HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergize Eastside Phase 2 Draft EIS_Volume 1
Energize Eastside Project
Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 1: Draft EIS
May 8, 2017
Prepared for the Cities of Bellevue,
Newcastle, Redmond and Renton
Prepared by:
ESA
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE I
TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 Energize Eastside Project ........................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 Need for a SEPA EIS .................................................................................................................... 1‐3
1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Energize Eastside Project ............................................................. 1‐4
1.4 SEPA Review Process for the Project ......................................................................................... 1‐6
1.4.1 Phase 1 and Phase 2 EIS ..................................................................................................................... 1‐6
1.5 How this EIS was Developed ...................................................................................................... 1‐7
1.6 Public Input ................................................................................................................................ 1‐8
1.7 Objectives for the Energize Eastside Project .............................................................................. 1‐8
1.8 alternatives evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS ......................................................................... 1‐9
1.8.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 1‐9
1.8.2 Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines ......................................................... 1‐9
1.9 Next Steps in the Energize Eastside EIS Process ...................................................................... 1‐10
1.10 Elements of the Environment not Analyzed in the Phase 2 EIS ............................................... 1‐10
1.11 Key Findings of the Phase 2 Draft EIS (Summary by Element of the Environment) ................. 1‐11
2.1 Phase 2 Project Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.1.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 2‐2
2.1.2 Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines ......................................................... 2‐3
2.1.3 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 2‐45
2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Included ............................................................................... 2‐52
2.2.1 Seattle City Light Transmission Line................................................................................................. 2‐52
2.2.2 Underground Transmission Line ...................................................................................................... 2‐53
2.2.3 Underwater Transmission Line in Lake Washington ........................................................................ 2‐54
2.2.4 New 115 kV Transmission Line ........................................................................................................ 2‐54
2.2.5 Seattle Public Utilities Water Line Corridor ..................................................................................... 2‐55
2.2.6 Other Routes and Options ............................................................................................................... 2‐55
2.2.7 Alternative 2 and “Alternative 2B” .................................................................................................. 2‐55
2.3 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying the Project ............................................................... 2‐57
3.1 Land Use and Housing ............................................................................................................. 3.1‐1
3.1.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.1‐3
3.1.2 Land Use and Housing in the Study Area ........................................................................................ 3.1‐4
3.1.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................. 3.1‐19
3.1.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 3.1‐20
3.1.5 Long‐term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) .................. 3.1‐20
3.1.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.1‐46
3.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ......................................................................... 3.2‐1
3.2.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.2‐3
3.2.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment in the Study Area .................................................... 3.2‐4
3.2.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................. 3.2‐18
3.2.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 3.2‐26
3.2.5 Long‐term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) ................. 3.2‐26
3.2.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.2‐87
3.3 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................... 3.3‐1
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE II
TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 2017
3.3.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.3‐3
3.3.2 Existing Water Resources in the Study Area ................................................................................... 3.3‐3
3.3.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................. 3.3‐11
3.3.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 3.3‐12
3.3.5 Long‐term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) .................. 3.3‐12
3.3.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.3‐29
3.4 Plants and Animals .................................................................................................................. 3.4‐1
3.4.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.4‐3
3.4.2 Plants and Animals in the Study Area ............................................................................................. 3.4‐7
3.4.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................. 3.4‐10
3.4.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 3.4‐12
3.4.5 Long‐term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) .................. 3.4‐13
3.4.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.4‐33
3.5 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................... 3.5‐1
3.5.1 Greenhouse Gas Compounds Considered in this Analysis .............................................................. 3.5‐1
3.5.2 Carbon Sequestration ..................................................................................................................... 3.5‐2
3.5.3 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.5‐2
3.5.4 Greenhouse Gases in the Study Area ............................................................................................. 3.5‐3
3.5.5 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 3.5‐4
3.5.6 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 3.5‐5
3.5.7 Long‐term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) .................... 3.5‐5
3.5.8 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.5‐10
3.6 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 3.6‐1
3.6.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.6‐1
3.6.2 Recreation Resources in the Study Area ......................................................................................... 3.6‐3
3.6.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 3.6‐9
3.6.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 3.6‐9
3.6.5 Long‐term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) .................... 3.6‐9
3.6.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.6‐33
3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3.7‐1
3.7.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.7‐2
3.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources in the Study Area ......................................................................... 3.7‐6
3.7.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................. 3.7‐13
3.7.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 3.7‐14
3.7.5 Long‐term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) .................. 3.7‐14
3.7.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.7‐34
3.8 Environmental Health ‐ Electric and Magnetic Fields ............................................................. 3.8‐1
3.8.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.8‐8
3.8.2 Magnetic Fields in the Study Area .................................................................................................. 3.8‐9
3.8.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................. 3.8‐16
3.8.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 3.8‐17
3.8.5 Long‐term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) .................. 3.8‐19
3.8.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.8‐34
3.9 Environmental Health – Pipeline safety .................................................................................. 3.9‐1
3.9.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 3.9‐1
3.9.2 Pipelines in the Study Area ............................................................................................................. 3.9‐7
3.9.3 Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Incident Data ...................................................................................... 3.9‐17
3.9.4 Major Risks to Public from Unintentional Pipeline Release .......................................................... 3.9‐27
3.9.5 Risks During Operation ................................................................................................................. 3.9‐30
3.9.6 Long‐term Impacts on Resources ................................................................................................. 3.9‐48
3.9.7 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3.9‐52
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 2017
3.10 Economics.............................................................................................................................. 3.10‐1
3.10.1 Major Revenue Sources for the City of Newcastle ....................................................................... 3.10‐2
3.10.2 Cost of Undergrounding a Transmission Line ............................................................................... 3.10‐3
3.10.3 Tree Cover Along Transmission Line Corridor ............................................................................... 3.10‐4
3.10.4 Long‐term Impacts from Operation of the Project ....................................................................... 3.10‐5
3.10.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3.10‐13
3.10.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................... 3.10‐13
4.1 Land Use and Housing ............................................................................................................. 4.1‐1
4.1.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 4.1‐1
4.1.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission
Lines) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.1‐1
4.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ......................................................................... 4.2‐1
4.2.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 4.2‐1
4.2.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission
Lines) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.2‐1
4.3 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4.3‐1
4.3.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 4.3‐1
4.3.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission
Lines) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.3‐1
4.3.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.3‐10
4.4 Plants and Animals .................................................................................................................. 4.4‐1
4.4.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 4.4‐1
4.4.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission
Lines) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.4‐2
4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.4‐10
4.5 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................... 4.5‐1
4.5.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 4.5‐1
4.5.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission
Lines) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.5‐1
4.5.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 4.5‐2
4.6 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 4.6‐1
4.6.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 4.6‐1
4.6.2 Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines ...................................................... 4.6‐1
4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.6‐14
4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 4.7‐1
4.7.1 Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines ...................................................... 4.7‐1
4.8 Environmental Health ‐ Electric and Magnetic Fields ............................................................. 4.8‐1
4.9 Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety .................................................................................. 4.9‐1
4.9.1 Risks During Construction ............................................................................................................... 4.9‐1
4.9.2 Risks During Construction: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 4.9‐5
4.9.3 Risks During Construction: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines) ......... 4.9‐5
4.9.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 4.9‐7
4.10 Economics.............................................................................................................................. 4.10‐1
5.1 Land Use and Housing ................................................................................................................ 5‐1
5.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ............................................................................ 5‐1
5.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 5‐1
5.4 Plants and Animals ..................................................................................................................... 5‐2
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 2017
5.5 Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................................... 5‐2
5.6 Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 5‐2
5.7 Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................................. 5‐3
5.8 Environmental Health– Electric and Magnetic Fields ................................................................ 5‐3
5.9 Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety ..................................................................................... 5‐3
5.10 Economics................................................................................................................................... 5‐3
6.1 Land Use and Housing ................................................................................................................ 6‐1
6.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ............................................................................ 6‐1
6.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 6‐2
6.4 Plants and Animals ..................................................................................................................... 6‐3
6.5 Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................................... 6‐3
6.6 Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 6‐3
6.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 6‐3
6.8 Environmental Health – Electric and Magnetic Fields ............................................................... 6‐4
6.9 Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety ..................................................................................... 6‐4
6.10 Economics................................................................................................................................... 6‐4
Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. 10‐1
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 10‐5
LIST OF APPENDICES (BOUND SEPARATELY AS VOLUME 2)
APPENDIX A: General Construction and Access Description
APPENDIX B: Supplemental Information: Land Use
APPENDIX C: Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment Methodology
APPENDIX D: Critical Areas Regulations by City
APPENDIX E: PSE Vegetation Management Standards
APPENDIX F: Recreation Policies
APPENDIX G: Supplemental Information: Historic Resources
APPENDIX H: Supplemental Information: EMF (Unique Uses in the Study Area)
APPENDIX I: Supplemental Information: Pipeline Safety
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE V
TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 2017
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1‐1. PSE 230 kV Transmission System in the Eastside ................................................................... 1‐2
Figure 1‐2. Phased EIS Process .................................................................................................................. 1‐6
Figure 2.1‐1. Alternative 1 230 kV Transmission Line Corridor Summary, by Segment (Conceptual) ..... 2‐5
Figure 2.1‐2. Conceptual Site Plan for the New Richards Creek Substation ............................................. 2‐7
Figure 2.1‐3. Existing Conditions at the New Richards Creek Substation ................................................. 2‐8
Figure 2.1‐4. Typical Easement Widths for the Existing Corridor and New Corridor along Roadways
(Conceptual). ............................................................................................................................ 2‐17
Figure 2.1‐5. Construction Sequencing ................................................................................................... 2‐47
Figure 2.1‐6. Transmission Line Pole and Wire Installation .................................................................... 2‐51
Figure 3.1‐1. Study Area for Land Use and Housing ............................................................................... 3.1‐2
Figure 3.2‐1. Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment Study Area ...................................................... 3.2‐2
Figure 3.2‐2. Examples of Commercial Building Types in the Study Area............................................ 3.2‐17
Figure 3.2‐3. Factors Considered for the Analysis of the Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Views .. 3.2‐19
Figure 3.2‐4. Locations of Key Viewpoints used in the Aesthetic Environment Analysis .................... 3.2‐22
Figure 3.2‐5. Existing Views for I‐90 Crossing Locations ...................................................................... 3.2‐24
Figure 3.2‐6. Examples of Contrast ...................................................................................................... 3.2‐28
Figure 3.2‐7. KVP 1, Existing and Proposed Conditions of Richards Creek Substation from SE 30th
Street Looking East ................................................................................................................ 3.2‐39
Figure 3.2‐8. KVP 2, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Redmond Way Looking North .............. 3.2‐42
Figure 3.2‐9. KVP 3, Existing and Proposed Conditions from NE 54th Place Looking North ................. 3.2‐45
Figure 3.2‐10. KVP 4, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Main Street Looking North ................. 3.2‐48
Figure 3.2‐11. KVP 5, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Main Street Looking West .................. 3.2‐49
Figure 3.2‐12. KVP 6, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Bel‐Red Road Looking Southwest ...... 3.2‐53
Figure 3.2‐13. KVP 7, Existing and Proposed Conditions from NE 8th Street Looking West ............... 3.2‐54
Figure 3.2‐14. KVP 8, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Lake Hills Connector Looking East. .... 3.2‐55
Figure 3.2‐15. KVP 9, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Richards Road Looking North ............. 3.2‐58
Figure 3.2‐16. KVP 10, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Factoria Boulevard SE Looking North3.2‐63
Figure 3.2‐17. KVP 11, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Coal Creek Parkway Looking
Northwest toward the Intersection with Factoria Boulevard SE .......................................... 3.2‐64
Figure 3.2‐18. KVP 12, Existing and Proposed Conditions from SE 38th Street Looking Southeast .... 3.2‐68
Figure 3.2‐19. KVP 13, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Somerset Drive SE Looking West. .... 3.2‐72
Figure 3.2‐20. KVP 14, Existing and Proposed Conditions from SE Newport Way Looking West ........ 3.2‐75
Figure 3.2‐21. KVP 15, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 128th Ave SE Looking Northeast ...... 3.2‐79
Figure 3.2‐22. KVP 16, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Lake Boren Park Looking Southwest 3.2‐80
Figure 3.2‐23. KVP 17, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Monroe Avenue Looking North ....... 3.2‐84
Figure 3.2‐24. KVP 18, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Glennwood Court SE Looking North 3.2‐85
Figure 3.2‐25. Existing Views from the Cedar River Trail ..................................................................... 3.2‐86
Figure 3.3‐1. Water Resources in the Study Area .................................................................................. 3.3‐2
Figure 3.4‐1. Study Area and Land Cover for Plants and Animals .......................................................... 3.4‐2
Figure 3.4‐2. Vegetation Management Zones for 115 kV Transmission Lines ....................................... 3.4‐6
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 2017
Figure 3.4‐3. Vegetation Management Zone for 230 kV Transmission Lines ........................................ 3.4‐7
Figure 3.4‐4. Vegetation Cover Types in the Study Area ....................................................................... 3.4‐8
Figure 3.4‐5. Total Trees Surveyed, by Segment, and Trees in the Managed Right‐of‐Way Areas, by
Segment and Option ............................................................................................................... 3.4‐9
Figure 3.4‐6. Percentage of Surveyed Trees Subject to Removal, by Segment and Option ................ 3.4‐15
Figure 3.4‐7. Total Trees and Significant Trees per Acre, Subject to Removal, by Segment and
Option .................................................................................................................................... 3.4‐15
Figure 3.4‐8. Trees in Critical Habitats and Buffers, Subject to Removal, by Segment and Option .... 3.4‐16
Figure 3.5‐1. Sources of GHG Emissions in Washington State ............................................................... 3.5‐4
Figure 3.5‐2. Estimated GHG Sequestration Losses in Project Segments .............................................. 3.5‐6
Figure 3.6‐1. Recreation Sites in the Study Area ................................................................................... 3.6‐2
Figure 3.7‐1. Study Area for Historic and Cultural Resources. ............................................................... 3.7‐3
Figure 3.7‐2. Statewide Predictive Model for Archaeological Sensitivity. ............................................. 3.7‐4
Figure 3.8‐1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis ....................................................................................... 3.8‐2
Figure 3.9‐1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study
Area ....................................................................................................................................... 3.9‐10
Figure 3.9‐2. Number of Reported Incidents by Cause, 2010–2015 .................................................... 3.9‐23
Figure 3.9‐3. Average Volume (Barrels) Per Release by Cause, 2010–2015 ........................................ 3.9‐24
Figure 3.9‐4. Cathodic Protection System Components ...................................................................... 3.9‐26
Figure 3.9‐5. Shield Wire ...................................................................................................................... 3.9‐27
Figure 3.9‐6. National Fire Protection Association Ratings for Jet Fuel, Diesel, and Gasoline ............ 3.9‐28
Figure 3.9‐7. Typical Pool Fire and Heat Flux Areas Diagram .............................................................. 3.9‐29
Figure 3.9‐8. Conceptual Illustration of the Risk Assessment Methodology ....................................... 3.9‐33
Figure 3.9‐9. Individual Risk Criteria by Jurisdiction ............................................................................ 3.9‐36
Figure 3.9‐10. Societal Risk Criteria by Jurisdiction Significance Thresholds ....................................... 3.9‐37
Figure 3.9‐11. Change in Incident Frequency ...................................................................................... 3.9‐39
Figure 3.9‐12. Change in Incident Frequency (Combined) .................................................................. 3.9 ‐40
Figure 3.9‐13. Alternative 1 Individual Risk (of Fatality) Results ......................................................... 3.9‐40
Figure 3.9‐14. Annual Risk of Other Incidents, for Comparison .......................................................... 3.9‐41
Figure 3.9‐15. Alternative 1 Societal Risk Results ................................................................................ 3.9‐42
Figure 4.9‐1. Change in Incident Frequency .......................................................................................... 4.9‐2
Figure 4.9‐2. Change in Incident Frequency During Construction (Combined) ..................................... 4.9‐2
Figure 4.9‐3. Alternative 1 Individual Risk (of fatality) Results .............................................................. 4.9‐3
Figure 4.9‐4. Annual Risk of Other Incidents, for Comparison .............................................................. 4.9‐4
Figure 4.9‐5. Alternative 1 Societal Risk Results .................................................................................... 4.9‐4
Figure 6‐1. Areas with Significant Impacts to the Aesthetic Environment ................................................ 6‐1
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 2017
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1‐1. Alternative 1 Components, Segments, and Options ............................................................. 2‐4
Table 2.1‐2. Summary of Proposed Pole Types ...................................................................................... 2‐15
Table 3.1‐1. Land Uses, Zoning, Shoreline, and Housing Characteristics by Segment and Option ....... 3.1‐5
Table 3.1‐2. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options ......................................................................... 3.1‐32
Table 3.2‐1. Overview of the Affected Environment by Project Component (Substation,
Transmission Line Segment, and Option)................................................................................ 3.2‐5
Table 3.2‐2. Key Viewpoints Selected for the Visual Quality Analysis ................................................. 3.2‐19
Table 3.2‐3. Assigning a Degree of Viewer Sensitivity ......................................................................... 3.2‐25
Table 3.2‐4. Consistency with Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ............................................ 3.2‐30
Table 3.2‐5. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options ......................................................................... 3.2‐59
Table 3.2‐6. Comparison of Bellevue South Options ........................................................................... 3.2‐76
Table 3.3‐1. Streams in the Study Area .................................................................................................. 3.3‐4
Table 3.3‐2. Wetlands in the Study Area ............................................................................................... 3.3‐7
Table 3.3‐3. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options ......................................................................... 3.3‐21
Table 3.3‐4. Comparison of Bellevue South Options ........................................................................... 3.3‐26
Table 3.4‐1. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options ......................................................................... 3.4‐25
Table 3.4‐2. Comparison of Bellevue South Options ........................................................................... 3.4‐30
Table 3.5‐1. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options ........................................................................... 3.5‐8
Table 3.5‐2. Comparison of Bellevue South Options ............................................................................. 3.5‐9
Table 3.6‐1. Recreation Sites in the Study Area ..................................................................................... 3.6‐3
Table 3.6‐2. Trees Removed at Recreation Sites by Bellevue Central Option ..................................... 3.6‐20
Table 3.6‐3. Trees Removed at Recreation Sites by Bellevue South Option ....................................... 3.6‐29
Table 3.7‐1. Age Thresholds Used for Identifying Unevaluated Historic Resources .............................. 3.7‐5
Table 3.7‐2. Historic and Cultural Resources in the Study Area ............................................................ 3 .7‐7
Table 3.7‐3. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options ......................................................................... 3.7‐25
Table 3.7‐4. Comparison of Bellevue South Options ........................................................................... 3.7‐30
Table 3.8‐1. Exposure Guidelines and Levels from the ICNIRP, ACGIH, and IEEE .................................. 3.8‐9
Table 3.8‐2. Calculated Magnetic Fields along the Existing Transmission Line Corridor based on
2013–2014 Loading ............................................................................................................... 3.8‐10
Table 3.8‐3. Existing Land Uses in the Study Area ............................................................................... 3.8‐11
Table 3.8‐4. Sites with Unique Uses within the Study Area ................................................................. 3.8‐15
Table 3.8‐5. Calculated Magnetic Fields along the Existing Transmission Line Corridor based on
2027–2028 Loading ............................................................................................................... 3.8‐18
Table 3.8‐6. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options, Calculated Magnetic Field Levels .................. 3.8‐26
Table 3.8‐7. Comparison of Bellevue South Options, Calculated Magnetic Field Levels ..................... 3.8‐31
Table 3.9‐1. Pipeline Safety Regulations ................................................................................................ 3.9‐2
Table 3.9‐2. Reported U.S. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Unintentional Release Leaks and Fatalities,
2010–2015 ............................................................................................................................. 3.9‐19
Table 3.9‐3. Olympic Pipeline Reported Releases, January 2010 through December 2015 ................ 3.9‐20
Table 3.9‐4. UTC Reports on Olympic Pipeline Violations and Areas of Concern, 2012–2016 ............ 3.9‐21
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS MAY 2017
Table 3.9‐5. Miles of Transmission Line and Olympic Pipeline Co‐location in Study Area with
Alternative 1, by Segment Option ......................................................................................... 3.9 ‐47
Table 3.10‐1. Existing Assessed Valuation (AV) Conditions .................................................................. 3.10‐3
Table 3.10‐2. Newcastle Property Tax Rates (2015) ............................................................................ 3.10‐3
Table 3.10‐3. Current Ecological Value of Trees in Each Segment ....................................................... 3.10‐6
Table 3.10‐4. City Property Tax Implications if Assessed Value Decreases by $10 Million .................. 3.10‐9
Table 3.10‐5. Sensitivity Analysis: $16 million in “Undergrounding Costs” (Average monthly cost per
payee) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10‐10
Table 3.10‐6. Sensitivity Analysis: $25 million in “Undergrounding Costs” (Average monthly cost per
payee) .................................................................................................................................. 3.10‐10
Table 3.10‐7. Loss of Ecological Value by Scenario ............................................................................ 3.10‐12
Table 4.3‐1. Impacts to Water Resources in the Study Area by Segment ............................................. 4.3‐4
Table 4.4‐1. Impacts to Plants and Animals by Segment and Option .................................................... 4.4‐4
Table 4.6‐1. Impacts to Recreation Sites in the Study Area by Segment ............................................... 4.6‐2
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE I
FACT SHEET MAY 2017
FACT SHEET
NAME OF PROPOSAL
Energize Eastside Project
PROPONENT
Puget Sound Energy (PSE)
PROJECT LOCATION
The project involves improvements to PSE’s electrical grid in the Eastside area of King County, to
address a deficiency in electrical transmission capacity. The area identified by PSE as having a
transmission capacity deficiency is situated between Redmond in the north to Renton in the south,
and between Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. The study area goes through the jurisdictions
of Redmond, Bellevue, Newcastle, King County, and Renton.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the project is to address a projected deficiency in transmission capacity resulting from
growth in electrical demand, which could affect the future reliability of electrical service for the
Eastside. PSE proposes to construct and operate a major new transformer served by approximately 18
miles of new high-capacity electric transmission lines (230 thousand volts [kilovolts, or kV])
extending from Redmond to Renton. The proposed transformer would be placed at a substation near
the center of the Eastside. Electrical power would be transmitted to this substation and the voltage
lowered, or “stepped down” (transformed), from 230 kV to 115 kV for distribution to local
customers. PSE has proposed a preferred alignment for the transmission lines, along with route and
pole options within some segments of the alignment.
The City of Bellevue is overseeing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process in cooperation
with the jurisdictions of Kirkland, Newcastle, Redmond, and Renton (collectively referred to as the
Partner Cities). The City of Bellevue is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) nominal Lead
Agency. The Phase 1 Draft EIS (released in January 2016) broadly evaluated the general impacts and
implications associated with feasible and reasonable options available to address PSE’s identified
objectives for the project. This Phase 2 Draft EIS is a project-level evaluation, describing impacts at
a project-specific level. This includes details of development at specified geographic locations,
including a more detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts. The project-level Phase 2
Draft EIS incorporates the Phase 1 Draft EIS by reference. Although the City of Kirkland is a Partner
City, no project-level analysis was evaluated in Kirkland because PSE’s proposed alignment for
Energize Eastside does not pass within Kirkland city limits.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE II
FACT SHEET MAY 2017
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS
No Action Alternative
PSE would continue to manage its maintenance programs to reduce the likelihood of equipment failure,
and would continue to stockpile additional equipment so that repairs could be made quickly. PSE
would also continue its energy conservation program systemwide and for the Eastside.1 As
appropriate, conductor replacement on existing lines would occur. New 230 kV overhead transmission
lines and a new substation would not be constructed.
Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines
New Substation Construct a new substation, the “Richards Creek” substation, adjacent to the
existing Lakeside substation in Bellevue.
New Overhead
Transmission Lines
Construct approximately 18 miles of new 230 kV overhead transmission lines
between the Sammamish and Talbot Hill substations. This would generally occur
within the existing transmission line corridor connecting these two substations.
Several options are also evaluated for the portion of the project extending
through central and south Bellevue.
1 Energy efficiency improvements described under the No Action Alternative apply to all of the alternatives.
CONSTRUCTION TIMING FOR THE PROJECT
PSE intends to construct the project by the summer of 2018, if possible. This timeframe is based on a
projected capacity deficiency that could affect system reliability by that date.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT LEAD AGENCY
The City of Bellevue is the Lead Agency.
The following municipalities are SEPA Co-Lead Agencies for the project: Kirkland, Newcastle,
Redmond, and Renton.
SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL
Carol Helland
Development Services
City of Bellevue
450 110th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
EIS CONTACT PERSON
Heidi Bedwell
Energize Eastside EIS Program Manager
City of Bellevue
450 110th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: (425) 452-4862
Email: HBedwell@bellevuewa.gov
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE III
FACT SHEET MAY 2017
CONTACT PERSON FOR EACH CO-LEAD AGENCY
City of Kirkland
Jeremy McMahan
Development Services - Planning Manager
(425) 587-3229
jmcmahan@kirklandwa.gov
City of Newcastle
Thara Johnson
Interim Community Development Director
(425) 649-4143, Ext. 127
TharaJ@newcastle.wa.gov
City of Redmond
Catherine Beam, AICP
Principal Planner
(425) 556-2429
CBEAM@redmond.gov
City of Renton
Jennifer Henning, AICP
Planning Director
(425) 430-7286
Jhenning@rentonwa.gov
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS
Potential approvals and permits that may be required for the project are listed below by jurisdictional
level.
Federal
Section 10/404 permit—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Endangered Species Act consultation—National Marine Fisheries Service and/or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service
Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Consultation – Triggered by federal nexus;
lead federal agency must consult with Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
State
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Stormwater General Permit—
Washington State Department of Ecology
Section 401 Water Quality Certification—Washington State Department of Ecology
Hydraulic Project Approval—Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Utility Rate Approval —Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE IV
FACT SHEET MAY 2017
Local City or County
Local City or
County
City of
Redmond
City of
Bellevue
City of
Newcastle
City of
Renton
King
County
Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit
Zoning Conditional
Use Permit
Essential Public
Facilities Permit
Critical Areas Permit
Building and Related
Permits
Clearing and Grading
Permit
Right-of-Way Permit
AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS
This Phase 2 Draft EIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Bellevue, in consultation
with the Co-Lead Agencies.
Research and analysis were provided by the following consultant firms:
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) – Alternatives development; analysis of land use
and housing, scenic views and the aesthetic environment, water resources, plants and
animals, greenhouse gas, recreation, historic and cultural resources, electric and magnetic
fields (EMF), pipeline safety, and ecosystem services; and EIS document coordination and
production.
Enertech Consultants – Peer review of EMF modeling.
FCS Group – Economic analysis.
EDM Services – Pipeline safety risk analysis.
Stantec – Peer review of pipeline corrosion analysis.
DATE OF ISSUE
May 8, 2017
END OF COMMENT PERIOD
All comments must be postmarked or emailed before midnight, June 21, 2017.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE V
FACT SHEET MAY 2017
COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIS
Individuals may comment on the Draft EIS by emailing or mailing written comments to:
Heidi Bedwell
Energize Eastside EIS Program Manager
Environmental Planning Manager, Land Use Division, Development Services
City of Bellevue
P.O. Box 90012
Bellevue, WA 98009-9012
Email: info@EnergizeEastsideEIS.org
Online at: www.EnergizeEastsideEIS.org
Commenters should include “Energize Eastside” in the subject line of the email or letter, and must
provide their mailing address.
Individuals may also provide comments at any of the three public hearings to be held in May and
June 2017. Each hearing will begin with an open house, followed by a short presentation and an oral
comment period. Hearings will be held as follows:
Oliver Hazen High – 6:00 PM–8:30 PM
1101 Hoquiam Avenue NE
Renton, WA 98059
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Bellevue City Hall – 6:00 PM–9:00 PM
450 110th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Rose Hill Elementary – 2:00 PM–4:30 PM
8110 128th Avenue NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Saturday, June 3, 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE VI
FACT SHEET MAY 2017
AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT EIS
Copies of the Phase 2 Draft EIS and/or Notices of Availability have been distributed to agencies,
tribal governments, and organizations on the Distribution List in Chapter 9.
The Draft EIS may be viewed online or downloaded from the project website
www.EnergizeEastsideEIS.org or may be viewed at the following locations:
Libraries
Bellevue Library
1111 110th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Newcastle Library
12901 Newcastle Way
Newcastle, WA 98056
Redmond Library
15990 NE 85th St
Redmond, WA 98052
Newport Way Library
14250 SE Newport Way
Bellevue, WA 98006
Renton Highlands Library
2902 NE 12th St
Renton, WA 98056
Renton Library
100 Mill Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Lake Hills Library
15590 Lake Hills Blvd
Bellevue, WA 98007
City Offices
City of Bellevue Development Services
Department
City Hall
450 110th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
City of Newcastle Planning Division
City Hall
12835 Newcastle Way, Suite 200
Newcastle, WA 98056
Redmond City Hall
Development Services Center (2nd floor)
15670 NE 85th St
Redmond, WA 98052
City of Renton Planning Division
City Hall, 6th floor
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Printed copies are available to purchase for cost of reproduction ($300) by contacting the project
email at info@EnergizeEastsideEIS.org or by calling Environmental Science Associates at (206)
789-9658. Copies of the EIS on CD may also be obtained (available at no charge) at all four of the
city offices listed directly above.
AVAILABILITY OF BACKGROUND MATERIALS
The Draft EIS includes appendices with information that is important to help understand the EIS
analysis. Other background materials developed specifically for this project and used by the
consultants are available on the project website at www.EnergizeEastsideEIS.org.
Introduction and Summary
1
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY
The City of Bellevue and its partner Eastside Cities (Partner Cities) are conducting a phased
environmental review process under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for an electrical
transmission line project proposed by Puget Sound Energy (PSE). The project, called Energize
Eastside, is a proposal to build new electrical transmission
infrastructure to serve PSE’s customers in the Eastside area, in
King County, Washington. This second phase (i.e., Phase 2) of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process assesses project-
level alternatives, as described in Section 1.5. The previous Phase
1 Draft EIS assessed a comprehensive range of impacts and
implications associated with broad alternatives for addressing
PSE’s objectives, in a non-project or programmatic EIS. This
project-level Phase 2 Draft EIS incorporates the Phase 1 Draft EIS
by reference.
This chapter provides an overview of the project and a summary of the findings of the Phase 2 Draft
EIS. The project includes numerous terms that may not be familiar to all readers. Throughout the
EIS, words shown in italics when they first appear in the document are included in the glossary
(Chapter 10).
1.1 ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PROJECT
PSE’s proposal is to construct and operate a new 230 thousand volt (kilovolt or kV) to 115 kV
electrical transformer served by approximately 18 miles of new high-capacity electric transmission
lines (230 kV) extending from Redmond to Renton. The transformer would be placed at a new
substation site near the center of the Eastside, referred to as the Richards Creek substation. Electrical
power would be transmitted to the new substation and the voltage lowered, or “stepped down”
(transformed), from 230 kV to 115 kV for distribution to local customers. Figure 1-1 shows the
Eastside and the locations of existing substations and 230 kV transmission lines, and the area where a
new substation and new 230 kV lines are proposed. This set of facilities is proposed to address a
deficiency in electrical transmission capacity during peak periods that PSE has identified through its
system planning process.
This deficiency is expected as a result of anticipated population and employment growth on the
Eastside, and it is expected to negatively affect electric service reliability for PSE’s Eastside
customers within the next few years. The project would improve reliability for Eastside communities
and would supply the needed electrical capacity for anticipated growth projected by PSE.
Based on federally mandated planning standards, PSE’s analysis found that the existing transmission
system could place Eastside customers and/or the regional power grid at risk of power outages or
system damage during peak power events that typically occur in cold or hot weather as early as the
summer of 2018 (PSE, 2017). PSE’s analysis concluded that the most effective solution was to add a
230-to-115 kV transformer within the center of the Eastside to relieve stress on the existing 230-to-
115 kV transformers that currently supply the area. This would need to be fed by new 230 kV
transmission lines from the north and south. By having lines from two different directions, a
substation can continue to be supplied even if one line goes down.
The Eastside, as referred to in
this EIS, is an area of King
County between Lake
Washington and Lake
Sammamish, roughly extending
from Renton in the south to
Redmond in the north.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐2
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014.
Figure 1-1. PSE 230 kV Transmission System in the Eastside
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐3
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
The 230 kV system is proposed because that is the next highest voltage line (greater than the existing
115 kV lines) that PSE could feasibly install and operate consistent with the regional grid system that
would meet project reliability goals and PSE’s project criteria. As illustrated in Figure 1-1, there is
no 230 kV transmission line operated by PSE that reaches the center of the Eastside area.
This Phase 2 Draft EIS evaluates the proposed 230 kV improvements as part of PSE’s proposal, as
described in more detail in Chapter 2.
1.2 NEED FOR A SEPA EIS
Discussions between the Partner Cities (including the cities of Bellevue, Kirkland, Newcastle,
Redmond, and Renton) and PSE indicated that the project is likely to have significant adverse
environmental impacts. Pursuant to SEPA, a Threshold Determination of Significance was issued on
April 30, 2015, in compliance with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-360.
To address the potential for significant environmental impacts, PSE submitted an application for
processing of an EIS with the City of Bellevue. As the largest and potentially most affected city, the
City of Bellevue agreed with the other Partner Cities to take the role of lead agency, consistent with
WAC 197-11-944. The City of Bellevue is directing the overall preparation of the EIS, with
assistance by consulting firms referred to as the EIS Consultant Team. The cities of Newcastle,
Redmond, and Renton have reviewed preliminary versions of this Phase 2 Draft EIS and provided
input on its preparation. The City of Kirkland has not been involved in the review of this Phase 2
Draft EIS because PSE’s project is not located within Kirkland city limits.
The Phase 1 Draft EIS (released in January 2016) broadly evaluated the general impacts and
implications associated with feasible and reasonable alternatives available to address PSE’s identified
objectives for the project. This Phase 2 Draft EIS is a project-level evaluation, describing impacts at
a site-specific and project-specific level. This approach is consistent with the requirements for
Phased Review outlined in WAC 197-11-060 (5)(c).
While this is a project-level EIS, it is being prepared at an early stage of design development for the
project. This is consistent with rules that intend for SEPA to be “integrated with agency activities at
the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid
delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems” (WAC 197-11-055). This
means that information about the project is approximate and subject to change and refinement as the
design is developed. Where there is uncertainty about potential impacts, the Phase 2 Draft EIS uses
conservatively high impact assumptions to ensure that any potential significant impacts are
addressed.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐4
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ENERGIZE EASTSIDE
PROJECT
PSE has determined that there is a need to construct a new 230 kV bulk electrical transmission line
and an associated electrical substation east of Lake Washington to supply future electrical capacity
and improve the reliability of the Eastside’s electrical grid. PSE prepared two studies that describe
the need: the Eastside Needs Assessment Report and the Supplemental Eastside Needs Assessment
Report (Gentile et al., 2014, 2015). These are referred to collectively as PSE’s Eastside Needs
Assessment, as described in more detail in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Section 1.3.
As outlined in WAC 197-11-060 (3)(a), the lead agency is responsible for ensuring that a proposal
that is the subject of environmental review is properly defined. The process of defining the proposal
includes an understanding of the need for the project, to enable a thorough understanding of the
project’s objectives (see Section 1.7) and technical requirements, and to accurately identify feasible
and reasonable project alternatives for consideration in the EIS. According to WAC 197-11-
060(3)(a)(iii), proposals should be described in ways that encourage considering and comparing
alternatives, and agencies are encouraged to describe proposals in terms of objectives rather than
preferred solutions. An understanding of the need for the project helps to clarify the objectives used
to develop project alternatives.
This Phase 2 Draft EIS will not be used to reject or validate the
need for the project; it will be used to inform decision-makers
reviewing land use permits that PSE will need to secure from each
affected jurisdiction to build the proposed transmission line. The
EIS is intended to identify reasonable alternatives that could attain
or approximate PSE’s objectives at a lower environmental cost and
disclose potential significant adverse environmental impacts
associated with the alternatives analyzed. The deficiency in
transmission capacity on the Eastside identified by PSE is based on
a number of factors. Key factors include growing population and
employment in the Eastside, changing consumption patterns
associated with larger buildings, more air-conditioned space, and
changing utility regulations that require a higher standard of
electrical reliability than was required in the past. Heightened
concerns about reliability that underlie the regulatory changes trace
back to an August 2003 blackout in the Midwestern and
Northeastern portions of North America that affected 55 million
customers.1 PSE has concluded that the most effective and cost-
efficient solution to meet its objectives is to site a new 230 kV
transformer in the center of the Eastside, which would be fed by
new 230 kV transmission lines from the north and south (Stantec, 2015).
1 See U.S. - Canada Power System Outage Task Force Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United
States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, April 2004.
What is a Reasonable
Alternative?
WAC 197-11-440(5)(b) defines
a reasonable alternative as an
action that could feasibly
attain or approximate a
proposal's objectives, but at a
lower environmental cost or
decreased level of
environmental degradation.
Reasonable alternatives may
be those over which an
agency with jurisdiction has
authority to control impacts,
either directly or indirectly
through requirement of
mitigation measures.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐5
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
The Eastside population is expected to grow at a rate of
approximately 1.2 percent annually over the next decade, and
employment is expected to grow at an annual rate of
approximately 2.1 percent, a projection based on internal
forecasting conducted by PSE. Given the nature of expected
development, PSE has projected that peak electrical demand
will grow at an annual rate of 2.4 percent2. This forecast is based
on the concept that economic activity has a significant effect on
energy demand. As described in PSE’s Eastside Needs
Assessment, this growth rate takes into account population and
employment growth as well as expected “block load” growth
that PSE is aware will be coming in the next 10 years (Gentile et
al., 2014, 2015).
Without adding transmission capacity for local peak periods in
the Eastside, a deficiency could develop as early as winter of 2017–2018, with potential for load
shedding (forced power outages) by summer of 2018 (PSE, 2017). To address this risk in the near
term, PSE would continue to deploy and expand the use of a series of operational steps to prevent
system overloads or large-scale loss of customers’ power; these steps are referred to as Corrective
Action Plans (CAPs). CAPs generally involve shutting off or reducing load on overloaded equipment
and rerouting the load to other equipment. The CAPs are seen as temporary measures to keep the
entire system operating, but they can place large numbers of customers at risk of a power outage
(e.g., rolling blackout plan) if anything else on the system begins to fail. CAPs are described in more
detail in Section 2.2.1.12 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS. For additional information, see the Energize
Eastside Outage Cost Study (Nexant, 2015), available on the project EIS website.
Load shedding would be initiated if the electrical demand reaches limits established by PSE
engineers to avoid violating standards designed to protect the regional grid (e.g., as established by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation [NERC]) (Stantec, 2015). These peak load periods
can occur during typical cold or hot weather conditions. If one or more components of the system are
not operating for any reason, load shedding could be required to protect the Eastside and the rest of
the regional grid. This is because once the threshold is crossed, the physical limitations of the system
are such that even the slightest overload will produce overheating that can damage equipment, and
larger overloads will produce overheating more quickly. Once equipment is in an overload condition,
the options are to let it fail or take it out of service. Both conditions leave the Eastside in a vulnerable
state where the system is incapable of reliably serving customer load. At that point, further actions
such as load shedding may be needed to keep the system intact within the Eastside service area and
beyond.
By the end of the 10-year forecast period, PSE’s estimate is that in the summer 2024 scenario, over
211,000 customers could experience rotating outages on up to 9 days over a period of 16 days. In the
winter 2023–2024 scenario, around 175,000 customers could experience rotating outages on up to 13
days over a period of 29 days (Nexant, 2015).
The load area in question is situated between two existing sources of bulk electrical power: the
Sammamish substation on the north end (Redmond/Kirkland area) and the Talbot Hill substation on
the south end (Renton area) (Figure 1-1). These two sites are the closest substations that bring
2 PSE annually updates projected electrical demand systemwide.
Block loads are substantial
increases in expected
electrical demand from
individual customers, typically
industrial, commercial, or
institutional customers. PSE
regularly communicates with
large customers to estimate
upcoming block load to
ensure that their supply and
distribution system will be
capable of serving the need.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐6
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
230 kV power supply to the Eastside, and therefore supply power to this geographic area. Because of
the configuration and limited capacity of the transmission system within the Eastside, a direct change
in electrical demand for power flowing through these two substations, or a change in power being
supplied to these two substations, will affect the Eastside area. Once the higher voltage (230 kV) is
transformed down to a lower voltage (115 kV) at these two substations, the system is limited by the
physical capacity of the conductors and transformers that connect these two substations to the load
and feed the area (Stantec, 2015).
1.4 SEPA REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PROJECT
1.4.1 Phase 1 and Phase 2 EIS
The Energize Eastside EIS is a Phased EIS (WAC 197-11-060(5)). The Phase 1 Draft EIS evaluated,
at a programmatic level, various alternatives for addressing the identified project need. It describes
the types of impacts that the alternatives could cause, mitigation that would be available to minimize
or avoid such impacts, and any significant impacts that would be unavoidable. This programmatic
evaluation was not required by SEPA but was optional and intended to provide decision-makers and
community members with a better understanding of what constructing and operating the alternative
methods would mean to the community, and how to best evaluate the environmental impacts of
project-level alternatives that are described and analyzed in this Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Following release of the Phase 1 Draft EIS (in January 2016), comments were reviewed and
summarized in the Phase 1 Draft EIS comment summary, available on the project website. These
comments were used to inform the selection of alternatives carried forward into the Phase 2 Draft
EIS, which includes additional detail on the project alternatives. The Phase 1 Draft EIS generally did
not analyze impacts associated with specific development at specified geographic locations. The
Phase 2 Draft EIS includes project-level alternatives based on more defined geographic locations,
and a more detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts. Figure 1-2 illustrates the overall
process for preparing the two phases of the Draft EIS. A Final EIS will be prepared to respond to
comments on both Draft EIS documents. Comments that resulted in corrections or other
modifications to information presented in the Phase 1 Draft EIS are included in Chapter 7, Errata.
