HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Scoping report Kake Petersberg Intertie 2010Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
DRAFT
Public Scoping Report for the
Kake-Petersburg Transmission Line Intertie
Prepared for:
Southeast Conference
612 W.Willoughby Ave,Suite B
Juneau,Alaska 99802-1989
and
USDA Forest Service
Petersburg Ranger District
12 North Nordic Drive,P.O.Box 1328
Petersburg,Alaska 99833-1328
Prepared by:
Tt TETRATECH Ec,INC
19803 North Creek Parkway
Bothell,WA 98011
June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
Table of Contents
1 Introduction............cccesceserseccssscccesssccessseccescenscesssccceesscevsssescssnersscusesessecsataceaseressosseees 3
2 SCOpiNg ACtiVItICS.........eessesecsessesescessercecesseessecescersessessesssseseetacsucsscsaccateaeeatesaesteses 3
3 Scoping Results...scssssesssssssssssssessecscssersnssecesssereneessseesscssesccascaesersessesnesseeasens 4
3.1 Purpose and Need ......es cesssssesssssnccnscssesssssssessrsssneessessssssecssssaseessesessesaeseecseeaseneess 4
3.2 Al termatives.........cccccsssssssescsssocesesseccsscceevececsssecsuscensaccuseassvstasessenecetsnsnsecsasssssscsononeeas 5
3.3 _Cultural Resources ..........cscsssscssssessccsssresssesecorecssarsvsesececcnseseseceencscseacesanessecascusssssenses 5
3.4 Fish and Water .u....cc..ccccsssssccccesssccesceeesscseceseesecsseuseseeseucencsasasscscesavssuessessoesseseneesses 5
3.5 Health and Safety,including Noise ..............sccssssssesssescescesssececrsesseseessecseeenetseeenersens 6
3.6 Land USe.........ccccccssssesnscccesssseseesesceesscessenecsessesseeeesscesecsseasconestesteseesecceesaesessessseresseuase 6
3.7 ReCLEAtION .........cscccsscccossssccsscsersseesssescseseatsssccceessessensessveneusstecossesssenevsateseuesaersesasonses 6
3.8 Roadless Areas..........cccccccssscssscssssssescncesssecsercessesssesccasessosscsesssscessssensessesueaceenevenseases 7
3.9 ROS...eeececescseccsscscseesesseccecesssscssceeucaccesassesuescesseusessessscsescasaracecsetessasenenceesesaeeceass 7
3.10 SOCIOECCONOMICS .........cccecresvecsesscesesssessceevctcsseencesansescececeecteuserssosssseceasecseeesseasasecccssosaes 7
3.11 Subsistence..........scscsssssessescecescssecsscesecssessssecneecessusaccesssnesessseseasecccacesestucacenasossscees 8
3.12 Transportation ........usccsccscesserscesessssssessesssssesssscssesssesscesceseasensessseasersecoaserseseneeeeseeraes 8
3.13 Vegetation 0...ssescessssssescessesssssessessesesessesseseceseseseessessessesessessesseasesssessoseassenseenes 8
3.14 Visual RESOULCES..........c:ccccssesscssssecseccscesccessessaccenceseeecesesseacecessaseneenceeseseccrerecesesseseenens 8
3.15 Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers uu...cececseccesssssessecssescssscseescsssnsseessesessses 9
3.16 Wildlife 00....ssecsssscssecsssesssccscsssesencesscessserscesstscseesssceersscesessesesuseeseeatavstessevserensossacs 9
3.17 Cumulative Impacts ues esessseseeseseeeeseececcosssaceseescsecensccseesecensesessseasesseeseeesseees 10
Attachment A Public Scoping Brochure
Attachment B Summary of Cooperating Agency Scoping Comments
Public Scoping Report 2 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
1.Introduction
Southeast Conference (SEC)has notified the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service)of its intent
to apply for special use authorization for the construction and operation of a new electric
transmission line intertie-the Kake-Petersburg Transmission Line Intertie Project-on National
Forest System (NFS)lands.The proposed intertie would be built to transmit power at either 69
kilovolt (kV)or 138 kV and is expected to generally follow one of two routes previously
identified as Transportation and Utility System (TUS)corridors in the Tongass National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).The Forest Service is required to evaluate
the potential environmental impacts of this proposal under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and proposes to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)regulations for implementing NEPA
require scoping for preparation of an EIS,and the Forest Service has broadened this concept to
apply to all actions (Forest Service Handbook [FSH]1909.15.11).The Forest Service initiated
public scoping as part of the NEPA process with the specific goal of obtaining input from the
public and federal,state,and local agencies about potential issues that should be analyzed in the
proposed EIS.This report provides an overview of the activities conducted as part of scoping and
a summary of the results.
