (USDA Forest Service 1974). The variety class determines those landscapes which are most important and those which are of lesser value from the standpoint of scenic quality. The classes are A - Distinctive; B - Common and C - Nominal. The sensitivity levels are a measure of people's concern for the scenic quality of a national forest. The levels are Level 1 - Highest Sensitivity; Level 2 - Average Sensitivity and Level 3 - Lowest Sensitivity. The quality objectives are visual resource management objectives for Forest Service lands. The objectives are: P - Preservation - Retention PR - Partial Retention M - Modification MM - Maximum Modification In general the management objectives for the Chugach National Forest lands, through which the Seward Line passes, are retention and partial retention. The retention objective allows activities which are not visually evident in the landscape. Partial retention provides for activities which remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. The analysis process was built on the findings of other transmission facility visual impact studies by Jones & Jones (1976a and 1976b). In general, the analysis involves the following processes: 0 Delineate the study area into landscape units ° Evaluate visual quality for each unit ° Analyze facility compatibility within each unit 5828B E=2 ° Evaluate facility visibility and viewer sensitivity ° Evaluate potential landscape change for each unit 0 Propose mitigation measures for the potential visual-impact sites Landscape Units In this study, existing visual quality was evaluated for individual landscape units. The landscape unit is essentially a large "outdoor room" spatially defined by surrounding ridges and hillsides. Views from points within a landscape unit tend to be dominated by features within the unit, although distant views of features outside of the boundaries of the landscape unit also occur. Each unit has a distinct visual character, but its visual resources are not homogeneous. In fact, visual diversity or variety is often associated with high visual quality. Table E-1 lists the landscape units and boundaries by approximate highway milepost. Visual Quality As stated earlier, research in environmental psychology has indicated that it is possible to objectively evaluate visual quality if well defined criteria are used (Jones & Jones 1974). The criteria used in this study have been identified for their ability to predict public response to visual quality in the landscape. These criteria have emerged from studies of public response to the landscape; trained observers using these criteria have been able to predict the average (mean) ratings of visual quality obtained from groups selected out of the general public. Three predictive criteria appeared to be most important for identifying visual quality in a landscape. They are presented below: Vs The vividness, power, or memorability of a scene. ts Its intactness and freedom from encroaching elements. 3. The unit, visual harmony, or sense of composition of its parts. 5828B E-3 Landscape Unit Quartz Creek Fern Lake Upper Trail Lake Lower Trail Crown Point Kenai Lake Snow River Divide Bear Lake Seward 5828B TABLE E-1 LANDSCAPE UNITS Begin End Milepost Milepost 44.5 38.6 38.5 32.4 32.4 a2 28.2 24.6 24.6 22.6 22.6 17.3 a3 12.6 12.6 972 9.2 3.2 3.2 0 Approximate Length (miles) 6.1 4.2 3.6 5.3 4.7 3.4 3.2 This evaluation can be expressed as a simple formula: VQ = 1/3 (V+I+U); where VQ = visual quality, V = vividness I = intactness U = unity, all rated on a 7-point scale. The resulting decimal index of visual quality is normalized to a 1:100 scale, where one represents the highest possible visual quality and one hundred the lowest. Visual quality evaluations within a given study area normally range over a portion of the scale (Jones & Jones 1976a, Hendrickson et al. 1974). Within the Seward Transmission Line Study area the existing visual quality levels range from 58.8 to 94.6. Table E-2 presents the visual quality levels for the study area. Visual Compatibility The visual compatibility of a proposed transmission facility is the degree to which the facility appears to blend into its landscape setting, independent of the visual quality of that setting. Landform and landcover (water, vegetation, land use, and tower design) characteristics affect the ability of a given setting to visually absorb a transmission facility (Jones & Jones 1976). Visual compatibility also depends upon the characteristics of the proposed transmission facility: tower design, color and height, spacing, conductor sag right-of-way width, and vegetation management within the right-of-way. The visual compatibility of the proposed towers and right-of-way design has been generally evaluated using the criteria presented below: ° Landform - The shape of the physiographic features within an area in part determines the degree to which the transmission line blends into the surrounding landscape. Ridge lines and 5828B TABLE E-2 EXISTING VISUAL QUALITY So ee Variety Class Approximate U.S. Forest Length Jones & Jones Service - Visual Landscape Unit in Miles Visual Quality Rating Management System Quartz Creek 6 69.8 Moderately High -7 miles A 8.3 miles B Tern Lake 6.1 83.5 High 3.7 miles