Figure 1-2. Phased EIS Process
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐7
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
Together, the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 Draft EIS are intended to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the project and alternatives. The Phase 2 Draft EIS supplements the analysis in the Phase
1 Draft EIS as part of a phased EIS process per WAC 197-11-060(5). Commenting is invited for each
of the Draft EIS stages and at each of the scoping stages. The Final EIS, scheduled for release in fall
2017, will include responses to comments on both Draft EIS documents and will be used by the
Partner Cities to support any permit decisions required.
1.5 HOW THIS EIS WAS DEVELOPED
The Phase 2 Draft EIS was developed under the direction of the City of Bellevue, working closely
with its Partner Cities and its consultants. The project is proposed by PSE, a regulated utility.
Therefore, PSE developed the project objectives and helped to define alternatives that would attain or
approximate the project objectives, as required by SEPA. The City of Bellevue and its team
conducted scoping to identify alternatives and the impacts to be analyzed, and based on information
from PSE and public scoping comments, refined the alternatives to meet SEPA requirements,
including development of a No Action Alternative.
The following major steps were taken to develop the Phase 2 Draft EIS:
1. Following publication of the Phase 1 Draft EIS comment period, comments that related to the
scope of project-level review were reviewed (City of Bellevue, 2016a). The Phase 1 Draft
EIS and these comments, along with PSE’s proposed design and alignment options, were
used to develop an initial request for comments on the scope for the project-level Phase 2
Draft EIS.
2. Public scoping outreach was conducted to assist in developing the alternatives to study as
part of the Phase 2 EIS. Scoping comments were requested to focus on the identification of
viable alternatives, potential route segments and options, and associated impacts. Three
public meetings were held at venues in Bellevue, Kirkland, and Renton, along with
opportunities to provide comments online. After the close of the initial scoping period (May
31, 2016), PSE proposed two additional potential bypass options (as described in more detail
in Chapter 2). To allow the public to comment on these options, the scoping period for Phase
2 was “reopened” specifically to obtain scoping input on the new bypass options. The
comment period closed on August 1, 2016. Approximately 780 comments in the form of
website forms, emails, oral testimony, and letters were received during scoping (both initial
and reopened), as summarized in the Phase 2 Draft EIS Scoping Comment Summary Reports
(Parts 1 and 2) (643 comments received during the initial scoping period, and 137 comments
received during the reopened scoping period to address the new bypass route options) (City
of Bellevue, 2016b, 2016c).
3. The alternatives were refined based on scoping input received. The EIS Consultant Team
reviewed all alternatives proposed during scoping, reviewed the technical efficacy of the
proposed alternatives, and screened the alternatives against PSE’s criteria for an effective
solution as listed in PSE’s 2015 Supplemental Solutions Report (Gentile et al., 2015). Staff
representing each of the Partner Cities discussed the findings, and a final set of alternatives
was established by agreement among the Cities. The Phase 2 Draft EIS includes one action
alternative (Alternative 1) and the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 includes six route
segments, as well as seven route options within portions of those segments. The City of
Bellevue prepared a report (Phase 2 Draft EIS, Scope of Analysis) to summarize the
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐8
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
alternatives and the elements of the environment that would be evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS (City of Bellevue, 2016d).
4. Input received during scoping was also used to define the environmental analysis needed,
including methods used, area of study, and other topics.
5. Chapter 3, which addresses operational (long-term) impacts, and Chapter 4, which addresses
construction (short-term) impacts, of this Phase 2 Draft EIS describe the methods used by the
EIS Consultant Team to analyze potential environmental impacts, by element of the
environment.
6. The City of Bellevue and the other Partner Cities reviewed drafts prepared by the EIS
Consultant Team and provided comments for EIS Consultant Team response. PSE reviewed
Chapter 2, Section 2.1 and provided appropriate clarifying revisions to the description of
Alternative 1. The City of Bellevue, as SEPA lead agency, performed final review of the
Phase 2 Draft EIS prior to publication.
The documents cited above, as well as other project background materials, are available on the
Energize Eastside EIS Project website, via the Library tab
(www.EnergizeEastsideEIS.org/library.html).
1.6 PUBLIC INPUT
The scope of this EIS has incorporated public comment received through website forms, emails, oral
testimony, and letters. During Phase 1, comments regarding the need for the project helped focus
attention on clarifying the project objectives. In both Phases 1 and 2, comments about the alternatives
resulted in changes to the alternatives as originally proposed. Comments about potential impacts
were catalogued and evaluated by the EIS Consultant Team and the lead agency to determine which
impacts could be significant. The results of the scoping process are summarized in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS Scoping Comment Summary Reports (Parts 1 and 2) (City of Bellevue, 2016b, 2016c).
1.7 OBJECTIVES FOR THE ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PROJECT
The purpose and need for the project, summarized in Section 1.3, helped to define PSE’s broad
objectives for the project, which are as follows:
Address PSE’s identified deficiency in transmission capacity.
Find a solution that can be feasibly implemented before system reliability is impaired.
Be of reasonable project cost.
Meet federal, state, and local regulatory requirements.
Address PSE’s electrical and non-electrical criteria for the project.
More details on the project objectives, including PSE’s electrical and non-electrical criteria, are
described in detail in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐9
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
1.8 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS
Chapter 2 describes in detail the alternatives included in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The EIS evaluates a
No Action Alternative and one action alternative (Alternative 1), summarized below.
Under either alternative, it is assumed that PSE would continue to achieve 100 percent of the
company’s conservation goals as outlined in its 2015 Integrated Resource Plan (PSE, 2015), system
wide and for the Eastside. Conservation goals are achieved through a variety of energy efficiency
improvements implemented by PSE and its customers. Conservation refers to electrical energy
savings above and beyond state or local energy code requirements. For additional information on
conservation efforts in PSE’s service area, see Section 2.3.1 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Since
conservation efforts would not change as a result of the project, impacts associated with such efforts
are not analyzed in this EIS.
1.8.1 No Action Alternative
As required by SEPA, the No Action Alternative must be evaluated in an EIS, as a baseline against
which the action alternatives can be evaluated and compared. The No Action Alternative includes the
following:
Ongoing maintenance that PSE can do without requiring state or local approvals.
No new 230 kV transmission lines or substation.
1.8.2 Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines
PSE’s proposed project (Alternative 1) includes two main components:
1. A new 230 kV overhead transmission line, connecting the Sammamish substation in
Redmond and the Talbot substation in Renton, a distance of approximately 18 miles; and
2. A new substation, called the Richards Creek substation, adjacent to the existing Lakeside
substation in Bellevue.
The new Richards Creek substation and upgraded transmission line would increase electrical
capacity and improve reliability of the electrical grid for Eastside communities. PSE has proposed an
alignment for the transmission line, including route options within two segments of the alignment,
described in Section 2.2.2. In general, PSE proposes to use the existing 115 kV corridor, replacing
the existing poles and conductors with new poles and conductors. In the two segments where route
options are proposed, PSE has identified its preferred alignment. In the other segments of the
corridor, no alternative routes are proposed.
The segments are broken down by jurisdiction. The Redmond, Newcastle, and Renton Segments
each consists of one alignment that extends through that jurisdiction. Bellevue is divided into three
segments. The Bellevue North Segment has one alignment only. The Bellevue Central Segment has
three route options. The Bellevue South Segment has four route options.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐10
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
1.9 NEXT STEPS IN THE ENERGIZE EASTSIDE EIS PROCESS
The Fact Sheet at the beginning of this Phase 2 Draft EIS includes the timeframe for public
comment, including times and locations for public meetings to take comment, and the addresses
where comments can be submitted. After publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, public meetings will
be held to take comments. The Final EIS will include responses to comments on both the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Draft EIS documents, as well as any additional analysis that may be required to provide a
thorough project-level environmental review for the Energize Eastside project. The Final EIS,
expected to be completed in fall 2017, will be used by each of the Partner City communities in
making permit decisions regarding the project. PSE will prepare and submit permit applications to
each jurisdiction that the project goes through. Each jurisdiction will conduct its own permit process.
1.10 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT NOT ANALYZED IN
THE PHASE 2 EIS
As required by SEPA (WAC 197-11-440(6)), elements of the environment that are not significantly
affected do not need to be included in an EIS. The following are elements of the environment
evaluated in the Phase 1 Draft EIS that would not be significantly affected by the proposed project,
and were therefore not analyzed in this Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Earth – Soils and geology were analyzed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS because seismic and geotechnical
hazards (including ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, coal mines and other hazards) are present
throughout the area. However, impacts under all alternatives would be less-than-significant with
regulatory compliance, and implementation of industry standards, geotechnical recommendations,
and best management practices (BMPs).
Public Services – As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, neither the No Action Alternative nor the
Energize Eastside project alternatives would significantly increase the demand for public services, or
significantly hinder the delivery of services. Existing services are also adequate to address impacts
from the project. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected.
Utilities – As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, neither the No Action Alternative nor the Energize
Eastside project alternatives would significantly increase the demand for utilities, or significantly
affect utility operations, except as described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS with regard to electrical
reliability. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are expected for the Energize Eastside project
alternatives. Significant adverse impacts to utilities (e.g., rolling blackouts) would occur under the
No Action Alternative if capacity increases are not implemented, as described in the Phase 1 Draft
EIS. Public safety issues related to the Olympic Pipeline are addressed in this Phase 2 Draft EIS
under Environmental Health.
Transportation – The only potential for significant transportation impacts that was described in the
Phase 1 Draft EIS was the possibility of building the transmission line underground in a street right-
of-way. Since this alternative is not being carried forward, there was no need to further analyze
transportation impacts from the project in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Transportation impacts resulting
from construction of Alternative 1 would be below the level of significance and addressed through
regulatory requirements as part of the right-of-way use permit.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐11
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
Energy and Natural Resources – The project does not affect the generation or consumption of
energy. Energy consumption would be essentially the same under all alternatives, with the exception
that any temporary minor reduction in consumption under the No Action Alternative due to rolling
blackouts would not be as likely to occur under Alternative 1. The project would consume other
natural resources, but such consumption is not considered a significant impact.
1.11 KEY FINDINGS OF THE PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS (SUMMARY
BY ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT)
The following pages provide a summary of the findings of each element of the environment, as
analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of this Phase 2 Draft EIS. For each element of the
environment evaluated in the EIS, these two-page summaries provide a brief description of key
findings about the affected environment, potential impacts, mitigation available, cumulative impacts,
and any unavoidable significant impacts. Summaries are not intended as a replacement for the more
thorough analyses presented in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.
Impacts are generally categorized as less-than-significant, or significant. Each subsection of Chapters
3 and 4 defines these categories for the specific element of the environment and provides detailed
descriptions of impacts. Impacts that are described in this EIS as “negligible” refer to small impacts
that would be inconsequential, and therefore less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 1‐12
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MAY 2017
Page intentionally blank
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentLand UseExisting Land Use: The most common existing land uses in the study area are residential (38 percent), vacant land (16 percent), and commercial (11 percent). Neighborhood Character: The study area passes through numerous neighborhoods. The proposed Richards Creek substation site is surrounded by mostly industrial area. The Redmond, Bellevue North, and Newcastle Segments pass through mostly residential neighborhoods. The Bellevue Central Segment, Bellevue South Segment, and the Renton Segment pass through a mix of neighborhoods, including residential, commercial, recreation, and institutional. Zoning: The most common zoning category along the corridor is single-family residential (58 percent). Future Land Use: Comprehensive Plans for the Partner Cities identify future land use designations to protect existing single-family neighborhoods, provide opportunities for infi ll development, increase opportunities for new multi-family development, and encourage redevelopment of commercial land uses into mixed-use developments, particularly in the Bellevue Central and Bellevue South Segments. HousingThere are about 783 single-family and 3,440 multi-family residences in the study area, with the highest density areas in the Bellevue Central and Bellevue South Segments.Typical multi-family residential development in Bellevue Typical single-family residential developmentLand Use & HousingMAY 2017PAGE 1-13Land Use & HousingSummary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » Each segment of the project would be consistent with land use-related policies in applicable city and subarea plans. » Some segments were found to be inconsistent with aesthetic and recreation-related policies. See the corresponding sections for more detail. » For crossings of shorelines, consistency with shoreline plans requires the demonstration that no feasible alternative exists outside the shoreline. » Option routes that require new easements to be purchased may interfere with future land use policies that allow or encourage development close to the street edge.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » Construction impacts, due to their temporary nature, would be less-than-significant.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » The project is not expected to alter land use or the supply of housing. The project would not affect the scale of additional development, but if the project were not constructed, it could slow the rate of additional development on the Eastside.NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » No direct impacts to land use and housing in the study area would occur. » Potential inconsistency with the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan policies that require planning for utilities to accommodate anticipated growth.Mitigation Measures » Co-locate utilities. » Adhere to zoning regulations. » Comply with conditional use permits and other permits, as required. » Underground distribution lines where feasible. » Underground portions of the transmission line. » Adhere to land use code zoning district regulations in the central and south Bellevue segment corridors that encourage development with multistory buildings built up to or near the parcel frontage or street edge.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to land use and housing. Microsoft campus, Redmond
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentAesthetic EnvironmentNatural Environment: Rolling topography with hills (e.g., Woodridge, Somerset, and Olympus), ravines (Coal Creek, May Creek, and Honey Creek), and valleys (Richards Valley and Cedar River). Notable water bodies crossed by or near the project include the Cedar River; Sunset, Coal, Richards, and Kelsey creeks; and Swan Lake. Tree density is highest in undeveloped areas (e.g., the ravines) and lowest in highly urbanized areas (e.g., Bel-Red).Built Environment: Predominately single-family housing, with some low-density commercial buildings with large parking lots (e.g., Bel-Red and Sunset Plaza). Some industrial warehouses (e.g., along SE 30th Street) and larger institutional buildings (schools and churches) throughout the study area. Utility infrastructure includes substations, 230 kV lattice towers, and 115 kV and 12.5 kV circuits on wood poles.Visual Quality: In general, visual quality varies but is better in areas where the natural environment is relatively intact, residential and commercial areas have consistent scale and character, and where there is minimal utility presence. The study area has areas with low, medium, and high visual quality. Areas with higher visual quality include the ravines and natural areas (e.g., Coal Creek Natural Area), the Botanical Gardens, areas abutting the Lake Hills Connector, Lake Boren, and residential areas away from the existing transmission corridor that have consistent building height and form. Areas with lower visual quality include the existing transmission line corridor, the industrial area surrounding the Lakeside substation, and areas with a variety of building forms and heights (e.g., north of Bel-Red Road and south of SR-520). Scenic ViewsThe Olympics, the Cascades, Mount Rainier, Cougar Mountain, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and the downtown Bellevue and downtown Seattle skylines.Lake Hills Connector in Bellevue Cedar River Trail in RentonScenic Views &Aesthetic EnvironmentMAY 2017PAGE 1-15Scenic Views & Aesthetic EnvironmentSummary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » Visual quality could change due to contrast with the natural and built environment from vegetation removal, incompatibility with the surrounding environment, and visual clutter. » Scenic views could be obstructed by increased pole height, or placing poles in new locations. » Viewer sensitivity to impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment is important. Groups with the highest viewer sensitivity are residential viewers and users of recreation areas. » Bypass Options 1 and 2 could result in significant adverse impacts because the transmission line would be in a new corridor, resulting in a high level of contrast, where viewer sensitivity would be high. » In the Newcastle Segment and the Bellevue South Segment – Willow 1 Option, significant impacts are expected due to high viewer sensitivity and substantial contrast with the aesthetic environment.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » Construction impacts, due to their temporary nature, would be less-than-significant.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » Development increases the likelihood of impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment. The project would not affect the scale of development, but if the project were not constructed, it could slow the rate of development on the Eastside. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » No substantial new infrastructure would be introduced into the aesthetic environment; therefore, no significant contrast would be created.Mitigation Measures » Co-locate utilities. » Limit vegetation disturbance, and revegetate with vegetation compatible with clearance requirements. » Sight-screen utilities using landscaping and fencing. » Underground distribution lines where feasible. » Underground portions of the transmission line. » Design overhead transmission lines to be aesthetically compatible with surrounding land uses. This could include design measures such as changes to pole height, spacing, location, or color.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » There would be no significant adverse impacts to scenic views. » Significant aesthetic impacts from the bypass options could be reduced if: -Vegetation clearance and height restrictions are reduced through placement of poles closer to the roadway. -An option that uses existing transmission corridors is selected. » Significant aesthetic impacts from Willow 1 could be avoided by selecting a different option for the Bellevue South Segment. » Significant aesthetic impacts from the Newcastle Segment could be reduced if a pole configuration that is shorter and centrally located within the existing corridor is used. » All significant impacts could be avoided if the line were placed underground.View of Lake Washington from Somerset neighborhood
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentStreams and RiversThe study area includes several streams and the Cedar River. Most major streams, including Kelsey Creek, Coal Creek, and May Creek, fl ow generally from east to west and drain to Lake Washington. Streams in the Redmond and Bellevue North area, including Willow Creek, drain to Lake Sammamish or the Sammamish River. Kelsey Creek in Bellevue and Cedar River in Renton are Shorelines of the State and regulated under each jurisdiction’s Shoreline Master Program.WetlandsNumerous wetlands are located along the transmission line. The majority are small Category II or III wetlands, but major wetland complexes are located at the north end of the transmission line in connection with Willows Creek in Redmond, and in Bellevue associated with Kelsey Creek. Three of the Kelsey Creek wetlands are Category I.GroundwaterDepths to groundwater along the transmission line range from less than 10 feet to approximately 60 feet. Within the study area, Redmond and Renton utilize groundwater for their water supply. The north end of the transmission line is located over Redmond’s Wellhead Protection Zone 4, and the south end is located over Renton’s Wellhead Protection Zone 2. May Creek, Newcastle Cedar River, RentonWater ResourcesMAY 2017PAGE 1-17Water ResourcesSummary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » Minor loss of function and acreage of wetlands, and stream and wetland buffers that would be mitigated through compliance with applicable regulations. » Minor increases in stormwater runoff and erosion from new poles and access roads. Compliance with applicable stormwater regulations would mitigate impacts.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » Construction would require vegetation clearing and excavation, which could temporarily increase erosion and sedimentation. Implementation of BMPs would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. » Pole installation could encounter shallow groundwater requiring dewatering. Excavated areas would be small, so dewatering would be minimal and impacts would be less-than-significant.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » The project is not expected to contribute to indirect or direct impacts to water resources resulting from other projects; therefore, no cumulative impacts to water resources would occur. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » The No Action Alternative does not include substantial new infrastructure; therefore, no significant impacts would occur on stormwater runoff, surface water quality or quantity, or groundwater. » PSE’s maintenance activities would include vegetation removal, but ground clearing would be limited and erosion would not increase.Mitigation Measures » Compliance with Partner Cities’ critical areas regulations for wetland and buffer impacts. » Compliance with Bellevue’s and Renton’s Shoreline Master Programs for Kelsey Creek and the Cedar River, respectively. » Compliance with Partner Cities’ stormwater regulations. » Implementation of BMPs to reduce construction impacts. » Development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, and Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan to minimize construction impacts to water quality. » Compliance with Redmond’s and Renton’s Wellhead Protection Zone construction standards to minimize impacts to drinking water sources.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur because there would be no long-term impacts. Kelsey Creek Park wetland mitigation
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentVegetation cover types include herbaceous, scrub-shrub, forest, agricultural, and woody and herbaceous wetland vegetation. Upland and aquatic fi sh and wildlife species are present, associated mainly with stream, wetland, and critical habitats. Trees are present throughout the study area, including signifi cant trees (defi ned as healthy evergreen or deciduous trees, typically 6 inches in diameter or greater, measured 4 feet above existing grade). Great blue heron Cedar River ValleyPlants & AnimalsMAY 2017PAGE 1-19Plants & AnimalsSummary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » Minor disturbance or loss of habitat through routine vegetation maintenance activities and facility maintenance. » Loss of wildlife habitat due to tree removal, trimming, and management activities. » Loss or degradation of fish habitat due to the removal of trees in critical areas and buffers. » Operational impacts would be less-than-significant, as the basic character and functions of the habitat in the corridor would be maintained, and few protected wildlife species regularly occur in the study area. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » Loss or disturbance of plants and habitat during construction activities. Impact level depends largely on pole placement. Implementation of construction BMPs would result in less-than-significant impacts, and disturbed areas would be replanted with native vegetation.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » Development increases the likelihood of impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. The project would contribute to urbanization through the removal of trees and a reduction of fish and wildlife habitat. However, cumulative impacts would be less-than-significant as the overall habitat character and functions would be maintained.NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » Pole maintenance, including replacement, and routine vegetation maintenance could cause habitat alteration or loss of existing plants and animals, and degradation of aquatic and upland habitat. However, compliance with environmental regulations and implementation of BMPs would result in less-than-significant impacts.Mitigation Measures » Minimize tree removal, trimming, and management activities to the extent practicable. » Implement minimization measures: erosion control, spill prevention and control plans, and BMPs. » Replant and stabilize disturbed construction staging areas with native trees, shrubs, and grasses that would meet powerline clearance requirements. » Comply with existing regulations and operational management plans. » Comply with critical area ordinances.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur because there would be no significant long-term impacts.Kelsey Creek tributary, Bellevue
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentGases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because, like a greenhouse, they capture heat radiated from the earth. The accumulation of GHGs is a driving force in global climate change. Defi nitions of climate change vary among regulatory authorities and the scientifi c community. In general, however, climate change is the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fl uctuations and human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of metric tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).The GHG environment is the area where the project would directly or indirectly result in GHG emissions or a reduction of carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is a process that traps atmospheric CO2 in plants or soil.Existing 115 kV transmission line in Redmond Lakeside substation, BellevueGreenhouse GasesMAY 2017PAGE 1-21Greenhouse GasesSummary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » Removal of trees and vegetation would reduce carbon sequestration. » Employee vehicle trips to maintain the new facilities would increase GHG emissions. » Substations with equipment that use SF6 as an insulating gas could cause some fugitive emissions. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » Construction truck trips, off-road equipment, and worker trips would temporarily generate GHG emissions.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » GHGs are a component of cumulative climate change impacts; both the construction and operational impacts reflect cumulative impacts. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » No new infrastructure improvements or maintenance yards. » No changes to vegetation maintenance activities. » No new employee vehicle trips.Mitigation Measures » Install SF6 equipment at substations with manufactured guaranteed leakage rate of 0.1 percent. » Limit vegetation disturbance. » Plant an equivalent number of trees to those removed for the project.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » None identified – greenhouse gases for the project would not create an increase that would be above the state reporting thresholds. Traffi c on I-90 heading west
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentRecreation Study Area: PSE’s existing and new corridors, and road corridors and parcels adjacent to the segment and option routes. Recreation Sites: Parks, natural areas, open spaces, trails, and playfi elds, as well as amenities such as community centers, playground equipment, and school playfi elds and private recreation clubs (such as golf clubs). The study area contains approximately 27 recreation sites plus many miles of trails. This encompasses approximately 633 acres in recreation sites owned and operated primarily by local governments, and includes fi ve schools and two privately owned recreation clubs. The sites provide a variety of recreational opportunities, ranging from small neighborhood or “pocket” parks to large natural park areas and regional trails that extend across the study area. Recreation sites are used primarily by local residents, with the exception of the larger recreation areas and regional trails, which also draw visitors from neighboring communities. Hiking, walking, bicycling, enjoying playgrounds, and picnicking are the primary activities. Informal Recreation: Activities outside of the designated recreation sites, such as bicycling on a street. Coal Creek Trail, Bellevue May Creek Natural Area, NewcastleRecreationMAY 2017PAGE 1-23RecreationSummary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » Potential need for easement acquisition of publicly owned recreation sites. » Park user experience may change with replacement poles that are taller and/or in different locations than existing poles. » Park user experience could be negatively impacted by tree removal in some recreation sites. » Magnitude of impact varies depending on location of poles and number of trees removed, but impacts on park users would not be significant in any location.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » Temporary loss of the use of a recreation site during construction. » Construction activities may decrease the enjoyment of a recreation site during construction.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » In general, there is pressure on recreation areas from development and increased use. The significant impacts to recreation sites from Alternative 1 could contribute to the degradation of existing recreation resources and limit the ability for municipalities to provide additional recreation opportunities, unless mitigation is provided.NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » No new utility infrastructure would be placed in or adjacent to recreation sites; therefore, no significant impacts would be created.Mitigation Measures » Avoid placing utility infrastructure within or adjacent to recreation sites where there is none currently. » Adhere to restrictions that protect recreation land from conversion to other uses. » Work with the City of Bellevue to relocate the trailhead at Woodridge Open Space, if needed, under Bypass Option 2. » Limit vegetation disturbance, both during construction and operation. Restore areas cleared for construction. » Notify local jurisdictions, schools, or private owners in advance of work within recreation sites.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » Acquisition of easements in publicly owned recreation sites is not consistent with the City of Bellevue recreation plans and policies (Bypass Option 1, Bypass Option 2, Oak 1 Option, Oak 2 Option, and Willow 2 Option). Kelsey Creek Park, Bellevue
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentStudy AreaArchaeological evidence indicates human activity in the Pacifi c Northwest and Puget Sound since at least 12,500 years ago. Within 2 miles of the Redmond Segment is an archaeological site that dates to the earliest known time period of human occupation in the region. Historic ResourcesThere are seven signifi cant historic resources and hundreds of unevaluated historic resources in the study area. All segments and options contain portions of the Eastside Transmission Corridor, which has been recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The other resources are the Somerset Neighborhood, Newcastle Cemetery, Mt. Olivet Cemetery, Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building, Wilburton Trestle, and the Twin Valley Dairy Barn at Kelsey Creek Farm Park.Archaeological Resources One protected archaeological resource is recorded within the study area (the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad). In general, the study area has very low sensitivity for containing additional unrecorded archaeological resources, with the exception of the Kelsey Creek and Cedar River areas, which have a very high sensitivity. 115 kV wooden H-frame Newcastle CemeteryHistoric & Cultural ResourcesMAY 2017PAGE 1-25Historic & Cultural ResourcesSummary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » Potential impacts to significant historic resources and protected archaeological resources could result from pole replacement, ground disturbance, demolition, relocation, or alterations to the visual setting of resources. » Potential impacts to unevaluated historic resources will be determined when the historic property inventory is conducted, prior to publication of the Final EIS. Significant impacts to these resources could occur, although not all are likely to be eligible for listing.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » Construction impacts, due to their temporary nature, would be less-than-significant.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » Development increases the potential for impacts to historic and cultural resources, if present where development could occur. Impacts to belowground archaeological resources could occur during ground disturbance. Impacts to historic resources could occur from demolition or alterations to the setting. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » Ground disturbance due to routine pole replacement has the potential to impact belowground archaeological resources, if present. » Routine pole replacement would impact the Eastside Transmission Corridor, which has been recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation Measures » Conduct a historic property inventory and belowground archaeological survey. This would document and prepare eligibility recommendations for all identified archaeological resources and unevaluated historic resources. » Consult with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to obtain eligibility determinations for recommended eligible resources, including the Eastside Transmission Corridor. » Consult with DAHP, King County Historic Preservation Program, municipal governments, affected Tribes, and other stakeholders as applicable to the resource to develop resource-specific mitigation measures. » Apply for an archaeological excavation permit from DAHP if impacts to a protected archaeological resource cannot be avoided. » Prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan prior to construction of the project.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated as it is probable that all impacts could be mitigated through consultation with DAHP, King County Historic Preservation Program, municipal governments, affected Tribes, and other stakeholders.Wilburton Trestle, Bellevue
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentEnvironmental HealthElectric & Magnetic Fields (EMF) Magnetic Fields in Study AreaPower-frequency EMF associated with transmission of electric power is present underneath and adjacent to PSE’s existing 115 kV transmission lines and substations. In response to concerns expressed during the public scoping comment period, Power Engineers, a subconsultant to PSE, modeled magnetic fi eld levels that would be associated with the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1.Methods and Approach to Identifying Calculated Magnetic Field LevelsPower Engineers calculated potential magnetic fi elds at 35 representative locations along the transmission line corridor for the winter 2027/2028 and summer 2028 peak periods. Calculated magnetic fi eld levels were computed as a function of distance away from the centerline of the existing transmission line corridor. The maximum magnetic fi eld levels would typically occur within the corridor and drop in value at the edge of the right-of-way, and further drop in value at the outermost edge of the study area (defi ned as 250 feet from the centerline of the corridor).EMF Exposure Guidelines Industry guidelines for limiting EMF exposure have been adopted by three organizations. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields sets limits of 9,040 milligauss (milligauss or mG is a commonly used unit of measurement of magnetic fi eld strength) for the general public. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recommends a limit of 2,000 mG for the general public. The American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) sets limits of 10,000 mG for workers with cardiac pacemakers. City of Bellevue, proposed transmission lines City of Bellevue, existing transmission linesMAY 2017PAGE 1-27Environmental Health Summary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » All parts of the Energize Eastside project would have associated magnetic fields during operation, and would vary depending on the pole type and electrical load. » Operation of the proposed transmission line would result in a decrease of magnetic field levels for all segments and options that utilize the existing corridor. Where Alternative 1 would utilize new corridor alignments, there would be an increase in magnetic field levels. A new source of power frequency EMF would be introduced to areas that do not currently have an overhead transmission line. These include: along portions of the road rights-of-ways that Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option 2 utilize; along 124th Avenue SE and SE 38th Street as part of the Oak 2 Option; and along SE Newport Way as part of the Willow 2 Option. » There are no known health effects from power frequency EMF. For all proposed segments and options, the calculated magnetic field levels would be well below industry guidelines. Therefore, under Alternative 1, impacts would be less-than-significant.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » Magnetic fields from construction equipment would be indistinguishable from background levels for the public outside of the construction site. Construction impacts would be less-than-significant.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » The project would reduce magnetic fields along existing corridors; therefore, there would be no cumulative effect. In new corridors, the project would add a new source of magnetic fields to existing sources, but no adverse cumulative effects are expected. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » Operation under the existing 115 kV transmission lines would result in an increase in magnetic field levels during winter peak periods and a decrease during summer peak periods for segments south of the Lakeside substation (Bellevue South, Newcastle, and Renton Segments), and a decrease in magnetic field levels during winter and summer peak periods in the segments north of the Lakeside substation (Redmond, Bellevue North, and Bellevue Central Segments). » There are no known health effects from power frequency EMF. The magnetic field levels indicate that the existing corridor under the No Action Alternative would have calculated magnetic field levels well below industry guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.Mitigation Measures » No adverse impacts from magnetic fields are expected; therefore, no mitigation is proposed.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » No adverse impacts are likely from power frequency EMF at the levels of public exposure from the Energize Eastside project. It follows that no unavoidable significant impacts under SEPA would occur. City of Renton, proposed transmission lines
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentPipeline warning sign in the existing corridor Buried hazardous liquids pipeline, similar to the Olympic PipelinesPipelines in Study Area The Olympic Pipeline system is located within the study area (defi ned as the transmission line corridor and the surrounding area that could be affected by an incident) and includes two pipelines. One or both pipelines are co-located with PSE’s existing corridor within all of the segments; in the Renton Segment, they are co-located only in the north part of the segment. The pipelines carry diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline and operate about 95 percent of the time.Potential for Pipeline Damage The project could increase the risk of damage to the Olympic Pipelines. Although the probability of a leak or fi re caused by the project is low, the potential damage from such an incident could be high, given the population density in the study area. The project could affect pipeline safety primarily in two ways: outside force/excavation and/or electrical interference. These could cause unintentional releases from the pipeline, placing the public at risk.Outside force/excavation could occur during construction of the transmission line. Excavation activities or surcharge loading from construction equipment could damage the pipeline.Electrical interference could occur during normal transmission line operation, which could contribute to accelerated external corrosion damage on the pipeline, or as a result of fault conditions. Fault conditions involve elevated electric currents (typically caused by lightning, insulator failure, mechanical failure, and transformer failure) that can lead to fault damage or arcing damage to the pipeline. Methods and Approach to Identifying Change in Risk Risk = Event Probability (Likelihood) x Severity of Consequences (Impact)EDM Services, a fi rm specializing in pipeline safety, conducted a pipeline risk assessment to determine if the project would change the risk of potential damage to the pipelines. Risk is presented as the probability that a specifi c consequence will occur within a specifi ed time period. The severity of the impact depends on the nature and quantity of the substance released, as well as the proximity to people. Environmental HealthPipeline Safety MAY 2017PAGE 1-29Environmental Health City of Newcastle, colocation with existing transmission linesSummary of ImpactsOPERATIONAL IMPACTS » The probability of a pipeline incident such as damage to a pipe wall as a result of electrical interference could be slightly higher in some locations when compared with the No Action Alternative. In these areas, testing, monitoring, engineering analysis, and implementation of mitigation measures would lower these risks. » The likelihood of a pipeline rupture and fire would remain low, and no substantial change in risk from existing conditions has been identified. As a result, the potential risk is not considered significant. » In addition to the human safety risks, impacts to natural resources and other elements of the environment could be significant if an accidental release or fire were to occur. The extent of the damage would depend on various unpredictable factors and could cause significant impacts due to the sensitivity of resources in the study area. However, the likelihood of a pipeline rupture and release remains low, and mitigation measures would further reduce the probability of a pipeline incident occurring. As a result, the potential risk to natural resources and other elements of the environment is not considered significant.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » During construction, the Olympic Pipelines would be exposed to an increased risk of damage by outside force/excavation. » This change in risk is not substantial and therefore would not be considered a significant impact.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » Activities by other parties (e.g., ground-disturbing activities), unrelated to the Energize Eastside project, may occur in the corridor on occasion. While these activities remain a source of potential pipeline safety risk in the corridor, the project would not contribute to adverse impacts resulting from these other activities; therefore, no cumulative impacts to environmental health from pipeline safety would occur.NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » Based on the limited pipeline data available to the EIS team, it is not possible to calculate exact risks along the existing corridor. The risk of external corrosion and outside force/excavation is expected to stay the same under the No Action Alternative. As a result, impacts would be less-than-significant. » Impacts to natural resources and other elements of the environment would be the same as for Alternative 1.Mitigation Measures » To minimize the potential for electrical interference, PSE could utilize optimized conductor geometry, where the configuration provides the greatest level of field cancellation. PSE could also operate both circuits at 230 kV at project start-up. »To reduce the potential for external corrosion. PSE could model the final design for instances where additional protection is needed. The pipeline operator could conduct field monitoring, testing, and provide additional mitigation (such as grounding mats). »To reduce the potential for outside force/excavation, PSE could field verify the distance between the pipeline and transmission line pole grounds prior to construction and ensure that Olympic representatives are on-site to monitor construction activities near the pipeline. » Additional measures are found in Section 3.9.7.Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » Even with worst-case assumptions related to the increased risk during operation and construction, the likelihood of a pipeline release and fire would remain low, and no substantial increase in risk compared to the existing conditions was identified. It is expected that with the implementation of additional mitigation measures, any increase in risks within the corridor can be fully mitigated. As a result, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EISCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYAffected EnvironmentAlthough economic analysis is not a required element under SEPA, this Phase 2 Draft EIS examines three economic topics, based on results of the Phase 1 analysis as well as input received during scoping. The three topics include: (1) the potential loss of property tax revenue, especially to the smallest affected city (Newcastle), due to reduced property values; (2) the potential cost to the community requesting the placement of the 230 kV transmission line underground as mitigation; and (3) the monetary value of lost ecosystem services due to reduced tree cover as a result of the proposed overhead transmission line. Property Tax Revenue: The City of Newcastle relies on various taxes to cover the cost of governing, including public safety, community development, transportation projects, and parks. Property taxes make up the majority of Newcastle’s revenues.Cost of Undergrounding a Transmission Line: The cost of the new transmission line would be paid for by all of PSE’s customers. Any cities and/or property owners requesting underground alignments would likely be required to pay for undergrounding the lines. Tree Cover along Transmission Line Corridor: Individual trees as well as groups of trees provide ecological benefi ts and environmental values. Trees improve air quality by absorbing CO2 and potentially harmful gases, such as sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide, from the air, and releasing oxygen.Newcastle City Hall Stormwater inletEconomicsMAY 2017PAGE 1-31Summary of Impacts OPERATIONAL IMPACTS » Potential loss of property tax revenue for the City of Newcastle. » Potential cost to the community for undergrounding transmission lines. The burden on a very small number of payees would be considerable, while the cost for a single mile when shared among 100,000 payees could be on the order of $20 per year or less. » Loss of tree cover means the natural environment of the study area communities would be less able to reduce air pollutants and stormwater runoff, and sequester carbon dioxide.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS » None; the economic aspects of the project do not relate to construction impacts.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS » Property values are likely to rise with growth and development; the project could also contribute to the combined loss of ecosystem services, in combination with other development projects in the area. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS » Not applicable to economics. Mitigation Measures » While mitigation for economic impacts from a project is not required under SEPA, potential impacts to City revenues due to a decreased assessed value for property could be mitigated by an adjustment to the mil rate for all tax payers (i.e., the rate of taxation of the City Government in each city).Signifi cant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts » None.EconomicsProperty views of Lake Sammamish in Bellevue
2
Project Alternatives
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes the project alternatives evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The alternatives
were developed based on discussions among the Partner Cities, the EIS Consultant Team, and PSE,
and public comments on the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 scoping periods. The alternatives were
designed to identify, analyze, and feasibly attain PSE’s objectives for the project (as defined in
Chapter 1; see Section 1.7). This chapter also identifies alternatives considered but not evaluated in
the Phase 2 Draft EIS because they did not meet PSE’s project objectives (see Section 2.2). As
required by SEPA (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11-440), benefits and
disadvantages of delaying PSE’s project are described at the end of this chapter (presented in Section
2.3).
The Phase 1 Draft EIS was published on January 28, 2016. It evaluated, at a more general level, the
environmental impacts of alternative methods to address the electrical transmission capacity
deficiency identified by PSE. The Phase 1 Draft EIS was programmatic in nature and addressed a
broad range of potential alternatives. While not required under SEPA, the Partner Cities opted to
provide the Phase 1 evaluation to ensure that the alternatives considered in the Phase 2 Draft EIS
reflect the full range of feasible alternatives to meet PSE’s project objectives. The Phase 1 Draft EIS
broadly evaluates the general impacts and implications associated with feasible and reasonable
alternatives available to address PSE’s identified objectives for the project. The evaluation conducted
during Phase 1 was used in part to narrow the range of alternatives for consideration in the Phase 2
Draft EIS. Informed by the Phase 1 analysis, the Phase 2 Draft EIS is project-specific and focuses on
PSE’s preferred alignment and alternative alignment routes also called options. The Phase 1 Draft
EIS includes important information on project background and the regulatory context, which is not
repeated in the project-specific Phase 2 Draft EIS; the reader is referred to the Phase 1 Draft EIS for
additional information on those topics, and cross references are included in the Phase 2 Draft EIS for
convenience of readers.
The Phase 2 Draft EIS is focused on the information needed to evaluate PSE’s proposed project, at a
level of detail sufficient for decision makers to comply with SEPA during permitting. Information on
context is included as needed to provide a complete analysis for the project-level Phase 2 Draft EIS,
with more detailed supporting information incorporated by reference to the Phase 1 Draft EIS and
appendices.
To keep the information in Chapter 2 focused and understandable, project details that relate to a
specific element of the environment are presented in Chapter 3, Long-term (Operation) Impacts and
Potential Mitigation, and Chapter 4, Short-term (Construction) Impacts and Mitigation. For example,
while Chapter 2 includes general information on vegetation clearing zones associated with the
project, further details about vegetation clearing (such as the number, location, and type of trees
removed) are described and analyzed as appropriate in Sections 3.4 and 4.4, Plants and Animals.
Similarly, information on pipeline safety, both during construction and operation, is presented in
Sections 3.9 and 4.9, Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety. Chapter 2 focuses on the key
components of the segments and options at an appropriate level of detail to support the analysis
presented in Chapters 3 and 4.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐2
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
2.1 PHASE 2 PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES
This Phase 2 Draft EIS evaluates PSE’s
proposed Energize Eastside project, and a No
Action Alternative (as required by SEPA, WAC
197-11-440). The No Action Alternative
provides a benchmark against which the impacts
of the project and other alternatives can be
compared.
PSE’s proposed project includes two main
components:
1. A new substation, called the Richards
Creek substation, adjacent to the existing
Lakeside substation in Bellevue; and
2. New 230 kV overhead transmission lines,
connecting the Richards Creek substation to
both the Sammamish substation in Redmond
and the Talbot Hill substation in Renton,
through the cities of Redmond, Bellevue,
Newcastle, and Renton.
The new Richards Creek substation and
transmission lines would increase electrical
capacity and improve electrical grid reliability
for Eastside communities. PSE has proposed a
preferred alignment for the transmission lines,
along with route and pole options within some
segments of the alignment, described in Section
2.1.2. The Partner Cities, in cooperation with
PSE, have determined that these route and pole
options are reasonable alternatives that could
attain or approximate PSE’s objectives for the
proposed project. In some segments of the
corridor, no alternative route options are
proposed because no reasonable alternatives
would attain or approximate PSE’s objectives
for the proposed project and have lower
environmental cost.
2.1.1 No Action Alternative
SEPA requires the analysis of the No Action
Alternative in an EIS, against which an action
alternative (e.g., Alternative 1) can be evaluated
and compared. For the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the No
Action Alternative is defined as those actions
Project Terminology
The Phase 2 Draft EIS uses the following terms:
Alternative 1 – Refers to PSE’s entire proposed
project, including the new Richards Creek
substation and the transmission line.
Segment – Segments are components of
Alternative 1 and include identified portions of the
transmission line route, generally divided by city
boundaries, except there are three segments for
Bellevue. The Phase 2 Draft EIS evaluates six
distinct segments.
Option – Options are alternative routes identified by
PSE for specific segments, designed to address
public comments or jurisdictional considerations.
For the Phase 2 analysis, four options have been
identified for the Bellevue South Segment, and
three options have been identified for the Bellevue
Central Segment.
Corridor, Route, Alignment – These are all general
terms for the path travelled by the transmission line,
and are essentially synonyms. Corridor generally
refers to the entire length of the line, whereas route
and alignment refer to a given portion of a segment
or option.
PSE’s Preferred Alignment – PSE’s Preferred
Alignment is Alternative 1, comprised of the six
segments; within the Central Bellevue Segment, the
Preferred Alignment is the Existing Corridor Option;
within the Bellevue South Segment, the Preferred
Alignment is the Willow 2 Option.