2 Scoping Activities
The Forest Service published the Notice of Intent (NOD)to prepare an EIS for this project in the
Federal Register on May 7,2010.A scoping brochure for the project was mailed on April 29,
2010 to those individuals,businesses,organizations,and government agencies on the Petersburg
Ranger District's mailing list.A total of 194 scoping brochures were mailed.Scoping brochures
were also available at the front desk at the Petersburg Ranger District offices.The scoping
brochure included a description of the project that summarized the project purpose and need,
project background,the proposed action,and project alternatives.The brochure also included a
detailed color map showing the proposed alternatives and the Land Use Designations (LUDs)
identified for the project area in the Tongass Forest Plan.A comment form was included on the
reverse side of the project map.A copy of the scoping brochure is included as Attachment A.
Legal notification of the public comment period was published in the Petersburg Pilot and the
Ketchikan Daily News.The public scoping period extended from May 7,2010 to June 7,2010.
Interested parties were encouraged to provide written input via U.S.mail,email,or fax.
Two public scoping meetings were held:one in Kake,the other in Petersburg.The meeting in
Kake was held at the Community Center Building Conference Room on May 12,2010 from 5 to
7pm.The meeting in Petersburg was held at the Petersburg City Council Chambers the
following day (May 13,2010)and also extended from 5 to 7 pm.These meetings were held to
present the proposal to the public and to seek information and comments from individuals or
organizations who may be interested in,or affected by,the proposed action.
Public Scoping Report 3 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
evargewiresPrekxa)Eh Re tes,F288EY:
Spay Ae ees ae
Public Scoping Meeting at Petersburg (May 13,2010)
3 Scoping Results
The Forest Service received 88 unique written comment letters.Members of the project team
reviewed and conducted content analysis for each comment letter received during the public
scoping period.The results of this analysis are summarized below.This summary focuses on
comments that identify potential issues to be analyzed in the EIS,as well as comments that
address the project purpose and need and identify potential alternatives for further analysis.
Comment summaries are presented by resource area and characterized as either issues or requests
for information or analysis.Under NEPA,issues generally refer to the relationship between
actions (proposed,connected,cumulative,similar)and environmental (natural,cultural,and
socioeconomic)resources.As a result of the large volume of comments received,many
addressing the same or similar issues,in most cases this report provides comment summaries
rather than direct quotes from individual letters.Individual summaries for comment letters from
state and federal agencies are,however,provided in Attachment B.
3.1.Purpose and Need
e The purpose and need of this project is not clear.Is it to a)provide affordable electrical
energy to Kake,b)provide a transportation link to Kake,or c)develop an integral link in the
Southeast Alaska electric grid?
e The current purpose and need is ambiguous and need to be defined better.
The scoping notice is confusing because it conflates the Kake-Petersburg Intertie with a State
Transportation project.
e The need to build a public road has not been justified.Money used to build a road could be
better invested in improvements to the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Public Scoping Report 4 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
3.2 Alternatives
e Consider an alternative that generates power using local resources in the Kake area.
Suggested alternative sources of local power include wind,solar,local hydropower,tidal
generation,and biofuels.
Consider Cathedral Falls as an alternative source of power.
Move the proposed substation closer to Kake and connect it directly with the existing
substation.
Develop at least one alternative that avoids all activities in designated OGRs.
Consider a tie-in to the possible Woewodski mining project.
Disclose any associated upgrades required to existing public infrastructure.
The answer to running power to Kake would best be solved by running the power lines under
water the whole way.
e Only consider alternatives that will fulfill the purpose and need of getting energy to Kake,
and drop the alternatives that are linked to the DOTPF construction of a year round road.
Consider a route further south.
e Consider a final design built at 115kV or 138kV that can facilitate connection with the Takatz
Lake project to continue a comprehensive Southeast Intertie.
e Use existing cables not being used to transmit power between these two areas.
3.3 Cultural Resources
Issues
e The proposed project has the potential to affect cultural resources.Identified areas of
potential concern include a known fish trap at the mouth of Petersburg Creek,an ancient
Tlingit portage trail from Portage Bay to Duncan Canal,and ancient fish traps and camps that
may exist at Twelve Mile Creek.
3.4 Fish and Water
Issues
e Sensitive aquatic resources at the mouth of Petersburg Creek and Coho Creek could be
impacted.Identified resources of concern included anadromous fish,marine mammals,
clams,and crab.
e Directional drilling under Petersburg Creek could impact fish and wildlife.
e Spanning Petersburg Creek with a transmission line could harm fish species.Identified
potential impacts include those associated with the electrical field that would be generated bytheproposedtransmissionline.
e The project could impact fish bearing streams,including Mitchell Creek (a spawning stream),
and species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Changes in public access could impact fish and wildlife.