A 2.4 miles B Upper Trail Lake 4.2 78.1 Moderately High --- Lower Trail 3.6 67.0 Moderately High --- Crown Point 2 78.1 Moderate -—- Kenai Lake 5.3 86.3 High 5.3 miles A Snow River 4.7 94.6 High 4.7 miles B Divide 3.4 80.7 Moderately High -—- Bear Lake 6 58.8 Moderate -— Seward 3.2 64.2 Moderately High --- 5828B 5828B flat land allow “skylining" of the towers, which generally increases tower visibility. Side slopes and rolling topography can provide a background which assists in_visually absorbing the transmission facility. Vegetation - The density, height and type of vegetation in an area in part determines facility visibility. Rights-of-way visually blend into tundra, grasslands and agricultural fields, since the vegetation height is such that little or no right-of-way clearing is required. The right-of-way is generally distinct within dense forest areas, where the vegetation of the right-of-way contrasts in height and color with the surrounding vegetation. Scale - The apparent size or scale of the towers in relation to their setting partially determines facility visibility. Large-scale landforms or landcover types (e.g., tall trees) diminish the apparent height of transmission towers. Houses or other elements of intermediate size tend to accentuate the size of the transmission towers by providing human-scale measures of comparison. The scale of narrow valleys and other smal] scale landscape features tend to accentuate the size of the transmission towers. Screening - In some settings, landform or landcover will screen or block most of the facility. Background - The degree to which transmission facilities blend with their settings is affected by whether they are seen against the skyline or against a landform or landcover background. The visual pattern of the background can help to absorb the pattern of transmission towers. E=7 ° Parallel Transmission Lines - Where a proposed transmission line is to be located adjacent to an existing line or lines, tower design and spacing can affect the levels of potential visual impact. Visual complexity and clutter can result from incompatible tower designs, heights, spacing, and conductor sag. Such complexity can incrementally affect the visual quality of an area. ° Tower Design - The height, structural element size and material color greatly affect the compatibility of the line with the landscape. As tower height and thickness increase, so does potential visibility. ° Right-of-way and Access Roads - Generally, the right-of-way will be incompatible with its surroundings when its landcover differs in height, color and texture from adjacent areas. The clearing and earthwork related to access road construction can be very conspicuous. Viewer Sensitivity Earlier studies have indicated that viewer numbers and viewer expectations regarding the visual quality of a landscape play a major role in viewer sensitivity. The viewer expectations are closely related to the types of activities that they are experiencing in the landscape. Viewers involved in activities which require visual amenities will be far more sensitive to visual impacts than those involved in activities which are not related to the visual quality of an area (Jones & Jones 1976a). Potential Landscape Change Through the analysis of existing visual quality and visual compatibility, potential levels of visual resource change have been predicted for the realignment sites. 5828B E-8 Recreation Sites Tables E-3, E-4 and E-5 present the recreation site locations_by milepost and vistor day information. 5828B TABLE E-3 RECREATION SITES - LOCATION BY MILEPOST Site Name Milepost Term Lake CG 38.0 Crater Lake Trail 33.1 Johnson Pass South Trail 32.6 Trail Lake Fish Hatchery 32.4 State Wayside 31.8 Trail River CG 24.1 Ptarmigan Ck. CG Za.1 Kenai Lake Overlook een Victor Creek Trail 19.7 Grayling Lake Trail 13.2 Golden Fin Lake 11.6 Turnout 10.8 Turnout 8.3 Lost Lake Trail 552 Forest Acres Municipal CG 2.4 Seward Recreation Area 2.0 5828B E-10 TABLE E-4 RECREATION SITE USE ON DISPERSED AREAS Site Name Reported Recreation Use (Visitor Days - FY82) Seward Highway (Seward - MI 44) Sterling Hwy. (Tern Lake - Forest) Carter Lake Trail Iditarod Nat'l Historic Trail Golden Fin Lake Trail Johnson Pass Trail (South Half) Primrose Creek Trail Grayling Lake Trail Victor Creek Trail Vagt Lake Trail 5828B E-1] 91,500 129,800 1,000 1,600 400 8,900 1,600 500 300 400 TABLE E-5 RECREATION SITE USE ON DEVELOPED SITES —————————————————————————— Reported Recreation Use Site Name (Visitor Days - FY82) Primrose Landing Boat Ramp 300 Trail Lake Boat Ramp 0 Carter Lake Trail Parking 200 Golden Fin Lake Trail Parking 100 Johnson Pass (South) Trail Parking 200 Lost Lake Trail Parking 200 Ptarmigan Creek Trail Parking 200 Cooper-Russian Lakes Trail Parking 300 Grayling Lake Trail Parking 100 Victor Creek Trail Parking 100 Vagt Lake Trail Parking 200 Ptarmigan Creek CG 5,100 Primrose CG 3,000 Tern Lake CG 1,800 Porcupine Island Site 400 Meadow Creek Site 400 Ship Creek Site 400 Trail River Picnic Loop 300 Crescent Lake Cabin 800 Trail River CG 8,300 Arctic Tern Sign 900 Red Salmon Sign 300 Andy Simons Sign 100 Jerome Lake Interpretive Sign 400 Forest Entrance Wayside (Grouse) 900 Kenai Lake/Glacial Milk/Interp. 200 §828B E-12