PSE’s Right-of-Way – Refers to the land over
which PSE has a right to build and operate its
transmission lines. PSE’s right-of-way includes
parcels owned outright by PSE, and parcels owned
by others over which PSE owns an easement
allowing the transmission lines. Portions of the
transmission lines within public right-of-way are
typically allowed through franchise agreements with
the public entity that owns the right-of-way.
Easement – Refers to a formal legal agreement
giving PSE the right to use the real property of
another for a specific purpose, such as overhead
transmission lines. An easement specifies the width
and other dimensions over a given parcel. The
easement is a real property interest, but legal title to
the underlying land is retained by the original owner
for all other purposes. Where possible, PSE prefers
to place 230 kV lines in easements, rather than on
public right-of-way, because within public right-of-
way, PSE can be required to move the lines if
needed to accommodate road expansion or other
infrastructure improvements.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐3
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PSE would undertake to serve the project
objectives without requiring the issuance of state or
local permits (something PSE could build or
undertake if the proposed project is not approved).
The No Action Alternative represents the most
likely outcome if the project is not implemented,
and it is considered the baseline condition.
Under the No Action Alternative, PSE would
continue to manage its system in largely the same
manner as at present. This includes maintenance
programs to reduce the likelihood of equipment
failure, and stockpiling additional equipment so
that in the event of a failure, repairs could be made
as quickly as possible.
Implementation of the No Action Alternative
would not meet PSE’s objectives for the proposed project, which are to maintain a reliable electrical
system and to address a deficiency in transmission capacity on the Eastside. Implementation of the
No Action Alternative would increase the risk to the Eastside of power outages or system damage
during peak power events.
2.1.2 Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines
Alternative 1 includes a new substation (Richards Creek) and approximately 18 miles of new 230 kV
electrical transmission lines to connect two existing bulk energy systems (the Sammamish substation
in Redmond, and the Talbot Hill substation in Renton). This alternative is a variant of Option A
under Alternative 1 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. For the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the proposed 230 kV
transmission line corridor is divided into six main segments (some of which include additional route
options) to aid in the analysis and organize material for the decision-makers. To assist Bellevue and
the other Partner Cities in evaluating the preferred alignment during the decision-making process, the
segments are organized primarily by city jurisdiction, from north to south: Redmond, Bellevue,
Newcastle, and Renton. Because of the distance and various route options, the route within Bellevue
is separated into three segments (Bellevue North, Bellevue Central, and Bellevue South). In the
Bellevue Central and Bellevue South Segments, there are options for routing the transmission lines
along various corridors other than PSE’s existing 115 kV corridor.
Table 2.1-1 lists the segments and route options that comprise Alternative 1 as presented in the Phase
2 Draft EIS, resulting in 12 possible project scenario combinations. To be viable, Alternative 1
requires continuous transmission lines across all six segments. Where there are route options, only
one option is needed per segment. Figure 2.1-1 shows a diagram of the route segments and options.
The segments and options are color-coded throughout this Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Project Area and Study Area
This Phase 2 Draft EIS uses two related terms:
“study area” and “project area.” In general,
“project area” refers to the lands crossed by the
proposed transmission line corridor (both existing
and new) and the substations, any properties with
easements for the project, as well as the adjacent
properties. In contrast, the term “study area” is
used to describe the area associated with a
specific resource element that could be affected by
the project. The study area differs from element to
element, depending on the spatial nature of the
potential impacts. The study area for each
resource element is defined in the introduction or
methodology discussion in each Chapter 3
subsection, and often shown on a map for clarity.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐4
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Table 2.1-1. Alternative 1 Components, Segments, and Options
Alternative Name Used in the Phase 2 Draft EIS
1A-S Richards Creek Substation and Improvements to Other Substations
1A-1 Redmond Segment
1A-2 Bellevue North Segment
1A-3a Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option [PSE’s Preferred Alignment]
1A-3b Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
1A-3c Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
1A-4a Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
1A-4b Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
1A-4c Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
1A-4d Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option [PSE’s Preferred Alignment]
1A-5 Newcastle Segment
1A-6 Renton Segment
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐5
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; Open Street Map 2016.
Figure 2.1-1. Alternative 1 230 kV Transmission Line Corridor Summary, by Segment
(Conceptual)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐6
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
The Richards Creek substation is described first below, followed by information on the proposed 230
kV transmission lines. For the transmission lines, general information is first presented on shared
components of the alternative, followed by information for each of the individual segments and
options. Details on the construction of the line are presented separately, in Section 2.1.3,
Construction. This section describes the major components (substation equipment, pole design,
vegetation management, etc.) of the identified alternatives. Potential significant environmental
impacts and mitigation are identified in Chapter 3 (Long-term (Operation) Impacts and Potential
Mitigation) and Chapter 4 (Short-term (Construction) Impacts and Potential Mitigation).
(Note to the reader: the names of the alternatives, segments, and options presented in the Phase 2
Draft EIS differ from the names used during earlier parts of the project, such as in the Phase 1 Draft
EIS and during the Phase 2 scoping comment period. In particular, definition and design of the
segments has evolved during preparation of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, partially in response to discussion
among PSE, the EIS Consultant Team, and the City of Bellevue, which has refined the alternatives
identified for full analysis.)
New Richards Creek Substation and Improvements to Other Substations
PSE proposes to construct a new substation under Alternative 1, regardless of route option. The new
Richards Creek substation would be immediately south of the existing Lakeside substation (see
Figure 2.1-2) on parcels 102405-9083 and 102405-9130 in the City of Bellevue (see Figure 2.1-3).
The total lot area for the substation site is 7.82 acres in size, and the fenced substation yard would
cover approximately 2 acres within a fenced lot. The substation would include a new 230 kV
transformer (see Figure 2.1-2) and associated electrical equipment such as circuit breakers, electrical
bus, and connections to the new transmission lines. The main function of the substation would be to
house the transformer and related equipment needed to step down the 230 kV voltage (bulk power)
from the new transmission lines to 115 kV needed for use by the local distribution system.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐7
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Figure 2.1-2. Conceptual Site Plan for the New Richards Creek Substation
(Note: configuration shown for Willow 1 and Willow 2 Options; for Oak 1 and Oak 2 Options, the 115 kV
transmission line would run west to SE 30th Street just south of the control house)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐8
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Gravel surface Looking north to the Lakeside substation
View to SE 30th Street access Vegetated hillslope of the east boundary
Figure 2.1-3. Existing Conditions at the New Richards Creek Substation
The substation would include the necessary foundations, access ways, stormwater drainage, a control
house, and security fencing. The dead-end towers with ground wire mast, located within the fenced
lot, would be approximately 70 feet tall. The new substation would be in approximately the same
location as PSE’s current pole storage yard (see Figure 2.1-3).
The access road from SE 30th Street to the substation entrance gate would be paved with asphalt, and
the route would be reconfigured relative to the current alignment to allow the delivery of large
equipment, such as the transformer (see Figure 2.1-2). The existing access roadway to the Richards
Creek site (SE 30th Street) is paved; however, it would be reconfigured to improve access. The
reconfigured driveway would be 24 feet wide at the corners and 20 feet wide at the straight sections.
The driveway would include 2-foot shoulders on each side of the pavement. Appropriate drainage for
the driveway would be included in the site design. There is an existing unimproved, degraded road
between the Richards Creek substation site and existing Lakeside substation. This road would not be
improved as part of the Energize Eastside project. The yard surfacing inside the substation fence and
for a perimeter 5 feet outside the fence will consist of insulating yard rock (3/4-inch crushed quarry
rock), with interior driveways in the substation consisting of gravel surfacing (crushed surfacing top
course).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐9
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
The retaining wall on the east side of the substation would be an approximately 25-foot-tall soldier-
pile wall. The preliminary grading quantities based on the 60 percent design are 26,500 cubic yards
of excavation and 8,000 cubic yards of fill. The fence will be a 7-foot chain link fence with three
strands of barbed wire on top.
Under the Bellevue Land Use Code, Electrical Utility Facilities require 15 feet of Type 1
Landscaping on all sides (LUC 20.20.520(F)(2)(a). Landscaping is expected to be installed along the
western substation boundary, with natural screening used along the north, east, and south boundaries.
Natural resources on the site, including streams, wetlands, vegetation, and slopes, are described in
Section 3.3, Water Resources, and Section 3.4, Plants and Animals.
Improvements to Existing Substations
In addition to the new Richards Creek substation, the proposed project requires upgrades to several
existing substations in the study area, including the Lakeside, Talbot Hill, and Sammamish
substations, as well as the Somerset substation (only associated with the Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options
of the Bellevue South Segment). Substation locations are shown on Figures 1-1 and 2.1-1. In general,
all upgrades to the existing substations would occur within the existing footprint of these facilities,
and no yard expansion is proposed at any of these substations. No significant impacts are anticipated
for these substation upgrades; therefore, no further analysis of impacts to resource topics at these
substations is included in this Phase 2 Draft EIS.
At the Lakeside substation, PSE would install new lines to interconnect with the existing 115
kV system that serves the Eastside. Additionally, a new 115 kV capacitor bank would be
added to the station.
At the Talbot Hill substation, PSE would add new circuit breakers and wires.
At the Sammamish substation, PSE would add a new 230 kV line bay.
For system operational reasons, at the Somerset substation (under the Oak 2 and Willow 2
Options only), PSE would upgrade the system from a radial to a loop system, allowing the
substation to be fed from more than one transmission line. PSE would install 230 kV
equipment to run at 115 kV for the near term; and install a new 115 kV transformer, three
switches, and a control building. If the Somerset substation requires improvements,
additional temporary work area in the immediate vicinity is anticipated as the substation yard
is small. The footprint of the substation would not be expanded.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐10
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Overview of the New 230
kV Transmission Lines
Alternative 1 is to construct and operate
two 230 kV transmission lines, one from
the Sammamish substation in Redmond to
the proposed Richards Creek substation in
Bellevue, and one from Richards Creek
substation to the Talbot Hill substation in
Renton, a distance of approximately 18
miles. For analysis in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS, the Alternative 1 corridor is divided
into six segments, organized by city
jurisdiction. The project includes six route
options within some of the segments being
considered as alternative routes to PSE’s
preferred alignment. Alternative 1 follows
an existing 115 kV transmission line
corridor for the majority (from 93 percent
up to 100 percent, depending on route) of
its length, using the existing PSE right-of-
way and would not require new easements.
PSE’s existing 115 kV corridor is referred
to in this Phase 2 Draft EIS as the “existing
corridor.” For the route options, which are
in central and south Bellevue, the project
would depart the existing corridor and
follow adjacent roads and associated right-
of-way, referred to in this Draft EIS as the
“new corridor.” The new corridor would
require some new easements (the amount
of which depends on the route options
selected).
The project would replace two existing 115 kV transmission lines in the existing corridor (along most
of the route) with a 230 kV line and a high-capacity 115 kV line (designed to be operable at 230 kV
in the future) on new poles. The plan for the Energize Eastside project is to first operate one circuit at
115 kV while operating the other at 230 kV, then eventually operate both circuits at 230 kV.
Generally, the project, as proposed by PSE, would upgrade an existing line and increase capacity
with a new line largely within the existing corridor, rather than construct a new transmission line
corridor. The majority (approximately 95 percent) of the existing 115 kV lines are strung on wooden
H-frame structures; in a few locations (e.g., near substations or highway crossings), the existing lines
are on other pole or structure types, such as single wood poles or steel monopoles.
Transmission Line Terminology
Transmission Line – A system of structures,
wires, insulators, and associated hardware that
carry electric energy from one point to another in
an electric power system.
Wire – The cable component of the transmission
line through which electricity flows. Also referred to
as the conductor.
Circuit – In general terms, the pathway for an
electrical current. For use in this Draft EIS, circuit is
used in the context of the number of circuits
carried on a single pole or structure. A single-
circuit line carries wires for only one circuit (either
115 kV or 230 kV), and each pole would support
three wires. A double-circuit line carries wires for
two circuits (one 115 kV and one 230 kV), and each
pole would support six wires.
High-capacity 115 kV Line –A high-capacity 115
kV line would use a larger conductor (the same as
the proposed 230 kV line) to allow for a greater
amount of electrical current to be transmitted using
a single line. This would be used to replace the two
existing lower capacity 115 kV lines that are in
service today. The high-capacity 115 kV line could
be converted to 230 kV at some point in the future.
Dead-end Tower – Structure used where the line
ends, or turns with a high angle, or at major
crossings (such as highways or rivers). Dead-end
towers must be stronger than other poles because
they are under tension from just one side. Often
they have additional guy wires, are larger in
diameter, and/or have larger footings than other
poles.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐11
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
The existing 115 kV transmission line corridor was originally established in the late 1920s and early
1930s. The original power lines were upgraded to 115 kV in the 1960s. Maintenance has occurred
over time, and in 2007, PSE replaced or reframed approximately 200 H-frame structures on the
existing corridor. As part of the proposed Energize Eastside project, the existing, older H-frame
structures would be replaced primarily with a combination of steel monopoles and steel H-frame
structures. The new poles would be taller in most cases than the existing H-frame structures. The
typical height of the existing H-frame structures is 60 feet (ranging from 39 to 115 feet); the typical
height of the proposed poles is approximately 90 feet (ranging from 80 to 125 feet) in the existing
corridor. In most locations, the existing 115 kV transmission lines are strung on two adjacent H-
frame structures (i.e., typically four poles total) at a single location; the project would consolidate
these lines onto one or two pole structures. In most cases, the new poles would be installed in
approximately the same locations along the existing corridor (i.e., within 25 feet up or down the line)
as the existing poles; in several locations, the new poles could be moved farther along the line to
avoid sensitive resources, such as wetlands or streams. In general, Alternative 1 would result in fewer
poles along the existing corridor, but the poles would typically be 35 feet taller than the existing
structures; with taller poles, the wire attaching points would also be higher than at present. More
details on pole designs, including illustrations and photographs, are presented in Section 2.1.2.2.
The existing 115 kV transmission line corridor contains two of several transmission lines in this
developed and growing region. In most portions of the Energize Eastside project area, the existing
two 115 kV H-frame structures are the only lines within the corridor. In some portions, however, the
line is collocated with other transmission line poles and structures, and the line also crosses and/or
runs parallel to other transmission line corridors in several locations (including a 230 kV line
typically on steel lattice towers owned and operated by Seattle City Light [SCL]).
Additional details are presented by segment and option in Section 2.1.2.3.
230 kV steel lattice tower in the study area,
owned and operated by SCL
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐12
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Pole Design
The majority of the existing 115 kV
transmission lines are strung on wooden H-
frame structures, typically about 60 feet tall.
PSE’s project would generally replace these
structures and use a variety of replacement
pole types (Table 2.1-2), including the
following:
One double-circuit steel monopole
Two single-circuit steel monopoles
Single-circuit steel H-frame
Along most of the Alternative 1 corridor, the
new poles would be double-circuit steel
monopoles with a typical height of 90 to 100
feet, although they could be as high as 125
feet in some locations (e.g., at road crossings
or to accommodate major topographic
changes). However, different pole types, pole
heights, and span lengths can be used to
respond to topographic conditions and other
landscape features, as well as to mitigate
potential visual impacts within specific areas.
The single-circuit monopoles and single-
circuit H-frame structures would be used in
select locations, especially in the Bellevue
Central, Bellevue South, and Newcastle
Segments. Pole type and placement are also
influenced by location within the landscape
and other site-specific factors, such as where
PSE shares their right-of-way with the
Olympic Pipeline system (operated by BP Pipelines-North America [BP]).
To meet National Electric Safety Code (NESC) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) requirements to prevent contact with
the lines, adequate clearances must be maintained between each wire, the ground, adjacent buildings,
and trees. Pole height therefore would vary depending on the number of circuits, the arrangement of
the circuits on the poles, pole location, topography, and adjacent uses.
Specific pole locations would be determined based on site engineering but would be located within
25 feet of the existing H-frame structures in most locations along the existing corridor. Therefore,
pole span (i.e., the spacing between poles) would be approximately the same as the existing line,
typically 550 to 650 feet. Spacing can range from 125 to 1,650 feet, depending on site-specific
constraints. Pole locations would generally be based on tensioning needs for the wire (including
where turns are needed along the route), underground obstacles at pole foundation locations, and
allowable structural heights, all while attempting to use as few poles as possible. PSE would also
avoid placing poles in environmentally critical areas like wetlands and on unstable slopes to the
greatest extent feasible.
What determines pole height?
Factors affecting pole height include the necessary
ground clearance for the specific voltage of the
lines, the total number of wires on the pole, and
the separation required between wires. Ground
clearance and separation between wires for 230 kV
lines must be greater than for 115 kV. Poles that
carry just one circuit have only three wires and can
generally be lower than poles carrying two circuits,
which typically requires six wires.
What determines pole type?
Pole types are chosen to be cost effective, but
other factors are also considered, including the
number of circuits needed, concerns about height,
and the width of available right-of-way. H-frame
structures have lower profiles than many
monopoles because wires are separated
horizontally rather than vertically as they are on a
monopole. However, if two circuits are needed in
one corridor, there may not be enough horizontal
clearance to allow two H-frames. If height of the
poles is not a major concern, or if there is
insufficient room for H-frames, monopoles can be
used. Monopoles carrying a double-circuit can be
constructed with the smallest overall footprint and
are preferred for cost purposes over using pairs of
monopoles in parallel. In some circumstances,
however, pairs of monopoles may be used to limit
the overall height and thus reduce visual impacts.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐13
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
For some of the route options, the line would run along existing roadways. Where possible, PSE
prefers to place 230 kV lines in easements rather than on public right-of-way, because within public
right-of-way, PSE can be required to move the lines if needed to accommodate road expansion or
other infrastructure improvements. If it is not possible to obtain an easement for a pole, PSE
generally places the pole along the outermost part of the road right-of-way and acquires an easement
of up to 55 feet in width on the adjacent private property to ensure that the necessary electrical
clearances are met. Typical easements widths for both the existing corridor and along road rights-of-
way are illustrated in Figure 2.1-4.
The diameter of the poles depends on height, as well as loading, and would be greatest at the base.
Typical (tangent) poles would be 2 to 4 feet in diameter at the base, while typical corner and
termination poles may need to be 4 to 6 feet in diameter at the base depending on the angle and the
terrain. Tangent poles are poles that are in a straight line with other poles. Termination poles and poles
where the transmission line changes direction need to be larger than tangent poles to handle the
asymmetrical weight and tension from the lines they are holding. An additional shield wire would be
installed on top of the new poles for lightning protection. Any existing fiber-optic cable would need
to be transferred to the new poles, or a single combination shield wire/fiber optic line could be used
(i.e., optical ground wire [OPGW]).
In addition to the height and diameter of the poles, the diameter of the conductor (i.e., wire) will also
increase. The wire on the existing corridor is currently 1.063 inches in diameter; the wire diameter of
the proposed new wires will be 1.545 inches to accommodate the increased voltage.
The main characteristics of the various pole types are summarized and illustrated in Table 2.1-2.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐14
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Page intentionally blank
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐15 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017 Table 2.1-2. Summary of Proposed Pole Types 1 Double-Circuit Monopole 2 Single-Circuit Monopoles 2 Single-Circuit Monopoles Single-Circuit H-Frame 1 Double-Circuit Monopole 1 Single-Circuit Monopole 1 Single-Circuit Monopole (Wood) Line Configuration 6 wires total, 3 on each side of the pole 3 wires stacked vertically or in a delta configuration (shown below) 3 wires stacked vertically on each pole 3 wires horizontal on cross-arm 6 wires with 3 wires on each side of the pole 3 wires stacked vertically on the pole 3 wires stacked vertically on the pole Typical Height 100 feet (tallest of the pole designs) 85 feet 100 feet 65 feet (shortest of the pole designs) 80 feet 80 feet 70 feet Pole Replacement Replaces 4 existing poles (2 H-frame structures) with 1 pole in most areas Replaces 4 existing poles (2 H-frame structures) with 2 poles in some areas Replaces 4 existing poles (2 H-frame structures) with 2 poles in some areas Replaces 4 existing poles (2 H-frame structures, 2 single-circuit) with 2 poles (1 single-circuit H-frame structure) New double-circuit (115 kV/115 kV, or 230 kV/115 kV, depending on option) pole to replace existing single-circuit 115 kV line along roadway Replaces existing 115 kV line along Factoria Blvd/Coal Creek Pkwy in Oak 2 and Willow 2, or installed along Newport Way in Willow 2 Installed along 124th Ave SE to relocate existing 115 kV line from Factoria Blvd Segments and options using this pole type This is the main pole design and is used in all segments except Newcastle and parts of South Bellevue. Proposed for use in the Willow 1 Option (in the Bellevue South Segment) and the north portion of the Renton Segment. Generally used on either side of the Olympic Pipeline when the pipeline is the center of the corridor. Proposed for use in the Newcastle Segment. One monopole would be placed on the outer edge of the right-of-way on each side of the Olympic Pipeline, with the pipeline in the center of the corridor. Proposed for use in the Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options (Bellevue South Segment). A single-circuit design can only be used where there is an option for re-routing the 115 kV line outside of the existing corridor. The H-frame design provides a shorter configuration for the 230 kV line than a monopole. Proposed for use in the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options (in the Bellevue South Segment). Proposed for use in the Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options (in the Bellevue South Segment). Taller (typical height = 100 feet) versions of these poles are proposed in Bypass Options 1 and 2. Proposed for use in the Oak 2 Option (in the Bellevue South Segment). Diameter for typical poles (at base) 2.5–6 feet (largest of the pole designs) Typically 2.5–5 feet (similar to the H-frame structures; smaller than double-circuit monopoles) Typically 3–5.5 feet(similar to the double-circuit monopoles) Typically 2.5–5 feet(similar to the single-circuit monopoles; smaller than double-circuit monopoles) Typically 2.5–5 feetTypically 2.5–5 feet Typically 1.5–2.5 feet Note: An additional shield wire would be installed on top of the new poles for lightning protection. For more information, see Section 2.1.2.2.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐16 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017 Page intentionally blank
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐17
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Figure 2.1-4. Typical Easement Widths for the Existing Corridor and New Corridor along
Roadways (Conceptual).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐18
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Olympic Pipeline System
The Olympic Pipeline system is an underground
petroleum pipeline system that is co-located with
the existing PSE 115 kV transmission line corridor
in portions of the Energize Eastside project area.
The Olympic Pipeline system is a 400-mile
interstate pipeline system that runs from Blaine,
Washington to Portland, Oregon. The system
transports gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel through two
pipelines – one 16-inch and one 20-inch in
diameter. In the project area in general, the
pipelines are co-located with PSE’s transmission
line within all of the segments, although in the
Renton Segment it is not located near the southern
terminus. The transmission line corridor predates
the pipeline by approximately three decades. In
most of the segments, the pipeline system is located
along either the east or west side of the PSE right-
of-way, crisscrossing the right-of-way from east or west in numerous locations. In parts of the
corridor (especially the Newcastle Segment), however, the pipeline system is buried in the center of
the right-of-way. BP is the operator of the Olympic Pipeline system, and partial owner of the
Olympic Pipe Line Company, with Enbridge, Inc. (Olympic Pipe Line Company, 2017).
Due to the level of public concern expressed during scoping regarding the potential risk of a leak,
fire, or explosion that could occur as a result of constructing or operating the transmission line in the
same corridor as the Olympic Pipeline, the pipeline safety issue is addressed specifically as one of
two environmental health issues. Information on
pipeline safety, both during construction and operation,
is presented in Sections 3.9 and 4.9, Environmental
Health – Pipeline Safety.
Telecommunications Equipment and Other
Underbuild Components
Along portions of the transmission lines (both the
existing and new corridors), telecommunications
equipment, distribution lines, and cellular equipment is
attached to PSE’s existing poles, collectively referred to
as “underbuild.”
PSE hosts telecommunications (telecom) equipment,
which is owned and operated by other providers. The
telecom companies’ use of transmission line
infrastructure is regulated by state law (specifically,
House Bill [HB] 2886 and Revised Code of Washington
[RCW] Chapter 80.54); PSE and the Partner Cities have
limited authority over the telecom underbuild
equipment. Underbuild located on a 115 kV line may be
undergrounded in certain situations, such as when a 115
Sign marking location of the Olympic Pipeline in
existing corridor (foreground); telecom equipment
mounted on existing poles (background)
Utility pole carrying transmission wires (top
section), distribution wires (middle section), and
telecom wires (lower section)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐19
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
kV line is converted to 230 kV. If PSE undergrounds a 115 kV pole, the telecom equipment would
also be undergrounded or moved; in general, an existing pole cannot remain with just telecom
equipment if the electrical equipment has been removed.
In the project area, cellular equipment is co-located along the existing corridor in seven locations.
Upon completion of construction of the proposed project, PSE will work with telecom companies to
reinstall the equipment onto the 230 kV poles, per local jurisdiction regulations.
In the project area, distribution lines are located along the following roadways: SE 26th Street, SE
30th Street, Coal Creek Parkway, Newport Way, and Factoria Boulevard SE. Distribution lines would
be undergrounded along these roadways except on SE 30th Street.
Additional information on the co-located telecom equipment and distribution lines is included in
Sections 3.2, Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment.
Vegetation Management and Maintenance
Alternative 1 includes both initial vegetation clearing to accommodate the new 230 kV transmission
line, as well as ongoing vegetation maintenance along the corridor to keep tall vegetation (trees and
shrubs) and noxious weeds from growing within the transmission line right-of-way. For vegetation
clearing, it is assumed that all species within the managed right-of-way with a mature height of more
than 15 feet will be removed and could be replaced with 230 kV-compatible vegetation. (In some
circumstances, PSE can modify this requirement, in consultation with property owners.) Additional
details on vegetation management are presented in Sections 3.4 and 4.4, Plants and Animals,
including information on the number, species, and location of trees that could be removed for PSE’s
project. In the context of this EIS analysis, “vegetation management” refers to initial clearing or
removal of trees and shrubs to construct the new transmission lines or substation, whereas
“vegetation maintenance” refers to the long-term trimming or pruning of vegetation to maintain
adequate line clearance and safety.
Access Roads
In some locations, additional access roads (either temporary or permanent) would be required to
reach the transmission line corridor, under all segments and options. Preliminary access plans have
been developed for each structure location. For additional information on access roads, see Section
2.1.3, Construction, and Appendix A.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐20
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Transmission Line
Segments and Options
The following sections describe each of the
segments and options of the Alternative 1 230
kV transmission line, from north (Redmond)
to south (Renton). In two segments, options
have been identified for analysis in the Phase
2 Draft EIS. All segments and options display
sample simulations of the proposed
transmission poles, except for the Oak 2 and
Willow 2 Options in the Bellevue South
Segment. Simulations for this segment can be
found in Section 3.2, Scenic Views and
Aesthetic Environment.
Route Options for the Bellevue
Central Segment
In addition to the Existing Corridor Option of
the Bellevue Central Segment, PSE has
identified for environmental analysis two
options that would bypass the East Bellevue
Community Council (EBCC) boundaries,
recognizing that the EBCC could deny a
permit and thus delay or preclude PSE’s
preferred alternative. The two bypass options
would not require approval by the EBCC. If
EBCC denied approval, PSE would seek
permit approval of one of the bypass options
from the City of Bellevue. The bypass options
are not PSE’s preferred alignment, but have
been included for analysis in the Phase 2
Draft EIS at PSE’s request.
Route Options for the Bellevue South
Segment
The existing 115 kV transmission line route
through the Bellevue South Segment
presented some challenges for
accommodating the Energize Eastside project.
Much of the existing right-of-way travels
through residential areas, and some of these
residents have expressed particular concern
about potential adverse impacts, including
aesthetic impacts, in this area.
What is EBCC’s Role?
EBCC is empowered by state law with
approval/disapproval authority over certain land
use actions in a part of East Bellevue. The EBCC
may also act in an advisory capacity on other land
use issues that directly or indirectly affect its
jurisdiction.
A portion of PSE’s existing 115 kV transmission
corridor passes within EBCC’s jurisdiction along
the western border. EBCC could therefore have
approval/disapproval authority over that portion of
the project. EBCC’s approval is required in
addition to approval by the City of Bellevue.
Community Involvement in Developing Options
in Bellevue South Segment
PSE has conducted public outreach for the project
since 2013. This outreach effort has included
distributing regular project update letters;
attending community events; holding meetings
with individuals, neighborhoods, Cities, and other
stakeholders; hosting public open houses; and
responding to public comments. Input received
during public outreach has been used to inform the
project design and route options.
In 2014, PSE convened the Energize Eastside
Community Advisory Group (often referred to as
“the CAG”) to inform the development of the
proposed alignment alternative and associated
route options. The group included 24
representatives from various interests across the
Eastside. The process also involved targeted
community outreach, including public events at
key milestones. The goals of the Community
Advisory Group were to identify and assess
community values in the context of evaluating
which route the new transmission lines should
follow, and to develop route recommendations for
PSE’s consideration. Holding regular meetings
throughout 2014, the group helped evaluate
numerous potential route options for the Energize
Eastside project. Part of the outcome was the
recommendation of the initial Oak and Willow route
options within the Bellevue South Segment. The
initially identified Oak and Willow options were
further refined by PSE in 2016, with the result
being the four options for the Bellevue South
Segment (i.e., Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow
2) presented and analyzed in this Phase 2 Draft
EIS. Additional information on the Community
Advisory Group process is available on PSE’s
project website (www.EnergizeEastside.com; see
the Library tab).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐21
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Options outside the existing corridor within this segment are more commercial in character (e.g.,
along Factoria Boulevard), and these commercial areas host existing utilities, including transmission
and distribution lines. This presented an opportunity for PSE to consider alternative routes for parts
of the Energize Eastside project within the nearby utility corridors, rather than using only the existing
115 kV corridor with the H-frame structures. Three of the four options developed (Oak 1, Oak 2, and
Willow 2) explore areas outside the existing 115 kV corridor to address these community concerns.
Simulations for the Bellevue South Segment Options can be found in Section 3.2, Scenic Views and
Aesthetic Environment.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐22
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Page intentionally blank
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐23 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐25 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐27 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐29 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐31 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐33 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐35 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐37 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐39 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐41 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐43 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐45
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
2.1.3 Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Energize Eastside project are summarized
below, both for the No Action Alternative and for Alternative 1. The description of Alternative 1
construction is organized by its two main components (the Richards Creek substation and the 230 kV
transmission line), because these differ in associated activities. Construction of the 230 kV
transmission line would involve similar activities regardless of segment or option selected; therefore,
that discussion is not presented or organized by segment. In addition, the alternatives and associated
routes analyzed in this Phase 2 Draft EIS are in the pre-design phase. PSE and its contractors will
continue to refine site-specific construction plans throughout the permit process. Site-specific
construction impacts associated with the project (e.g., impacts to a particular element of the
environment) are described as appropriate in Chapter 4.
As described earlier, because of public concern during the scoping process regarding pipeline safety,
a detailed analysis of issues associated with the presence of the Olympic Pipeline, especially in the
context of construction, is included in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Construction-related information
associated with the pipeline is noted in general here, but the full analysis is presented in Chapter 4,
Section 4.9 (Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety).
More details on the construction methods, equipment used, and sequencing for the Energize Eastside
project is included in Appendix A, as well as in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Section 2.3.5, Construction
Summary; Section 2.3.2.2.3, Construction).
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no construction activities would occur. Occasional pole, wire, and
related equipment replacement or repair are considered to be maintenance activities, and therefore
are evaluated for long-term (operation) impacts.
Alternative 1
The following construction elements would occur in consecutive intervals (except for substation
construction): substation construction, vegetation management, access, foundations, and pole/wire
installation.
New Richards Creek Substation and Improvements to Other Substations
Construction of a new substation would require clearing and grading to prepare the area for
foundations to support the new transformer that converts the bulk power for use in the distribution
system. The new transformer would also require supporting equipment (circuit breakers, electrical
bus, control house, and connections to the new transmission lines) that would be placed on a concrete
pad in accordance with regulatory requirements and industry standards.
Construction related to the transformer would require the delivery of the transformers to the site;
grading of the site and creation of a foundation; and placement of the transformer on the foundation.
Construction equipment required would include, among other things:
Specialized oversize trucks and trailers
Backhoes or excavators
Concrete trucks
Cranes or other specialty equipment to place transformers
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐46
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Use of oversize trucks could be restricted to certain hours to avoid or minimize traffic impacts.
Additional information on construction equipment and sequencing is included in Appendix A.
Construction of the substation could take up to 18 months. The substation and transmission lines
could be constructed concurrently.
Access to the substation site is via SE 30th Street. The existing driveway and access road would be
reconfigured to improve access. The new reconfigured driveway would be paved and likely be 24
feet wide at the corners and 20 feet wide at the straight sections. The driveway would include 2-foot
shoulders on each side of the pavement. Construction of the new substation would not likely require
the use of a temporary staging area. If equipment storage is required prior to installation, it would
likely be stored at PSE’s Shuffleton Yard in Renton or other PSE-owned facility.
No night construction work would be needed for the new substation, although the transformer might
be delivered to the site at night because of highway restrictions for oversize loads. Extended
construction hours may be necessary. Road closures are not typically necessary for substation
construction.
The size and type of crews used to develop the substation would vary over time as the station is built.
Each crew could have between two and five vehicles to support their various activities. Vehicles
associated with construction of the control house and electrical assembly work would primarily be
smaller vehicles, such as personal vehicles and work trucks. The actual number of vehicles used
depends on the contractors’ approach to construction and what is necessary to meet contractual
schedule obligations. Trucks would also deliver equipment and materials to the substation site.
Heavy equipment would be employed primarily during civil construction work, including shoring,
grading, and drainage installation. Equipment such as cranes would be used to set electrical
equipment on foundations.
In addition to the construction of the new Richards Creek substation, some construction would be
needed for the planned upgrades to the Lakeside, Talbot Hill, and Sammamish substations, as well as
the Somerset substation (depending on route option). In general, all upgrades to the existing
substations would occur within the existing footprint of these facilities. Work would include
connecting the substation equipment to the new 230 kV line. Periodic single lane closures may be
necessary at the Somerset substation site to facilitate delivery of large equipment.
Construction of the 230 kV Transmission Lines
The new transmission lines would occur within PSE’s existing 115 kV transmission line corridor,
with the exception of the Bellevue Central Segment bypass options and Bellevue South Segment
route options, where it could be within or adjacent to existing road rights-of-way. Most of the line
can be accessed via the highly developed road system in the project area, although temporary access
roads will need to be constructed in some locations.
Construction methods along road right-of-way and along the existing corridor would be similar in
nature. Common elements of anticipated construction activities are summarized below.
Coordination with Olympic Pipeline. For portions of the corridor, construction of a 230 kV line
poses potential risks of interaction with or disruption to the Olympic Pipeline, necessitating particular
attention to these risks. Extensive coordination with the Olympic Pipe Line Company would be
required during project design and construction to avoid disruption to the line. For details about
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐47
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
construction considerations associated with the presence of the pipeline, see Chapter 4, Section 4.9
(Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety).
Coordination with Seattle City Light. For portions of the corridor where the proposed transmission
lines cross or run parallel to the existing 230 kV line owned and operated by SCL, PSE would
coordinate with SCL during project design and construction to avoid disruption to the line.
Construction Phasing and Schedule. Construction of the transmission lines would take
approximately 12 to 18 months (over two construction seasons) and would be constructed
concurrently with construction of the Richards Creek substation. The schedule for construction of
PSE’s project depends on the completion and outcome of the environmental review process,
including the duration of regulatory agency reviews and timing of permit approvals. If the project is
approved and implemented, construction would likely begin at the end of 2017 or the beginning of
2018. Construction work would be done in phases, with construction occurring on more than one
structure at a time in different parts of the transmission line right-of-way.
At a given location, typically, the foundation for a steel transmission line pole involves work at a site
for 1 to 3 days; setting the pole occurs in 1 day; and stringing the wires across the pole occurs within
1 or 2 days. These three stages of work can be separated by up to 1 month or more. Therefore, in any
given location, construction activity would take place over 3 to 7 days within a period of
approximately 2 months. For wood poles and direct embed steel poles, no foundation is set.
Typically, the hole is prepared and the pole is set in a single day, with the wires installed up to a
month later. The sequence of construction activities is illustrated in Figure 2.1-5.
Figure 2.1-5. Construction Sequencing
The overall construction would be a combination of linear progression and grouping of similar size
structures. Construction of foundations requiring similar size equipment (e.g., augers and cranes)
would be one construction sequence, while poles not requiring foundations would be another
sequence. As the foundations cure and become ready for pole installation, the pole and wire crews
come through and install the poles. Once all of the poles are installed in a stringing section, the line
crews can install the new conductor.
Construction Activities and Equipment. A typical construction crew for a transmission line
installation project consists of 10 to 40 people, including transmission line and road construction
workers, inspectors and administrative personnel, surveyors, and other support personnel.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐48
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Construction equipment required for construction of the overhead transmission lines would include
the following:
Bulldozers
Backhoes
Trackhoes
Trucks to transport
bulldozers, backhoes,
trackhoes, cranes
Bucket trucks
Auxiliary rubber tire vehicles
Auger or vacuum trucks
Dump trucks
Concrete trucks or concrete pump trucks
Cranes
Line trucks
Wire reel trailer for hauling conductor reels
Tensioner for applying tension to the wire coming
off reels during pull
Puller for pulling rope/hard line with attached wire
Clearing and Grading. Trees and vegetation
would be removed within the managed right-
of-way zone (also called the clear zone) to
facilitate project construction and to ensure the
safe operation of the line. Grasses, shrubs, and
saplings would be trimmed or cleared in areas
subject to ground-disturbing activities. All
areas disturbed by tree clearing within the
managed right-of-way would be revegetated
following construction, and trees within the
tensioning sites outside of the PSE right-of-
way would be allowed to regrow. For more information on tree clearing, see Sections 3.4 and 4.4,
Plants and Animals.
Disturbance of site soils would be necessary for clearing and grading to prepare foundation pads, as
well as potential temporary staging areas and equipment access depending on the location of the
proposed transmission line. Construction would require temporary construction access roads in some
locations. Typical structure removal and installation activities would disturb an area about 50 feet by
50 feet (0.06 acre). In some areas, the disturbance area may need to be larger (e.g., where the terrain
is more difficult). Conversely, it may be possible to reduce the disturbance area in other areas to
minimize impacts to sensitive resources, such as wetlands.
Access Roads. Along the existing corridor, PSE has existing access roads and will use these
pathways to the greatest extent possible. At some sites, access roads may need to be improved to
accommodate construction equipment. Improvements may include vegetation clearing, widening, or
laying of gravel. As there are many road crossings, the use of an access road for the project would
likely be limited to the installation of nearby poles and wire installation (i.e., pulling and tensioning).
Typically, an access road would be used to access two to five pole sites. Construction best
management practices will be used to control run-off. Access roads will be restored to their previous
condition or to NESC vegetation specifications when within the managed right-of-way zone. Where
poles would be placed along roadways, PSE could utilize the existing roadway network for
construction access. Maps showing preliminary access road locations are provided in Appendix A.
Managed Right-of-Way Zone
To ensure safe and reliable operation of overhead
transmission lines, the NESC specifies minimum
horizontal and vertical clearances between the
transmission lines and vegetation, buildings, and
the ground. Trees and overhanging branches
must be managed or removed to maintain
appropriate clearances. For more details, see
Sections 3.4 and 4.4, Plants and Animals.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐49
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
These maps reflect preliminary access routes identified by PSE prior to individual property owner
consultation that was ongoing during the preparation of this Draft EIS.
Pole Installation. Pole installation methods along road right-of-way and along the existing
transmission line corridor are similar. Along roadways, it is often necessary to temporarily close a
lane of traffic when moving in equipment, delivering materials, setting foundations, and placing
poles. PSE would obtain street use permits when this work is performed, which include traffic
control plans and construction windows. Traffic control with caution signs, flaggers, and cones are
used to direct and control traffic around the work area to allow for the safe handling and placement
of both equipment and materials. If necessary, sidewalk access would be blocked off and pedestrian
traffic is detoured. Similarly, if parking spaces are in the work area, they may be temporarily coned
off to preserve the space needed to complete the work. Work in the road right-of-way can be limited
to specific working hours as established by the permit. For this reason, pole installation along
roadways may require additional working days if the daily working times are limited.
The methods used to install new steel poles will depend on the type of pole used and both its physical
and functional location. Poles can be directly embedded in the ground (similar to a wood pole). Such
poles do not require a foundation and are installed using a vacuum truck to excavate the hole, which
typically results in less surface area disturbance than other equipment (such as a backhoe or drill).
Conversely, drilled pier foundations can be utilized, which involves setting the anchor bolts in a
poured column of concrete. Drilled pier foundations for new 230 kV poles are typically augered
(drilled) 4 to 8 feet in diameter with steel reinforcements that could extend 25 to 50 feet deep
depending on the structure type and soil conditions. Steel poles are set and anchored to the
foundations. (Typically, no foundations are used for wooden poles.) Approximately 160 to 180
concrete pole foundations would need to be installed along the 18-mile distance between the
Sammamish and Talbot Hill substations; however, the actual number will be determined during final
design.
Steel poles would be delivered to the site in 30- to 50-foot sections, and assembled in the field. The
delivery would require one or two vehicle trips per pole. The base is installed first, as described
Vacuum truck in the existing corridor in the Newcastle segment
excavating a hole for installation of a transmission pole.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐50
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
above; once the base is installed, the subsequent sections are added. No welding is required, as the
ends of the segmented poles are tapered, designed to overlap using slip joints or connected with
flange joints.
After installation of the new poles, existing wooden poles and wires would be removed. The old
structures would be removed after the new poles are installed and the wires restrung (as described
below). Because the existing wood poles are treated with a preservative, they are regulated as
hazardous waste; the removed poles would be disposed of at an approved landfill in compliance with
state and federal regulations.
Transmission Line (Wire) Installation. Once the pole is set in place, the transmission line
conductor (wire) is installed (Figure 2.1-6). The wire-stringing operation requires equipment at each
end of the section being strung, with the establishment of temporary pulling or tensioning sites. An
estimated 8 to 10 pulling sites would be needed for the project. Wires are pulled between these
pulling sites through pulleys affixed to each pole structure. These pulling sites would be set up at
various intervals along the right-of-way, typically 2 to 3 miles apart. Specific pulling sites would be
determined close to the time the stringing activity takes place. Once the wire is strung, the pulleys
would be removed and the wire clipped into its final hardware attachment. Following the installation
of wires, surfaces around the new poles and in work areas would be restored.