The proposed channel crossings could impact marine species.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Assess impacts to anadromous and resident fish-bearing streams.Consider local hydrology,
slope,soil,and geological characteristics,and include the location,number,and size of all
stream crossing structures.e Identify the location of all red culverts ¢on existing road segments that would be used and
assess associated impacts to freshwater fish migration.
e Consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS)regarding potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
Public Scoping Report 5 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
e Conduct fish surveys in all potentially affected streams to identify the range of anadromous
and resident fish spawning and rearing habitat.
e Conduct a sediment delivery analysis for all potentially impacted fish habitat.
e Identify Best Management Practices (BMPs)to protect and avoid adverse impact to fish
habitat.
e Plan and locate stream crossings correctly.Stream crossing structures (culverts)should be
designed to pass fish.
e Complete a watershed analysis (as described in Appendix C to the Tongass Forest Plan)that
examines impacts to the Petersburg Creek watershed.
3.5 Health and Safety,including Noise
Issues
e Anew transmission line could result in electromagnetic field (EMF)-related human health
impacts,as well as impacts to water,fish,and wildlife.
e Power lines could create safety issues for aircraft following bush plane paths along Portage
inlet,Duncan canal,and Petersburg Creek.
e Power lines emit a constant loud buzzing sound.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Analyze impacts to the mental health of humans related to the loss of wilderness experience
opportunities.
e Ifa public road is built,who will be responsible for providing emergency services to users of
the road?
3.6 Land Use
Issues
e The Northern Route,Option 2 could conflict with established city ordinances for the City of
Kupreanof.
e The Northern Route,Option 2 could impact the City of Kupreanof's reserved municipal
watershed of Coho Creek as stated in its Comprehensive Plan.
e The Northern Route could impact private properties.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Address the impacts of the project on lands recently purchased by the Forest Service from the
Mental Health Land Trust.
e Include an analysis of the public responses to the land use designation for the former Mental
Health Lands at the mouth of Petersburg Creek to the Forest Service.
3.7 Recreation
Issues
e An overhead crossing of Petersburg Creek could negatively affect wilderness recreation
experiences in the area,
Directional drilling under Petersburg Creek could affect recreation activities along the river.
The north end of Kupreanof Island is used for trapping and hunting.These activities could be
impacted by a transmission line or road in that area.
e The Northern Route,Option 2 could affect residents of the City of Kupreanof and local
tourism operators who use and offer the trail system and Petersburg Creek as a high value
Public Scoping Report 6 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
sport,recreational,and subsistence destination for area residents and national and
international tourists.
e High voltage power lines could disrupt existing floatplane landing approaches and takeoff
patterns,with associated impacts to sport,recreation,and commercial fishing.
e The project could affect recreation opportunities related to Petersburg Creek/Coho Creek,as
well as tourism,fishing,bear viewing,and kayaking.
3.8 Roadless Areas
Issues
e The proposed transmission line and road could affect the roadless character of inventoried
roadless areas crossed by the proposed routes.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Explain the potential impacts to roadless areas referred to in the scoping notice.
¢Report total miles of new road construction in inventoried roadless areas by alternative.
e Impacts to Inventoried Roadless Areas should be considered in the EIS.
e Options for construction in roadless areas that are consistent with the Roadless Rule include
helicopter hauling,use of an access trail,and use of a temporary road in a defined
construction zone.
3.9 Roads
Requests for Information and Analysis
e More details are required about the public road proposed by the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF)if it is part of this project.
Report changes in road density resulting from each alternative.
e The mileage,cost,and effects of new road construction for each alternative iis a significantpartofthisprojectandshouldbedescribed.
e Who will maintain a public road if one is built along the Northern Route?
3.10 Socioeconomics
Issues
e The Northern Route could affect scenic and wilderness values and negatively affect tourism,
including visitors using the Alaska Marine Highway and cruise ships.Outfitter/guides,tour
agencies,and hotels/bed and breakfast inns could all be potentially affected.
e The proposed project could negatively affect the tourism,subsistence,and commercial
fishing sectors that rely upon healthy and productive temperate rainforest ecosystems.
e New access roads could result in overhunting which could have detrimental impacts on
hunting outfitter/guide businesses using the project area.
e A road and power line could affect the roadless character of the city of Kupreanof and have
impacts on the quality of life of local residents.
e The proposed project could benefit the city of Kake by providing a relatively low cost and
reliable source of power to city residents,public facilities and services,local businesses,and
future development.
e The proposed project could affect private property values in Kupreanof and require the
project proponent to condemn private lands.
e Development of this project,including its associated roads,could create economic
opportunities for local residents.
Public Scoping Report 7 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
e Installation and maintenance of the proposed submarine cable could affect commercial and
recreational fisheries.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Include an analysis of maintenance costs for the transmission line and roads,and identify the
source of these funds.The Northern Route would be very expensive to build and keeping it
plowed and maintained would be a huge yearly expense.
e Analyze impacts to local communities.