For safety reasons, the NESC has established minimum wire clearances (i.e., the wire height above
the ground). PSE has designed the Energize Eastside wires to typically be 28 feet or more from the
ground for 230 kV lines, which meets or exceeds NESC’s minimum conductor wire height.
Additional clearance would be provided over roadway and highway crossings.
Work Within a New Corridor and Underground Utility Installation. Route options for the
Bellevue Central and Bellevue South Segments involve some degree of new corridor, depending on
the option. Similarly, the Willow 2, Oak 1, and Oak 2 Options (for the Bellevue South Segment)
include some degree of underground utility installation, including electrical distribution and
telecommunication lines.
Undergrounding of distribution and communication lines entails establishing the necessary road or
lane closures prior to cutting and removing the hard surface. The cables can be installed in either the
roadway or sidewalk. Once the hard surface is removed, the trench is excavated to the appropriate
depth, typically 3 feet. Trench width depends on the number of cables being placed in the trench.
Upon completion of the excavation, the duct bank is installed in the trench. Depending on the length
of the section to be undergrounded, the duct bank may be installed in sections over multiple days, at
a rate of around 100 to 300 feet per day. Additionally, approximately every 1,500 feet, a subsurface
pull or connection vault is installed. The trench is then backfilled and the hard surface restored.
When the duct bank is complete, the cables can be pulled through and connected.
I-90 and SR 520 Crossings. The Bellevue North Segment crosses SR 520 and the Bellevue South
Segment crosses I-90. Poles installed at these crossing locations would need to be 10 to 15 feet taller
than the other nearby poles, although the existing topography at both of these crossing sites limits the
need for taller structures. When stringing the transmission lines at the highway crossings, PSE would
work with the Washington State Department of Transportation to determine appropriate times to
conduct the work and related safety factors. Construction and stringing may require rolling
slowdowns along the highway (with the use of flaggers), as well as some night work. Also, dead-end
structures would be installed in the vicinity of the I-90 and SR 520 crossings for line stability.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐51
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Figure 2.1-6. Transmission Line Pole and Wire Installation
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐52
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Staging Areas. Staging areas and a construction field office would be required along the project
corridor during construction. Specific staging sites would be selected after the proposed route has
been decided. In most instances, staging sites are located on properties that have already been
developed, such as parking lots or graded lots. For a project of this scope, PSE would identify sites
near the corridor with good access. Some staging sites are for short-term use (less than 3 months),
while others may be used for the entire duration of the project (greater than a year). Short-term sites
are used to accept delivery of materials (e.g., pole sections, insulators, conductors, and associated
hardware). Longer term sites can be used for temporary construction offices (e.g., trailers) in addition
to material storage. The longer term sites are often larger and are used to accommodate parking for
construction vehicles in addition to material storage. To the extent possible, PSE locates and uses
staging area sites on properties that it already owns or leases, that are already paved, and that are
close to the transmission line corridor. It is possible that recreation sites or facilities may be used for
temporary construction staging. PSE would work with the appropriate cities to identify suitable
locations for staging that would have minimal adverse impacts to recreation. Following construction,
PSE would work with the cities to restore staging areas.
Other Activities. Installation of new overhead transmission lines would require other construction
activities that may include additional boring holes for geotechnical investigations, or relocating
existing distribution and telecommunications facilities.
Demobilization and Restoration. Areas temporarily disturbed by construction activities will be
restored to pre-project conditions. Site restoration includes removal of temporary erosion control
measures and temporary access roads, ground level regrading, revegetation, wetland mitigation (if
needed), and other activities. Restoration will be coordinated with the property owner and relevant
permitting agencies.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT INCLUDED
The following alternatives were identified through scoping but are not included for analysis in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS for the reasons explained below. Additional information on the full range of
alternatives considered to meet PSE’s identified capacity needs is included in Chapter 2 of the Phase
1 Draft EIS.
2.2.1 Seattle City Light Transmission Line
Use of the SCL transmission line corridor was evaluated in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and is described in
more detail in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Section 2.3.2.3. The SCL line is not under PSE’s control. SCL
has indicated to the City of Bellevue that they expect to need the corridor for their own purposes and
are not interested in sharing the corridor with PSE (SCL, 2014). The existing SCL line would have to
be rebuilt to provide a feasible solution for the Energize Eastside project, because the current rating
of the SCL line is insufficient to meet PSE’s needs (Strauch, personal communication, 2015). PSE
has estimated that rebuilding the SCL line would provide sufficient capacity for a period of less than
10 years, which does not comply with PSE’s electrical criteria (as described in Section 2.2.1 of the
Phase 1 Draft EIS) to meet performance criteria for 10 years or more after construction. Neither the
City nor PSE can compel SCL to allow the use of this corridor; therefore, this option is not feasible
and was not carried forward. Even if compelled use of the corridor were allowed, the negotiations
would likely prove lengthy, and would likely preclude completion of the project within the required
timeline to meet project objectives.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐53
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
2.2.2 Underground Transmission Line
The option of placing the new 230 kV transmission lines entirely underground was evaluated in the
Phase 1 Draft EIS (as Option C).
Underground transmission lines involve several technical challenges that would necessitate acquiring
a new or expanded right-of-way, including greater restrictions on surface vegetation and uses than
are present in PSE’s existing 115 kV right-of-way. Factors contributing to the need for additional
right-of-way include the need for heat dissipation from each conductor, and the need for separation
from the Olympic Pipeline, which is collocated in much of PSE’s existing 115 kV corridor, in order
to prevent corrosion of the pipeline. For heat dissipation, underground transmission lines must be
placed approximately 12 to 15 feet apart and 3 feet below the surface (Power Engineers, 2014),
which means there can be no trees or large shrubs planted over them. The potential for the electrical
line to cause unacceptable corrosion of the pipeline is greater if the electrical line is underground
than for overhead lines because soils are more conductive than air. Access vaults are also required
every quarter mile, and must remain unobstructed by surface structures.
While PSE has an easement for their overhead lines, placing a transmission line underground would
require permission from both the Olympic Pipe Line Company and each property owner to place its
lines underground. Gaining such permission would likely require extensive legal action that would
delay the project and thus not meet the project objectives regarding timing. A study of potential
undergrounding of the transmission lines prepared for PSE by Power Engineers (2014) states that
installation adjacent to the pipeline is technically viable, but that the Olympic Pipe Line Company
has stated to PSE that they will not consent to other underground facilities being installed
longitudinally in their easements. PSE would therefore have to place its transmission lines outside the
Olympic Pipeline easement which is, in some places, nearly as wide as the PSE corridor. Even in
places were the pipeline easement is substantially narrower than PSE’s corridor, PSE generally does
not have enough easement area to provide the necessary separation without the pipeline being
relocated. As such, an underground line would require a new corridor to avoid colocation with the
Olympic Pipeline (Power Engineers, 2014). This would need to be in a street or on other public or
private property that PSE would have to obtain rights to use.
Beyond the cost of new right-of-way, underground lines require larger conductors, and are more
costly to construct, repair, and maintain (PSE, 2016). Construction costs, not including right-of-way
costs, for underground installation of a 230 kV line for the Energize Eastside project were estimated
to be approximately $23 million to $28 million per mile (Power Engineers, 2014) as compared to
$3 million to $4 million per mile for an overhead line.
Given the high cost of acquiring and developing an entirely new underground corridor, and the likely
delays it would entail, this option was not considered reasonable as an alternative for the entire
corridor, although it is considered as an option for mitigation in limited areas, should one or more
jurisdictions determine that it was necessary to avoid significant impacts. Impacts generally
associated with the undergrounding of the transmission lines are addressed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS
(in the analysis of Option C).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐54
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
2.2.3 Underwater Transmission Line in Lake Washington
The option of using a submerged or underwater transmission line in Lake Washington was included
in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and is described in more detail in Section 2.3.2.5 of that document (as
Option D). Additional detail about constructing a submarine cable in Lake Washington is included in
the Eastside 230 kV Project Lake Washington Submarine Cable Alternative Feasibility Report
(Power Engineers, 2015). As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Chapter 10, Land Use and
Housing), a submerged line would be prohibited by shoreline regulations in two of the communities
north of the proposed Richards Creek substation (Beaux Arts Village SMP Table 6.1 and Hunts Point
SMP Table 6.1), because new utility corridors are prohibited in the aquatic environments of these
communities. Therefore, a submerged line connecting the Sammamish substation to the Richards
Creek substation would not be allowed. South of the Richards Creek substation, the City of Renton
shoreline regulations (RMC 4-10-095) prohibit utilities in some shoreline environments, but it
appears technically feasible to avoid prohibited environments if this option were chosen. However,
this option would also require the construction of approximately 5 miles of new transmission
corridors from the Talbot Hill substation to Lake Washington, and from Lake Washington to the
Richards Creek substation, in order to avoid impacts to 8 miles along the existing corridor. As
described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, development of new corridors is expected to have higher
environmental impacts than use of existing corridors, including permanent displacement of existing
uses, vegetation removal, visual impacts, and construction duration. As such, this alternative was not
seen as a reasonable alternative to using the existing corridor as proposed by PSE. For these reasons,
an underwater line in Lake Washington was not carried forward.
2.2.4 New 115 kV Transmission Line
Alternative 3 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS included a system of new 115 kV transmission lines and new
transformers at three substations in the Eastside area. This alternative would have required up to 60
miles of new transmission corridor. As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, PSE’s basis for the need
of this additional 115 kV infrastructure in lieu of the 230 kV system was independently reviewed
(Stantec, 2015) and considered to be consistent with standard engineering for transmission line
systems. Although 115 kV transmission line corridors can be narrower than 230 kV line corridors,
the Phase 1 Draft EIS found that creating up to 60 miles of new 115 kV transmission corridor would
have cumulatively higher environmental impacts (and higher costs) than 230 kV transmission lines
using the existing transmission line corridor for most of the alignment as proposed by PSE.
For example, the Phase 1 Draft EIS estimated that Alternative 3 could result in clearing up to 114
acres of forested land under a worst-case scenario, as compared to 44 acres of forested land under the
Phase 1 Draft EIS Alternative 1, which relies on PSE’s existing corridor (Chapter 4 Phase 1 Draft
EIS). New corridors for Alternative 3 would require the acquisition of up to 291 acres of right-of-
way, with higher potential displacement of existing uses than under Alternative 1 (Chapter 10 Phase
1 Draft EIS), while the alternatives studied in this Phase 2 Draft EIS would not require displacement
of any uses. Uses along both the existing corridor and the likely corridor for a 115 kV system
upgrade are predominantly residential, which in some case can be accommodated without
displacement. However, acquisition of up to 60 miles of right-of-way for new 115 kV lines would
likely result in some displacement. Delays due to the legal steps required for such acquisition, which
could include condemnation, would not meet the project objectives for timeliness to meet reliability
requirements. For these reasons, this alternative was not carried forward.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐55
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
2.2.5 Seattle Public Utilities Water Line Corridor
During the scoping process for the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the possibility of using an existing Seattle
Public Utilities (SPU) water main corridor as an optional route through the City of Newcastle was
proposed and examined. The Partner Cities asked PSE to examine how such a route would connect to
their transmission lines to the north and south, and tasked the EIS Consultant Team and the City of
Newcastle with inquiring with SPU regarding the feasibility of using this corridor. SPU considered
the proposal for sharing this corridor, but determined that it would likely place too much of a
constraint on their future needs (Wells, 2016). In particular, SPU found that the corridor was too
narrow to allow placement of the transmission line and still retain the ability to build a replacement
for the water main, which they eventually will need to do. Because SPU determined that the project
is incompatible with SPU’s existing use, co-location is not feasible. Compelled acquisition is also not
possible within existing legal authorities, and could not in any event be accomplished within project
timeline needs. As such, this corridor is not available to PSE for this project and was not carried
forward as an alternative.
2.2.6 Other Routes and Options
During the scoping process for the Phase 2 Draft EIS, commenters suggested the possibility of using
other routes farther east to provide transmission capacity. Many of these comments focused on the
idea that the deficiency had to do with providing capacity for energy flowing to Canada. This is a
misconception. Due to the interconnected nature of the transmission grid, and the flow of electricity
through the grid, minor energy flows through the Eastside to Canada are inevitable, but they are not
the source of the problem PSE has identified. PSE has indicated that the deficiency is within the
Eastside. Bulk transmission (230 kV) is needed to connect to a new transformer (such as the
proposed Richards Creek substation) to service growing Eastside demand. Creating additional
capacity outside of the Eastside area specifically to attempt to draw Canadian flows through the
system, even if 100 percent effective, would not correct the deficiency within the Eastside for the
long term. A project built farther east of the service area would not meet the project’s objectives. At
best, it would offer a short-term solution that would not meet PSE’s performance criteria for serving
10 years or more after construction (electrical criterion #1 - see the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Section 2.2)
(Gentile et al., 2014). The project need and objectives are explained in full in Chapter 2 of the Phase
1 Draft EIS and Chapter 1 of this Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Chapter 2 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS also addressed a number of routes and options that were
considered for Phase 1 but not carried forward.
2.2.7 Alternative 2 and “Alternative 2B”
Alternative 2 from the Phase 1 Draft EIS includes a number of technologies other than new
transmission lines with the intent of addressing the transmission deficiency PSE has identified for the
Eastside. Alternative 2 was designed to address the projected deficiency in transmission capacity on
the Eastside by reducing the growth in peak period demand through energy efficiency, storing and
releasing energy when needed to address peak demand, and providing reliable additional peak period
energy sources in the area where the transmission capacity is deficient. As described in Chapter 2 of
the Phase 1 Draft EIS, in order to assess potential impacts from a combination of these technologies
capable of meeting the transmission capacity deficiency, a number of assumptions were made about
the potential contribution each technology could make. The basis for these assumptions is described
in detail in Section 2.3.3 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and it is recognized that a different combination
could also theoretically achieve the same result.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐56
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
Numerous comments were received during the scoping process for the Phase 2 Draft EIS that
referred to a variation on Alternative 2 from the Phase 1 Draft EIS. This was referred to as
“Alternative 2B.” Alternative 2B was developed by EQL, a consultant hired by the Coalition of
Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy (CENSE), and submitted during the Phase 1 Draft EIS
public comment period. Alternative 2B would use the same or similar technologies as those
evaluated for Alternative 2 but in different quantities. Part of the argument provided for Alternative
2B is the assertion by EQL that PSE has overstated the need and thereby made the use of these
alternatives to transmission lines appear infeasible. As described in Chapter 2 of the Phase 1 Draft
EIS, the EIS Consultant Team reviewed the methods used for developing the load forecast and
assessing transmission capacity (Gentile et al., 2015), and found them to be in line with industry
practice (Stantec, 2015).
Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 2B represent options that PSE could pursue. However, PSE has
determined that these solutions either do not meet the project objectives, or they offer a short-term
solution that would not meet PSE’s performance criterion for serving 10 years or more after
construction (electrical criterion #1- see Chapter 1 Phase 1 Draft EIS). Specifically, PSE determined
that it did not have the ability to require its customers to install energy efficiency measures or peak
period generation facilities, so it could not count on these measures being adopted in time and at
sufficient scale to address a significant portion of the transmission deficiency (Gentile et al., 2014).
To ensure a timely solution, PSE would need to build its own peak generation facilities and/or battery
storage facilities. PSE found that transmission-level battery storage technology was not sufficiently
developed at this time to address the full need for the Eastside (Strategen, 2015), although it could be
a partial solution. Therefore, peak generation facilities would be needed. These would likely be gas-
fired and would need to be near substation sites, most of which are in residential areas, where the
generators could have significant adverse noise and air impacts. To avoid such impacts, larger scale
facilities would be needed in industrial areas, which would lead to impacts such as the need for
significant water supply, major new gas pipelines, and other issues (Gentile et al., 2014). The lack of
reliability of some measures, the potential impacts of peak generation facilities, and the potential
delays due to permitting for such facilities were cited by PSE as reasons that these options did not
meet their objectives.
Alternative 2B would not eliminate either the uncertainty or the impacts of these technologies.
Additional conservation and energy efficiency are projected to be achieved by higher incentives and
other methods of promotion, but would remain voluntary, as would implementation of a network of
privately owned peak power supplies that could be used during high demand periods. Reducing the
target capacity for these technologies on the basis that PSE has overstated future demand would not
address the deficiency PSE has identified. For these reasons, the resource technology alternative was
not carried forward.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 2‐57
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MAY 2017
2.3 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DELAYING THE
PROJECT
PSE has identified the need to provide additional capacity by the winter of 2017–2018 to comply
with its anticipated capacity requirements. PSE’s objectives for the project, and criteria for evaluating
options to meet its objectives, are described in detail in Section 2.2 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS. The
impacts and potential benefits of a conservation-focused non-transmission alternative are evaluated
as part of Alternative 2 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, including a number of potential combinations of
approaches.
Delaying the project for 1 to 2 years would have the benefit of avoiding the impacts in the near future
for the action alternative described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. It is possible that by delaying the
project, some of the expanded conservation measures described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS would be
incorporated into development, reducing energy demand further than PSE has projected. However, as
noted by the EIS Consultant Team in their independent review of PSE load projections and needs
assessments (Stantec, 2015), PSE has assumed high levels of conservation in their estimates of load
projection, which are considered optimistic. Under the No Action Alternative, the Phase 2 Draft EIS
assumes that PSE would continue to achieve 100 percent of the company’s conservation goals as
outlined in its 2015 Integrated Resource Plan (PSE, 2015), systemwide and for the Eastside, which
means that a very aggressive campaign would be needed to exceed these goals. Conservation goals
are achieved through a variety of energy efficiency improvements implemented by PSE and its
customers, largely through voluntary participation. Additional conservation could have the benefit of
reducing greenhouse gas generation from electrical consumption on the Eastside. Under WAC 480-
100-238, however, PSE “has the responsibility to meet its system demand with a least cost mix of
energy supply resources and conservation.” Accordingly, PSE’s ability to fund conservation and new
technologies is limited to those that are cost-effective. Delaying the project could allow technological
advancements to occur in areas such as battery storage or generation, providing additional feasible
alternatives to increased transmission capacity in the near term; however, identifying a time frame
when these advancements could occur is speculative. At this time, there are no currently known,
widely accepted technologies that PSE would employ that could feasibly and reliably address the
transmission capacity deficiency on the Eastside. Under the No Action Alternative, however, PSE
would not be precluded from seeking out new technologies.
The disadvantages of delaying the project are that the risks of power outages (described in Chapter 1
of the Phase 1 Draft EIS) that would be associated with the No Action Alternative could develop
over time. PSE’s customers could respond with increased energy conservation during peak periods to
avoid outages, but PSE could not rely on voluntary conservation during such periods unless they
have control over customers’ rates of consumption. This type of demand reduction is technically
feasible, but PSE cannot compel customers to adopt it, and few have shown willingness to employ
that option under their current conservation program. Therefore, PSE would still be faced with
creating temporary outages to protect the regional grid. Given the lack of certainty regarding
potential effectiveness of conservation measures, project delay would therefore likely fail to achieve
the project objectives. It is also possible that the awareness of the risk of outages could discourage
development within the Eastside that would place the Partner Cities at an economic disadvantage to
other jurisdictions in the region. Declining reliability of the electrical power supply on the Eastside
would be inconsistent with local planning policies.
3
Long-term (Operation) Impacts
and Potential Mitigation
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Methods for Studying
Affected Environment
Information on land use and
housing was obtained
primarily from data maintained
by the King County Assessor.
Zoning, shoreline
designations, and
comprehensive plan data were
obtained from the Partner
Cities.
CHAPTER 3. LONG-TERM (OPERATION)
IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION
This chapter describes the affected environment, potential long-term (operational) impacts, and
mitigation measures for each element of the environment. Long-term impacts are defined as impacts
that will be present after the project is built. These impacts could occur during construction of the
project or during operation of the project, or in some cases, during both construction and operation of
the project. For example, the project would require tree removal to ensure that the transmission lines
maintain a certain clearance that is free of vegetation. The tree removal would occur during
construction. However, because the trees removed would not be allowed to grow back after
construction, tree removal is considered a long-term (operational) impact and is addressed in this
chapter. Trees that are removed to make room for temporary access roads for purposes of
constructing the project would be allowed to grow back after the access roads are removed and
construction is complete. Tree removal for this type of activity is considered temporary and is
addressed in Chapter 4, Short-term (Construction) Impacts.
3.1 LAND USE AND HOUSING
This section provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts to land use, Shorelines of the State
(shorelines), and housing. The study area for the land use and
housing analysis contains parcels that are included in or abutting
PSE’s right-of-way surrounding the proposed route of all segments
and options, as well as parcels in close proximity to the right-of-
way (see Figure 3.1-1). This study area was selected because
properties in close proximity to the right-of-way would have the
greatest potential to be impacted by potential easement acquisition
and associated structure removal and a change to a utility land use
or intensification of the existing utility land use. For a more
detailed description of the methodology used to determine the
study area for the land use analysis, please see Appendix B.
This section describes existing land uses, zoning districts, and comprehensive plan land use
designations in the study area, as well as broader land use patterns. It identifies unique land uses in
the study area that were identified during scoping and the course of this analysis. Unique uses include
those that may be more significantly affected by the project or those that are used by large numbers
of people. These include the following:
Schools
Religious institutions
Hospitals
Libraries
Parks, recreational areas, or other public gathering places
Commercial or retail areas
Transportation or other infrastructure
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Source: King County, 2015; WA Ecology, 2014.
Figure 3.1-1. Study Area for Land Use and Housing
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Areas adjacent to or close to the study area that are zoned or planned for higher intensity uses such as
commercial or industrial are also identified. This section describes the number and type of residential
properties in the study area, including the number of single-family and multi-family residential units
adjacent to the project corridor. A general study of the impact of the project on property values in the
City of Bellevue is found in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Further analysis on the potential impact on
property values for a smaller jurisdiction, the City of Newcastle, is found in Section 3.10, Economics.
3.1.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Development within the study area must comply with a variety of policy documents and regulations
adopted by local municipalities, including comprehensive plans, subarea plans, shoreline master
programs, and land use standards. Development in proximity to utility infrastructure must also
comply with PSE guidelines, which are shaped by National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)
standards.
Comprehensive plans were analyzed at the program-level and were included as Appendix E in the
Phase 1 Draft EIS. The only previously identified comprehensive plan that was updated following the
publication of the Phase 1 Draft EIS is the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan (City of Newcastle,
2016a), which was adopted in March 15, 2016. The Newcastle Comprehensive Plan includes a new
Utilities Element with policies that address collocation, undergrounding distribution lines, limiting
vegetation disturbance, and promoting energy conservation efforts.
Subarea plans provide more detailed policies for a specific geographic area within the jurisdiction of
a given comprehensive plan. Goals and policies of subarea plans that relate to electrical utility
infrastructure in the context of development are typically similar to those of the applicable
comprehensive plans, as outlined in Section 10.2.1 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Specific subarea
policies relating to the project are included in Appendix B in this Phase 2 Draft EIS. If applicable,
project inconsistencies with these subarea plans are described in Section 3.1.3.
The City of Bellevue and the City of Renton have Shorelines of the State within their boundaries that
the project transmission lines would cross, Kelsey Creek and Cedar River (south of the Maple Valley
Highway), respectively. Each adopted Shoreline Master Program (SMP) includes policies for uses
and conservation of the ecological functions of their identified shorelines. Specific SMP policies
relating to the project are included in Appendix B. If applicable, project inconsistencies are described
in Section 3.1.3.
Zoning districts were evaluated to determine if an electrical utility line or electric utility equipment
would be considered an allowed, conditionally allowed, or prohibited use, which is summarized in
Appendix B. If applicable, inconsistencies are described in Section 3.1.3.
The City of Newcastle provides for a required setback of 5 feet for all buildings and structures from
utility property or easement lines delineating the boundary of regional utility corridors (Newcastle
Municipal Code [NMC] 18.12.130). The City of Newcastle applies this setback requirement to
electrical transmission towers, since they meet the NMC definition of “structure.” In Newcastle, the
easement for the Olympic Pipeline is generally centered within the PSE easement and varies in
width, but is typically 50 feet. For the purpose of regulating electrical transmission towers, the
pipeline easement is considered as a regional utility corridor for application of this setback standard.
All electrical transmission towers would be required to be set back 5 feet outside of the boundaries of
the Olympic Pipeline easement.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
PSE Guidelines
To adhere to NESC standards, PSE has policy guidelines that govern development in proximity to
230 kV lines (Strauch, 2016). Development must be designed consistent with the following
guidelines:
Structures (e.g., mixed-use buildings, houses, sheds, pools, etc.) in the vicinity of the
proposed transmission line route must allow adequate access and working space for operation
and maintenance of PSE infrastructure.
The appropriate minimum width for the transmission line right-of-way or easement must
meet (or exceed) the NESC standards, which factor in considerations such as the distances
that a wire could swing during high-wind conditions.
3.1.2 Land Use and Housing in the Study Area
The 18-mile corridor would extend from Redmond to Renton and also passes through the cities of
Bellevue and Newcastle and a small portion of King County. See Figure 3.1-1 for a map of existing
land uses. Based on a linear-feet breakdown of the study area, the most common existing land uses
include:
Residential (single-family and multi-family) (38 percent)
Vacant land (16 percent)
Commercial (11 percent)
The most common zoning category is single-family residential (60 percent of zoning districts and 58
percent of linear feet). These data were derived from each City’s zoning designations and grouped
into broad zoning categories.
There are 783 single-family and 3,440 multi-family residences in the study area. Residences include
single-family houses and individual units contained within one or more multi-family buildings.
Table 3.1-1 presents the existing land uses, neighborhood character, zoning, future land uses
(comprehensive plan land use designations), and housing information for the parcels within the study
area, broken down by segment and option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐5
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Table 3.1-1. Land Uses, Zoning, Shoreline, and Housing Characteristics by Segment and
Option
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Richards Creek Substation
Existing Land Uses Existing land use in the study area is utility, associated with PSE’s property.
Land uses surrounding the substation site include a mix of industrial,
institutional, single-family residential, vacant lands, and utility (PSE’s Lakeside
substation). A private school (Chestnut Hill Academy) is about 325 feet north of
the substation site, adjacent to (and just east of) the Lakeside substation.
Neighborhood
Character
The Richards Creek substation would be in an industrial neighborhood
characterized by large warehouse and manufacturing buildings with large
paved parking lots and driveways, and outdoor storage lots. To the east, there
is a large, contiguous forested area surrounding the proposed substation that
has wetlands and streams; to the south there is a transfer station; and just
north of the forested area is a sports field for the Chestnut Hill Academy.
Zoning Districts The proposed substation would be in the Light Industrial zoning district in
Bellevue.
Future Land Uses The Bellevue Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Light Industrial. This
indicates that the neighborhood will continue to have industrial and
manufacturing land uses into the foreseeable future.
Housing There are no single-family or multi-family residences immediately adjacent to
the proposed substation site.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐6
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Redmond Segment
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses mostly include a mix of utility and multi-family residential
(see the chart below for the percentage of the total study area within the
Redmond Segment that each land use represents). Approximately 100 parcels
are immediately adjacent to the existing corridor. Unique land uses within the
study area include Willows Creek Neighborhood Park and Rose Hill Middle
School.
Neighborhood
Character
The Redmond Segment begins at the Sammamish substation, which is
adjacent to large warehouse properties and forested land. The segment goes
through two major residential neighborhoods: Willows/Rose Hill and Grass
Lawn. The Willows/Rose Hill neighborhood is predominately a single-family
neighborhood with a variety in home types, styles, and lot sizes and an
abundance of trees. The Grass Lawn neighborhood is mostly single-family
residential with a section of multi-family residential, including the Sixty-01
Condominium Complex, a gated residential community with a lake, mature
landscaping, and streams. The Rose Hill Middle School is adjacent to the
segment with play fields immediately adjacent to the corridor.
Zoning Districts The existing corridor is located in six different zoning districts in the City of
Redmond, including single-family residential, multi-family residential, industrial,
and commercial districts.
Future Land Uses The Redmond Comprehensive Plan land use designations along the segment
are mostly single-family and multi-family residential, as well as parks/open
space. The neighborhoods along this segment will continue to have
commercial and industrial land uses near the Sammamish substation, and
residential or open space land uses south of the substation into the
foreseeable future. The policies specific to the Willows/Rose Hill and Grass
Lawn neighborhoods indicate intent to preserve the current residential
character while providing for compatible infill growth.
Housing There are 75 single-family and 552 multi-family residences within this portion
of the study area.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐7
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Bellevue North Segment
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses include mostly single-family residential homes (see the chart
below for the percentage of the total study area in the Bellevue North Segment
that each land use represents). Approximately 118 parcels are adjacent to the
existing corridor. Unique land uses include Westminster Chapel and Viewpoint
Park.
Neighborhood
Character
The segment goes through the residential neighborhoods of Bridle Trails and
Bel-Red. Bridle Trails is predominantly a single-family residential area, with
large lots and mature evergreen trees. The portion of the Bellevue North
Segment that goes through Bel-Red is just south of SR 520 and characterized
by a large commercial property (misclassified as recreational land by King
County Assessor information).
Zoning Districts The existing corridor is located in four different zoning districts in the City of
Bellevue, including single-family residential and commercial districts.
Future Land Uses The Bridle Trails Subarea Plan land use designations within the segment study
area include Single-Family Residential. A small portion of the segment goes
through the Bel-Red Subarea Plan boundaries and has a future land use
designation as General Commercial. Therefore, future land use in the study
area is expected to mostly stay the same.
Housing There are 102 single-family and no multi-family residences within this portion of
the study area.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐8
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses include mostly recreation (see the chart below for the
percentage of the total study area within the Existing Corridor Option that each
land use represents). Approximately 135 parcels are immediately adjacent to
the existing corridor. Unique land uses include Glendale Country Club and
Skyridge Park.
Neighborhood
Character
The option route follows the existing corridor, which starts in the Bel-Red
neighborhood just south of SR 520, and is characterized by large
manufacturing and commercial spaces. The Bellevue Central Segment runs
along the Wilburton (covered by the Wilburton/NE 8th Street Subarea Plan) and
Crossroads neighborhood boundaries and the Woodridge and Lake Hills
neighborhoods. The border between Wilburton and Crossroads
neighborhoods is characterized by a mix of single-family and a multi-family
development, with the exception of the Glendale Country Club, which is
immediately adjacent to the option. The border of Woodridge and Lake Hills is
mostly single-family housing and open spaces, and is covered by the Richards
Valley Subarea Plan, the Eastgate Subarea Plan, and the SE Bellevue Subarea
Plan. Several parks (including Kelsey Creek Park) are along the Existing
Corridor Option.
Zoning Districts The existing corridor is located in 13 different zoning districts in the City of
Bellevue, including single-family residential, multi-family residential,
commercial, industrial, and mixed-use districts.
Future Land Uses The Bellevue Comprehensive Plan land use designations for this option include
a mix of Single-Family and Multi-Family designations along the existing
corridor. This indicates that the neighborhoods along this option will continue
to have residential land uses into the foreseeable future. The policies specific
to the Wilburton/Crossroads and Woodridge/Lake Hills neighborhoods indicate
the intent to preserve the current residential character without limiting the
potential for growth.
Housing There are 92 single-family and 1,318 multi-family residences within this portion
of the study area.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐9
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses include mostly commercial, industrial, and vacant lands (see
the chart below for the percentage of the total study area within Bypass Option
1 that each land use represents). Approximately 199 parcels are immediately
adjacent to the corridor (existing and new). Unique land uses include large
blocks of commercial and manufacturing along Northup Way, 132nd Ave NE,
the International School and Bel-Red Road, Bannerwood Park, and Skyridge
Park.
Neighborhood
Character
Bypass Option 1 goes through the neighborhoods of Bel-Red, Wilburton,
Woodridge, and Lake Hills. In Bel-Red, the Bypass Option 1 corridor is
characterized by large industrial and commercial spaces. In Wilburton
(covered by the Wilburton/NE 8th Street Subarea Plan), Bypass Option 1
follows major street corridors that are lined with office parks and commercial
spaces. In Woodridge, Bypass Option 1 follows the Lake Hills Connector road,
which is lined with vacant or open space areas (classified as vacant lands by
King County Assessor parcel information), as well as the existing corridor,
which is lined by single-family residences. The Lakeside substation is in an
area characterized by industrial utilities. This option also traverses areas
covered by the Richards Valley Subarea Plan, the Eastgate Subarea Plan, and
the SE Bellevue Subarea Plan. Several parks (including Kelsey Creek Park),
government buildings, and a school (International School) lie along Bypass
Option 1.
Zoning
Districts/Shoreline
Environment
Designation
Bypass Option 1 (the existing and new corridors) would be located in a total of
21 different zoning districts in the City of Bellevue, including commercial,
industrial, mixed-use, multi-family residential, and single-family residential
districts.
Lower Kelsey Creek is a Shoreline of the State and is regulated by Bellevue’s
SMP. Lower Kelsey Creek includes the creek waters, underlying lands, and
territory between 200 feet on either side of the top of the banks, plus
associated floodways, floodplains, marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas.
The shoreline environment designation in the study area is Urban Conservancy
– Open Space Designation.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐10
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Future Land Uses Within this portion of the study area, the future land use is anticipated to be
mixed-use and commercial for the northern portion of the option, and
transitioning into multi-family and single-family residential along the Lake Hills
Connector.
This option is also covered by several subarea plans. The Bel-Red Subarea
Plan designates commercial development as a future land use; the Wilburton
Subarea Plan designates commercial and multi-family for future development;
the Woodridge and Lake Hills Subarea Plans would continue to develop with
single-family residential.
Bellevue intends for the Bel-Red Subarea to focus on nodal development,
which means that the planned Sound Transit’s East Link light rail stations
(anticipated to open in 2023) would be nodes around which development
would be focused. The nodes would feature higher density buildings, with
taller buildings toward the center of the nodes allowed with a variance process
in exchange for various public amenities. Additionally, the Bel-Red Subarea
Plan establishes policies to generate new jobs and new housing units; restore
streams and ecological functions; construct new amenities such as parks,
trails, and bike paths; and promote economic development.
The Wilburton-Grand Connection planning initiative is an ongoing two-part
project to improve non-motorized connectivity, as well as a re-visioning of the
Wilburton Commercial Area.
1. The Grand Connection will improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity
from Meydenbauer Bay to the Eastside Rail Corridor, including a
crossing over I-405 that will reconnect Downtown Bellevue and the
Wilburton Commercial Area. Ultimately it will interface with the
Eastside Rail Corridor, providing a comprehensive north-south and
east-west non-motorized network.
2. The Wilburton Commercial Area planning initiative will identify land
use, urban design, transportation, and environmental opportunities,
including design guidelines addressing. changes to floor area ratio,
height, permitted uses, and design character.
Future Land Uses The Richards Valley Subarea Plan plans for future development that would not
compromise the existing natural features of dense vegetation and wooded
vistas. It includes policies for utilizing common corridors (places where utility
infrastructure already exists) for new utilities and for placing them alongside
transportation rights-of-way.
The policies of each of these subarea plans support development that would
accommodate continued residential and commercial growth in the foreseeable
future.
Housing There are 54 single-family and 292 multi-family residences within this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐11
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Existing Land Uses Similar to Bypass Option 1, existing land uses include mostly vacant,
commercial, and industrial lands (see the chart below for the percentage of the
total study area in Bypass Option 2 that each land use represents).
Approximately 169 parcels are immediately adjacent to the corridor (existing
and new). Unique land uses include large blocks of commercial and
manufacturing along 132nd Ave NE and Bel-Red Road, Bannerwood Park,
Skyridge Park, and Bellevue Foursquare Church.
Neighborhood
Character
Bypass Option 2 goes through the neighborhoods of Bel-Red, Wilburton, and
Woodridge. Bel-Red is characterized by large industrial and commercial
spaces. Wilburton (covered by the Wilburton/NE 8th Street Subarea Plan), is
characterized by major roads lined with industrial parks and commercial
spaces. In Woodridge, single-family homes and open space characterize the
land along the corridor, including Richards Road, which is predominantly
single-family residences. The Lakeside substation is in an area characterized
by industrial utilities. This option also traverses areas covered by the Richards
Valley Subarea Plan, the Eastgate Subarea Plan, and the SE Bellevue Subarea
Plan. Several parks (including Kelsey Creek Park), government buildings, and
schools (International School and the Asian Pacific Language School) are
along Bypass Option 2.
Zoning
Districts/Shoreline
Environment
Designation
Bypass Option 2 (the existing and new corridors) would be located in 19
different zoning districts in the City of Bellevue, including commercial,
industrial, mixed-use, multi-family residential, and single-family residential
districts.
Lower Kelsey Creek is a Shoreline of the State and is regulated by Bellevue’s
SMP. Lower Kelsey Creek includes the creek waters, underlying lands, and
territory between 200 feet on either side of the top of the banks, plus
associated floodways, floodplains, marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas.
Similar to Bypass Option 1, the shoreline environment designation in the study
area is Urban Conservancy – Open Space Designation.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐12
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Future Land Uses Within this portion of the study area, the future land use is anticipated to be
mixed-use and commercial for the northern portion of the option, and
transitioning into multi-family and single-family residential along the Lake Hills
Connector. The main difference between Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option
2 is that this option travels down Richards Road and then follows SE 26th
Street to connect with the existing corridor. The future land use on Richards
Road is anticipated to be multi-family residential, with industrial development
planned along the south side of SE 26th Street.
This option is also covered by several subarea plans. The Bel-Red Subarea
Plan designates commercial development as a future land use; the Wilburton
Subarea Plan designates commercial and multi-family for future development;
the Woodridge and Lake Hills Subarea Plans would continue to develop with
single-family residential.
Bellevue intends for the Bel-Red Subarea to focus on nodal development,
which means that the planned Sound Transit’s East Link light rail stations
(anticipated to open in 2023) would be nodes around which development
would be focused. The nodes would feature higher density buildings, with
taller buildings toward the center of the nodes allowed with a variance process
in exchange for various public amenities. Additionally, the Bel-Red Subarea
Plan establishes policies to generate new jobs and new housing units; restore
streams and ecological functions; construct new amenities such as parks,
trails, and bike paths; and promote economic development.
The Wilburton-Grand Connection planning initiative is an ongoing two-part
project to improve non-motorized connectivity, as well as a re-visioning of the
Wilburton Commercial Area.
1. The Grand Connection will improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity
from Meydenbauer Bay to the Eastside Rail Corridor, including a crossing
over I-405 that will reconnect Downtown Bellevue and the Wilburton
Commercial Area. Ultimately it will interface with the Eastside Rail Corridor,
providing a comprehensive north-south and east-west non-motorized
network.
2. The Wilburton Commercial Area planning initiative will identify land use,
urban design, transportation, and environmental opportunities, including
design guidelines addressing, changes to floor area ratio, height, permitted
uses, and design character.
The Richards Valley Subarea Plan plans for future development that would not
compromise the existing natural features of dense vegetation and wooded
vistas. It includes policies for utilizing common corridors (places where utility
infrastructure already exists) for new utilities and for placing them alongside
transportation rights-of-way.
The policies of each of these subarea plans support development that would
accommodate continued residential and commercial growth in the foreseeable
future.
Housing There are 26 single-family and 530 multi-family residences within this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐13
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses mostly include recreation, commercial, and single-family
residential homes (see the chart below for the percentage of the total study
area in the Oak 1 Option that each land use represents). Approximately 318
parcels are immediately adjacent to the corridor (existing and new). Unique
land uses include Sunset Park, King County Solid Waste Division Factoria
Transfer Station, the I-90 crossing, Coal Creek Park, Tyee Middle School,
Forest Hill Neighborhood Park, a large industrial/commercial area on Factoria
Blvd SE, KidsQuest Children’s Museum, Bellevue Fire Station 4, St. Margaret’s
Episcopal Church, Newport High School, Newport Covenant Church, and the
Factoria Police Station.
Neighborhood
Character
The option goes through the neighborhoods of Eastgate, Factoria, northwest
Somerset, and Newport Hills. The Eastgate Subarea is characterized by the I-
90 business corridor with commercial offices, high-tech industries, and
commercial shopping centers. Factoria is characterized by single-family
residential developments and small commercial spaces. The northwest
Somerset area is a single-family residential development on a hilltop. The
Newport Hills Subarea is made up of single-family and multi-family
neighborhoods with a core commercial district in the center of the community.
Several parks (including Sunset Park and Coal Creek Park), government
buildings, and schools (Newport High School and Tyee Middle School) are
along the Oak 1 Option.
Zoning Districts The corridor (existing and new) would be located in a total of 17 different
zoning districts in the City of Bellevue, including commercial, industrial, mixed-
use, multi-family residential, and single-family residential districts.
Future Land Uses The subarea plan policies of each of the subareas within the Oak 1 Option
support growth in similar land use patterns as those that currently exist.
Housing There are 212 single-family and 287 multi-family residences within this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐14
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses are mostly recreation, commercial, single-family residential,
and institutional (see the chart below for the percentage of the total study area
in the Oak 1 Option that each land use represents). Approximately 352 parcels
are immediately adjacent to the corridor (existing and new). Unique land uses
include Sunset Park, the I-90 crossing, large industrial/commercial areas on
Factoria Blvd SE and Richards Road/SE 30th Street, King County Solid Waste
Division Factoria Transfer Station, KidsQuest Children’s Museum, Bellevue Fire
Station 4, St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church, Newport High School, Newport
Covenant Church, Coal Creek Park, Tyee Middle School, Forest Hill
Neighborhood Park, Factoria Police Station, KinderCare, and a Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Neighborhood
Character
The option goes through the residential neighborhoods of Eastgate, Factoria,
Somerset, and Newport. The Oak 2 Option is similar in neighborhood
character to the Oak 1 Option in Eastgate, Factoria, Somerset, and Newport.
The Oak 2 Option would branch out from SE 38th Street and follow 123th Ave
SE south until it meets Coal Creek Pkwy SE/ 124th Ave SE in Factoria, which is
characterized by a large commercial center on the east and I-405 on the west.
Single-family and multi-family developments and Newport High School are at
the south of 124th Ave SE as it meets Coal Creek Pkwy SE. Several parks
(including Sunset Park and Coal Creek Park), government buildings, and
schools (Newport High School and Tyee Middle School) are along the Oak 2
Option.