Conduct a cost/benefit analysis that compares the proposed alternatives.
Include an analysis of the economic impacts to recreation use in Petersburg.
3.11 Subsistence
Issues
e The project has the potential to increase access to subsistence resources (especially fish and
wildlife)in the project area.
e The construction of new power lines,roads,and bridges could affect subsistence resources
and associated habitat.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Address potential subsistence impacts and hold ANILCA 810 hearings in all affected
communities.
3.12 Transportation
Issues
e The Northern Route,Option 2 could affect flight paths of floatplanes and small fixed wing
planes that often use Petersburg Creek as a passage way.
e Increased vehicle traffic associated with the Center-South Route could impact South
Lindenberg and Duncan Canal.
3.13 Vegetation
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Assess impacts to old growth forests.
3.14 Visual Resources
Issues
e The Northern Route could have negative impacts on Kupreanof and Petersburg residents,as
well as visitors to the area.
e The Northern Route,Option 2 could have negative effects on the Petersburg Creek viewshed,
one of the most frequently seen views for visitors and ferry passengers,as well as local
residents.
e Both alternatives would affect areas allocated to the Scenic Viewshed LUD.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Analyze the impacts of the project on visual resources around Petersburg Mountain and
Creek.
Public Scoping Report 8 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
3.15 Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers
Issues
e The Northern Route,Option 2 could have negative effects on Petersburg Creek,the easiest
and most frequently used entrance to the Petersburg-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness.
e The Northern Route,Option 2 could have negative effects on the wild character of Petersburg
Creek,which is recommended for designation as part of the Wild and Scenic River system.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Consider the effects of the project on wild and scenic rivers
3.16 Wildlife
Issues
e New access could result in black bear,moose,and Sitka deer being overhunted.
e Increases in road density could exacerbate concerns for wolf and marten viability on
Kupreanof Island.
e A transmission line corridor along the beach fringe of Frederick Sound could impact a large
area of wildlife habitat,including deer winter range.
e The Northern Route,Option 2 could impact Petersburg Creek,which is an important natural
stream habitat and flyway for animals and birds on Kupreanof Island.
The feeding patterns of black bear at Coho Creek and Petersburg Creek could be impacted.
The project could further fragment Old-Growth Reserves (OGRs)and other habitat.
e The Northern Route would cross OGRs 129 and 131,and potentially compromise their
character and degrade their value as wildlife habitat.
e The project could negatively affect migratory,wetland birds,and waterfowl,with impacts to
breeding and migratory patterns,as well as direct impacts from transmission line on birds.
e The project could affect wildlife species,including goshawks,owls,bald eagles,harrier
hawks,marsh hawks,bats,and flying squirrels.
e The project could result in further habitat fragmentation,and old growth reserves,waterfowl
flyways,and important feeding and resting areas could be negatively affected.
Requests for Information and Analysis
e Explain the potential impacts to wildlife referred to in the scoping notice.
e Consider the effects of the project on the OGR strategy.
e Assess impacts to the ecological value and integrity of Old Growth Habitat LUDs and high .
value wildlife habitat.Report the reduction in productive old growth (POG)habitat and
coarse canopy forest and describe how the minimum criteria for each OGR will bemaintained.
e Conduct goshawk surveys along the proposed alternatives to locate unknown goshawk nest
Sites.
e Avoid construction activities in established goshawk nest site buffers.Protect nesting habitat
around all goshawk nest sites.Maintain an area of not less than 100 acres of productive old
growth forest centered over the nest tree or probable nest site.
e Analyze impacts to the migration corridor formed by the small isthmus of land connecting
Lindenberg Peninsula to the remainder of Kupreanof Island.
e Analyze impacts from the Northern Route to bald eagle nests and nesting success along the
shoreline of northeast Kupreanof Island.
e Assess impacts to deer habitat capability (especially low elevation old growth stands)and
high value deer winter range.
Public Scoping Report 9 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
e Avoid construction in beach and estuary fringe,especially along the Lindenberg Peninsula.
e Avoid habitat modifications within 330 feet of all eagle nests,and habitat modifications
between 330 and 660 feet from a nest should be done only outside the nesting season.
e Analyze the impacts of new roads within the Kupreanof/Mitkof Biogeographic Province on
the viability of marten,wolf,and other harvested species.The narrow area between
Lindenberg Peninsula and the remainder of Kupreanof Island is of particular concern.
e Address how the project would affect local wolf packs,primary prey (deer)habitat and
populations over the long term,and how roads and associated human use will be managed to
protect wolves.Assess the cumulative impact of an increase in road density on the Alexander
Archipelago wolf.