Zoning Districts The corridor (existing and new) would be located in a total of 18 different
zoning districts in Bellevue, including commercial, industrial, mixed-use, multi-
family residential, and single-family residential districts.
Future Land Uses Similar to the Oak 1 Option, the subarea plan policies of each of the subareas
within the proposed Oak 2 Option support growth in similar land use patters
as those that currently exist.
Housing There are 229 single-family and 463 multi-family residences within this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐15
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses are predominantly recreation, single-family residential, and
vacant lands (see the chart below for the percentage of the total study area in
the Willow 1 Option that each land use represents). Approximately 212 parcels
are immediately adjacent to the existing corridor. Unique land uses include
Tyee Middle School, Forest Hill, King County Solid Waste Division, the I-90
crossing, Somerset Recreation Club, and Sunset Park.
Neighborhood
Character
The option goes through the neighborhoods of Eastgate, Somerset, and
Newport Hills. The Eastgate Subarea is characterized by the I-90 business
corridor with commercial offices, high-tech industries, and commercial
shopping centers. Outside of the commercial center of Eastgate is single-family
housing. The Somerset Subarea is a community of hilltop single-family homes.
The Newport Hills Subarea is made up of single-family and multi-family
neighborhoods with a core commercial district in the center of the community.
Several parks (including Sunset Park and Coal Creek Park), a government
building, and a school (Tyee Middle School) are along the Willow 1 Option.
Zoning Districts The existing corridor is located in nine different zoning districts in the City of
Bellevue including commercial, industrial, multi-family residential, and single-
family residential districts.
Future Land Uses The Bellevue Comprehensive Plan designates community business and light
industrial in Eastgate, while the Somerset and Newport Hills communities
would remain as single-family developments, with a commercial center in
Newport Hills. The subarea plan policies of Eastgate, Somerset, and Newport
Hills support growth in similar land use patterns as those that currently exist.
Housing There are 180 single-family and 10 multi-family residences within this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐16
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses mostly include recreation, single-family residential homes,
and institutional (see the chart below for the percentage of the total study area
in the Willow 2 Option that each land use represents). Approximately 309
parcels are immediately adjacent to the corridor (existing and new). Unique
land uses include Newport Children’s School, Holy Cross Lutheran Church,
Newport Covenant Church, King County Solid Waste Division Factoria
Transfer Station, Sunset Park, and the I-90 crossing.
Neighborhood
Character
The Willow 2 Option would go through the same neighborhoods of Eastgate,
Somerset, and Newport Hills as in the Willow 1 Option. However, at SE
Newport Way, the option route would also follow SE Newport Way on the
border of Factoria, heading south at Coal Creek Parkway SE. The
Factoria/Somerset border is characterized by single-family residential
developments and small commercial spaces. Several parks (including Sunset
Park and Coal Creek Park), government buildings, and schools (Newport
Children’s School, and Tyee Middle School) are along the Willow 2 Option.
Zoning Districts The corridor (existing and new) would be located in a total of 13 different
zoning districts in Bellevue including commercial, industrial, multi-family
residential, and single-family residential districts.
Future Land Uses The Bellevue Comprehensive Plan designates community business and light
industrial in Eastgate. The Somerset Factoria and Newport Hills communities
would remain as mostly single-family developments, with a commercial center
in Newport Hills. The subarea plan policies of Eastgate, Somerset, Factoria,
and Newport Hills support growth in similar land use patterns as those that
currently exist.
Housing There are 257 single-family and 221 multi-family residences within this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐17
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Newcastle Segment
Existing Land Uses Existing land uses are predominantly vacant (some of which are associated
with May Creek Park). Non-vacant land uses are mostly comprised of single-
family residential (see the chart below for the percentage of the total study
area in the Newcastle Segment that each land use represents). Approximately
112 parcels are immediately adjacent to the existing corridor. Unique land
uses include Newcastle City Hall, Seattle Revival Center, and May Creek Park
(on the Newcastle/Renton border).
Neighborhood
Character
The segment goes through the residential neighborhoods of Del Mar Village,
Newport Woods, Eden’s Grove, Donegal, and Olympus. A portion of the
segment also goes through the Community Business Center –Lake Boren
Corridor, and is within the Community Business Center overlay. Del Mar
Village is an apartment complex near a commercial center. Donegal and
Olympus are single-family residential developments. A government building
and a park (May Creek Natural Area) are along the segment.
Zoning Districts The existing corridor is located in six zoning districts in Newcastle, including
single-family residential, commercial, and recreation/open space.
Future Land Uses The Newcastle Comprehensive Plan land use designations within this portion
of the study area include Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family
Residential. This indicates that the neighborhoods will continue to have
residential land uses along the existing corridor into the foreseeable future.
The policies specific to the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan indicate intent to
preserve the current residential character while providing for concentrated
growth where necessary.
Housing There are 89 single-family and 71 multi-family residences within this segment.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐18
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Renton Segment
Existing Land Uses Vacant land is the single largest land use category present (largely because
this category includes large parcels associated with the bed and floodway of
the Cedar River) by transportation (see the chart below for the percentage of
the total study area in the Renton Segment that each land use represents).
Approximately 185 parcels are immediately adjacent to the existing corridor.
Unique land uses include Sierra Heights Elementary School, Renton Seventh-
day Adventist Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Renton
Technical College, North Highlands Neighborhood Center, and a large
commercial area along NE Sunset Blvd.
Neighborhood
Character
The segment goes through the residential neighborhoods of Honey Creek
Ridge, Shadow Hawk, Liberty Ridge, Glencoe, and Sunset (Renton Highlands).
Honey Creek Ridge, Shadow Hawk, Liberty Ridge, and Glencoe are
predominantly single-family and multi-family planned-developments with
designated park spaces. Sunset (Renton Highlands) is one of Renton’s older
developed areas and is comprised of commercial and residential uses; it is
currently being redeveloped with new multi-family, parks, library, and
commercial land uses. Several parks (May Creek Greenway, Honey Creek
Greenway, and the Cedar River Natural Zone) and two schools (Sierra Heights
Elementary School and Renton Technical College) are along the segment.
Zoning
Districts/Shoreline
Environment
Designation
The existing corridor would be located in 11 different zoning districts in Renton
and unincorporated King County, including single-family residential, multi-
family residential, industrial, recreation/open space, and mixed-use districts.
The Cedar River is a Shoreline of the State and is regulated by Renton’s SMP.
The shoreline environment designation in the study area is Urban Conservancy
and Shoreline High Intensity.
Future Land Uses The Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations within this portion of
the study area include Residential High and Residential Medium, which are
developments that are higher in density than single-family lots. The
comprehensive plan has policies that support infill development and a mix of
land uses, which will encourage a higher density than current conditions.
Housing There are 125 single-family and 295 multi-family residences within this
segment.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐19
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Segment / Option Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Sources: City of Bellevue, 1993 (including Bel‐Red, Wilburton, Crossroads, Bridle Trails, Eastgate, Factoria, Newport Hills);
City of Bellevue, 2008a; City of Bellevue, 2008b; City of Bellevue, 2008c; City of Bellevue, 2013; City of Bellevue, 2015; City
of Bellevue, 2016b; City of Newcastle, 2000; City of Newcastle, 2016a; City of Redmond, 2003a; City of Redmond, 2011; City
of Renton, 2009; City of Renton, 2014; City of Renton, 2016; Google Earth (Pro), 2016; King County, 2016; Liberty Ridge,
2016; and Shadow Hawk, ND.
3.1.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
Methods for Analyzing Long-term Impacts
This section evaluates the consistency of the project with the general regulatory framework,
including applicable land use and shoreline goals and policies, zoning districts, and shoreline
environment designations for each segment and option.
As part of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, the EIS Consultant Team examined potential changes in land use
related to transmission lines and other utility components. Information was obtained from land use
studies and an interview with a local assessor’s office (FCS, 2016). This section verifies that those
findings apply to the alternatives considered as part of Phase 2.
The potential for the project to convert existing non-utility land uses to a utility use was considered.
The evaluation included the potential for the project to physically separate existing neighborhoods.
The potential for a loss of housing due to property acquisition was also considered.
Cellular phone transmitters affixed to existing poles would be removed with the existing poles.
However, PSE would allow these transmitters to be replaced on the new poles, so no impacts are
expected.
This analysis considered the potential for the presence of the new utility infrastructure to affect
existing or future uses adjacent to the utility corridor. This included a review of PSE guidelines for
high-capacity transmission lines and how they may affect new mid- or high-rise structures.
This section broadly evaluates the potential impacts that the new utility infrastructure could have on
the character of neighborhoods near the corridor. Additionally, it describes mitigation measures to
minimize or eliminate project impacts to land use and housing.
Magnitude of Impact
The following defines project-level long-term (operational) impacts to land use (existing and future),
neighborhood character, zoning, and housing. The project would have an adverse impact on these
elements if it caused a substantial disruption or change to existing or future land uses, neighborhood
character, or housing stock. The magnitude of the potential land use impacts is classified as less-than-
significant or significant, defined as follows:
Less-than-Significant–Changes to the current conditions could result in a material change to
study area land uses, or the overall land use pattern or neighborhood character. However,
these changes would be considered less-than-significant if the changes are either supported
by plans and policies, or can be mitigated adequately to avoid significant changes.
Significant–Changes in study area land uses, the overall land use pattern, or the
neighborhood character would be inconsistent with existing plans and policies, and cannot be
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐20
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
mitigated. Housing impacts would also be significant if the current housing stock of the study
area would be diminished substantially, or changes in land use would not allow for planned
growth or suitable housing.
3.1.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the project would not be constructed and no impacts to land use
and housing in the study area would occur from the proposed project.
However, as summarized in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, the declining reliability of electric power supply
that could result from the No Action Alternative could be inconsistent with the Growth Management
Act and various City policies that state the need to provide a balanced but reliable electrical utility
infrastructure. Please see Sections 10.2.1 and 10.7.2 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS for further discussion
on the Growth Management Act and its tie-in with land use considerations.
3.1.5 Long-term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines)
Impacts Common to all Components
The majority of the project would utilize PSE’s existing 115 kV transmission line corridor. For some
of the route options (Bypass Option 1, Bypass Option 2, Willow 2, Oak 1, and Oak 2), the line would
run along existing roadways. As described in Chapter 2, for the options that include diverging from
the existing corridor, PSE prefers to place 230 kV lines in easements rather than on public right-of-
way, because within public right-of-way, PSE can be required to move the lines to accommodate
road expansion. If it is not possible to obtain an easement for a pole, PSE generally places the pole
along the outermost part of the road right-of-way and acquires an easement on the adjacent private
property to ensure that the necessary electrical clearances are met, typically 30 feet in width. No new
property would be acquired for Alternative 1, although additional easements would need to be
negotiated and acquired.
For the segments and options that utilize the existing corridor, PSE plans to remove and replace a
majority of the 115 kV H-frame structures. Along the existing corridor, this planned pole
replacement would not change the existing or future land uses, zoning designation, neighborhood
character, or housing stock since it is already in use as a transmission line corridor and does not
require additional easements or property acquisitions. Section 3.2 of this Phase 2 Draft EIS addresses
potential impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment that may result from replacing the
existing poles with taller pole types.
For the route options that deviate from the existing corridor (Bypass Option 1, Bypass Option 2,
Willow 2, Oak 1, and Oak 2), the land on which PSE would potentially seek to acquire new
easements constitutes a small portion of the total land in the study area and would not result in
significant changes to the existing or future land uses or housing stock. The option routes follow
existing transportation and utility corridors. In areas where PSE would seek to obtain easements, the
land would remain with its current use, and utility facilities are permitted as an allowed or
conditionally allowed use in all the applicable zoning districts. A conditional use requires a different
procedural review process than an allowed use to ensure that the proposed use is compatible with the
land use district and surrounding properties. The easement areas would not significantly impact
future development, although the easement would permanently encumber the associated property
(see Section 3.6 for a discussion on the impacts to recreational resources) and could limit the scale of
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐21
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
future development. Easements would include limitations such as the right of PSE to keep the area
clear of vegetation that would present a hazard to the operation of the transmission lines.
Additionally, for properties that require the acquisition of a new easement, no houses would need to
be condemned or demolished, but there might be impacts to ancillary structures such as sheds or
garages. Because the project would not result in the removal of existing housing, the impacts to
housing are considered less-than-significant.
One of the major elements the EIS Consultant Team used to determine the level of impact is the
project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies, including the city comprehensive plans and
any subarea policies in the study area. A statement that the project is consistent with applicable plans
and policies means that the project does not violate any of the policies outlined in the city
comprehensive plan or any subarea plans that would apply to the study area. For example, several
applicable subarea plans have statements that require or encourage the undergrounding of utility
distribution lines, but do not specifically address the undergrounding of transmission lines. The
project would therefore be consistent with the subarea plans in regards to their approach to
undergrounding of distribution lines. While the project would not be in direct violation of the policies
in the comprehensive and subarea plans, some policies indicate that the project could potentially have
an impact on future development in some way. These were analyzed on a case-by-case basis to
determine the level of significance. An example of this would be a policy that encourages the siting
of buildings close to the street in areas that would need an easement for the transmission lines.
Land use is closely tied to several other environmental resources, such as scenic views and aesthetic
environment as well as recreation. While the project would result in significant impacts to these
resources within certain route options, the impacts are not anticipated to change the land use of the
study area. For a detailed analysis of impacts related to scenic views and the aesthetic environment,
please refer to Section 3.2. For a detailed analysis of the impacts to recreation resources, please see
Section 3.6.
New Richards Creek Substation
There would be no long-term impacts to land use and housing from operation of the substation
because the Richards Creek substation would be compatible with the existing and nearby land uses
(industrial) and neighborhood character. In addition, the Richards Creek substation is consistent with
future land uses of light industrial proposed for the parcel, and the Bellevue City Code (BCC 20.20)
allows development of “utility facilities” under a Conditional Use Permit. The Richards Creek
substation would not cause any housing impacts because no housing sites are on or adjacent to the
proposed substation site.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐22
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Redmond Segment
Potential types of new uses and development along the Redmond Segment are regulated by the City
of Redmond Zoning Code Redmond Municipal Code Title 21. The potential impacts to land use and
housing for the Redmond Segment would be less-than-significant because the project is consistent
with city and subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The
impacts are summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Redmond Comprehensive Plan and the Grass Lawn and Willows Rose Hill Subarea policies.
Zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility facilities as a permitted or a conditional
use. However, the City would require PSE to obtain an Essential Public Facilities permit rather
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐23
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
than a zoning Conditional Use Permit. See Section 10.2.1 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS for more
information about Essential Public Facilities.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of single-family and multi-family residential. The project would use an
existing utility corridor and not require any new easements from adjoining properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would not impact future land uses, which are projected
to be mostly Single-family and multi-family residential. The project would use an existing utility
corridor and would not interfere with planned development.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this segment.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐24
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Bellevue North Segment
Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue North Segment are regulated by the
City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The potential impacts to land use and housing for the
Bellevue North Segment of the project are considered less-than-significant because it is consistent
with city and subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The
impacts are summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Bellevue Comprehensive Plan and Bridle Trails and Bel-Red Subarea policies. Zoning districts in
the study area allow electrical utility facilities as a conditional use.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐25
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of single-family residential. The project would use an existing utility
corridor and not require any new easements from adjoining properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would not impact future land uses, which are anticipated
to be mostly single-family residential. The project would use an existing utility corridor and
would not interfere with planned development.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this segment.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐26
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor
Option, are regulated by the City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The East Bellevue
Community Council (EBCC) has approval-disapproval authority over certain land use actions within
a portion of this option. PSE selected two route options (Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option 2) to
examine in the Phase 2 Draft EIS that would not be within EBCC jurisdiction, in case the EBCC
denies permit approval. The potential impacts to land use and housing for the Bellevue Central
Segment (Existing Corridor Option) of the project are considered less-than-significant because it is
consistent with city and subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use
patterns. The impacts are summarized below.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐27
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Bellevue Comprehensive Plan and Bel-Red, SE Bellevue, Wilburton/NE 8th Street, and Eastgate
Subarea policies. The Richards Valley Subarea Plan includes a policy of co-locating utility and
transportation rights-of-way and states that “common corridors” (areas that already contain
power lines) should be used to reduce visual impacts. Zoning districts in the study area allow
electrical utility facilities as a conditional use.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of mostly single-family residential. The project would use an existing
utility corridor and not require any new easements from adjoining properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would not impact future land uses, which are anticipated
to be mostly single-family and multi-family residential. The project would use an existing utility
corridor and would not interfere with planned development.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐28
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1,
are regulated by the City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The potential impacts to land use
and housing for Bypass Option 1 would be less-than-significant because it is consistent with city and
subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The impacts are
summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Bel-Red, SE Bellevue, Wilburton/NE 8th Street, and Eastgate Subarea policies. The Bellevue
Comprehensive Plan’s Utilities Vision includes a policy to encourage consolidation of existing
facilities and a policy to discourage locating aerial facilities in corridors where none currently
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐29
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
exist. The new corridor for this option would potentially conflict with these two policies, though
the impacts would be less-than-significant because the design of the overall project does rely on
the existing transmission corridor whenever possible. The Richards Valley Subarea Plan includes
a policy of co-locating utility and transportation rights-of-way and states that “common
corridors” (areas that already contain power lines) should be used to reduce visual impacts.
Zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility facilities as a conditional use.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of commercial uses to the north and west, and open space and single-
family residential to the south. In the portion of the option using the existing corridor, new
easements would not be required on adjoining properties. The transmission lines would also use a
new corridor, which would require new easements. New easements are not anticipated to affect
adjacent land uses since they would be negotiated with the property owner and would not
interfere with the current use of adjacent properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would
not impact future land uses, which are
anticipated to be mixed use, commercial, single-
family residential, and multi-family residential.
In the new corridor, new buildings on parcels
encumbered by an easement would have to limit
building in the easement section to adhere to the
NESC safety standards, which could limit
development opportunities on these parcels.
Future land use in the Bel-Red Subarea focuses
on development nodes around future light rail
stations, with the tallest buildings planned near
the center of the nodes. The closest node would
be a potential transit station at 130th Avenue NE
and NE 16th Street, approximately one block
from the Bypass Option 1 alignment.
Additionally, the Wilburton/NE 8th Street
Subarea Plan allows “flexibility for commercial
buildings to be sited near frontage property lines,” which could be an impact on parcels with an
easement. If a parcel in this subarea is encumbered by an easement, potential new buildings
would only be able to build up to the negotiated easement area and not the frontage property lines
as the subarea plan encourages. This impact would be less-than-significant because the majority
of parcels within the subarea would not be encumbered by new easements. Above is a map of a
portion of the proposed easement areas (in pink) for the north section of the option, which shows
how much of the affected parcels would be encumbered by an easement.
Shorelines: All new or expanding electrical utility facilities proposed in the Shoreline Overlay
District would need Shoreline Conditional Use Permit approval (LUC 20.25E.110 and
20.25E.180), completion of an alternative siting analysis (LUC 20.20.255.D), and compliance
with decision criteria and design standards (LUC 20.20.255). This option would make one
crossing of Kelsey Creek (a Shoreline of the State). This would be a less-than-significant impact
because the project would adhere to the Conditional Use Permit processes.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐30
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Potential types of new uses and development along the proposed Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass
Option 2, are regulated by the City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The potential impacts to
land use and housing for Bypass Option 2 would be less-than-significant because it is consistent with
city and subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The
impacts are summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Bel-Red, SE Bellevue, Wilburton/NE 8th Street, and Eastgate Subarea policies. The Bellevue
Comprehensive Plan’s Utilities Vision includes a policy to encourage consolidation of existing
facilities and a policy to discourage locating aerial facilities in corridors where none currently
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐31
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
exist. The new corridor for this option would potentially conflict with these two policies,
although the impacts would be less-than-significant because the design of the overall project does
rely on the existing transmission corridor whenever possible. The Richards Valley Subarea Plan
includes a policy of co-locating utility and transportation rights-of-way and states that “common
corridors” (areas that already contain power lines) should be used to reduce visual impacts.
Zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility facilities as a conditional use.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of commercial uses to the north and west, or single-family and multi-
family residential along Richards Road. In the portion of the option using the existing corridor,
new easements would not be required on adjoining properties. The transmission lines would use a
new corridor, which would require new easements. New easements are not anticipated to affect
adjacent land uses since they would be negotiated with the property owner and would not
interfere with the current use of the properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would
not impact future land uses, which are
anticipated to be mostly commercial, mixed-
use, single-family residential, and multi-family
residential. In the new corridor, new buildings
on parcels encumbered by an easement would
have to limit building in the easement section to
adhere to the NESC safety standards, which
could limit development opportunities on these
parcels. Future land use in the Bel-Red Subarea
focuses on development nodes around future
light rail stations, with the tallest building
height near the center of the nodes. The closest
node would be a potential transit station at 130th
Avenue NE and NE 16th Street, approximately
three blocks from the Bypass Option 1
alignment. Additionally, the Wilburton/NE 8th
Street Subarea Plan allows “flexibility for
commercial buildings to be sited near frontage property lines,” which could be an impact on
parcels with an easement. If a parcel in this subarea is encumbered by an easement, potential new
buildings would only be able to build up to the negotiated easement area and not the frontage
property lines as the subarea plan encourages. This impact would be less-than-significant because
the majority of parcels within the subarea would not be encumbered by new easements. Above is
a map of a portion of the proposed easement areas (in pink) for the south section of the option
that shows how much of the affected parcels would be encumbered by an easement.
Shorelines: All new or expanding electrical utility facilities proposed in the Shoreline Overlay
District would need Shoreline Conditional Use Permit approval (LUC 20.25E.110 and
20.25E.180), completion of an alternative siting analysis (LUC 20.20.255.D), and compliance
with decision criteria and design standards (LUC 20.20.255). This option would make one
crossing of Kelsey Creek (a Shoreline of the State). This would be a less-than-significant impact
because the project would adhere to the Conditional Use Permit processes.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐32
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
In the Bellevue Central Segment, all three options would meet the requirements of comprehensive
plans, subarea plans, and zoning district land use regulations. However, two of the three options
(Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option 2) would require new easements. These easements would be
negotiated with property owners along the option routes. Utility easements would likely interfere
with subarea policies that allow for or encourage building close to the street edge. Option 2 uses
more of the existing corridor in the Bel-Red Subarea; therefore, easements would affect fewer
properties. Both of the options that include new easements would traverse recreation areas, where the
project would cause significant impacts (see Section 3.6, Recreation). The potential impacts to land
use and housing are compared below by option (Table 3.1-2).
Table 3.1-2. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
Segment / Option
Potential for
Inconsistency with
Plans, Policies, and
Regulations
New Easements
Proposed for New
Corridor
Presence of
Shoreline of the
State
Existing Corridor Option No No No
Bypass Option 1 Yes Yes Yes
Bypass Option 2 Yes Yes Yes
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐33
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option, are
regulated by the City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The potential impacts to land use and
housing for the Oak 1 Option would be less-than-significant because it is consistent with city and
subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The impacts are
summarized below. The impacts are summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Richards Valley, Factoria, Eastgate, and Newport Hills Subarea policies. The Factoria Subarea
Plan includes a policy of minimizing disruptive effects of utility construction on non-property
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐34
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
owners, motorists, and pedestrians. Zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility
facilities as a conditional use.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of recreation, commercial, or single-family residential. In the portion of
the option using the existing corridor, new easements would not be required on adjoining
properties. The transmission lines would also use a new corridor, which would require new
easements. New easements are not anticipated to affect existing adjacent land uses since they
would be negotiated with the property owner and would not interfere with the current use of the
properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would
not impact future land uses, which are
anticipated to be mostly single-family
residential, industrial, and commercial. In the
new corridor, new buildings on parcels
encumbered by an easement would have to limit
building in the easement section to adhere to the
NESC safety standards, which could limit
development opportunities on these parcels.
Both the Factoria and Newport Hills Subarea
Plans include policies allowing or encouraging
buildings to abut or come close to the street
edge. If a parcel in these subareas is
encumbered by an easement, potential new
buildings would only be able to build up to the
negotiated easement area and not the frontage
property lines as the subarea plans encourage.
This impact would be less-than-significant
because the majority of parcels within the subareas would not be encumbered by new easements.
Above is a map of a portion of the proposed easement areas (in pink) for the north section of the
option that shows how much of the affected parcels would be encumbered by an easement.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐35
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option, are
regulated by the City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The potential impacts to land use and
housing for the Oak 2 Option would be less-than-significant because it is consistent with city and
subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The impacts are
summarized below. The impacts are summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with
Richards Valley, Factoria, Eastgate, and Newport Hills Subarea policies. The Bellevue
Comprehensive Plan’s Utilities Vision includes a policy to encourage consolidation of existing
facilities and a policy to discourage locating aerial facilities in corridors where none currently
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐36
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
exist. The new corridor for this option along SE 38th Street (the only location where there are no
existing aerial facilities) would potentially conflict with these two policies, although the impacts
would be less-than-significant because the design of the overall project relies on the existing
transmission corridor whenever possible. The Factoria Subarea Plan includes a policy of
minimizing disruptive effects of utility construction on non-property owners, motorists, and
pedestrians. Zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility facilities as a conditional
use.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of recreation, multi-family residential, or institutional. In the portion of
the option using the existing corridor, new easements would not be required on adjoining
properties. The transmission lines would also use a new corridor, which would require new
easements. New easements are not anticipated to affect existing adjacent land uses since they
would be negotiated with the property owner and would not interfere with the current use of the
properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would
not impact future land uses, which are
anticipated to be single-family residential,
industrial, and commercial. In the new corridor,
new buildings on parcels encumbered by an
easement would have to limit building in the
easement section to adhere to the NESC safety
standards, which could limit development
opportunities on these parcels. Both the Factoria
and Newport Hills Subarea Plans include
policies allowing or encouraging buildings to
abut or come close to the street edge. If a parcel
in these subareas is encumbered by an
easement, potential new buildings would only
be able to build up to the negotiated easement
area and not the frontage property lines as the
subarea plans encourage. This impact would be
less-than-significant because the majority of
parcels within the subareas would not be encumbered by new easements. Above is a map of a
portion of the proposed easement areas (in pink) for the north section of the option that shows
how much of the affected parcels would be encumbered by an easement.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐37
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option,
are regulated by the City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The potential impacts to land use
and housing for the Willow 1 Option would be less-than-significant because it is consistent with city
and subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The impacts
are summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Bellevue Comprehensive Plan and the Richards Valley, Factoria, Eastgate, and Newport Hills
Subarea policies. The Factoria Subarea Plan includes a policy of minimizing disruptive effects of
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐38
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
utility construction on non-property owners, motorists, and pedestrians. Zoning districts in the
study area allow electrical utility facilities as a conditional use.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of single-family residential. The option would use the existing corridor
and not require any new easements from adjoining properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would not impact future land uses, which are anticipated
to be single-family residential, industrial, and commercial. The project would use the existing
corridor and would not interfere with planned development.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐39
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option (PSE’s Preferred Alignment)
Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option,
are regulated by the City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The potential impacts to land use
and housing for the Willow 2 Option would be less-than-significant because it is consistent with city
and subarea plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The impacts
are summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Richards Valley, Factoria, Eastgate, and Newport Hills Subarea policies. The Bellevue
Comprehensive Plan’s Utilities Vision includes a policy to encourage consolidation of existing
facilities and a policy to discourage locating aerial facilities in corridors where none currently
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐40
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
exist. The new corridor for this option along SE Newport Way (the only location where there are
no existing aerial facilities) would potentially conflict with these two policies, although the
impacts would be less-than-significant because the design of the overall project relies on the
existing transmission corridor whenever possible. The Factoria Subarea Plan includes a policy of
minimizing disruptive effects of utility construction on non-property owners, motorists, and
pedestrians. Zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility facilities as a conditional
use.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of single-family residential, institutional, or recreation. In the portion of
the option using the existing corridor, new easements would not be required on adjoining
properties. The transmission lines would also use a new corridor, which would require new
easements. New easements are not anticipated to affect existing adjacent land uses since they
would be negotiated with the property owner and would not interfere with the current use of the
properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would
not impact future land uses, which are
anticipated to be single-family residential,
multi-family residential, industrial, and
commercial. In the new corridor, new buildings
on parcels encumbered by an easement would
have to limit building in the easement section to
adhere to the NESC safety standards, which
could limit development opportunities on these
parcels. Both the Factoria and Newport Hills
Subarea Plans include policies allowing or
encouraging buildings to abut or come close to
the street edge. If a parcel in these subareas is
encumbered by an easement, potential new
buildings would only be able to build up to the
negotiated easement area and not the frontage
property lines as the subarea plans encourage.
This impact would be less-than-significant
because the majority of parcels within the subareas would not be encumbered by new easements.
Above is a map of a portion of the proposed easement areas (in pink) for the option that shows
how much of the affected parcels would be encumbered by an easement.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐41
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Comparison of Bellevue South Options
In the Bellevue South Segment, all but the Willow 1 Option would involve a new corridor, which
would require new easements along the route. These easements would be negotiated with property
owners along the option, but, like the Bellevue Central Segment options, would include areas that
have policies that allow for or encourage development close to the parcel frontage. The Willow 1
Option follows the existing corridor, but the remaining options include new routes that would pass
through recreation areas and cause significant impacts (see Section 3.6, Recreation). The potential
impacts to land use and housing are compared below by option (Table 3.1-3).
Table 3.1-3. Comparison of Bellevue South Options
Segment / Option
Potential for
Inconsistency with
Plans, Policies, and
Regulations
New Easements
Proposed for New
Corridor
Presence of
Shoreline of the
State
Oak 1 Option No Yes No
Oak 2 Option Yes Yes No
Willow 1 Option No No No
Willow 2 Option Yes Yes No
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐42
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Newcastle Segment
Potential types of new uses and development along the Newcastle Segment are regulated by the City
of Newcastle’s Municipal Code (NMC, Title 18). The NMC allows development of a “Utility
Facility – Regional” under a Conditional Use Permit. The potential impacts to land use and housing
for the Newcastle Segment would be less-than-significant because it is consistent with city plans, and
would not adversely affect existing and future land use patterns. The impacts are summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Newcastle Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility facilities
as a conditional use. The placement of the poles is consistent with the required setback of 5 feet
from the Olympic Pipeline easement.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐43
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of single-family residential. The project would use the existing corridor
and not require new easements from adjoining properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would not impact future land uses, which are anticipated
to be single-family and multi-family residential. Future land use designations were developed
based on the assumption that the transmission facility would remain and be upgraded. The project
would use the existing corridor and would not interfere with planned development.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this segment.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐44
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Renton Segment
Potential types of new uses and development along the Renton Segment are regulated by the City of
Renton’s development regulations (RMC Title IV) and the Renton SMP. The potential impacts to
land use and housing for the Renton Segment would be less-than-significant because it is consistent
with city plans, and would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. The impacts are
summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Renton Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts in the study area allow electrical utility facilities as
a conditional use.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐45
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of single-family residential. The project would use the existing corridor
and not require new easements from adjoining properties.
Future Land Use Pattern: The project would not impact future land uses, which are anticipated
to be mostly single-family residential, mixed-use, and commercial. The project would use the
existing corridor and would not interfere with planned development.
Shorelines: The Renton Segment would go through the Shoreline High Intensity and Urban
Conservancy Shoreline Environment Designations. The SMP defines Major Service Utilities as
public or private utilities that provide services beyond Renton boundaries, such as electrical
transmission lines 55 kV or greater. Any new major utilities in these shoreline environment
designations would be allowable through the approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
The project would include replacing existing transmission lines and would not involve the
placement of poles outside of the existing corridor or change the height of the wires. The current
H-frame structures would be replaced by monopoles with a smaller footprint and would not be
placed within any buffer area. These changes are considered a “new use” under RMC 4-3-090E
and therefore require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. This would be a less-than-significant
impact because the project would adhere to the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit process.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐46
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
3.1.6 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are implemented to lessen or eliminate the adverse impacts associated with a
proposed action. Mitigation can be achieved through avoidance, minimization, rectification,
elimination, compensation, or monitoring of environmental impacts (WAC 197-11-768). Such
measures can be suggested by the applicant or mandated through regulations. They can be applied
prior to construction (e.g., through design changes), during construction, or during operation of the
project. In general, mitigation measures applied prior to construction or during operation address
long-term impacts. Conversely, mitigation applied during construction is often used to address short-
term, construction-related impacts.
For land use, regulations and comprehensive plan and subarea plan policies were reviewed to identify
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures specified by code would be required, whereas mitigation
measures based on plan policies would be at the discretion of the applicant to adopt or the local
jurisdictions to impose as a condition of project approval. This section addresses only the mitigation
measures for land use and housing impacts. For an expanded discussion on mitigation measures
related to impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment, see Section 3.2. For an expanded
discussion on mitigation measures related to critical areas compliance, see Section 3.3. Because
several of the options would go through or require easements on property that is used for recreation,
there are impacts associated with these options. Please refer to Section 3.6 to view the mitigation
measures related to recreation.
Regulatory Requirements
All of the segments and options would need to meet the regulations of the zoning districts that they
traverse (where either the project would be constructed or an easement would be required). In areas
where the use is not allowed outright within a zoning district, a Conditional Use Permit would be
required. Adherence to the zoning regulations of each jurisdiction is generally not appealable, and
would provide some mitigation for project-related impacts to land use. Mitigation requiring specific
design features would be developed during the design stage (prior to construction). The applicable
regulations are presented in Appendix B. The setback requirement from the Olympic Pipeline
easement in Newcastle is described in Section 3.1.1, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations.
Conditional Use Permit review processes vary by jurisdiction, but often include requirements of
public notice and a level of quasi-judicial review. The Conditional Use Permit process can be used to
reduce land use impacts because the decision criteria used by each jurisdiction in this review include
elements such as compatibility with the comprehensive plan and consideration of the impact on
neighboring land uses and property. Measures required through the conditional use permit process
are generally appealable within the regulation of the specific jurisdiction. Such measures could
include those listed under potential mitigation measures below.
In Newcastle, PSE could apply for a variance from the setback requirement, which could enable the
use of shorter poles in that segment, as discussed in Section 3.2, Scenic Views and the Aesthetic
Environment. Similar to the conditional use review process, variance approval requires a
determination that granting the variance would not harm adjacent land uses.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on review of the comprehensive plan and
subarea plan policies. Through its subarea planning policies, the City of Bellevue encourages
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.1‐47
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
development of multi-story buildings built up to or near the parcel frontage or street edge in Central
and South Bellevue (see Appendix B), which PSE considered during its planning process for the
project. The following mitigation measures could be used to reduce potential impacts associated with
easements that could prevent construction that conforms to this desired development pattern.
Prior to Construction
Select the route that requires the least number of properties where easements would restrict
future development in areas with policies encouraging building up to or close to the street
edge.
Construct taller transmission lines so that wires would clear the tops of buildings sufficiently
to meet NESC standards if such development were to occur in the future.
Design transmission lines to extend as far as possible over the street right-of-way to minimize
the amount of easement and clearance needed adjacent to the right-of-way.
Underground sections of the transmission lines where inconsistencies with the
comprehensive plan policies regarding aerial facilities would otherwise occur.
Undergrounding of transmission lines is not required by any of the subarea plans in the study area. If
a City does request that a portion of the transmission line be placed underground, PSE would work
with the City to determine the cost of undergrounding and how a tariff may apply. Where
undergrounding of distribution lines is required, PSE would do so along with telecommunication
lines.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
The affected environment is
described by four
characteristics: visual
character, affected population,
visual quality, and visual
resources. These
characteristics were used to
assess impacts to the
aesthetic environment and
scenic views. Changes to the
visual character and visual
quality of the study area were
assessed to identify impacts
to the aesthetic environment.
The potential for the project to
obstruct views of visual
resources located outside of
the study area was assessed
to identify impacts to scenic
views. The affected population
was considered for both the
assessment of the aesthetic
environment and the
assessment of scenic views.
3.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC
ENVIRONMENT
Impacts to views and visual resources were evaluated at a
programmatic level in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. The Phase 1 Draft
EIS provides a high-level assessment of impacts to visual
character; changes to views, viewpoints, and visual resources; and
light, glare, and exhaust impacts. This section addresses impacts to
scenic views and the aesthetic environment. Scenic views are
views of visual resources that are considered special attributes of
the study area and region (Figure 3.2-1). Visual resources
associated with the study area were identified in the Phase 1 Draft
EIS based on study area plans, regulatory codes, and scoping
comments. These include scenic views of the Olympics, the
Cascades, Mount Rainier, Cougar Mountain, Lake Washington,
Lake Sammamish, and the downtown Bellevue and downtown
Seattle skylines. The aesthetic environment is what influences
human perception of the world. It is comprised of the natural
environment (e.g., topography, vegetation, water bodies) and built
environment (e.g., buildings, utility infrastructure). Topics of the
Phase 1 analysis that were determined to have no significant
impacts (such as light, glare and exhaust) were not carried forward
to this Phase 2 assessment.
SEPA (WAC 197-11) requires all major actions sponsored,
funded, permitted, or approved by state and/or local agencies to
undergo planning to ensure that environmental considerations,
such as impacts related to scenic views and the aesthetic
environment, are given due weight in decision-making. Because
the value of scenic views and the aesthetic environment is
subjective, based on the viewer, it is difficult to quantify or
estimate impacts. In particular, little guidance exists supporting a standard methodology for assessing
visual impacts associated with transmission line projects. A number of methodologies were reviewed
to inform the methodology used for this project. For this project, the assessment of impacts to scenic
views and the aesthetic environment was generally based on methods described in the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidelines for Visual Impact Assessment (FHWA, 2015). The
FHWA guidelines were developed for linear infrastructure projects and provide a useful framework.
FHWA guidelines describe methods to assess impacts, but do not specify thresholds for determining
significant impacts. Similarly, state and local regulations do not provide guidance for determining
significance. Therefore, significance was determined based on criteria similar to those described in
The State Clean Energy Program Guide: A Visual Impact Assessment Process for Wind Energy
Projects (Vissering et al., 2011), which was developed for large electrical facilities.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014.
Figure 3.2-1. Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment Study Area
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Visual Quality
High – Area is relatively
undisturbed by development.
Development that does exist
has urban design that is
considered aesthetically
pleasing (per local planning
documents). There is minimal
utility presence. Utilities that
are present are small-scale
and have consistent height
and form that blend with the
surrounding aesthetic
environment.
Medium – Development
blends with the natural
environment and does not
disrupt the natural harmony of
the area. Development has
consistent building height and
form and is not inconsistent
with set design standards.
There is moderate utility
presence that generally blends
with the surrounding aesthetic
environment.
Low – Built environment takes
precedence over natural
environment. Development
has inconsistent height and
form and does not meet set
design standards. There is
high utility presence, and
utility infrastructure is the
prominent feature in the
viewshed.
Under the FHWA guidance, the study area for the visual impact
assessment (referred to in the FHWA guidance as the “area of visual
extent”) was determined based on the physical constraints of the
environment (e.g., topography) and the physiological limits of human
sight.
For the Energize Eastside project, the study area is defined as the area
within 0.25 mile from the edge of the existing and new corridor,
including all segments and options, excluding areas west of Interstate
405 (I-405) (Figure 3.2-1). I-405 and all areas west of I-405 were
excluded because the freeway provides such a wide separation that the
project would not visually impact the neighborhoods west of the
freeway, views seen from those neighborhoods, or views of drivers on
I-405. This study area focuses on areas where the project transmission
line would be within the foreground view where viewers are most
likely to experience the scale of the project and observe details and
materials. While the project would be visible at greater distances,
significant visual impacts are not probable given the project’s scale
relative to its largely mixed urban context.
3.2.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
The Phase 1 Draft EIS provided an overview of the planning policies
and regulations pertinent to the protection of views and visual
resources (see Section 12.2 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS). For this Phase 2
Draft EIS, the policies and regulations considered were updated to
incorporate changes to the Newcastle 2035 Comprehensive Plan (City
of Newcastle, 2016) and include applicable subarea plan policies (see
Appendix C). It is likely that local covenants exist throughout the study
area that provide aesthetic standards specific to their respective
communities. For the purpose of this Phase 2 Draft EIS, private
covenants were not reviewed unless determined by the Partner Cities to
uphold broader City policies. In general, the Partner Cities do not have
SEPA policies that provide authority to recognize private covenants.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
3.2.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment in the Study Area
The affected environment is described according to four characteristics, as defined below and
summarized by project component (i.e., substation, and transmission line segment and option) in
Table 3.2-1:
1. Visual Character: Visual character is the aggregate of the visible attributes of a scene or object,
including natural (topography, water bodies, vegetation) and built (building height and form,
types of infrastructure) features. The visual character is described based on the identification of
major natural and built features through a review of maps, aerial photography, Google Street
View, and field observation.
2. Affected Population: The affected population includes viewers from residences, roadways,
commercial areas, and public places such as parks and trails. The affected population was
identified by reviewing existing and planned land uses within the study area, as described in
Section 3.1, Land Use and Housing.
3. Visual Quality: Visual quality of the aesthetic environment refers to how well the aesthetic
environment meets viewer preferences for the natural and built environments. Visual quality was
assessed based on the visual character of the segment and option routes, stated preferences
expressed in public comments during the EIS process, and professional judgement. Appendix C
provides a detailed description of what was considered a high, medium, or low visual quality for
each element of the aesthetic environment. Visual quality in the segments is not homogenous,
and ranges from low quality in some areas to high quality in others. These characteristics are
described below for each segment.
4. Visual Resources: Visual resources include scenic views of the Olympics, the Cascades, Cougar
Mountain, Mount Rainier, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and the downtown Bellevue and
downtown Seattle skylines.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐5 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Table 3.2-1. Overview of the Affected Environment by Project Component (Substation, Transmission Line Segment, and Option) Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Richards Creek Substation Natural Environment: Located on a plateau with the topography sloping downhill to the west Dense stands of evergreen trees along the east and west flanks Built Environment: Industrial warehouses Lakeside substation Elementary school A range of commercial building types; see Figure 3.2-2 Two- to three-story apartment/condo buildings Utility workers Industrial workers Chestnut Hill Academy students and faculty Overall, visual quality is low in the vicinity of the Richards Creek substation site because the built environment dominates the natural environment (except for the undeveloped wooded area to the east) and building form lacks consistency, the built environment consists of an industrial area with different building forms and configurations and large parking lots, and a high presence of utility infrastructure that varies in form (Lakeside substation and 115 kV transmission lines). N/A
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐6 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Redmond Segment Natural Environment: Topography generally slopes downhill to the east and north Swan Lake at Sixty-01 Condominium 500-foot-wide cleared corridor heads west from Sammamish substation Dense stands of trees abut the utility corridor Built Environment: Single-story and two-story single-family homes Three-story condominium complexes Middle school A range of commercial building types; see Figure 3.2-2 Industrial parks and warehouses Two single-circuit 115 kV on H-frame poles (~60 ft in height) Sammamish substation Golfers Park and trail users Shoppers Retail workers Industrial workers Rose Hill Middle School students and faculty Residents Utility workers Visual quality is low where the built environment disrupts the natural environment, which occurs near the Sammamish substation and a 500-foot long cleared corridor connecting the Sammamish substation to the transmission line corridor. The built environment near the Sammamish substation (warehouses, commercial buildings, utilities) also has low visual quality because of inconsistent height and form. Visual quality is high in the residential neighborhoods away from the existing transmission line and lower immediately adjacent to the corridor. Residential neighborhoods are primarily single-family residential and have consistent building height and form. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line, but the configuration has consistent height and form, except where the transmission line leaves the Sammamish substation. Occasional scenic views of the Cascades
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐7 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Bellevue North Segment Natural Environment: Topography generally slopes downhill to the south and to the east. Tall tree stands abut the utility corridor Built Environment: Single-story and two-story single-family homes Religious facilities A range of commercial building types, see Figure 3.2-2 Industrial parks and warehouses Two single-circuit 115 kV on H-frame poles (~55 ft in height) Residents Religious followers Park and trail users Drivers on SR 520 Retail employees Shoppers Utility workers Visual quality is generally high in the residential neighborhoods away from the existing transmission line and generally low immediately adjacent to the corridor. Residential neighborhoods are primarily single-family and have consistent building height and form. Visual quality is lowest south of SR 520 where commercial developments and industrial parks have inconsistent height and form, and large paved parking lots. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line, but configuration has consistent height and form. Occasional scenic views of the Cascades. Views of the Olympics from Northup Way. Views of Mount Rainier at key locations along SR 520.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐8 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option Natural Environment: North portion of the option slopes downhill slightly to the east and more steeply to the west. South of Bel-Red Rd, topography slopes downhill to the west Sharp depression west of the Glendale Country Club Vegetated along much of the corridor where commercial and industrial uses are not present Built Environment: A range of commercial building types, see Figure 3.2-2 Single-story and two-story single-family homes Two- to three-story apartment/condominium buildings Elementary School Industrial warehouses Two single-circuit 115 kV on H-frame poles (~55 ft in height) Residents Golfers Park and trail users Industrial workers Shoppers Retail workers Office workers Utility workers Chestnut Hill Academy students and faculty Utility workers Areas with higher visual quality include Kelsey Creek Park and the Glendale Golf Course where the natural environment is undisturbed by the built environment, and residential areas away from the existing corridor, which have consistent building height and form. Areas with low visual quality are generally areas abutting the transmission line, the industrial area surrounding the Lakeside substation, and the commercial and industrial development north of Bel-Red Rd. The area north of Bel-Red Rd is planned to have high visual quality in the future, as redevelopment complies with Bel-Red Corridor Plan design guidelines. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line, and the configuration has consistent height and form along the option, except where it intersects with the Lakeside substation. Sporadic scenic views of downtown Seattle and the Olympics from east of the existing corridor.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐9 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1 Natural Environment: North portion of the option slopes downhill slightly to the east and more steeply to the west. South of Bel-Red Rd, topography slopes downhill to the west from the Bellevue Botanical Gardens Rise in topography at Woodridge Hill Vegetated along much of the corridor where commercial and industrial uses are not present Kelsey Creek Built Environment: Single-story and two-story single-family homes Two- to three-story apartment/condo buildings A range of commercial building types; see Figure 3.2-2 Industrial warehouses 124th Ave NE: SCL 230 kV line Eastside Rail Corridor Residents Visitors and employees of the Botanical Gardens Park and trail users (including Eastside Rail Corridor) Industrial workers Shoppers Retail workers Areas with generally high visual quality include the Botanical Gardens and areas abutting the Lake Hills Connector where the natural environment is less disturbed by the built environment, and residential areas away from the existing transmission corridor, which have consistent building height and form. Areas with lower visual quality are present in areas abutting the transmission line, the industrial area surrounding the Lakeside substation, and the commercial and industrial development north of Bel-Red Rd. The area north of Bel-Red Rd is anticipated to have high visual quality in the future, as redevelopment complies with Bel-Red Corridor Plan design guidelines. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line, and the configuration has consistent height and form along the option where it occurs, except where it intersects with the Lakeside substation. Scenic views from Woodridge include views of Lake Washington, downtown Bellevue, and Seattle.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐10 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2 Natural Environment: North portion of the option slopes downhill slightly to the east and more steeply to the west. South of Bel-Red Rd, topography slopes downhill to the west from the Bellevue Botanical Gardens Rise in topography at Woodridge Hill Vegetated along much of the corridor where commercial and industrial uses are not present Kelsey Creek Richards Creek Wetlands east of Richards Rd. Built Environment: A range of commercial building types; see Figure 3.2-2 Single-story and two-story single-family homes Two- to three-story apartment/condo buildings Industrial warehouses SE 26th St: one single-circuit 115 kV on wood poles (~65 ft in height) Eastside Rail Corridor 124th Ave NE: SCL 230 kV line Residents Visitors and employees of the Botanical Gardens Park and trail users (including Eastside Rail Corridor) Industrial workers Shoppers Retail workers Utility workers Areas with generally high visual quality include the Botanical Gardens, areas abutting the Lake Hills Connector, and wetlands to the east and vegetation to the west along Richards Rd where the natural environment is less disturbed by the built environment, as well as residential areas away from the existing transmission corridor, which have consistent building height and form. Areas with generally low visual quality are present in areas abutting the transmission line, the industrial area surrounding the Lakeside substation, and the commercial and industrial development north of Bel-Red Rd. The area north of Bel-Red Rd is anticipated to have high visual quality in the future, as redevelopment complies with Bel-Red Corridor Plan design guidelines. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line, and the configuration has consistent height and form along the option where it occurs, except where it intersects with the Lakeside substation. Scenic views from Woodridge include views of Lake Washington, downtown Bellevue, and Seattle.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐11 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option Natural Environment: Topography slopes downhill to the south and the west; there is a southward incline associated with the Coal Creek ravine Rise in topography associated with the Somerset neighborhood Dense vegetation at Coal Creek ravine Coal Creek, Sunset Creek Built Environment: Single-story and two-story single-family homes Two- to three-story apartment/condo buildings Religious facilities Middle school, high school Corridor: Two single-circuit 115 kV on H-frame poles (~60 ft in height) SE 30th St: Two single-circuit 115 kV on wood poles; one 12.5 kV on a wood pole (~60–65 ft in height) Factoria Blvd SE/Coal Creek Pkwy: One single-circuit 115 kV on wood poles (~65–75 ft in height) Industrial workers Drivers on I-90 Residents Religious followers Newport High School students and faculty Park and trail users Utility workers Areas with generally high visual quality include the Coal Creek Natural Area where the natural environment is less disturbed by the built environment, and residential areas away from the existing transmission line, which have consistent building height and form. Areas with generally low visual quality are located along Factoria Blvd where the mixture of uses results in a variety of building forms and heights, and I-90. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line and a 12.5 kV distribution line, and configuration has different heights and forms depending on the location along the route. Views of downtown Seattle from certain locations on I-90. Scenic views from Somerset include views of the Olympics, Lake Washington, and the Bellevue and Seattle skylines. There are also scenic views of downtown Seattle and the Olympics from multi-family residential housing off of Factoria Blvd SE.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐12 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option Natural Environment: Topography slopes downhill to the south and the west; There is a southward incline associated with the Coal Creek ravine Rise in topography associated with the Somerset neighborhood Dense vegetation at Coal Creek ravine Coal Creek Sunset Creek Built Environment: Single-story and two-story single-family homes Two- to three-story apartment/condo buildings Religious facilities Middle school High school Corridor: Two single-circuit 115 kV on H-frame poles (~60 ft in height) SE 30th St: Two single-circuit 115 kV on wood poles; one 12.5 kV on a wood pole (~60–65 ft in height) Factoria Blvd SE/Coal Creek Pkwy: One single-circuit 115 kV Drivers on I-90 Residents Religious followers Newport High School students and faculty Park and trail users Tyee Middle School students and faculty Utility workers Areas with generally high visual quality include the Coal Creek Natural Area (where the natural environment is less disturbed by the built environment) and residential areas away from the existing transmission line that have consistent building height and form. Areas with generally low visual quality are located along Factoria Blvd where the mixture of uses results in a variety of building forms and heights, and I-90. Utilities are present, including a double-circuit 230 kV lattice tower, 115 kV transmission line, and a 12.5 kV distribution line. The utility configurations have different heights and forms depending on the location. Views of downtown Seattle from certain locations on I-90. Scenic views from Somerset include views of the Olympics, Lake Washington, and the Bellevue and Seattle skylines. There are also scenic views of downtown Seattle and the Olympics from multi-family residential housing off of Factoria Blvd SE.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐13 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) on wood poles (~65–75 ft in height) SE 38th St/124th Ave SE: SCL double-circuit 230 kV on a lattice tower Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option Natural Environment: Topography generally slopes downhill to the south and the west; the corridor also crosses the Coal Creek ravine, which runs south to north Rise in topography associated with the Somerset neighborhood Dense vegetation at Coal Creek ravine Coal Creek Built Environment: I-90 Single-story and two-story single-family homes A range of commercial building types; see Figure 3.2-2 Middle school Two single-circuit 115 kV on H-frame poles (~60 ft in height) Drivers on I-90 Residents Shoppers Retail workers Students Park and trail users Tyee Middle School students and faculty Utility workers Areas with generally high visual quality include the Coal Creek Natural Area (where the natural environment is less disturbed by the built environment) and residential areas away from the existing transmission line that have consistent building height and form. Areas with generally low visual quality are those located along I-90 and residential areas located adjacent to the transmission line. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line, and the utility configuration has consistent form and height along the option. Views of downtown Seattle from certain locations on I-90. Scenic views from Somerset include views of the Olympics, Lake Washington, and the Bellevue and Seattle skylines.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐14 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option Natural Environment: Topography generally slopes downhill to the south and the west; the corridor also crosses the Coal Creek ravine, which runs south to north Rise in topography associated with the Somerset neighborhood Dense vegetation at Coal Creek ravine Coal Creek Built Environment: Single-story and two-story single-family homes Two- to three-story apartment/condo buildings Middle school High school Preschool Religious facilities Existing Corridor: Two single-circuit 115 kV H-frames (~50 – 60 ft) Newport Way: one double-circuit 12.5 kV wood poles (~40 – 45 ft) Factoria Blvd SE/Coal Creek Pkwy: one single-circuit 115 kV on wood poles (~65 ft in height) Drivers on I-90 Residents Religious followers Newport High School students and faculty Park and trail users Tyee Middle School students and faculty Utility workers Areas with generally high visual quality include the Coal Creek Natural Area where the natural environment is less disturbed by the built environment, and residential areas away from the existing transmission line, which have consistent building height and form. Areas with generally low visual quality are areas abutting the existing transmission corridor. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line and a 12.5 kV distribution line, and the configuration has different heights and forms depending on the location along the route. Views of downtown Seattle from certain locations on I-90. Scenic views from Somerset include views of the Olympics, Lake Washington, and the Bellevue and Seattle skylines.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐15 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Newcastle Segment Natural Environment: Topography slopes to the east. South of SE May Creek Park Drive, there is a steep downhill slope down into the May Creek Valley, which then transitions into a slight uphill slope to the terminus of the segment Interspersed tree buffering along existing transmission corridor Built Environment: Single-story and two-story single-family homes Two- to three-story apartment/condo buildings City Hall Library A range of commercial building types; see Figure 3.2-2 Two single-circuit 115 kV H-frame poles (~55 ft in height) SCL 230 kV line Residents Retail workers Shoppers Municipal workers Library visitors and workers Park and trail users Utility workers Areas with generally high visual quality include residential areas away from transmission lines, which have consistent building height and form, and areas around Lake Boren and the May Creek ravine where the natural environment is less disturbed by the built environment. Areas with generally low visual quality are areas abutting the existing transmission corridors. Utilities are present, including a 115 kV transmission line, but the utility configuration has consistent height and form. Scenic views from Olympus include views of Cougar Mountain, the Cascades, the Olympics, and in some places Mount Rainier.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐16 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Visual Character Affected Population Visual Quality Visual Resources (Scenic Views) Renton Segment Natural Environment: Rolling east/west topography with steeper north/south slopes at the Honey Creek and Cedar River ravines Tall tree stands near Honey Creek and Cedar River ravines Built Environment: Single-story and two-story single-family homes Two- to three-story apartment/condo buildings A range of commercial building types; see Figure 3.2-2 Religious facilities Cemetery Technical college Talbot Hill substation Two single-circuit 115 kV on H-frame poles (~55 ft in height) SCL 230 kV line Residents Retail workers Shoppers Religious followers Renton Technical College students and faculty Park and trail users Industrial workers Utility workers Areas with generally high visual quality include residential areas, which have consistent height and form, Honey Creek and Cedar River ravines, and areas of unincorporated King County adjacent to the existing corridor, where the natural environment is less disturbed by the built environment. Areas of generally low visual quality are present on Monroe Ave where the mixture of uses results in a variety of building forms and heights. The height and form of the 115 kV transmission line is consistent throughout most of the segment, except where it intersects with the Talbot Hill substation, which has lower visual quality. Scenic views along the corridor include views of the Olympics and the Cascades. Scenic views near Talbot Hill include views of Mount Rainier, Lake Washington, and the Cedar River.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐17
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Source: Google, 2016.
Figure 3.2-2. Examples of Commercial Building Types in the Study Area
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐18
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Methods for Identifying
Potential Impacts
Aesthetic Environment: A
geographic information
system (GIS) analysis was
used to determine what
portions of the study area
would potentially have views
of the project, based on the
location of the segment or
option, the proposed height of
the poles, and the surrounding
topography. This analysis was
further refined to exclude
areas where views of the
project would be obstructed
by major visual barriers, such
as dense tree stands or
buildings.
Scenic Views: A GIS analysis
was performed to identify
areas from which the project
would obstruct the view of an
identified visual resource. The
GIS analysis determined
where identified visual
resources can be seen based
on the location and height of
the visual resource and the
topography of the surrounding
area. This area was further
refined by overlaying the study
area to determine where the
project could impact scenic
views of visual resources. This
analysis identified areas where
view impacts were most likely.
Site observation from these
areas verified the general
extent of the areas most
affected.
For more information on the
GIS analysis, see Appendix C.
3.2.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts
Considered
This analysis examines two types of visual impacts: impacts to
the aesthetic environment and impacts to scenic views. It also
addresses viewer sensitivity, which applies to both the aesthetic
environment and scenic views. The analysis also considers
potential mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate project
impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment.
Impacts to Visual Quality of the Aesthetic
Environment
Impacts to the general aesthetic environment are related to the
potential for the project to impact visual quality in the study
area. As described in Section 3.2.2, visual quality of the
aesthetic environment refers to how well the visual character
meets viewer preferences for the natural and built environments.
Changes to visual quality were assessed for each segment and
option based on contrast (the extent to which a viewer can
distinguish between an object and its background) produced by
the project against the existing visual character surrounding the
segment. The degree of contrast was then evaluated to determine
whether or not it would reduce the overall visual quality of the
segment.1 For example, the visual quality of the natural
environment could be negatively impacted if a natural area that
is relatively undisturbed by development is disturbed by the
project. The built environment could be negatively impacted if
the project does not blend with an area that has a consistent
urban form (similar building height and form) or consistent
utility height, configuration, and form. The relationships
between the main factors of the analysis of visual resources are
illustrated in Figure 3.2-3.
To assess changes to the aesthetic environment, 44 viewpoints
were selected at various locations along the existing and new
corridors to show different ways the natural and built
environments could be impacted. Areas identified as sensitive
during public scoping were also considered during the selection
of key viewpoints. Visual simulations of the project were
developed for each of the viewpoints by Power Engineers
(Power Engineers, 2016). Methods for preparing visual
simulations are detailed in Appendix C. For this EIS,
simulations for 18 of the 46 key viewpoints (KVPs) are used to
support impact conclusions (see Section 3.2-5, Long-term
Impacts). They are listed in Table 3.2-2, and their locations shown on Figure 3.2-4. Appendix C
incudes simulations for all 46 KVPs and a map showing their locations.
1 Alternative 1 was compared to existing conditions, including the existing overhead transmission line if present.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐19
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-3. Factors Considered for the Analysis of the Aesthetic Environment and
Scenic Views
Table 3.2-2. Key Viewpoints Selected for the Visual Quality Analysis
KVP Location Segment/
Option
Reason for Selecting Viewpoint
1 Richards
Creek
Substation
All Options Shows the new substation when taking into account
grading and clearing.
2 Redmond Way Redmond Representative of the natural environment along the
segment (topography and vegetation).
Representative of the built environment (shows
project configuration and height for entire segment).
3 13540 NE 54th
Pl
Bellevue
North
Representative of the natural environment along the
segment (topography and vegetation).
Representative of the built environment (single-
family residential development; project configuration
and height for entire segment).
4 13606 Main
Street
Bellevue
Central –
Existing
Corridor
Shows project from rise in topography looking
along the transmission line corridor.
Is identified in the Wilburton Subarea Plan as a key
view.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐20
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
KVP Location Segment/
Option
Reason for Selecting Viewpoint
5 13636 Main
Street
Bellevue
Central –
Existing
Corridor
Shows project from rise in topography from the side
of the transmission line.
Is identified in the Wilburton Subarea Plan as a key
view.
6 12828 Bel-Red
Rd
Bellevue
Central –
Bypass
Options 1 and
2
Shows project surrounded by commercial and
industrial uses.
Shows project from an area slated for increased
density.
7 12239 NE 8th
St
Bellevue
Central –
Bypass 1 and
2 Options
Identified in the Wilburton Subarea Plan as a key
view.
8 Lake Hills
Connector
Bellevue
Central –
Bypass
Options 1 and
2
Identified in the Wilburton Subarea Plan as a key
view.
Shows how project would be viewed by future
users of the Eastside Rail Corridor.
9 1680 Richards
Rd
Bellevue
Central –
Bypass
Option 2
Richards Rd is identified in the Richards Valley
Subarea Plan as an area where the City wants to
preserve the vegetated appearance.
Shows impacts to an area with wetland land cover.
Shows the project from the Woodridge Trail
trailhead.
10 4122 Factoria
Blvd SE
Bellevue
South - Oak 1
Option
Visual connections along Factoria Blvd are
protected in the Factoria Subarea Plan.
11 Factoria
Blvd/Coal
Creek Pkwy
Bellevue
South - Oak 1
Option
Identified via public comment.
Visual connections along Factoria Blvd are
protected in the Factoria Subarea Plan.
12 12513 SE 38th
St
Bellevue
South - Oak 2
Option
Shows construction of poles where they do not
currently exist.
13 4730 134th PL
SE
Bellevue
South - Willow
1 Option
Identified via public comment.
Shows the option with the tallest poles in the
Somerset neighborhood.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐21
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
KVP Location Segment/
Option
Reason for Selecting Viewpoint
14 12892 SE
Newport Way
Bellevue
South - Willow
2 Option
Shows a change in built environment from a 40-foot
12.5 kV line on wooden poles to 75-foot steel
monopoles.
Shows removal of underbuild and reduction in
clutter.
15 12732 SE 80th
Way
Newcastle Representative of the built environment (single-
family residential development; project
configuration and height for entire segment).
Shows the project from the ridge near the corridor.
16 Lake Boren
Park
Newcastle View from recreational use.
Shows the project from a lower elevation looking up
at the project.
17 1026 Monroe
Ave NE
Renton Shows project surrounded by institutional and
single-family residences.
18 318
Glennwood
Court SE
Renton Shows project surrounded by single-family
residential development and placed on a ridge.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐22
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014.
Figure 3.2-4. Locations of Key Viewpoints used in the Aesthetic Environment Analysis
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐23
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Viewer Exposure: Exposure
considers the proximity,
extent, and duration of views.
All viewers within the study
area are considered to be
close to the project. Viewer
extent is specific to each
segment or option, and is
dependent on residential
density along the segment/
option and how many outdoor
recreation areas (parks, trails,
outdoor recreation facilities)
are impacted that are used for
their scenic views or natural
setting. The duration of views
is consistent for all segments
and options, with residential
viewers experiencing the
longest view duration due to
their stationary nature and
fixed views of the
transmission line. Recreational
users have a shorter view
duration that is confined to the
time spent at the recreational
resource, with park users
having longer view duration
and trail users, who are more
mobile, having shorter view
duration.
Viewer Awareness:
Awareness considers viewer
attention and focus, and
whether affected views are
protected by policy,
regulation, or custom. This
analysis is based on policies
and regulations of the areas
each component crosses, and
therefore is specific to each
component. Applicable
polices and regulations are
described in Section 3.2.1.
Obstruction of Scenic Views
Impacts to scenic views include the potential for the project to
obstruct views of the visual resources identified in Section 3.2.2. A
GIS analysis was performed to identify areas from which project-
related view impacts were most likely. Site observation from these
areas verified the general extent of the areas most affected (see
Appendix C).
Viewer Sensitivity
The assessments of impacts to the aesthetic environment and scenic
views both incorporate viewer sensitivity of the affected population.
Viewer sensitivity was determined by examining viewer exposure
and viewer awareness. Awareness considers viewer attention and
focus, and whether affected views are protected by policy,
regulation, or custom (such as local covenants relating to views or
aesthetics). It was assumed that two groups were the most sensitive
to changes in the aesthetic environment and scenic views: residents,
and recreational users in parks and other recreational settings. These
two groups would have the greatest exposure to the project of all of
the viewers because they are often near the project and would
frequently observe the project over longer durations (particularly
residential viewers).
The viewer extent of residential viewers was determined by
assigning areas of high, medium, and low population density by
assessing American Community Survey 2014 Census block data on
a segment-by-segment basis within the study area (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2014). The viewer extent of recreational users was assessed
by identifying those recreation areas (parks, trails, outdoor
recreation facilities) that lie within the study area, and determining
whether or not the view or natural setting of the recreation areas is
identified as a defining feature (based on findings in the Phase 1
Draft EIS, see Table 11-1 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and the
recreation analysis in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, see Section 3.6)2. If a
recreation area that is used for its views or natural setting would be
impacted, the assessment considered how frequently the recreation
area is used.
Drivers on I-90 are considered sensitive viewers because I-90 is
designated as a National Scenic Byway (the Mountains to Sound
Greenway) from Seattle to Thorp, Washington. The designation was
assigned because of the presence of pastoral valleys, forests, and the
mountain landscape (FHWA, 2016). However, the portion of the
scenic byway where the project would cross (at the intersection with
Richards Road or approximately 137th Avenue SE) is highly urbanized (see Figure 3.2-5).
2 Please note: the study area for the scenic views and aesthetic environment assessment is larger than the study area
used for the recreation analysis.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐24
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Source: Google, 2016.
Figure 3.2-5. Existing Views for I-90 Crossing Locations
In addition, the crossings are located within 1 mile of the I-405/ I-90 interchange, reducing viewer
focus on the visual setting as many drivers are exiting I-90. Drivers on I-90 would also have the
shortest view duration in the study area due to the speed at which they travel (approximately 40–65
mph depending on traffic conditions). There are views of downtown Seattle from certain locations on
I-90. However, scenic views from I-90 are not expected to be impacted because the transmission line
would be located high enough to be above the drivers’ line of sight to these views.
Viewer sensitivity was assigned a value of low, medium, or high depending on the following (Table
3.2-3):
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐25
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Table 3.2-3. Assigning a Degree of Viewer Sensitivity
Viewer
Sensitivity Viewer Exposure Viewer Awareness
High Residential density along the segment/
option is high and outdoor recreation
areas (parks, trails, outdoor recreation
facilities) used for their scenic views or
natural setting would be impacted.
Areas with scenic views or aesthetics
that are protected by policy, regulation,
or custom are impacted, and viewers
have access to and regularly enjoy these
views for extended periods.
Moderate Residential density along the segment/
option is high, or outdoor recreation
areas (parks, trails, outdoor recreation
facilities) used for their scenic views or
natural setting would be impacted.
Areas with scenic views or aesthetics
that are protected by policy, regulation,
or custom, but where viewer focus and
attention are limited, for reasons such as
travel speed, duration of visit, or
topography that limits available views.
Low Residential density along the segment/
option is not high and no outdoor
recreation areas (parks, trails, outdoor
recreation facilities) used for their scenic
views or natural setting would be
impacted.
Areas with scenic views or aesthetics
that are not protected by policy,
regulation, or custom, or where viewers
are not likely to focus on a view that may
be protected.
Magnitude of Impact
Because the value of scenic views and the aesthetic environment is subjective, it is difficult to
quantify or estimate impacts. There is no widely accepted definition of significant visual effects
because the significance of an activity varies with the setting and viewer preferences. Extensive
research for significance criteria for transmission line projects was conducted by the EIS Consultant
Team and did not identify any applicable criteria. For this project, significance was determined based
on criteria similar to those described in The State Clean Energy Program Guide: A Visual Impact
Assessment Process for Wind Energy Projects (Vissering et al., 2011). These criteria, while not used
for transmission lines, were used for wind turbines, which can be similar in height and scale to utility
poles and are widely studied for visual impacts. This guide suggests the following criteria for
determining if a project would result in “undue or unreasonable visual impacts:” violation of
aesthetic standards, dominance of the project in views from highly sensitive viewing areas, and
failure to take reasonable mitigation measures (Vissering et al., 2011).
A review of policies and regulations applicable to the study area revealed that the existing regulatory
framework was insufficient for determining significance because no clear written standards are
included for aesthetic impacts in any of the Partner Cities. To develop a threshold for significance
that reflects the policies of the Partner Cities, the EIS Consultant Team held a workshop in August
2016 with staff from the Partner Cities. The purpose of the workshop was to collaboratively define
significance thresholds based on policies, past precedent, and practice within the Partner City
jurisdictions. Information on the workshop process and how significance was identified is detailed in
Appendix C.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐26
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
For this analysis, the potential magnitude of project-related impacts is classified as being significant
or less-than-significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant:
Aesthetic environment - The degree of contrast between the project and the existing
aesthetic environment would be minimal, or viewer sensitivity is low.
Scenic views - The area with impacted scenic views would not include a substantial
number of sensitive viewers, defined as residential viewers, viewers from parks and
trails, or viewers from outdoor recreation facilities; or the degree of additional
obstruction of views compared to existing conditions would be minimal.
Significant:
Aesthetic environment - The degree of contrast between the project and the existing
aesthetic environment would be substantial and viewer sensitivity is high.
Scenic views - The area with scenic views impacted includes a substantial number of
sensitive viewers, defined as residential viewers, viewers from parks and trails, or
viewers from outdoor recreation facilities; and the degree of additional obstruction of
views compared to existing conditions would be substantial.
3.2.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no substantial new infrastructure would be introduced into the
aesthetic environment, and no substantial changes to the visual character or visual quality of the
study area would occur. No impacts to scenic views are anticipated.
3.2.5 Long-term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and
230 kV Transmission Lines)
Impacts Common to all Project Components
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment
Impacts to visual quality of the aesthetic environment were assessed for each segment and option
based on the contrast (with either the natural environment or the built environment) that the project
would produce, as described below (and illustrated in Figure 3.2-6).
Contrast with the Natural Environment: Contrast with the natural environment results from
inconsistency with natural setting (vegetation, topography, etc.). This includes the removal of
vegetation, changes to topography (grading), or introduction of new infrastructure whose height and
form do not blend with the height and form of the surrounding natural environment.
Vegetation Removal. Periodic trimming and tree removal would occur within the Managed
Right-of-Way in accordance with PSE’s vegetation management criteria (see Section 3.4).
The width of the Managed Right-of-Way would depend on the pole configuration (see
Appendix E). However, in general it would extend 16 feet from the outside transmission
wires and 6 feet from wire-free side of poles. PSE would trim or remove trees that mature to
a height of 15 feet or greater in the Managed Right-of-Way for a 230 kV transmission
corridor, and trees that mature to a height of 25 feet or greater in the Managed Right-of-Way
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐27
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
for a 115 kV transmission corridor. A more detailed discussion of vegetation removal and
PSE’s Vegetation Management Program is provided in Section 3.4, Plants and Animals. Tree
removal within an existing utility corridor that is already subject to PSE’s vegetation
management criteria would generally produce less contrast with the natural environment than
areas where a new corridor is created.
Changes to Topography. Grading can cause substantial contrast with the natural environment
if it is inconsistent with the underlying topography of the area. Grading is proposed for the
Richards Creek substation. Minimal grading is expected for the transmission line.
Blending with Natural Setting. The project would place poles in some areas with high
density of tree stands, and some with low density of tree stands surrounding the existing or
new corridor. In general, poles placed in areas with no trees would result in greater contrast
because it would introduce a new type of geometry in an area where that geometry does not
currently exist. Contrast can also occur if the poles are taller than the existing tree stands.
Contrast with the natural environment would be low in areas where the poles would be
surrounded by vegetation and would not protrude above the tree line. The project would be
constructed in areas with varying topography. Areas where the poles would be placed on
ridges are more likely to contrast with the natural environment because they would become a
prominent feature on the landscape (being taller than all of the surrounding landforms).
Conversely, poles that are located next to rises in topography would be more likely to blend
with the surrounding landscape because they would not extend into the skyline, and would be
less visible from areas located at higher elevations.
Contrast with the Built Environment: Contrast with the built environment results from
inconsistency with the built setting (buildings, utility infrastructure, etc.). This includes
introducing infrastructure that has a height and/or form that is incompatible with the
surrounding built environment, introducing infrastructure that is inconsistent in height and
form itself, or creating more visual clutter.
Incompatible Height and Form with Surrounding Built Environment. All segments and
options would result in new or additional utility infrastructure being introduced into the built
environment. Contrast with the built environment would be most substantial where new
infrastructure is introduced (e.g., a new transmission line is placed in an area where there
currently is no transmission infrastructure). Contrast could also occur where the height and
form of the new infrastructure are inconsistent with the surrounding structures (buildings and
other utility infrastructure). For this analysis, typical pole heights (65 – 95 ft) were used when
describing the change in height from existing to proposed. It is possible that some pole
heights may reach the maximum pole heights listed in Chapter 2. However, having one or a
few taller poles alone would not result in a significant impact because of the limited extent of
the impact.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐28
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Source: Google, 2016.
Figure 3.2-6. Examples of Contrast
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐29
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Inconsistent Project Height and Form. Depending on the segment and option, the height and
form of the transmission infrastructure varies in consistency. More contrast would occur in
areas where the pole configuration and/or height would change. Almost all of the pole
configurations would be made of steel with patina applied to provide a rust-colored look.
Some variability in pole height is possible within areas identified as having a consistent pole
height and form, depending on whether or not the typical or maximum pole height is used
(usually based on topographic or other constraints). Having one or a few taller poles would
not be considered a significant impact because of the limited extent of the impact.
Visual Clutter. Visual clutter occurs where there is a dense presence of poles, wires, and
other utility infrastructure. Higher contrast would occur in areas where more poles would be
required than under existing conditions, and there would be more wires. There is the potential
for a reduction in contrast in areas where the number of poles and wires would be reduced
(i.e., removal of underbuild).
Obstruction of Scenic Views
Scenic views would not be impacted to the same degree under all of the segments or options. Where
scenic views would be obstructed, the obstruction could be caused by the placement of a pole in a
new location; increased diameter of the pole, blocking more of a scenic view than under existing
conditions; increased pole height resulting in poles protruding into scenic views; or lines being raised
into a spot on the horizon where they would impact previously unobstructed scenic views.
Viewer Sensitivity
As described in Section 3.2.3.1, viewer sensitivity applies to both the aesthetic environment and
scenic views, and was determined by examining viewer exposure and viewer awareness. Relevant
plans, policies, and regulations were also reviewed to identify potential impacts that would affect
more sensitive viewers (Table 3.2-4). Some jurisdictions have policies that apply to the project and
address potential impacts to scenic views, the aesthetic environment, or both. Only those jurisdictions
with applicable policies relating to the project and scenic views or the aesthetic environment were
included. Table 3.2-4 provides an overview of applicable policies that describe what scenic views
and elements of the aesthetic environment should be protected, and identifies the project’s potential
inconsistencies with these policies. Policies suggesting measures for reducing scenic view and
aesthetic impacts are summarized as potential mitigation measures in Section 3.2.6.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐30 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Table 3.2-4. Consistency with Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations Planning Document Applicable Planning Statement, Policy, or Regulation* Potential Inconsistencies with Policies Segment/OptionKing County Eastside Rail Corridor Master Plan 2016 Scenic: In some cases, bridges may also be locations for viewpoints. Aesthetic: Existing landscape that does not need to be removed for trail construction will be evaluated to determine if it is consistent with public use, including aesthetics and overall trail design. Scenic: The project could be adjacent to a bridge where the trail would cross the Lake Hills Connector. However, it is not likely that it would impact scenic views because the 230 kV line would be to the east of the bridge, and scenic views from that bridge would likely be to the west (e.g., the Bellevue skyline). Aesthetic: Project could impact the aesthetics of the trail setting on SE 1st St through presence of 230 kV poles and vegetation clearing. Bellevue Central
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐31 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Planning Document Applicable Planning Statement, Policy, or Regulation* Potential Inconsistencies with Policies Segment/OptionRedmond City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan Scenic: Public view corridors of Mount Rainier, the Cascade Mountains, and Lake Sammamish should be protected (Plan Policy CC-14). Unique public views that provide a sense of place should be protected. Aesthetics: Views of surrounding hillsides, mountains, and tree line should be protected. Tree stands and views from the valley should be protected (Plan Policy N-SV-4). Woodland views from neighborhood residences should be protected. Scenic: Project could obscure public scenic views. Aesthetics: Project could change the visual quality of the natural environment through clearing or grading. Redmond Redmond Zoning Code (RZC) Scenic: Public view corridors and gateways should be protected (RZC 21.42). Scenic: Project could be inconsistent with public view corridor and gateway design standards. Aesthetics: Appearance of public ways should be protected. Aesthetics: Project could be inconsistent with public way design standards (RZC 21.17.020).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐32 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Planning Document Applicable Planning Statement, Policy, or Regulation* Potential Inconsistencies with Policies Segment/OptionCity of Bellevue Bellevue Comprehensive Plan 2015 Scenic: Views of water, mountains, and skylines from public places should be protected (Plan Policy UD-23). Aesthetics: Overhead lines should not be located in green belts and open spaces identified in the Parks and Open Space System Plan (Plan Policy UT-45). Distinctive neighborhood character within Bellevue’s diverse neighborhoods should be protected (Plan Policy N-9). The following boulevards should be designed to reflect scenic elements of the surrounding areas and neighborhoods. Streetscape design should promote a comfortable park-like experience for all users (Plan Policy UD-70): Bel-Red Road Lake Hills Connector Richards Road Factoria Blvd SE Coal Creek Parkway SE Newport Way Scenic: Project could obstruct scenic views from parks, trails, and other public spaces (Plan Policies UD-23 and UT-45). Aesthetics: Project could locate overhead lines in greenbelts and open spaces (Plan Policy UT-45). Project could, through introduction of a new transmission line, or substantial changes in transmission pole type, height, or form could create contrast with existing, distinctive neighborhood character (Plan Policy N-9). Construction of transmission line along boulevards could be inconsistent with policy UD-70 if the degree of contrast is substantial or design requirements specific to these boulevards are not met. Bellevue North, Bellevue Central, Bellevue South
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐33 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Planning Document Applicable Planning Statement, Policy, or Regulation* Potential Inconsistencies with Policies Segment/OptionBridle Trails Subarea Plan 2015 Aesthetics: Wooded, natural, rural, and equestrian character of the subarea should be protected (Plan Policy S-BT-3). Vegetation on the lower slopes of the bluff adjacent to SR 520 at approximately 136th Ave NE should be retained to provide a visual separator between residential areas and the freeway (Plan Policy S-BT-42). Roadsides in Bridle Trails Subarea should be protected (Plan Policy S-BT-43). Aesthetics: Project could remove vegetation and change the wooded, natural, rural, and equestrian character of the subarea (Plan Policy S-BT-3). Project could remove vegetation on the lower slopes of the bluff adjacent to SR 520 at approximately 136th Ave NE to the point that it no longer provides a visual separator between residential areas and the freeway (Plan Policy S-BT-42). Project could reduce the unified visual appearance of roadways (Plan Policy S-BT-43). Bellevue North Bel-Red Subarea Plan 2015 Aesthetics: Bel-Red Subarea street environment should be protected (Plan Policy S-BR-25; S-BR-39; S-BR-59). Bel-Red Subarea parks and open space system should be protected (Plan Policy S-BR-35). Aesthetics: Project could remove street trees and/or reduce the aesthetic beauty of subarea parks or open spaces. Bellevue Central Wilburton/NE 8th St Subarea Plan 2015 Scenic: Significant views from park lands should be protected (Plan Policy S-WI-11). Aesthetics: Views of prominent landforms, vegetation, watersheds, drainage ways, downtown, and significant panoramas in the subarea should be protected (Plan Scenic: Project could obstruct scenic views from park lands. Aesthetics: There would be noticeable changes to the key views through new contrast. Bellevue Central
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐34 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Planning Document Applicable Planning Statement, Policy, or Regulation* Potential Inconsistencies with Policies Segment/OptionPolicy S-WI-40).Key views include: West from NE 8th St and NE 5th St on the ridge between 122nd Ave NE and 123rd Pl NE. South from the Lake Hills Connector north of SE 8th St. From SE 1st St and Main Street at the power line right-of-way at 136th Ave. Southeast Bellevue Subarea Plan 2015 Aesthetics: Existing residential character should be protected (Plan Policy S-SE-2). Aesthetics: Project could introduce new infrastructure into the built environment that is not consistent with the existing height and form of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Bellevue Central Richards Valley Subarea Plan 2015 Scenic: Views from Woodridge Hill should be protected. Aesthetics: Views of the wooded areas and wetlands in the valley (associated with Richards Creek and Kelsey Creek) should be protected. Eastgate I-90 corridor should be protected. Natural character surrounding streets and arterials should be protected. Green and wooded character of the Scenic: Project could obstruct views from Woodridge Hill. Aesthetics: Project could remove trees or wetlands, particularly within the valley or along Richards Rd. Project could change the visual quality of the Eastgate I-90 corridor or other streets and arterials. Bellevue Central, Bellevue South
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐35 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Planning Document Applicable Planning Statement, Policy, or Regulation* Potential Inconsistencies with Policies Segment/OptionRichards Rd corridor should be protected (Plan Policy S-RV-30). Eastgate Subarea Plan 2015 Scenic: Existing views from public spaces should be protected (Plan Policy S-EG-23). View amenities of adjacent single-family neighborhoods should be protected (Plan Policy S-EG-22). Scenic: Project could obstruct views from public spaces or single-family residents adjacent to the project. Bellevue Central, Bellevue South Factoria Subarea Plan 2015 Aesthetics: Pathways and access points with views of Sunset Creek, Richards Creek, and Coal Creek should be protected (Plan Policy S-FA-18). Visual connections along Factoria Blvd should be protected (Plan Policy S-FA-32).Aesthetic: Project could obstruct views of Sunset Creek, Richards Creek, Coal Creek, or view connections along Factoria Blvd. Bellevue South Newport Hills Subarea Plan 2015 Aesthetics: Emphasize as a distinct visual element the preservation of existing trees on protected slopes and hilltops (Plan Policy S-NH-44). Existing visual features such as trees and hilltops, views of water, and passive open space should be protected (Plan Policy S-NH-54). Aesthetics: Project could remove trees on protected slopes and hilltops or change the overall visual quality of the natural environment. Bellevue South
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐36 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Planning Document Applicable Planning Statement, Policy, or Regulation* Potential Inconsistencies with Policies Segment/OptionNewcastle City of Newcastle 2035 Comprehensive Plan Aesthetics: Existing character, scale, and neighborhood quality should be protected (Plan Policy LU-G3). Open space, wildlife habitats, recreational areas, trails, connection of critical areas, natural and scenic resources, as well as shoreline areas should be identified and preserved (Plan Policy LU-G6). Natural features that contribute to the city’s scenic beauty should be protected (Plan Policy LU-G8). Aesthetics: Project could reduce the visual quality of the natural or built environment. The project could affect the visual character of trails within the existing transmission line corridor. Newcastle Community Business Center/ Lake Boren Corridor Master Plan 2000 Aesthetics: Developments will also take advantage of the area's viewsheds, whether down a street corridor, view of Lake Boren, or views from or to surrounding hillsides. Aesthetics: Project could change views of the western hillside (where it would be located). Although the project would be placed within the existing transmission corridor, the increased pole height could make it more visible than under existing conditions. However, the presence of dense, tall tree stands would continue to reduce the contrast the line would have with the surrounding aesthetic environment. The transmission line would be located to the west of Master Plan development, and would not hinder views from the Master Plan area of Lake Boren or of the hillsides to the east. Newcastle
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐37 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Planning Document Applicable Planning Statement, Policy, or Regulation* Potential Inconsistencies with Policies Segment/OptionRenton City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 2015 Scenic: Public scenic views and public view corridors, such as “physical, visual, and perceptual linkages to Lake Washington and Cedar River” should be protected (Plan Policy L-55). Views of the water from public property or views enjoyed by a substantial number of residences should be protected. Aesthetics: Natural forms, vegetation, distinctive stands of trees, natural slopes, and scenic areas that “contribute to the City’s identity, preserve property values, and visually define the community neighborhoods” should be protected (Plan Policy L-56). Scenic: Project could obscure public scenic views, views of the water from public property, or views enjoyed by a substantial number of residences. Aesthetics: Project could create a large degree of contrast. Renton Source: City of Bellevue, 2011, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2015f, 2015g, 2015h, 2015i, 2015j; City of Newcastle, 2000, 2016; City of Redmond, 2015a; City of Renton, 2011, 2015a; and King County, 2016. *Statements that are not identified in this table as being related to specific policy or regulation are general planning statements from adopted plans.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐38
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
New Richards Creek Substation
Impacts to the aesthetic environment for the Richards Creek substation would be less-than-significant
because the site is within PSE’s existing corridor, and the degree of contrast with the existing
environment would be minimal. Viewer sensitivity is low because there would be few sensitive
viewers, and the utility infrastructure is consistent with existing plans and policies.