3.17 Cumulative Impacts
e The proposed project would be part of the Southeast Alaska electric grid and,therefore,the
cumulative impact analysis should consider the impact of the entire grid.
e Not considering the entire grid in the EIS would constitute illegal "segmentation"under
NEPA.
Public Scoping Report 10 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
Attachment B
Summary of Cooperating Agency
Scoping Comments on the Kake-Petersburg Transmission Line Intertie Project
Public Scoping Report June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
Summary of Cooperating Agency
Scoping Comments
State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources
The comments submitted by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)were
compiled with input from the DNR,the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOTPF),the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)(Habitat Division
coordinating for the Department),and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
General
The U.S.Congress granted the State of Alaska an easement for a transmission and utility
corridor that roughly parallels the Northern Route.This route will likely have different
permitting requirements than other routes and this should be taken into account during
the environmental analysis.
Department of Fish and Game
a Roads -Use existing roads where possible to minimize the amount of new road
construction required.
a Alternatives -Develop at least one alternative that avoids all activities in designated
Old-Growth Reserves (OGRs).
Q Fish-Bearing Streams -Assess impacts to anadromous and resident fish-bearing
streams.Consider local hydrology,slope,soil,and geological characteristics,and
include the location,number,and size of all stream crossing structures.
a Freshwater Fish Migration -Identify the location of all red culverts on existing road
segments that would be used and assess associated impacts to freshwater fish
migration.
Q Deer -Assess impacts to deer habitat capability (especially low elevation old growth
stands)and high value deer winter range.
a Public Access -Assess impacts to fish and wildlife from changes in public access.
a Commercial and Recreation Fisheries -Assess impacts to commercial and
recreational fisheries from installation and maintenance of submarine cable.
Q Old Growth Habitat -Assess impacts to the ecological value and integrity of Old
Growth Habitat Land Use Designations (LUDs)and high value wildlife habitat.
Report the reduction in productive old growth (POG)habitat and coarse canopy forest
and describe how the minimum criteria for each OGR will be maintained.
Q Cumulative Impacts -Assess potential cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife
resources.
a Watershed Analysis -Complete a watershed analysis (as described in Appendix C to
the Tongass Forest Plan)that examines impacts to the Petersburg Creek watershed.
Q Goshawk -Avoid construction activities in established goshawk nest site buffers.
a Goshawk -Conduct goshawk surveys along the proposed alternatives to locate
unknown goshawk nest sites.
Public Scoping Report B-1 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
Q Wolf and Marten -Increases in road density will likely exacerbate concerns for wolf
and marten viability on Kupreanof Island.
Q Roads -Report changes in road density resulting from each alternative.
a Roadless Areas -Report total miles of new road construction in inventoried roadless
areas by alternative.
Q Migration Corridor -Analyze impacts to the migration corridor formed by the small
isthmus of land connecting Lindenberg Peninsula to the remainder of Kupreanof
Island.
a Bald Eagles -Analyze impacts from the Northern Route to bald eagle nests and
nesting success along the shoreline of NE Kupreanof Island.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National
Marine Fisheries Service
a Essential Fish Habitat -The Forest Service should consult with NMFS regarding
potential impacts to EFH in accordance with the June 2007 agreement between the
two agencies (see attached comment letter).
Q Roads -Use existing roads where possible to minimize the amount of new road construction
required.;
a Fish -Address potential impacts to anadromous and resident fish-bearing streams,and
potential impacts to marine species at the proposed channel crossings.
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
Q Old Growth Reserves -The Northern Route would cross Old Growth Reserves
(OGRs)129 and 131,compromise their character,and degrade their value as wildlife
habitat.
Q Beach and Estuary Fringe -Avoid construction in beach and estuary fringe,
especially along the Lindenberg Peninsula.
a Bald Eagle -Avoid habitat modifications within 330 feet of all eagle nests,and
habitat modifications between 330 and 660 feet from a nest should be done only
outside the nesting season.
Q Roads -Analyze the impacts of new roads within the Kupreanof/Mitkof
Biogeographic Province on the viability of marten,wolf,and other harvested species.
The narrow area between Lindenberg Peninsula and the remainder of Kupreanof
Island is of particular concern.
Q Marten -Evaluate the direct and indirect impacts of increasing the road system on
marten and their habitat.Additional access to the project area should be clearly
justified in the EIS.
a Wolf -Address how the project would affect local wolf packs,primary prey (deer)
habitat and populations over the long term,and how roads and associated human use
_will be managed to protect wolves.
Q Goshawk -Protect nesting habitat around all goshawk nest sites.Maintain an area of
not less than 100 acres of productive old growth forest centered over the nest tree or
probable nest site.Conduct goshawk surveys along the proposed alternatives to locate
unknown goshawk nest sites.
Public Scoping Report B-2 June 2010
Draft Working Document Not for Public Distribution
Q Fish Surveys -Conduct fish surveys in all potentially affected streams to identify the range
of anadromous and resident fish spawning and rearing habitat.
Q Sediment Delivery Analysis -Conduct a sediment delivery analysis for all potentially
impacted fish habitat.
a Best Management Practices -Identify Best Management Practices (BMPs)to protect and
avoid adverse impact to fish habitat.
a Culverts -Plan and locate stream crossings correctly.Stream crossing structures (culverts)
should be designed to pass fish.Guidelines and recommendations for culvert installation are
provided in this letter.
Q Subsistence -Assess impacts to sport and subsistence resource users.
Public Scoping Report B-3 June 2010
OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE
Public participation is important and you are requested to assist
in helping to identify potential issues that should be analyzed in
depth.The public scoping period for this project extends from
April 23,2010 to May 24,2010.Interested parties are
encouraged to provide written input on the proposed project
and submit their comments via email,regular mail,or fax to the
following addresses/number:
comments-alaska-tongass-petersburg@;fs.fed.us with "Kake-
Petersburg Intertie Project”in the subject line.
U.S.Mail
USDA Forest Service
Tongass National Forest
Petersburg Ranger District
12 North Nordic Drive
PO Box 1328
Petersburg,AK 99833-1328
Attn:Kake-Petersburg Intertie Project
Fax
907-772-5995 with "Kake-Petersburg Intertie Project”in the
subject line.
Public Scoping Meetings
Two public scoping meetings will be held:
¢May 12,2010 -Community Center Building Conference
Room in Kake from 5 to 7 pm
*May 13,2010 -Petersburg City Council Chambers in
Petersburg from 5 to 7 pm
Both meetings will follow an open house format.Interested parties
may drop in until 7 p.m.to obtain information about the project,
speak with project team members,and provide scoping comments
to the team.
To better assist us in the scoping process,please make your
comments as specific as possible.Please provide your
comments by May 24,2010.
Note that interested parties need to submit comments during the 30
day scoping period to establish "standing”to later appeal the Forest
Service's decision (36 Code of Federal Regulations 215.13).
Please direct questions to Chris Savage,Petersburg District Ranger
at 907-772-5900 (csavage@fs.fed.us).
eZEL-CeR66 HV 'Bingsiejoq
8ZEL XOg 'Od
SALI OIPJON YON ZL
ysau04 feuonen sseBuol
BOAINSS 18904 YOSN
"authorization to construct and operate
TTT EO
APRIL 2010
Project Purpose and Need
The community of Kake on Kupreanof Island is presently served by an
isolated electric system that depends upon high-cost,diesel generation.The
resulting high cost of electricity in Kake is a major burden on the economic
and social well-being of the community and is a significant disincentive
to economic development.The proposed Kake-Petersburg transmission
Intertie would connect the isolated electric system that serves the commun
ity of Kake to the interconnected electric systems of Petersburg,Wrangell
and Ketchikan.Petersburg and Wrangell are currently interconnected to
and purchase most of their power supplies from the Tyce Lake hydroelectric
project owned by the Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA)(formerly the
Four Dam Pool Power Agency).The Kake-Petersburg Intertie would be used
to transmit surplus hydroelectric power purchased from SEAPA to the Inside
Passage Electric Cooperative's electric system in Kake,thereby offsetting
the existing diesel generation while lower ing and stabilizing the cost of
electricity in Kake.
Kake Petersburg
Intertie Project
Introduction
Southeast Conference (SEC)has notified
the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service)
of its intent to apply for special use
a new electric transmission line intertie
on National Forest System (NFS)lands.
The proposed intertie would be built to
transmit power at either 69-kilovolt (kV)
or 138 kV and is expected to generally
follow one of two routes previously
identified as Transportation and Utility
System (TUS)corridors in the Tongass
National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan).The
Forest Service is required to evaluate
the potential environmental impacts
of this proposal under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In addition to the short-term and immediate need for the project,it is possible
that,if constructed,the proposed line could be used at some point in the
future to transmit electrical energy generated at locations north of Petersburg
and Kake into the Southeast Alaska grid.If this were to occur,the Kake-
Petersburg Intertie would,overtime,become an integral part of the eventual
Southeast Alaska transmission system.
An Intertie transmission line from Kake to Petersburg has been discussed for
many years and has been the subject of a number of studies dating back to the
1970s.Recent studies include the Southeast Alaska Intertie Study prepared ir
2003 and a follow-on study of the Kake-Petersburg Intertie completed in 2005
and updated in 2009.
Over the years,at least 10 other alternative routes have been discussed,with
six carried forward and evaluated in more detail in the 2005 KPI study.
The 2005 study identified two primary route alternatives,a southern route
that crosses the Wrangell Narrows near the Tonka log transfer facility and
proceeds west across Duncan Canal (the "Center-South”route),and a
northern route generally located on the north end of Kupreanof Island (the
"Northern”route).These alternatives generally correspond with two TUS
corridors identified in the 2008 Forest Plan.
USDA Forest Service
Tonagss National Forest
Petersburg Ranger District
In 2009,Southeast Conference commissioned an update of
the 2005 feasibility study.The main purpose of the 2009
study was to update the cost estimates for the Center-South
and Northern routes,particularly in light of the renewed
proposal by the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (OOTPF)to build a year round road
between Kake and Petersburg that would follow a similar
alignment to the Northern route.
Proposed Action
The proposed transmission line would extend west from the
Petersburg area to the city of Kake and be approximately
46.8 miles or 56.6 miles in length.The line would be built
to transmit power at either 69 or 138 kV and consist of
single wood pole structures with horizontal post insulators,
with average span lengths between pole structures of 350
to 400 feet.This design would be able to take advantage of
existing roads for construction and maintenance and has
been used successfully for other transmission applications
elsewhere in Alaska.
The two primary routes identified in the 2005 feasibility
study and evaluated further in the 2009 update-the
Center-South and Northern routes-are currently under
consideration.Both proposed routes follow existing logging
roads for the majority of their lengths.In addition,the
Northern route follows the proposed route identified by
the Alaska DOTPF for the permanent road between Kake
and Petersburg.Both routes would use existing roads for
construction and long-term maintenance access where
possible.New road segments would be built in locations
PAGE 2
where access is not currently available.The two alternative
routes may be summarized as follows:
Center-South Route-46.8 miles total length,two
marine crossings totaling approximately 1.7 miles
This route would connect to the existing Tyee transmission
line approximately 8 miles south of Petersburg and require
a tap or possible smali switch yard.From the tap,this
route crosses Wrangell Narrows,proceeds west across the
Lindenberg Peninsula (10.6 miles),crosses Duncan Canal,
and continues northwest to Kake (38 miles),where it
would terminate at a new substation located approximately
4.8 miles south of the existing Kake substation.A new
distribution line (12.45 kV)would extend from the new
substation to Kake (see enclosed map).The majority of
this route (43.6 miles)would cross NFS lands.The route
would also cross lands owned and managed by the town of
Petersburg,Sealaska,Kake Tribal Corporation,and the city
of Kake.
Northern Route-56.6 miles total length,one
marine crossing
This route would originate at the existing SEAPA substation
near Petersburg,cross Wrangell Narrows from Mitkof Island
to Kupreanof Island and follow the proposed route of the
Alaska DOTPF road north along Frederick Sound (19.0
miles),and then west (46.1 miles)to Kake,where,like the
Center-South route,it would terminate at a new substation
with a new distribution line extending to Kake.The
majority of this route (51.6 miles)would cross NFS lands.
The route would also cross lands owned and managed by
Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Sealaska,Kake
Tribal Corporation,and the cities of Kake,Kupreanof,and
Petersburg.
Two alternative route options from the SEAPA substation
to the proposed Alaska DOTPF road corridor are currently
being considered:
Option 1:Under this option the line would start at
the SEAPA substation,and staying south of Petersburg,
follow an existing gravel road for 3.5 miles east-northeast
to Frederick Sound.At Frederick Sound,a submarine
cable termination facility would connect the overhead
line to a 3.1 mile long underwater cable,which would
come ashore near Prolewy Point on Kupreanof Island,
and connect to an overhead line that would then follow
the proposed road corridor (see enclosed map).
Option 2:Under this option the line would proceed
from the SEAPA substation north along Mitkof
Highway to near the narrowest point of the Wrangell
Narrows.At that point,the line would turn west and
cross Wrangell Narrows via a horizontal directional
bore or buried cable that would extend approximately
1,400 feet.West of the Narrows the line would return to
overhead construction,turn and go north approximately
1.7 miles where it would cross Petersburg Creek (a
distance of approximately 800 feet)either via directional
bore or overhead construction.The route would then
continue overhead approximately 2.5 miles northeast to
the proposed DOTPF road corridor (see enclosed map).
Preliminary Issues
A number of preliminary issues have been identified based
on a review of related studies conducted to date,including,
most recently,the 2009 Kake-Petersburg Intertie Study
Update.These issues include the proposed crossings
of Wrangell Narrows and Duncan Canal,as well as
anadromous and resident fish-bearing streams,potential
impacts to wildlife species listed under the Endangered
Species Act,and potential impacts to Inventoried Roadless
Areas.
Land Use Designations
Lands on the Tongass National Forest are managed under
the 2008 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan).Under this plan,the Forest
is allocated to different Land Use Designations (LUDs)
that specify the land uses and activities that can occur
in each LUD.The majority of the lands that would be
affected by the proposed action under both route alternatives
are allocated to the Modified Landscape and Timber
Production.Other LUDs that would be crossed by both
routes include Transportation and Utility Systems,Scenic
Viewshed,Semi-Remote Recreation,and Old-Growth
Habitat (see the enclosed map).
The Proposed Action is consistent with the Transportation
and Utility Systems LUD,which is managed to provide for
car edaKyar.:haaa
or facilitate major public transportation and utility systems,
as well as the Special Use Administration (Non-Recreation)
Standards and Guidelines identified in the Forest Plan for the
Modified Landscape,Timber Production,Scenic Viewshed,
and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs.Lands managed
under the Modified Landscape,Timber Production,
Scenic Viewshed,and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs are
considered Transportation and Utility Systems "windows”
that are intended to provide opportunities for the future
designation and location of transportation and utility sites or
corridors,
Lands managed under the Old-Growth Habitat LUD are
considered a Transportation and Utility Systems "Avoidane
Area”and transportation and utility corridors may only
be located within this LUD if no feasible alternatives exist
outside the LUD.
Project Schedule
Southeast Conference proposes to initiate this project with
construction beginning in 2012 and the line coming into
service in 2014.The environmental analysis for this project
is expected to be completed at the end of next year (2011)
and the Forest Supervisor for the Tongass National Forest is
expected to issue a decision at that time.
PAGE 3
Comment Form
This form is provided for your convenience.Please comment on specific aspects of the pro-
posed Kake-Petersburg Intertie Project.You may also write on the map overleaf to identify
specific areas of concern.
Comments may be submitted via email,mail,and fax (see Opportunities to Participate section
of the scoping notice for addresses and contacts).Please provide your comments by May
24,2010.
If we don't hear from you,we'll assume that you're not interested in this project and remove
your name from the mailing list.Note:all responses received will become part of the public
file.This information will be made available to the public if requested.
Name:
my|
Comment #
Date received
Logged in by
Organization:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
My comments:
Please check one of the following:
Please notify me via email
when the EA is released.
Please mail me a CD
copy of the EA when it is
released.
I have no further interest in
this project and do not wish
to receive further mailings.
S Tonagss National ForestTASUSDAForestServiceSumauet)Petersburg Ranger District
(add additional sheets if needed)
A an N
:x -;
\&D:we
af
FREDERICK SOUND
|
XM
LINDENBERG PENINSULA
A cpnion'Nee{oo
'PETERSBURG NTCal,"SNSupstovon"aN,i
!ja
Forest Pian Land Use Designation KAKE TO PETERSBURG
'=e Center South Altemative mae |Wildemess and Wilderness National Monument;WW CI Special InterestArea ----Existing Road Closed TRANSMISSION INTERTIE
'==Northern Alternative PT Old Growth Habitat Scenic Viewshed ---Existing Road Open
--ExistingTransmission Line Semi-Remote Recreation [["]Modified Lanascape
ae antibod ntrotove er {TUS)Corridor [""]Remote Recreation [SJ timber Production
[3 Municipal Watershed Non-Federal Land Te]mreCIWild,Scenic or Recreational River
-"A ¥e my.o '
mw oe"ee wok
FREDERICK SOUND
KAKE
Existing
Supstation*2GaaeL°)
Forest Plan Land Use Designation KAKE TO PETERSBURG
'w=Center South Alternative eae |Wildemess and Wilderness National Monument;WW CI Special InterestArea ----Existing Road Closed TRANSMISSION INTERTIE
'=Northern Alternative t ...Old Growth Habitat Scenic Viewshed ---Existing Road Open
a=ExistingTransmission Line Semi-Remote Recreation Cc Modified Landscape
____Transportation Utility System (TUS)Corridor [J Remote Recreation [ET timber ProductionidentifiedintheForestPlan:[=]Municipal Watershed Non-Federal Land Te)mre +Eom]wis.scenic or Recreational River
SOUTHEAST ALASKA ELECTRICAL INTERTIE
ELFIN COVE
ira)oACROSSSOUND4Hoonahy”QepegPELICAN
Tenakee Springs
On Ruth Lak.¥&EPetersburgSTIKINEaie\Wrangell S(-RLY,ae Load Center
Existing Intertie
y
=|rs
°
-
Proposed Intertie e an p.eAWhitmanLakeSaance
.WE es cetchikanFutureIntertieReynoldsCreek¥(Fca lies Triangle Lakeoe2xSEExistingHydroCMetlakatla,<The |,Y UY,cod pixon 2OhENTRANCEBSR$Bh Future Hydro
w
oe Southeast Conference MATCH ACRES
2/23/09