There would be no impacts to scenic views because no scenic views were identified at the site.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic
Environment: A new substation would be
introduced into the visual environment in an
area that has cleared open space and wooded
hillside. Clearing and grading associated with
site development would result in new contrast
in the aesthetic environment (see Figure 3.2-
7). Visual quality of the natural environment
would change as parts of the undeveloped
wooded area to the east would be cleared and
developed into a substation, and cutting into
the hillside and redistribution of fill material
would result in a long-term change to the
topography of the site. Visual quality of the
built environment would not be adversely
impacted because the new substation would
not contrast with the surrounding built
environment. The substation would be constructed immediately to the south of the existing
Lakeside substation, and a 115 kV transmission corridor currently crosses the site heading north
and south. Because the project would be built adjacent to similar development, it would add to
the existing visual clutter. However, this would not result in significant impacts to the aesthetic
environment, largely because the site would remain screened by vegetation from areas with
differing visual character. Therefore, impacts to the visual quality of the aesthetic environment
would be less-than-significant.
Scenic Views: There are no scenic views in the vicinity of the proposed substation; impacts to
scenic views would be less-than-significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: There are few sensitive viewers in the vicinity of the substation site. The
closest residential use is multi-family housing located approximately 700 feet to the northeast of
the substation site, but they would not be able to see the new substation. The proposed substation
would not be inconsistent with any study area plans or policies (see Appendix C). Therefore,
viewer sensitivity would be low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐39
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-7. KVP 1, Existing and Proposed Conditions of Richards Creek Substation
from SE 30th Street Looking East
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐40
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Redmond Segment
Impacts to the aesthetic environment for the Redmond Segment would be less-than-significant. The
segment is located within PSE’s existing corridor, and the degree of contrast with the existing
environment would be minimal. Impacts to scenic views are unlikely due to the presence of dense
vegetation and tall tree stands. The project would be consistent with existing plans and policies.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would
increase because the poles would be approximately 35 feet taller than the existing poles. With a
typical pole height of 95 feet, the new poles would be taller than much of the surrounding
vegetation, and additional clearing would be required, particularly in areas where a large number
of trees are within the transmission line corridor, such as the northern portion of the segment. The
pole height and configuration would increase the contrast with surrounding residential
development. Despite the height increase and additional clearing, the built environment would be
unchanged because transmission lines already exist in the corridor. The new transmission line
would have consistent height and form throughout the segment. The project would reduce visual
clutter in the corridor by reducing the number of poles from existing conditions (see Figure 3.2-
8). Impacts to the visual quality of the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐41
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Scenic Views: The City of Redmond has policies to protect scenic views from public places.
Specific public view corridors are codified in RZC 21.42.060. The project would not impact any
scenic views from parks, trails, or outdoor recreation facilities. None of the public view corridors
identified in RZC 21.42.060 are within the study area. There is the potential for some residential
view impacts, but such impacts are expected to be minor due to the presence of dense vegetation
and tall tree stands. Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Primary viewers are residential viewers, who would be sensitive to changes
to woodland views. Other sensitive viewers include users of the Bridle Crest Trail. The City of
Redmond Comprehensive Plan policies call for protecting woodland views in residential
neighborhoods. Trees would need to be removed, which could potentially change the wooded
character of the area. However, tree removal would occur within an existing transmission
corridor. Tree removal would be most noticeable to residents adjacent to the corridor, but the
overall appearance of tree stands and woodland views is not expected to be adversely impacted
because the area where additional clearing would occur is already mostly cleared. Some
residential viewers may view the increased height of the poles positively because the lines would
be higher than at present and therefore out of their line of sight, while others would not view the
change as beneficial because the lines would be more visible than under existing conditions.
Although the project would directly cross the Bridle Crest Trail, it would occur at a location
where the existing 115 kV line traverses the trail. The Redmond Zoning Code protects the
appearance of public ways. The project would not impact the appearance of public ways because
it would be replacing one transmission line infrastructure with another in an existing utility
corridor. Viewer sensitivity would be moderate.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐42
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-8. KVP 2, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Redmond Way Looking
North
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐43
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bellevue North Segment
Impacts to the aesthetic environment on the Bellevue North Segment would be less-than-significant. The
transmission line would be in the existing corridor, and there would be minimal contrast with existing
conditions. Viewer sensitivity is low because there are few sensitive viewers. The project would be
consistent with existing plans and policies because the tree removal (0.5 percent of trees within the Bridle
Trails Subarea) is not expected to substantially change the existing wooded, natural, rural, and equestrian
character of the Bridle Trails Subarea (see Appendix C). In addition, no trees would be removed from the
lower slopes of the bluff adjacent to SR 520 at approximately 136th Avenue NE, so the visual separator
between residential areas and the freeway would not be removed (see Appendix C).
There would be no impacts to scenic views because the degree of additional obstruction of views from the
transmission line would be minimal.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would be
minimal because the 95-foot poles would in most cases be shorter than the surrounding vegetation or
would appear shorter than surrounding vegetation due to vegetation density (see Figure 3.2-9). In
general, the topography does not affect the visibility of the transmission line along this segment
because dense, tall vegetation obscures the view of the transmission line. Within the built
environment the poles would be approximately 35 feet taller than existing conditions, and the pole
diameter would be wider than existing conditions, contrasting more with the surrounding houses and
existing utility infrastructure. The new transmission line would have consistent form and height
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐44
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
throughout the segment, and would reduce visual clutter by reducing the number of poles. Impacts
would be less-than-significant.
Scenic Views: No scenic views from parks, trails, or outdoor recreation facilities would be
significantly impacted. There are occasional views of the Cascades along the transmission corridor,
views of the Olympics from Northup Way, and views of Mount Rainier along SR 520. Changes in the
transmission infrastructure from 115 kV transmission lines to 230 kV transmission lines are not
expected to negatively impact views from those locations because the change would occur within an
existing transmission corridor, and the increase in height would move the wires farther above drivers’
line of sight of visual resources. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along the Bellevue North Segment are primarily residential
viewers and users of the two unnamed trails and Viewpoint Park. In general, because of the high
density of tall vegetation, only residential viewers close to the transmission line would be able to view
it. The closer viewers are to the transmission line, the less likely they are to view the lines because
increasing the existing pole height by 35 feet would raise the lines out of their line of sight. The
presence of dense vegetation also reduces the likelihood that the transmission line would be visible
from any of the recreational resources, except where it directly crosses them. In addition, none of
these resources are identified as having scenic qualities, and a transmission line already crosses these
resources. The Bridle Trails Subarea Plan protects the wooded, natural, rural, and equestrian character
of the subarea, and it encourages retention of vegetation on the lower slopes of the bluff adjacent to
SR 520 at approximately 136th Avenue NE to provide a visual separator between residential areas and
the freeway (City of Bellevue, 2015d). It is estimated that approximately 0.5 percent of trees in the
Bridle Trails Subarea as a whole would be removed for the project. No trees would need to be
removed directly north of SR 520. Overall, viewer sensitivity is considered low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐45
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-9. KVP 3, Existing and Proposed Conditions from NE 54th Place Looking North
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐46
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Impacts to the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant because the transmission line
would be within the existing corridor, and contrast with the existing environment would be minimal.
Viewer sensitivity would be low because the project would not be inconsistent with study area plans
or policies.
Scenic view impacts along this option would be less-than-significant.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would be
greater where tall vegetation is not present or is limited (e.g., at the Glendale Country Club).
Most of the vegetation removal would occur south of the Lake Hills Connector. In general, the
topography reduces the visibility of the line to the west because the decline in elevation is steep
enough that views of the transmission line from the west are blocked by vegetation and housing
in the foreground. Contrast with the built environment would be slightly greater than existing
conditions because the poles would be approximately 40 feet taller and the pole diameter would
be wider than the existing poles. However, a transmission line already exists in the corridor, and
the new transmission line would have consistent form and height throughout the option route,
and would reduce visual clutter by reducing the number of poles. Impacts would be less-than-
significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐47
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Scenic Views: Scenic view impacts along this option would be minimal because topography and
vegetation obscure scenic views from most of the study area.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along the option route are residential viewers and
recreational users. Kelsey Creek Park is the only recreational resource identified by the City as
being used for its natural setting. The presence of dense vegetation reduces the likelihood that the
transmission line would be visible from Kelsey Creek Park. The project would directly cross and/
or follow the SE 3rd Trail, the SE 10th Trail, three unnamed trails, the Highland–Glendale
Property, and Skyridge Park. However, because none of these resources are identified by the City
as being used for their views or natural setting, and a transmission line already crosses these
resources, viewer sensitivity to the change is expected to be low. The project would not be
inconsistent with the Wilburton/NE 8th Street Subarea Plan because it would not substantially
change the following key views: From SE 1st Street and Main Street at the transmission line
right-of-way at 136th Avenue (see Figure 3.2-10). A transmission line already exists, and the
project would only change the height and form of the line.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐48
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-10. KVP 4, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Main Street Looking North
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐49
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-11. KVP 5, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Main Street Looking West
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐50
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Bypass Option 1 would be located in a new corridor and would have a high degree of contrast with
the existing aesthetic environment due to the introduction of new electrical infrastructure in the built
environment and the amount of clearing that would be required. Viewer sensitivity would also be
high because the new corridor would require the removal of, and prevent future planting of, street
trees over 15 feet in height along streets in the Bel-Red Subarea. This would be inconsistent with the
Bel-Red Subarea Plan in areas that are expected to have a high future population density (e.g., the
Bel-Red Corridor). In addition, the view corridors of Lake Hills Connector, NE 5th Street, and NE 8th
Street would be impacted. Impacts to the aesthetic environment would be significant.
Bypass Option 1 would impact scenic views, but the degree of obstruction of views would be
minimal. Although there would be a moderate potential for scenic view impacts, the degree of view
obstruction would be minimal due to the spacing of poles, width of the poles, and width of the wires.
Therefore, impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐51
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would be
greatest where vegetation is present because clearing within the new 30- to 55-foot wide
easement would be required for the option. This clearing along the Lake Hills Connector, along
with the contrast introduced by poles where there are currently no poles, would significantly
impact the quality of the aesthetic environment. In general, the topography would reduce the
visibility of the line uphill of the bypass route, but would not hide it completely from view.
Contrast with the built environment would be higher than existing conditions because new poles
would be introduced into the built environment that are taller than the surrounding low-rise
buildings. The project would provide consistent form in that the same pole height and
configuration would be used throughout the new corridor except where it rejoins with the
existing corridor at the south end of the route, at the intersection of NE 20th Street and Northup
Way, and where it goes under the existing SCL transmission lines (near the intersection of 124th
Avenue NE and Bel-Red Road and southeast of the intersection of SE 8th Street and the Lake
Hills Connector). These four areas would present a contrast to the built environment. However,
the current SCL transmission line contrasts strongly with the surrounding built environment at
124th Avenue NE and Bel-Red Road (see Figure 3.2-6) and the natural environment surrounding
the Lake Hills Connector. Therefore, even though the lattice towers adjacent to the PSE
transmission line crossing would be raised by approximately 12 feet, it is unlikely that the change
from existing conditions would be highly perceptible, except that the SCL pole type would be
changed from a lattice tower to a monopole. Overall, impacts to the visual quality of the aesthetic
environment surrounding Bypass Option 1 would be significant due to the high degree of
contrast.
Scenic Views: Bypass Option 1 has the potential to impact scenic views of downtown Bellevue
from east of 120th Avenue NE and from the area bounded by Northup Way to the north, Bel-Red
Road to the south, 132nd Avenue NE to the west, and approximately 136th Place NE to the east.
However, the degree of scenic view obstruction is expected to be limited because of the presence
of other obstructions (trees, buildings, etc.). Raising the SCL line where the project would cross
it would require that the SCL poles on either side of the crossings be converted from the existing
130- to 145-foot lattice steel towers to 142- to 157-foot monopoles. This would occur
immediately to the north and south of the Bel-Red crossing and the Lake Hills Connector
crossing. The north crossing of the SCL line (near the intersection of 124th Avenue and Bel-Red
Road) has a high likelihood of impacting scenic views because one of the neighboring parcels,
the Spring District development, is zoned with a maximum building height of 150 feet. It is
possible that views of the Cascades from two proposed Spring District office buildings (Block 16
and Block 24) would be impacted. Views from Block 24 would likely be obstructed by wires;
however, views from Block 16 would also have the monopole in front of the north portion of the
building. The remaining neighboring parcels surrounding the north crossing are zoned with
maximum building heights of 45 feet or 70 feet, lower than the existing and proposed towers, so
impacts are not expected. It is unlikely that scenic view impacts would occur at the south
crossing of the SCL line (just south of the Lake Hills Connector) because the primary viewers
would be drivers on the Lake Hills Connector and users of trails within the Woodridge Open
Space, both of which are already beneath the lines and would remain so under the proposed
change. Therefore, there would be no new scenic view obstruction. Overall, because of the
limited extent of these impacts, the impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐52
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along Bypass Option 1 are residential viewers and
recreational users. Kelsey Creek Park is the only recreational resource identified by the City as
being used for its natural setting. The presence of dense vegetation reduces the likelihood that the
transmission line would be visible by users of Kelsey Creek Park. The new corridor would not
directly cross any other recreational resources, except for the future Eastside Rail Corridor.
According to the Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail Final Master Plan (King County, 2016),
the Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) will likely be the most heavily used trail corridor on the
Eastside. Connecting the Eastside’s largest communities and employment centers, it is expected
that “the trail would become part of the everyday experience for thousands of King County
residents for commute trips, trips from home to school, and recreation” (King County, 2016). A
high number of viewers could be impacted by the project in the future. The project would be
inconsistent with the Bel-Red Subarea Plan because it would require the removal of vegetation
along approximately 0.8 mile of Bel-Red Road, 0.4 mile along 132nd Avenue NE, and 0.2 mile
along NE 20th Street and would preclude the placement of street trees over 15 feet in height (see
Figure 3.2-12). Plans for the Bel-Red Corridor involve redevelopment along the road and future
Link Light Rail stations (such as the Spring District) for high-density employment and residential
centers. As a result, the population density in that area would likely be classified as high in the
future and a large number of residential viewers could be affected (City of Bellevue, 2011). The
project would also be inconsistent with the Wilburton/NE 8th Street Subarea Plan because it
would impact the following key views: (1) south from the Lake Hills Connector north of SE 8th
Street, and (2) west from NE 5th Street and NE 8th Street on the ridge between 122nd Avenue NE
and 123rd Place NE (see Figures 3.2-13 and 3.2-14). Viewer sensitivity along much of the option
is high.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐53
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-12. KVP 6, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Bel-Red Road Looking
Southwest
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐54
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-13. KVP 7, Existing and Proposed Conditions from NE 8th Street Looking
West
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐55
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-14. KVP 8, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Lake Hills Connector
Looking East.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐56
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Similar to Bypass Option 1, Bypass Option 2 would be built in a new corridor and would have
significant impacts to the aesthetic environment because of the high degree of contrast created by the
addition of a new transmission line corridor and high viewer sensitivity.
Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant because although there would be a moderate
potential for scenic view impacts, the degree of view obstruction would be minimal due to the
spacing of poles, width of the poles, and width of the wires.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would be
greatest where vegetation is cleared. Similar to Bypass Option 1, a new 20- to 30-foot wide
easement would be required for the option, except for along SE 26th Street where a 30- to 55-foot
easement would be required. Overall, impacts associated with Bypass Option 2 would be similar
to those associated with Bypass Option 1. In addition to inconsistent height and form at the
intersection of NE 20th Street and Northup Way and where both options would go under the
existing SCL transmission lines, Bypass Option 2 would not provide consistent height and form at
the intersections of Richards Road and SE 26th Street, and SE 26th Street and the existing corridor.
Unlike Bypass Option 1, underbuild on SE 26th Street would be removed, which would decrease
the clutter and potentially improve the visual quality along that portion of the option. Overall,
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐57
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
impacts to the visual quality of the aesthetic environment surrounding Bypass Option 2 would be
significant due to the high degree of contrast that the project would introduce.
Scenic Views: Bypass Option 2 has the potential to impact scenic views of downtown Bellevue
from east of 120th Avenue NE. However, the degree of scenic view obstruction is expected to be
minor because of the presence of other obstructions (trees, buildings, etc.). Impacts from raising
the SCL line would be similar to those described for Bypass Option 1. Impacts to scenic views
would be less-than-significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along Bypass Option 2 are residential viewers and users of
Kelsey Creek Park. The presence of dense vegetation reduces the likelihood that the transmission
line would be visible from Kelsey Creek Park. A new pole would be placed near the Woodridge
Trail trailhead, but it is not expected to negatively impact the natural setting for trail users because
it would not be visible once trail users walk uphill into the Woodridge Open Space and are
surrounded by dense vegetation (see Figure 3.2-15). The project would be inconsistent with the
Bel-Red Subarea Plan because it would require the removal of vegetation along approximately 0.8
mile of Bel-Red Road and 0.2 mile along NE 20th Street, and would preclude the placement of
street trees over 15 feet in height. Similar to Bypass Option 1, the population density along the
Bel-Red Corridor would likely be classified as high in the future (City of Bellevue, 2011). The
project would be inconsistent with the same key views in the Wilburton/ NE 8th Street Subarea
Plan that were identified for Bypass Option 1. In addition, Bypass Option 2 would be inconsistent
with the Richards Valley Subarea Plan because it would change the green and wooded character
of the Richards Road corridor. Under Bypass Option 2, trees within 30 feet of the alignment
would need to be cleared along Richards Road between the Lake Hills Connector and SE 26th
Street (approximately 0.9 mile). The largest amount of tree removal would be required along the
Woodridge Open Space, which would change the wooded character of Richards Road along that
portion of the road (see Figure 3.2-15). Viewer sensitivity along much of the option is high.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐58
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-15. KVP 9, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Richards Road Looking
North
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐59
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
All options have the potential to impact scenic views and aesthetics. The potential impacts of the
options for the Bellevue Central Segment to these resources are compared below (Table 3.2-5). In
some instances, there is a moderate potential for scenic view impacts due to pole height and
placement; however, because the degree of obstruction would be low due to pole spacing and line
width, no significant scenic view impacts are anticipated under the any of the Bellevue Central
Options. Because none of the options would result in significant adverse impacts to scenic views, the
comparison below focuses on differences in impacts to the aesthetic environment.
In the Bellevue Central Segment, two of the three options (Bypass Options 1 and 2) would require
the creation of a new transmission line in an area where such a corridor does not currently exist. As a
result, these options would create a high degree of contrast by introducing new electrical
infrastructure into the built environment and requiring substantial clearing. Both options would also
be inconsistent with subarea plan policies (see Table 3.2-4), resulting in a high likelihood of viewer
sensitivity to the change. Both bypass options would result in significant adverse impacts to the
aesthetic environment; however, Bypass Option 2 would result in more significant impacts due to the
tree removal required along Richards Road.
Table 3.2-5. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
Scale: Lower Potential for Impact Moderate Potential for Impact Higher Potential for Impact
Segment / Option
Impacts to Visual
Quality of the
Aesthetic Environment
Impacts to Scenic
Views Viewer Sensitivity
Existing Corridor Option Low Low Low
Bypass Option 1 High Moderate High
Bypass Option 2 High Moderate High
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐60
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Portions of the Bellevue South Oak 1 Option would be in the existing corridor, and impacts to the
aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant in those areas because of the low degree of
contrast with existing conditions. The portions of the Oak 1 Option that would be in a new corridor
would have a higher degree of contrast than in the existing corridor; however, because transmission
line infrastructure is already present throughout the route, the project would not contrast greatly
compared to existing conditions. There is a relatively high density of residential viewers along the
new corridor, and there is the potential for some subarea plan inconsistency. Therefore, viewer
sensitivity is moderate along this option. However, overall impacts to the aesthetic environment
would be less-than-significant because of the low degree of contrast.
Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant because of the low degree of additional view
obstruction.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐61
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would
occur where new clearings would be required. This includes along the following road locations
where the typical easement width would be 35 feet (with a range of 30 to 55 feet): SE 30th Street,
Factoria Boulevard SE, Richards Road, and Coal Creek Parkway. In general, the topography
would limit the visibility of the line along the existing corridor. The flatter topography
surrounding Factoria Boulevard SE would make that portion of the option more visible than in
other portions (see Figure 3.2-16). Because transmission line infrastructure is already present
throughout the route the project would not contrast greatly compared to existing conditions. Pole
height would increase along Factoria Boulevard/Coal Creek Parkway by approximately 15 feet,
and on SE 30th Street by approximately 20 feet. There would be no change in form within the
existing corridor. However, along all of the other portions of the option route, pole configuration
would change to various 230 kV configurations (see Chapter 2). The project would not provide
consistent pole height and form throughout the option route although on any given right-of-way
there would be consistent form and height. The areas where a change in pole form and height
would occur include the substation locations (Richards Creek and Somerset) and at the
intersection of the existing transmission corridor and SE 60th Street. The option would be in the
line of sight for single-family residences directly abutting the corridor southeast of the ravine.
However, the topography associated with corridor south of SE 60th Street would make the line
more visible for houses located within a block of the corridor than other locations in the study
area, so the change in pole height and form would have few viewers. Removal of the underbuild
on Coal Creek Parkway and Factoria Boulevard SE would decrease the clutter and potentially
improve the visual quality along that portion of the option route (see Figure 3.2-17). Overall,
impacts to the visual quality of the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant.
Scenic Views: Most of the scenic views are from the Somerset neighborhood and are of the
Olympics, Lake Washington, and the Bellevue and Seattle skylines. There are also scenic views
of downtown Seattle and the Olympics from multi-family residential housing off of Factoria
Boulevard SE. Both areas are associated with a relatively high population density (see Appendix
C). However, the degree of scenic view obstruction is expected to be low in the Somerset
neighborhood because the existing transmission line would be unchanged. Impacts along Factoria
Boulevard SE could be greater than under existing conditions because the new poles would be 15
feet taller. However, the presence of existing vegetation and other obstructions to scenic views
reduces the potential for scenic view obstruction. Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-
significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along this option route are residential viewers and
recreational users. Coal Creek Natural Area is the only recreational resource identified by the
City as being used for its natural setting. The project would directly cross the Somerset
Recreation Club, Forest Hill Neighborhood Park, Coal Creek Natural Area, and Newport Hills
Mini Park. However, these crossings would be in areas where the recreational resources are
already crossed by the existing transmission line corridor; therefore, the contrast would be low.
Approximately eight trees would be removed near the Coal Creek to Forest Drive segment of the
Lower Coal Creek Trail, and approximately 20 trees would be removed near the Coal Creek to
SE 60th Street segment of the Lower Coal Creek Trail. In both instances, the tree removal would
diminish the natural setting and would make Coal Creek Parkway more visible to trail users.
Trees would need to be removed along Richards Road within 30 feet of the transmission line for
approximately 550 feet between SE 30th Street and SE 32nd Street. This is not expected to impact
the wooded character of Richards Road because the portion of the roadway where trees would be
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐62
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
removed comprises 7 percent of the roadway as a whole. Placement of higher poles in the
existing corridor has the potential to impact views from adjacent single-family neighborhoods in
the Eastgate Subarea. There is also the potential for inconsistency with the Newport Hills
Subarea Plan, which emphasizes the protection of existing trees on slopes and hilltops. Tree
removal would occur within the Coal Creek ravine; however, the number of trees removed, when
compared to the number of trees within the ravine as a whole, is not expected to impact the
aesthetics of Coal Creek to the degree that it would no longer be considered a “distinct visual
element” (see Table 3.2-4). The option also traverses the Somerset neighborhood. The Somerset
neighborhood has neighborhood covenants that protect views (i.e., the View Guideline for
Somerset). These neighborhood covenants represent a “custom” in that they are a form of social
contract between residents of the community to follow certain guidelines to protect community
interests, in this case residential views. Per the methodology adapted for this analysis, the viewer
sensitivity assessment should take into account customs along with other locally adopted
guidance for aesthetic and viewer preferences. Therefore, incompatibility between the project and
the neighborhood covenants is likely to result in increased viewer awareness of the impact
(Section 3.2.3.3). The City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan states that distinctive neighborhood
character within Bellevue’s diverse neighborhoods should be protected (see policies in Table 3.2-
4). The distinctive character of the Somerset neighborhood is described and protected through the
neighborhood’s View Guideline, which limits building and vegetation height to preserve existing
views. The spirit of the guideline is “to preserve the views of a residence, the way they were,
when the house was built” (Somerset Community, 2016). (Note that, in context, “the view of a
residence” refers to views that can be seen from a residence, rather views looking at the
residence.) Under the Oak 1 Option, the existing 115 kV H-frame structures would remain within
the existing transmission line corridor, and no visual changes to the Somerset neighborhood are
anticipated. In general, viewer sensitivity is moderate.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐63
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-16. KVP 10, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Factoria Boulevard SE
Looking North
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐64
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-17. KVP 11, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Coal Creek Parkway
Looking Northwest toward the Intersection with Factoria Boulevard SE
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐65
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Impacts of the Oak 2 Option on the aesthetic environment would be similar to the Oak 1 Option and
would be less-than-significant because of the low degree of contrast with the existing aesthetic
environment. Although the option would make changes within the Somerset neighborhood, an area
with higher visual sensitivity, the degree of contrast would be low because the pole height would
only increase by approximately 5 feet, the pole configuration would be the same as existing
conditions (H-frame structures), and there would be only a single set of H-frames in the corridor,
rather than two sets as at present. Even though viewer sensitivity is high in Somerset, the Oak 2
Option would not result in a substantial change in contrast and therefore would not result in
significant adverse impacts.
Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant because there would be minimal additional
view obstruction beyond existing conditions.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would
occur where new clearings would be required along the following locations: (1) where the typical
easement width would be 35 feet (with a range of 30 to 55 feet): SE 30th Street, Factoria
Boulevard SE, Richards Road, and Coal Creek Parkway; and (2) where the typical easement
width would be 10 feet (with a range of 5 to 25 feet): 124th Avenue SE and SE 38th Street.
Contrast with the built environment would be more where new poles are placed (on SE 38th
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐66
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Street and 124th Avenue SE) versus where transmission poles currently exist (see Figure 3.2-18).
However, the SCL transmission line currently abuts 124th Avenue SE, so contrast there would be
less. Pole height would increase along Factoria Boulevard SE/Coal Creek Parkway by
approximately 15 feet, and on SE 30th Street by approximately 20 feet. Within the existing
corridor, pole height would typically increase by 5 feet (the existing pole height is approximately
60 feet within the existing corridor). There would be no change in form within the existing
corridor. However, along all of the other portions of the option route, pole configuration would
change to various 230 kV configurations (see Chapter 2). Pole height and form would vary
throughout the option route. The areas where a change in pole form and height would occur
include the substation locations, the intersection of SE 38th Street and Factoria Boulevard SE, and
at the intersection of the existing transmission corridor and SE 60th Street. Removal of the
underbuild on Coal Creek Parkway and Factoria Boulevard SE would decrease visual clutter and
potentially improve the visual quality along those portions of the option route. However, because
the lines would still be 115 kV, there would be the potential for underbuild to be placed on the
poles in the future. In addition, construction of a 115 kV line on 124th Avenue SE would allow
for underbuild to be built in the future where it currently is not supported. This could result in
increased visual clutter along 124th Avenue SE. Overall, impacts to the visual quality of the
aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant.
Scenic Views: Most of the scenic views are from the Somerset neighborhood and are of the
Olympics, Lake Washington, and the Bellevue and Seattle skylines. There are also scenic views
of downtown Seattle and the Olympics from multi-family residential housing off of Factoria
Boulevard SE. Both areas are associated with a relatively high population density (see Appendix
C). However, the degree of scenic view obstruction is expected to be low in the Somerset
neighborhood because there is an existing transmission line, and the new line would protrude
approximately 5 feet higher than under existing conditions, which would not present a substantial
visual change. Impacts could also occur along Factoria Boulevard SE because the new poles
would be 15 feet taller than existing poles. However, the presence of existing vegetation and
other obstructions to scenic views reduces the potential for scenic view obstruction. Impacts to
scenic views would be less-than-significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along this option route are residential viewers and
recreational users. Coal Creek Natural Area is the only recreational resource identified by the
City as being used for its views or natural setting. Approximately eight trees would be removed
near the Coal Creek to Forest Drive segment of the Lower Coal Creek Trail, and approximately
20 trees would be removed near the Coal Creek to SE 60th Street segment of the Lower Coal
Creek Trail. In both instances, the tree removal would diminish the natural setting and would
make Coal Creek Parkway more visible to trail users. Areas with a high population density
include the Somerset neighborhood and the area east and west of Factoria Boulevard SE from
approximately I-90 to SE Newport Way (east of Factoria Boulevard SE) and Coal Creek
Parkway (west of Factoria Boulevard SE), and south of SE 60th Street to Newcastle Way. Trees
would be removed along Richards Road within 30 feet of the transmission line for approximately
550 feet between SE 30th Street and SE 32nd Street. This is not expected to impact the wooded
character of Richards Road because the portion of the roadway where trees would be removed
comprises 7 percent of the roadway as a whole. The placement of higher poles in the existing
corridor also has the potential to impact views from adjacent single-family neighborhoods in the
Eastgate Subarea. There is the potential for inconsistency with the Newport Hills Subarea Plan,
which emphasizes the protection of existing trees on slopes and hilltops. Tree removal would
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐67
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
occur within the Coal Creek ravine; however, the number of trees removed, when compared to
the number of trees within the ravine as a whole, is not expected to impact the aesthetics of Coal
Creek to the degree that it would no longer be considered a “distinct visual element” (see Table
3.2-4). The Somerset neighborhood has neighborhood covenants that protect views (see the full
explanation in Section 3.2.5.9), which suggests high viewer sensitivity in that area. Overall,
viewer sensitivity is moderately high.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐68
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-18. KVP 12, Existing and Proposed Conditions from SE 38th Street Looking
Southeast
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐69
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Contrast with the existing aesthetic environment would generally be low because the transmission
line would be within the existing corridor. The exception to this is where the option would traverse
the Somerset neighborhood. The Somerset neighborhood has covenants that impose height
restrictions on trees and buildings, making the existing aesthetic environment within that
neighborhood unique in this segment and among other neighborhoods in Bellevue that are affected
by the project. As a result of these covenants, building and vegetation height is lower than other areas
of the corridor, and the degree of contrast created by the taller poles is substantial. Viewer sensitivity
is generally high along this option, particularly where it traverses the Somerset neighborhood and the
Coal Creek Natural Area. However, impacts to the Coal Creek Natural Area would be less-than-
significant because vegetation removal would be limited. In the Somerset neighborhood, the
combination of high viewer sensitivity and substantial contrast created by this option would mean
that significant impacts to the visual quality are expected along the that portion of the Willow 1
Option.
Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant because only residents located approximately
200 to 400 feet to the east of the transmission corridor (along the portion that would traverse the
Somerset neighborhood) would potentially experience scenic view impacts.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐70
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: The option would be fully located within the
existing corridor; the corridor has been cleared and managed, and in most areas vegetation would
not change substantially. In some portions of the residential areas north and south of the Coal
Creek Natural Area, a substantial number of trees in the existing corridor have been identified for
potential removal. However, because those areas have long been managed to keep the area clear,
viewer sensitivity to each clearing would be low. Therefore, these impacts would be less-than-
significant. Contrast with the natural environment may occur where large amounts of vegetation
are removed or the poles are taller than the surrounding vegetation. The existing 115 kV lines and
approximately 60-foot H-frame structures along the existing corridor would be removed and
replaced by one or two monopoles at each location. North of SE Newport Way and south of the
Somerset substation, double-circuit 100-foot tall steel monopoles would be used. South of SE
Newport Way to the Somerset substation, pairs of single-circuit, 85-foot tall monopoles would be
used. Contrast with the built environment is expected to be less-than-significant, except for where
the option would cross the Somerset neighborhood. Although the new transmission lines would
be within an existing transmission corridor, and the height and form of the transmission line itself
would be consistent through that area, there would be a substantial degree of contrast between the
low-scale buildings and vegetation within the Somerset neighborhood (see Figure 3.2-19). The
Somerset neighborhood has covenants that impose height restrictions and make the existing
aesthetic environment within the neighborhood unique. Because the aesthetic environment of the
Somerset neighborhood is comprised of height-restricted features, the difference in height
between the new poles and the surrounding built environment is more pronounced than in other
areas along the segment where buildings and vegetation are taller.
Scenic Views: Most of the scenic views are from the Somerset neighborhood and are of the
Olympics, Lake Washington, and the Bellevue and Seattle skylines. This is an area with a
relatively high population density (see Appendix C). The degree of scenic view obstruction is
expected to be higher in the Somerset neighborhood because the poles would protrude
approximately 30 feet higher than under existing conditions. This would raise the lines out of the
viewshed of some residential viewers and into the viewshed of others. However, only residents
located approximately 200 to 400 feet to the east of the transmission corridor (along the portion
that would traverse the Somerset neighborhood) would potentially experience scenic view
impacts. Therefore, impacts overall would be less-than-significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along this option are residential viewers and recreational
users. Coal Creek Natural Area is the only recreational resource identified by the City as being
used for its natural setting. Approximately 20 trees would be removed near the Coal Creek to SE
60th Street segment of the Lower Coal Creek Trail. In both instances, the tree removal would
diminish the natural setting and make Coal Creek Parkway more visible to trail users. Although
not identified as being used for their natural settings, the Forest Hill Neighborhood Park and
Somerset North Slope Open Space would be directly crossed by the project. Because these
recreation areas are already traversed by a transmission line corridor, viewer sensitivity is lower
for users entering the corridor. Sensitivity is expected to be high at the Somerset North Slope
Open Space, where park users would view a higher degree of contrast as the new transmission
line would change in height and form. The placement of higher poles in the existing corridor has
the potential to impact views from adjacent single-family neighborhoods in the Eastgate Subarea.
However, the increase in pole height (approximately 40 feet) would reduce existing obstruction
of scenic views for abutting residences because the wires would be higher, and out of the line of
sight from those residences. There is the potential for inconsistency with the Newport Hills
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐71
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Subarea Plan, which emphasizes the protection of existing trees on slopes and hilltops. Tree
removal would occur within the Coal Creek ravine; however, the number of trees removed, when
compared to the number of trees within the ravine as a whole, is not expected to impact the
aesthetics of Coal Creek to the degree that it would no longer be considered a “distinct visual
element” (see Table 3.2-4). The Somerset neighborhood has neighborhood covenants that restrict
height to protect views from all residences (as explained above in Section 3.2.5.9). As such,
viewer sensitivity to changes in the views from those residences is high. Overall, viewer
sensitivity is moderately high, but it is high within the Somerset neighborhood.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐72
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-19. KVP 13, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Somerset Drive SE
Looking West.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐73
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option (PSE’s Preferred Alignment)
Impacts of the Willow 2 Option on the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant where it
is within the existing corridor, similar to the impacts of the Willow 1 Option. The portion of the
Willow 2 Option that is in a new corridor would contrast with the existing environment, but impacts
are expected to be less-than-significant because electrical infrastructure is already present. Viewer
sensitivity is generally high in the Coal Creek Natural Area, where vegetation would be removed, but
would be less-than-significant because the removal is not extensive. Although the option would make
changes within the Somerset neighborhood, an area with higher visual sensitivity, the degree of
contrast would be low because the pole height would only increase by approximately 5 to 15 feet, the
pole configuration would be the same as existing conditions (H-frame structures), and there would be
only one set of H-frames rather than two as at present. Therefore, the Willow 2 Option would not
result in substantial contrast with the existing aesthetic environment and would not result in
significant adverse impacts.
Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant because there would be a low degree of
additional view obstruction.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would
occur where new vegetation clearings would be required. This includes along SE Newport Way,
Coal Creek Parkway, and Factoria Boulevard SE, where the typical easement width would be 20
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐74
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
feet (with a range of 20 to 30 feet). Contrast with the built environment would be more than
existing conditions, but is not expected to be significant because electrical infrastructure is present
within much of the new corridor. Pole height would increase within the existing corridor (40–50
feet taller north of SE Newport Way and between Somerset substation and SE 60th Street, 5–15
feet taller between SE Newport Way and Somerset Substation, and 20–35 feet taller south of SE
60th Street); along Newport Way SE (35–40 feet taller); and along Factoria Boulevard SE and
Coal Creek Parkway (approximately 15 feet taller). The project would not provide consistent pole
height and form throughout the option, but pole height would generally be consistent along each
roadway. The areas where a change in pole form and height would occur include the substation
locations, the intersection of Newport Way and the existing corridor, the intersection of Factoria
Boulevard SE and Newport Way, the intersection of Factoria Boulevard SE and Coal Creek
Parkway, and at the intersection of the existing corridor and SE 60th Street. At these locations,
visual quality would be impacted but the impacts would be less-than-significant because of low
viewer sensitivity due to existing infrastructure. Underbuild would be removed on Newport Way,
Factoria Boulevard SE, and Coal Creek Parkway. This removal of the underbuild would decrease
the clutter and potentially improve the visual quality along that portion of the option route (see
Figure 3.2-20). However, because the new lines would also be 115 kV, there would be the
potential for underbuild to be restrung to the new poles in the future, resulting in visual clutter.
Scenic Views: Most of the scenic views are from the Somerset neighborhood and are of the
Olympics, Lake Washington, and the Bellevue and Seattle skylines. There are also scenic views of
downtown Seattle and the Olympics from multi-family residential housing off of Factoria
Boulevard SE. This area has a relatively high population density (see Appendix C). However, the
degree of scenic view obstruction is expected to be low in the Somerset neighborhood because the
poles would protrude approximately 5–15 feet higher than under existing conditions, which is not
a substantial visual change. Existing vegetation and other blockages reduce the potential for scenic
view obstruction. Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along this option route are residential viewers and users of
the Coal Creek Natural Area. Approximately eight trees would be removed near the Coal Creek to
Forest Drive segment of the Lower Coal Creek Trail and approximately 20 trees would be
removed near the Coal Creek to SE 60th Street segment of the Lower Coal Creek Trail. In both
instances, the tree removal would diminish the natural setting and would make Coal Creek
Parkway more visible to trail users. Placement of higher poles in the existing corridor has the
potential to impact views from adjacent single-family neighborhoods in the Eastgate Subarea. The
increase in pole height (approximately 5–15 feet) would impact a limited degree of scenic views
uphill from the transmission line, while residences abutting the existing corridor would have
reduced view obstruction due to the wires being higher than their line of sight. There is the
potential for inconsistency with the Newport Hills Subarea Plan, which emphasizes the protection
of existing trees on slopes and hilltops. Tree removal would occur within the Coal Creek ravine;
however, the number of trees removed, when compared to the number of trees within the ravine as
a whole, is not expected to impact the aesthetics of Coal Creek to the degree that it would no
longer be considered a “distinct visual element” (see Table 3.2-4). The Somerset neighborhood
has neighborhood covenants that restrict height to protect views from all residences (as explained
above in Section 3.2.5.9). As such, viewer sensitivity to changes in the views from those
residences is high. Overall, viewer sensitivity for this option is moderately high.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐75
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-20. KVP 14, Existing and Proposed Conditions from SE Newport Way Looking
West
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐76
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Comparison of Bellevue South Options
All of the Bellevue South Options have the potential to impact scenic views and aesthetics. The
potential impacts of the options for the Bellevue South Segment to these resources are compared
below (Table 3.2-6). However, the Willow 1 Option is the only option that would result in significant
adverse impacts to scenic views or the aesthetic environment.
In some instances, there is a moderate potential for scenic view impacts due to pole height and
placement; however, because the degree of obstruction would be low due to pole spacing and line
width, no significant scenic view impacts are anticipated under the proposed project.
The Willow 1 Option would have significant impacts to the aesthetic environment in the Somerset
neighborhood due to inconsistency, high viewer sensitivity due to view protection covenants (which
are supportive of and consistent with the City of Bellevue’s policy to protect distinctive
neighborhood character), and a substantial change in contrast as a result of the project. All of the
other options would have minor impacts to the aesthetic environment within the existing corridor.
The portions of the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options that would be in a new corridor would have
a higher degree of contrast than in the existing corridor; however, because transmission line
infrastructure is already present throughout the Oak 1 and Oak 2 Option routes, these options would
not contrast greatly compared to existing conditions. The SE Newport Way portion of the Willow 2
Option has a greater potential for contrast than most other options for this segment because, while
electrical infrastructure is present, the existing poles are not as tall as the proposed poles.
Implementation of the Willow 2 Option would also result in the removal of underbuild, which would
reduce visual clutter along SE Newport Way. However, because the new transmission lines would
also be 115 kV, there would be the potential for underbuild to be restrung to the new poles in the
future. After the Willow 1 Option, the Oak 1 Option would have the lowest potential for impacts to
the aesthetic environment because less new corridor would be required and transmission
infrastructure already exists where the new corridor would be constructed. Viewer sensitivity along
all of the Bellevue South Options is moderate to high; however, due to the low to moderate potential
for impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment in all portions except the Somerset
neighborhood under the Willow 1 Option, significant impacts are not anticipated.
Table 3.2-6. Comparison of Bellevue South Options
Scale: Lower Potential for Impact Moderate Potential for Impact Higher Potential for Impact
Segment / Option
Impacts to Visual
Quality of the
Aesthetic Environment
Impacts to Scenic
Views Viewer Sensitivity
Oak 1 Option Low Low Moderate
Oak 2 Option Low Low Moderately High
Willow 1 Option High Moderate High
Willow 2 Option Low Low Moderately High
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐77
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Newcastle Segment
North of the May Creek ravine, project impacts on the aesthetic environment of the Newcastle
Segment would be significant. Although the proposed project would be placed in the existing
transmission line corridor, the poles would be almost double the height (to approximately 100 feet)
of the existing poles and would be closer to neighboring residences and residential streets. This,
when coupled with placement of the project on the ridge, would make the new transmission line a
defining feature that contrasts strongly with the existing built environment. This portion of the
project would adversely affect neighborhood character in conflict with the Newcastle Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan protects the scale and character of existing neighborhoods through
policies that call for transmission lines to be sited and designed to minimize visual impacts to
adjacent land uses. However, the portion of the segment within the May Creek ravine would result in
less-than-significant aesthetic impacts due to the topography of the ravine and the presence of tall,
dense vegetation, both of which would reduce the degree of contrast between the project and the
surrounding aesthetic environment.
Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant because there would be a low degree of
additional view obstruction compared to existing conditions. No scenic views from recreational
facilities would be impacted.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐78
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: In general, the poles and wires are more
noticeable where the transmission line is on a ridge with low vegetation (e.g., the portion of the
segment north of May Creek) than other conditions where the topography and presence of dense,
taller tree stands result in the poles and wires being less visible (e.g., in the May Creek ravine).
Currently, the existing poles are minimally noticeable north of May Creek because of their height
(approximately 55 feet) and placement within the center of the corridor. Under the proposed
project, the poles would nearly double in height (to approximately 100 feet) and would be placed
farther from the center of the corridor than the existing poles, making them more visible from
residential streets and less likely to be concealed by vegetation due to their proximity to
residences. This, when coupled with the placement of the line on the top of a ridge, would result
in the poles contrasting more with the surrounding houses and utility infrastructure due to the
pronounced prominence of the transmission line. This would significantly change the residential
character of the surrounding neighborhood as the transmission line would become a defining
visual feature for the neighborhood (see Figure 3.2-21). Therefore, although transmission lines
already exist in the corridor, and the new transmission line would have consistent height and
form throughout the segment, the degree of contrast with the built environment would be
significant within the residential portion of Newcastle. However, within the May Creek ravine,
project-related impacts to the visual quality of the aesthetic environment would be less-than-
significant because the topography and presence of dense vegetation would reduce the degree of
contrast between the project and the surrounding aesthetic environment.
Scenic Views: Most views from the Olympus neighborhood are of the Cascades, the Olympics,
and in some places Mount Rainier. There is the potential for residential views of the Cascades,
Cougar Mountain, and potentially Mount Rainier to be impacted, some of which could occur in
places with high population density (see Appendix C). However, the degree of scenic view
obstruction is expected to be low due to the presence of other obstructions, such as trees and
buildings, and the limited number of pole locations. No scenic views from parks, trails, or
outdoor recreation facilities would be impacted. Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-
significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Primary viewers are residential viewers and users of Lake Boren Park, Lake
Boren Esplanade, May Creek Park, May Creek Trail, Cross Town Trail, and Olympus Trail.
Because the project would be on a ridge, it would be visible by much of the Newcastle
population. The highest density of residential viewers in the study area along the Newcastle
Segment is in the north portion of Newcastle, between Newcastle Way and SE 80th Way (see
Appendix C). Although viewer sensitivity is lower within the existing corridor than elsewhere in
Newcastle, overall viewer sensitivity is high, based on the extent of affected viewers and the
recently adopted policies regarding aesthetic impacts from transmission lines. The City of
Newcastle Comprehensive Plan protects the scale and character of existing neighborhoods
through policies that call for transmission lines to be sited and designed to minimize visual
impacts to adjacent land uses (City of Newcastle, 2016). From some vantage points, such as from
Lake Boren Park, the distance from the line would diminish the perceptible differences in height
and inconsistency with the surrounding built environment (see Figure 3.2-22). However, within
the neighborhoods surrounding the transmission line, the new transmission line would become a
defining visual feature and significantly change the residential character of the area (see Figure
3.2-21). Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐79
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-21. KVP 15, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 128th Ave SE Looking
Northeast
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐80
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-22. KVP 16, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Lake Boren Park Looking
Southwest
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐81
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Renton Segment
Overall, impacts to the aesthetic environment from the Renton Segment would be less-than-
significant. Although the poles would be 30 to 45 feet taller and larger in diameter than existing
poles, the segment would be located within PSE’s existing corridor, resulting in low contrast with
existing conditions. Overall, viewer sensitivity is low because no policies specifically address
aesthetic impacts from transmission lines, although general policies do address general aesthetic
qualities and public views. Impacts to the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant.
Impacts to scenic views would also be less-than-significant because the degree of additional
obstruction would be minimal compared with existing conditions.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would be
high as there is little vegetation along the segment, except near Honey Creek and the Cedar
River. Near the creek and river, the poles would blend with the natural environment because they
would have similar height and form as the abutting tree stands. Although the corridor width
would not change, tree removal would be required, particularly on the upper slopes of the Cedar
River ravine and within the Honey Creek ravine. None of the trees in the Cedar River ravine
would need to be removed because the transmission line would be well above the tops of trees (as
is the case with the existing line), and would meet PSE requirements (The Watershed Company,
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐82
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
2016). In general, the poles are more visible when the transmission line is located on a ridge with
low vegetation (such as the Liberty Ridge neighborhood), or in areas where it is generally flat
and adjacent to a roadway (e.g., Renton Technical College) than other topographic and
vegetation conditions (see Figures 3.2-23 and 3.2-24). Poles and wires are marginally visible
from within ravines (such as the Cedar River ravine). This would continue to be the case under
the project. Contrast with the built environment would be slightly more than existing conditions
because the poles would be taller (30 feet taller than the existing poles north of Honey Creek, and
45 feet taller south of Honey Creek); the pole diameter would also be wider than existing poles,
but the number of poles would be reduced. Changes to the built environment would be less-than-
significant because transmission lines already exist in the corridor; however, they would be
replaced with a new transmission line with a different height and form.
North of the Honey Creek ravine, the line would consist of paired single-circuit monopoles.
South of Honey Creek the line would consist of double-circuit monopoles approximately 15 feet
taller than the paired monopoles to the north. However, this change in project form and height
would occur in an area with few viewers. Elsewhere along the segment, the height and form
would be consistent. The poles in all locations would be taller than the existing poles. The form
would also change from an H-frame configuration to a monopole configuration, changing the
look of the transmission line. Some viewers may positively perceive the increased height of the
poles because the lines would be moved up and out of their line of sight, while others would not
view the change as beneficial.
The project could require that the existing SCL transmission line be raised in two locations along
this segment: one location just south of the intersection of 126th Avenue SE with NE 25th Street,
and one location within the Cedar River ravine. The SCL pole type would be changed from a
lattice tower to a monopole. The current SCL transmission line contrasts strongly with the
surrounding built environment at 126th Avenue SE and NE 25th Street and the natural
environment surrounding the Cedar River ravine. Therefore, even though the towers adjacent to
the PSE transmission line crossing would be approximately 12 feet taller, it is unlikely the
change would be highly perceptible, except the change in pole type. In general, visual clutter
would be reduced due to the reduction in the number of poles. Overall, impacts to the visual
quality of the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant.
Scenic Views: Areas with the highest density of scenic views are in Liberty Ridge and on Talbot
Hill (areas with medium to low population density). The only public recreation site from which
scenic views have the potential to be impacted is along the Cedar River Trail. However, changes
to the existing corridor are not expected to result in significant impacts. The height and location
of the proposed poles and transmission line would not obscure views of the Cedar River from the
trail. Raising the SCL poles immediately to the north and south of the crossings with the project
is not expected to obscure scenic views. The crossing to the north would be in a flat location
surrounded by single-family residences, and therefore the lines would continue to be overhead.
The crossing within the Cedar River ravine would also not have significant impacts because it is
surrounded by tall, dense vegetation. Impacts to scenic views would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐83
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Viewer Sensitivity: Primary viewers are residential viewers and recreational users of the Cedar
River Park, Cedar River Trail, Honey Creek Open Space, Philip Arnold Park, and Riverview
Park. No new poles would be placed within these parks, so changes to the aesthetics for these
viewers would be associated with any clearing or changes in the height and appearance of the
transmission line. The height of the poles would be 30 to 45 feet taller than existing poles, but not
noticeable because they would be 500 to 1,200 feet away from these parks and behind vegetation.
No clearing would be required where the project crosses the Cedar River Park, Cedar River Trail,
and Riverview Park because the topography of the Cedar River ravine provides sufficient
clearance between the lines and the vegetation below. Figure 3.2-25 shows the appearance of the
lines from the Cedar River Trail, as well as the existing pole structure from the trail. The distance
between the trail and the pole (approximately 1,000 feet) would make the change in form (from
two adjacent wooden H-frame structures to one taller steel monopole) less noticeable. The height
of the lines is expected to stay the same. Although the diameter of the wires would be slightly
larger, it is not expected that the difference would be perceivable from the trail (Figure 3.2-25)
(also see Appendix C, which includes a figure that compares the diameters of the existing wire
and the new wires in the proposed project). The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan protects
natural forms, vegetation, distinctive stands of trees, natural slopes, and scenic areas that
“contribute to the City’s identity, preserve property values, and visually define the community
neighborhoods” (City of Renton, 2015a). Changes to the appearance of those features would be
minor because an existing corridor would be used (see Figure 3.2-24). In general, viewer
sensitivity is moderate along the Cedar River Trail and low elsewhere.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐84
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-23. KVP 17, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Monroe Avenue Looking
North
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐85
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-24. KVP 18, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Glennwood Court SE
Looking North
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐86
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 3.2-25. Existing Views from the Cedar River Trail
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐87
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
3.2.6 Mitigation Measures
For scenic views and the aesthetic environment, regulations and comprehensive plan policies were
reviewed to identify mitigation measures. Mitigation measures specified by code would be required,
whereas mitigation measures based on comprehensive plan policies would be at the discretion of the
applicant to adopt or the local jurisdictions to impose as a condition of project approval. All
mitigation measures would be determined during the permitting process, but may be applied prior to
construction, during construction, or during operation of the project. For instance, some mitigation
measures (such as co-locating utilities with existing utility corridors whenever possible) have already
been incorporated into the project design. Conversely, PSE may make commitments to certain
measures (such as using landscaping to screen above-ground utility facilities to diminish visual
impacts) but may not actually execute them until the project has been constructed.
Regulatory Requirements
All of the segments and options within the City of Bellevue would need to meet the following
regulations.(Note: the cities of Redmond, Newcastle, and Renton do not have regulations that
directly address mitigation of impacts to scenic views or the aesthetic environment that would be
produced by this project.) These regulations provide some mitigation of project-related impacts to the
aesthetic environment, and would be implemented during the design stage (prior to construction) and
as long-term mitigation strategies (e.g., maintenance of screening vegetation). The applicable
regulations are presented below based on the stage when they would be applied. Each jurisdiction’s
discretionary decision-making will be informed by the analysis and comparison of options presented
above, in the context of the alternatives analysis required under SEPA and comparison of other
impacts for options under review. The following would be required to incorporate in the design prior
to construction.
Prior to Construction
Design and align new or expanded utility systems to minimize impacts to natural systems and
features and minimize grading within the shoreline (City of Bellevue LUC 20.25E.070).
Within the shoreline environment, co-locate underground new or expanded utility systems
within existing or planned improved rights-of-way, driveways, and/or utility corridors
whenever possible (City of Bellevue LUC 20.25E.070).
Sight-screen electrical utility facilities through landscaping and fencing (BCC 20.20.255).
Within the shoreline environment, where the visual quality of the shoreline or surrounding
neighborhood will be negatively impacted, new or expanded utility systems and facilities
should incorporate screening and landscaping sufficient to maintain the shoreline aesthetic
quality (City of Bellevue LUC 20.25E.070).
Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on City of Bellevue and City of
Newcastle’s comprehensive plans. (Note: plans and policies of the cities of Redmond and Renton do
not directly address mitigation of impacts to scenic views or the aesthetic environment that would be
produced by this project. However, general policies in all communities support application of the
measures listed below.) The applicable policies are presented based on the stage at which they would
be applied. Additional mitigation measures are also proposed by the EIS Consultant Team based on
their ability to reduce contrast.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.2‐88
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Prior to Construction
Consolidate utility facilities and co-locate multiple utilities (City of Newcastle Plan Policy
UT-P3).
Implement new and expanded transmission and substation facilities in such a manner that
they are compatible and consistent with the local context and the land use pattern established
in the Comprehensive Plan (City of Bellevue Plan Policy UT-95).
Design, construct, and maintain facilities to minimize their impact on surrounding
neighborhoods (City of Bellevue Plan Policy UT-8).
Conduct a siting analysis for new facilities and expanded facilities at sensitive sites (areas in
close proximity to residentially-zoned districts) (City of Bellevue Plan Policy UT-96).
New development should install a dense visual vegetative screen along Richards Road (City
of Bellevue Plan Policy S-RV-31).
Consider neighborhood character in planting appropriate varieties and trimming tree limbs
around overhead lines (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P9).
Design overhead transmission lines in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with
surrounding land uses (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P10). This could include design
measures such as changes to pole height, spacing, location, or color.
Minimize visual and other impacts of transmission towers and overhead transmission lines on
adjacent land uses through careful siting and design (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P14).
Design transmission structures to minimize aesthetic impacts appropriate to the immediate
surrounding area whenever practical (City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P16).
Underground sections of the transmission lines where unavoidable significant impacts to
scenic views or the aesthetic environment would otherwise occur.
Position poles and adjust pole height to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible. In
Newcastle, a variance from the setback requirements would allow the poles to be positioned
farther away from the houses. This would also allow for shorter poles.
Specify poles with an aesthetic treatment (such as paint or patina) to reduce contrast with the
surrounding environment.
During Construction
Replace trees to the greatest extent possible.
During Operation
Limit disturbance to vegetation within major utility transmission corridors to what is
necessary for the safety and maintenance of transmission facilities (City of Newcastle Plan
Policy UT-P8). In areas where vegetation disturbance is unavoidable, replant with vegetation
that would be compatible with vegetation clearance requirements, preventing future
vegetation removal or maintenance in the future.
Use landscape screening of above-ground utility facilities to diminish visual impacts (City of
Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P20).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
The EIS Consultant Team
collected maps and other
information available from the
Partner Cities, King County,
and Washington State to
describe existing water
resources. Technical reports
for critical areas were
reviewed to characterize
resources in the study area.
3.3 WATER RESOURCES
This section provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts to water resources in the study area
including streams, rivers, wetlands, and groundwater. The study
area for water resources includes areas within about 300 feet of the
project. This encompasses the area where water quality and
critical areas permits would be required. It also allows for
consideration of impacts such as sedimentation or contamination
of off-site water resources. The major water resources in the study
area are shown in Figure 3.3-1. More detailed maps of the streams,
rivers, and wetlands in the study area are included in Section 3.3.5.
Water resources within the study area were assessed primarily
using the critical areas delineation reports prepared by The
Watershed Company for PSE for the Energize Eastside project
(The Watershed Company, 2016). Additional sources of
information on water resources in the study area consulted to describe the affected environment
include the following:
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d)
List.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) interactive mapping programs (PHS
on the Web and SalmonScape).
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practices Application Review
System.
King County’s GIS mapping website (iMAP).
City of Bellevue, Storm and Surface Water System Plan (City of Bellevue, 2016a).
Critical areas GIS datasets and mapping websites for the study area.
Project-specific technical reports for critical areas within the study area (The Watershed
Company, 2016; Geoengineers, 2016).
Aerial imagery.
The resource protection policies and requirements of the municipalities within the study area,
identified in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Chapter 5, Water Resources), were reviewed for completeness
and current relevance. Information sources are primarily from the appropriate community
comprehensive plans, and regulations and codes for critical areas and shoreline management.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; FEMA, 2010; Kirkland, 2015; Redmond, 2015; Sammamish, 2015; Issaquah, 2015;
Newcastle, 2015; Renton, 2015; Bellevue, 2015.
Figure 3.3-1. Water Resources in the Study Area
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
3.3.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Water resources in the study area are managed by the City of Bellevue, City of Newcastle, City of
Redmond, and City of Renton. Although the study area includes unincorporated land within the
jurisdiction of King County, no water resources are in such areas. Federal and state regulations also
apply. The applicable plans, policies, and regulations are described generally in the Phase 1 Draft
EIS (see Section 5.2). No new state or federal regulations have been adopted since publication of the
Phase 1 Draft EIS. The City of Newcastle adopted an update to its critical areas regulations in May
2016 (Newcastle Municipal Code Chapter 18.24).
Any impacts to streams or wetlands must comply with critical areas ordinances of the Partner Cities
and King County. Critical areas ordinances typically restrict activities in streams and wetlands,
require buffers around streams and wetlands to protect their functions and values, and prescribe
mitigation for impacts. Appendix D summarizes the critical area requirements for the Partner Cities
and King County.
The City of Redmond and the City of Renton have designated wellhead protection areas to protect
aquifers that provide their drinking water. The wellhead protection requirements are similar for both
cities and generally restrict the type of activity or land use that can occur in a wellhead protection
area and place limits on the type and amount of hazardous materials that can be stored in those areas
(RZC 21.64.050 and RMC 4-3-050). The City of Bellevue and the City of Newcastle do not have
critical aquifer recharge or wellhead protection areas.
3.3.2 Existing Water Resources in the Study Area
Existing water resources in the study area include streams and rivers, wetlands, and groundwater, as
described below by project component, segment, and option. Some of the streams and the Cedar
River have Federal Emergency Management Agency designated floodplains. However, any poles
placed in the floodplain would not obstruct flood flows or alter drainage, so impacts to floodplains
are not described further.
Streams and Rivers
The study area includes several streams and the Cedar River. Most major streams, including Kelsey
Creek, Coal Creek, and May Creek, flow generally from east to west and drain to Lake Washington.
Streams in the Redmond and Bellevue North area, including Willows Creek, drain to Lake
Sammamish or the Sammamish River. Streams in the study area fall under the jurisdiction of King
County, City of Bellevue, City of Newcastle, City of Redmond, or City of Renton. Kelsey Creek in
the City of Bellevue and Cedar River in the City of Renton are Shorelines of the State and regulated
under each jurisdiction’s Shoreline Master Program (see Section 3.1 and Appendix B for additional
discussion of the Shoreline Master Programs).
Table 3.3-1 summarizes the streams within the existing and new corridors for each segment and
option, including information on the stream classification and required stream buffer according to the
Partner Cities’ critical areas requirements (see Appendix D). Information about stream crossings is
based on data collected by The Watershed Company (2016). The table uses the same naming
convention as The Watershed Company report for unnamed tributaries.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Table 3.3-1. Streams in the Study Area
Stream Stream Type1 Required Buffer
(feet)
Richards Creek Substation Site – Several streams occur in the vicinity of the Richards Creek
substation site, including East Creek, Streams C and JB01, and smaller unnamed tributaries. Stream
C flows along the west edge of the site and is crossed by the existing access road. Stream JB01,
located on the southeast side of the site, is the upstream segment of Stream C.
East Creek F-Type 100
Stream C F-Type 100
Stream JB01 F-Type 100
Unnamed tributaries of Richards Creek2 F-Type 100
Redmond Segment - The transmission line crosses Willows Creek and several of its tributaries at
the north end of the Redmond Segment. Willows Creek flows east to the Sammamish River.
Willows Creek (three crossings) II 150
Three Willows Creek tributaries II
(fish access blocked
by culverts)
150
Other Willows Creek tributaries III 100
Bellevue North Segment – The transmission line crosses one unnamed tributary of Valley Creek.
Unnamed tributary of Valley Creek N-Type 50
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option - The Bellevue Central Segment is
located mostly in the Kelsey Creek drainage, with a small portion in the Richards Creek drainage.
Richards Creek flows into Kelsey Creek just south of the Lake Hills Connector. Kelsey Creek is a
Shoreline of the State, but this segment is not located in the shoreline jurisdiction.
Kelsey Creek F-Type 100
Kelsey Creek tributaries EB02 to EB05, EB10, EB11 N-Type 25
Kelsey Creek tributaries EB9, EB12 to EB14 N-Type 50
East Creek F-Type2 100
Other Richards Creek tributaries F-Type2 100
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐5
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Stream Stream Type1 Required Buffer
(feet)
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1 – The Bypass 1 Option is located mostly in the
Kelsey Creek drainage with a small portion in the Richards Creek drainage. This option parallels the
shoreline jurisdiction of Kelsey Creek.
Goff Creek F-Type 100
Kelsey Creek (Shoreline) F-Type 100
West tributary of Kelsey Creek F-Type2 50
Wilburton tributary of Kelsey Creek F-Type 100
Richards Creek F-Type 50
Four unnamed streams F-Type 100
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2 – Similar to the Bypass 1 Option, the Bypass 2
Option is located mostly in the Kelsey Creek drainage. This option parallels the shoreline jurisdiction of
Kelsey Creek and also parallels Richards Creek.
Goff Creek F-Type 100
Kelsey Creek (Shoreline) F-Type 100
West tributary of Kelsey Creek F-Type 50
Wilburton tributary of Kelsey Creek F-Type 100
Richards Creek F-Type 50
East Creek F-Type 100
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option - The Oak 1 Option crosses the tributaries of East
Creek; Sunset, Richards, and Coal creeks; and unnamed tributaries of Coal Creek.
Two unnamed tributaries of East Creek F-Type 50
One unnamed tributary of East Creek O-Type 25
Sunset Creek F-type 50
Richards Creek F-type 50
Coal Creek F-Type 100
Two unnamed tributaries of Coal Creek N-Type 25
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐6
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Stream Stream Type1 Required Buffer
(feet)
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option - The same streams are located in the Oak 2 Option as
in the Oak 1 Option. No streams are located along the portion of the Oak 2 Option that differs from the
Oak 1 Option.
Two unnamed tributaries of East Creek F-Type 50
One unnamed tributary of East Creek O-Type 25
Sunset Creek F-Type 50
Richards Creek F-Type 50
Coal Creek F-Type 100
Two unnamed tributaries of Coal Creek N-Type 25
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option - The Willow 1 Option crosses unnamed tributaries
of East Creek and Sunset and Coal creeks.
Two unnamed tributaries of East Creek F-Type 50
One unnamed tributary of East Creek O-Type 25
Sunset Creek F-Type 50
Coal Creek F-Type 100
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option - The north portion of the Willow 2 Option crosses
the same streams as the Willow 1 Option, but also crosses unnamed tributaries of Coal Creek.
Two unnamed tributaries of East Creek F-Type 50
One unnamed tributary of East Creek O-Type 25
Sunset Creek F-Type 50
Coal Creek F-Type 100
Two unnamed tributaries of Coal Creek N-Type 50
Newcastle Segment - The Newcastle Segment crosses May Creek and a small seasonal drainage
that flows to Lake Boren.
Unnamed stream MN01 Type Ns 25
May Creek Type F 100
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐7
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Stream Stream Type1 Required Buffer
(feet)
Renton Segment - The Renton Segment crosses four stream reaches, including the Cedar River,
Honey Creek, Ginger Creek, and an unnamed tributary to the Cedar River. The Cedar River is a
Shoreline of the State.
Cedar River Type S, Shoreline 100
Honey Creek Type F 115
Ginger Creek Type Np 75
Unnamed tributary of Cedar River Type Ns 50
1 Stream types are based on fish use and are classified by the Partner Cities in their critical areas ordinances. Redmond classifies
streams as Class I, II, II, and IV. The other cities use the Washington Department of Natural Resources system of Type S, F, N,
and O. See Appendix D for additional information on stream types and buffer requirements.
2 These streams were not delineated or classified by The Watershed Company. For this analysis, the streams are classified as
Type F and assigned a 100‐foot buffer except the West Tributary to Kelsey Creek, which is assigned a 50‐foot buffer in LUC
20.2H.075. All streams along the selected alignment will be delineated, and classifications and buffers will be developed as part
of the permitting process.
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016.
Wetlands
Wetlands in the study area were delineated as part of the critical areas assessments conducted by The
Watershed Company in 2016. The Watershed Company delineated wetlands generally 25 feet on
either side of the existing and new corridors. In some areas, a wider study area was used based on
conditions at the site.
Table 3.3-2 summarizes the wetlands within the existing and new corridors for each segment and
option, including information on the wetland classification and required wetland buffer according to
the Partner Cities’ critical areas requirements (Appendix D). Information in the table is based on data
collected by The Watershed Company (2016). The table uses the same naming convention for
wetlands as The Watershed Company report.
Table 3.3-2. Wetlands in the Study Area
Wetland Wetland
Category1
Required Buffer
(feet)
Richards Creek Substation - Wetland BC is located to the north and west of the Richards Creek
substation site. Wetlands FG and JB01 are located on the south side of the site.
Wetlands BC, FG Category III 110
Wetland JB01 Category III 60
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐8
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Wetland Wetland
Category1
Required Buffer
(feet)
Redmond Segment - Wetlands in the Redmond Segment are all north of Redmond Way. The
wetlands are adjacent to Willows Creek and several of its tributary streams, although wetland
hydrology is provided primarily by groundwater seeps.
Wetland ARDE8 (Sammamish Substation) Category II 300
Wetlands CR01, CR02, CR03, CR04 Category III 150
Bellevue North Segment - Two wetlands were identified in the Bellevue North Segment. One is
adjacent to Valley Creek, between Bellevue Golf Course and Bridle Trails State Park. The other
wetland is near the south end of the segment, adjacent to SR 520, and is primarily supported by
groundwater seeps.
Wetland A (Overlake Farms) Category III 60
CB01 Category III 60
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option - Twenty-three wetlands were identified
along the Existing Corridor Option, including a large wetland complex along both sides of the Lake
Hills Connector roadway. The ten wetlands north of the Lake Hills Connector are small, disturbed
wetlands, frequently associated with small streams and typically supported by groundwater seeps.
Most of the wetlands south of the Lake Hills Connector are small, disturbed wetlands in depressions,
swales, or breaks in slopes; some are associated with small stream channels in the area.
Wetlands EB17, BC, FG Category III 110
Wetlands EB01, EB02, EB03, EB04, EB06, EB08, EB09,
EB10, EB13, EB15, EB16, EB19, EB20, EE
Category III 60
Wetlands EB05, EB11, EB12 Category IV 40
Wetlands EB07, EB14, EB18 Category IV --2
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1 - Most of the wetlands along Bypass Option 1 are
associated directly or indirectly with streams, with the largest wetlands associated with the larger
streams (i.e., Kelsey and Richards creeks). Five of these wetlands are Category I. Several wetlands are
associated with roadside ditches, and most of the rest are adjacent to small non-fish bearing streams
and ditches.
Wetlands BpB04, BpB10, BpB12, BpB14, BpB16 Category I 225
Wetlands BpB03, BpB05, BpB06, BpB07, BpB08,
BpB09, BpB11, BpB15
Category II3 225
Wetlands EB17, BC Category III 110
Wetlands EB13, EB15, EB16, EB19, EB20, EE Category III 60
Wetlands EB12 Category IV 40
Wetlands EB14, EB18 Category IV --2
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐9
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Wetland Wetland
Category1
Required Buffer
(feet)
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2 – Twenty of the 25 wetlands along Bypass Option
2 are in the shared alignment (of the new corridor) with Bypass Option 1. These wetlands include
some of the largest wetlands along the corridor, typically associated with Kelsey and Richards creeks.
Six of these wetlands are Category I. Most of the other wetlands are small wetlands associated with
roadside ditches and small streams.
Wetlands BpB04, BpB10, BpB12, BpB14, BpB16,
BpB23
Category I 225
Wetlands BpB03, BpB05, BpB06, BpB07, BpB08,
BpB09, BpB11, BpB15, BpB20, BpB21, BpB22
Category II3 225
Wetlands EB17, BC Category III 110
Wetlands EB15, EB16, EB19, EB20, EE Category III 60
Wetland EB18 Category IV --2
Bellevue South Segment Oak 1 Option - The 18 wetlands identified along the Oak 1 Option are
primarily along Coal Creek, although one small wetland is just south of I-90, and two others are near
the south end of the option. These wetlands are associated with small streams that cross Coal Creek
Parkway or roadside ditches, although several are associated with Kelsey and Richards creeks. With
the exception of the large wetland complexes associated with East, Richards, and Coal creeks, the
wetlands along the route are small.
Wetlands G2B01 Category II 75
Wetlands FG, BC Category III 110
Wetlands JB01 JB08, MB01 Category III 60
Wetlands JB05, MB04, Category IV 40
Wetlands JB02, JB03, JB04, JB06, JB07, MB02, MB03,
IB01, IB02, IB03, IB04
Category IV --2
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option - The Oak 2 Option wetlands are the same as those
described above for the Oak 1 Option. No wetlands are located along the portion of the Oak 2 Option
that differs from the Oak 1 Option.
Wetland G2B01 Category II 75
Wetlands FG, BC Category III 110
Wetlands JB01, JB08, MB01 Category III 60
Wetlands JB05, MB04 Category IV 40
Wetlands JB02, JB03, JB04, JB06, JB07, MB02, MB03,
IB01, IB02, IB03, IB04
Category IV --2
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐10
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Wetland Wetland
Category1
Required Buffer
(feet)
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option - Fourteen wetlands were identified along the
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option. These wetlands are associated with small streams crossing
the existing corridor, as well as several larger wetland complexes associated with East and Coal
creeks.
Wetlands FG, BC, JB01 Category III 110
WetlandsJB08, MB01 Category III 60
Wetlands MB04, JB05 Category IV 40
Wetlands JB02, JB03, JB04, JB06, JB07, MB02, MB03 Category IV --2
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option - The Willow 2 Option wetlands are similar to those
described above for the Willow 1 Option. Two additional wetlands are located along the Coal Creek
Parkway.
Wetlands FG, BC, JB01 Category III 110
Wetlands JB08, MB01 Category III 60
Wetlands MB04, JB05 Category IV 40
Wetlands JB02, JB03, JB04, JB06, JB07, MB02, MB03,
IB03, IB04
Category IV --2
Newcastle Segment - Two small wetlands were identified in the Newcastle Segment. One is a
depressional wetland west of 129th Avenue SE and is supported by groundwater. The other is north of
SE 95th Way and is supported by groundwater and surface water.
Wetland MN01 Category IV 40
Wetland MN02 Category III 60
Renton Segment - One wetland was delineated in the Renton Segment, near its south end. It is
primarily supported by groundwater, supplemented by surface water and precipitation.
Wetland NR01 Category III 100
1 Wetlands categorized as Category I, II, III, and IV based on the 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2014) (Bellevue’s
classification is based on the 2004 version [Hruby, 2004]). The categories are defined by the Partner Cities in their critical areas
ordinances. See Appendix D for additional information on wetland categories.
2 Category IV wetlands less than 2,500 square feet are not regulated by the City of Bellevue.
3 These wetlands were identified through reconnaissance only and were not delineated by The Watershed Company. For this
analysis, the wetlands are classified as Category II and assigned a 225‐foot buffer. All wetlands along the selected route will be
delineated, and classifications and buffers will be developed as part of the permitting process.
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐11
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Methods for Analyzing
Long-term Impacts
The analysis of potential long-
term or operational impacts to
water resources in the study
area is based primarily on
long-term or ongoing
activities, such as vegetation
management, facility
maintenance, and other
potential ground- or water-
disturbing events that would
occur during operation of the
project. The analysis also
includes the potential effects
of permanent changes in the
study area on adjacent water
resources. The analysis
considers stormwater runoff
from impervious and/or
disturbed surfaces, leaks or
spills from heavy equipment
needed for corridor
maintenance activities, and
the potential use of chemicals
for invasive plant species
management.
Groundwater
Geotechnical studies found groundwater along the existing corridor at depths ranging from less than
10 feet to approximately 60 feet (Geoengineers, 2016). Groundwater was found at or near the surface
on the Redmond Segment in the wetland area south of the Sammamish substation and in the vicinity
of the Richards Creek substation.
Within the study area, Redmond and Renton utilize groundwater for a portion of their water supply.
The north end of the corridor is within Redmond’s Wellhead Protection Zone 4 (RZC 21.64.050).
Development within Wellhead Protection Zone 4 must comply with BMPs for water quality and
quantity approved by Redmond’s Technical Committee (RZC 21.64.050D.4.b). The south end of the
corridor is in Zone 2 of the City of Renton’s Wellhead Protection Area (RMC 4-3-050). The City of
Renton regulates the storage, handling, treatment, use, or production of hazardous materials in this
zone. Construction within Zone 2 must comply with additional construction requirements in the City
of Renton Municipal Code 4-4-030.C8. The proposed transmission line is not in a King County
Groundwater Management Area (King County, 2016). Bellevue maintains four wells used for
emergency supply. These wells are all located east of 148th Avenue NE and would not be affected by
the transmission line (City of Bellevue, 2016b). Bellevue also has several other wells that are held in
reserve for emergency use. These wells are also well outside the transmission line corridor.
3.3.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
Potential long-term impacts to water resources include increased
stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces or permanently
cleared areas, soil compaction that could reduce groundwater
infiltration, contamination of surface water or groundwater from
hazardous materials, and loss of stream function or wetland or
buffer acreage and function. The scale and proximity of water
resources determined the intensity of potential impacts. The
analysis considers potential mitigation measures to minimize or
eliminate project impacts to water resources. For this analysis,
the magnitude of project-related impacts is classified as being
either less-than-significant or significant, as described below.
Less-than-Significant - Impacts to water resources are
considered less-than-significant if project activities
would:
o Cause minor permanent alterations to or
disturbances of water resources;
o Allow minimization or full mitigation of impacts;
o Be in compliance with permit requirements; or
o Be largely avoided by the implementation of
BMPs.
This would also include moderate and temporary
changes in water quality conditions in adjacent water
bodies or groundwater.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐12
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Significant – Impacts to water resources are considered significant where project activities
cannot be reduced through mitigation and would cause any of the following:
o Permanent or long-term alteration of aquatic habitat;
o Adverse changes to the quality or quantity of surface water or groundwater resources;
or
o Long-term impairment of the ecological functions of supporting fish, wildlife, or
wetland plant species in the study area.
3.3.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, PSE’s existing maintenance activities and programs would
continue as described in Chapter 2, with a potential for only periodic and small-scale impacts to
water resources. Environmental requirements regarding the protection of these resources would apply
to PSE’s activities. No Action Alternative activities would be limited in scale and frequency,
typically consisting of periodic vegetation maintenance activities along the existing transmission line
corridor. These maintenance activities would include vegetation removal, but would not typically
require ground clearing that would expose soils and increase erosion. Therefore, nearby water
resource features (rivers, streams, and wetlands) would not be affected. These activities would not
have a significant impact on stormwater runoff, surface water quality or quantity, or groundwater.
3.3.5 Long-term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines)
Impacts Common to all Components
In general, long-term impacts to water resources would be less-than-significant. All impacts would
be minor and could be fully mitigated through compliance with applicable regulations and
implementation of BMPs. The types of impacts associated with the transmission line and poles would
be similar for all segments.
The installation of poles, permanent access roads, or other transmission facilities in wetlands,
streams, or their buffers could lead to a loss of acreage or function. Although the preliminary design
indicates that some poles could be located in streams, PSE has the flexibility to move the poles by up
to 25 feet in either direction along the corridor and would not place new poles directly in streams.
This analysis assumes that any poles proposed near streams would be located within stream buffers
and not the stream bed. Similarly, PSE would move poles to avoid locating them in wetlands to the
extent feasible. However, in some places it may not be possible to avoid putting new poles in
wetlands. PSE would not locate permanent access roads in wetlands. Any poles in wetlands or
buffers would require compliance with the Partner Cities’ critical areas and shoreline management
ordinances, which require avoidance and mitigation. The size of disturbance and the permanent
reduction in wetland or buffer acreage would be small (generally less than 25 square feet per pole).
The impacts would be minor and could be fully mitigated through compliance with applicable
regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant. Impacts from vegetation clearing in
floodplains, wetlands, and in buffers for wetlands and streams are described in more detail in Section
3.4, Plants and Animals.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐13
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
The new 230 kV transmission lines would require tree removal along the existing and new corridors.
As described in detail in Section 3.4.1.3, Plants and Animals, PSE’s vegetation management plan
would prevent tall trees and noxious weeds from growing in the new and existing corridors. Low
vegetation would be allowed to grow in the corridor, and there would be no areas of exposed soil
following construction. Therefore, erosion and sedimentation would not increase, and no long-term
impacts to water quality are expected; impacts would be less-than-significant.
Permanent access roads for the maintenance of poles and transmission lines (and the access road to
the new substation, as described below) would create increased pollution-generating impervious
surfaces. Runoff from these surfaces could affect water quality; however, PSE will rely on existing
roads to access the corridor to the extent possible, and any new permanent roads would be short
segments connecting to existing roads. New roads would include stormwater treatment systems that
meet state and local requirements. Therefore, impacts of these roads on stormwater runoff and water
quality would be less-than-significant.
Maintenance of poles would be limited to regular upkeep. Access roads to poles and transmission
lines would also be maintained. These maintenance activities would likely include grading and
pavement repair, which would comply with applicable regulations. Therefore, they would have a
less-than-significant impact on water resources.
The presence of maintenance vehicles and equipment in the vicinity of streams and wetlands could
result in accidental spills of fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, and other chemicals. These fluids could reach
wetlands, streams, or groundwater if spills are not controlled. Maintenance contractors would be
required to develop spill prevention plans prior to issuance of the clearing and grading permit, that
would be implemented to minimize impacts, so these impacts would be less-than-significant.
Once installed, poles would not affect stormwater runoff, groundwater infiltration, or shallow
groundwater flow. The new poles would be steel and would not generate substances that could
contaminate surface or groundwater (except for some wood poles on a portion of the Oak 2 Option).
Where old poles treated with a wood preservative are removed and replaced with steel poles, a
potential source of groundwater and water contamination would be removed.
The completed transmission line would not generate any pollutants that would affect existing
Ecology 303d listings for streams and rivers along the new and existing corridors. The project would
not generate sediment that would increase turbidity. Tree removal in riparian areas could increase
stream temperatures and affect 303d listings. Avoiding tree removal by pruning or topping trees in
compliance with critical areas regulations would help maintain shading and reduce temperature
increases.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐14
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
New Richards Creek Substation
The Richards Creek substation would be sited to avoid the wetlands and streams on-site to the extent
possible. A large wetland (Wetland BC) is on the north and west side of the site, and Stream C is
west and south of the site. Wetlands FG and JBO1 and Stream JB01 are southeast of the property.
None of the facilities would be in Wetland BC, but the realigned access road and the north portion of
the substation, including a large cleared area, would be within its 110-foot buffer (see Figure 2.1-1).
The access road would cross Stream C, requiring a new culvert. Impacts to Stream C would be
mitigated through compliance with City of Bellevue Critical Areas Ordinance standards for stream
crossings and restoration (see Appendix D). The stormwater detention vault would be in the buffers
for Wetland BC and Stream C. Two poles would be in Wetland JB01 or its buffer. Impacts to the
wetlands and buffers would be mitigated in compliance with City of Bellevue requirements, which
include on-site buffer enhancement. According to The Watershed Company (2016), Wetland BC and
its buffer are currently degraded, and there is potential for mitigation and enhancement on the site
(The Watershed Company, 2016).
Some of the site is currently covered with gravel, which is typically considered an impervious
surface by regulatory agencies. The majority of the 2-acre site would be covered with gravel to
prevent water from ponding near the transformers and other facilities. The gravel areas would not be
pollution-generating surfaces. The realigned access road (approximately 24 feet wide and 500 feet
long) would be paved with asphalt and would be a new pollution-generating surface. Runoff from the
site would be controlled with a new stormwater treatment system, including the detention vault, that
would meet the City of Bellevue stormwater and clearing and grading codes (LUC 24.06 and LUC
23.76). Impacts of the new substation on water resources would be minor because PSE would
comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations to protect water resources and would
implement appropriate BMPs to protect nearby water bodies.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐15
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Stormwater Runoff. Increased impervious surface could increase runoff from the site, but all
runoff would be treated and detained in compliance with City of Bellevue requirements, so
impacts to water resources would be less-than-significant.
Groundwater Infiltration. The amount of increased impervious surface would not affect
groundwater infiltration because the area of impervious surface is relatively small and is not
likely to reduce infiltration. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
Streams and Buffers. The access road would cross Stream C, and some facilities would be
located within its buffer. Impacts would be less-than-significant because required mitigation
would protect the stream from instream work associated with the culvert replacement.
Wetlands and Buffers. The new substation would impact the buffer of Wetland BC, but
required mitigation would protect the wetland functions and values. Impacts would be less-than-
significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐16
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Redmond Segment
In general, impacts to water resources would be less-than-significant along this segment because it
follows the existing corridor and would cause only minor alterations to or disturbances of water
resources.
Streams and Buffers. The transmission line would continue to cross Willows Creek and its
tributaries, but the crossings would not cause long-term impacts to the streams or buffers.
Wetlands and Buffers. There is one Category II and three Category III wetlands along this
segment with relatively large buffers. There are currently four poles in the wetland complex
along Willows Creek, and that number would remain the same. Therefore, there would be no
additional long-term impact to wetlands. The number of poles in buffers would be reduced from
eight to seven and the buffer would be enhanced, resulting in a beneficial impact.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐17
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue North Segment
In general, impacts to water resources would be less-than-significant along this segment because it
follows the existing corridor and would cause only minor alterations to or disturbances of water
resources.
Streams and Buffers. None of the poles would be in stream buffers, so no impacts would occur.
Wetlands and Buffers. None of the poles would be in wetlands or buffers; therefore, no impacts
would occur.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐18
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Impacts to water resources would be less-than-significant along this option because it follows the
existing corridor and would cause only minor alterations to or disturbances of water resources.
Streams and Buffers. None of the poles would be in stream buffers, so no impacts would occur.
Wetlands and Buffers. All of the wetlands along this option are Category III or IV with
relatively small buffers. Some of the Category IV wetlands are too small to be regulated. The
existing three poles in wetlands would be reduced to two with this option. Replacing the poles
would cause a minor reduction in wetland acreage that would be mitigated in accordance with
permit requirements. Therefore, there would be no long-term impact to wetlands. The number of
poles in buffers would be reduced from 14 to six, resulting in beneficial impacts.
Shorelines. The Existing Corridor Option is outside the Kelsey Creek shoreline jurisdiction, so
no impacts would occur.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐19
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Bypass Option 1 would be in a new corridor and require the placement of poles in wetlands and
along Kelsey and Richard creeks. Impacts to water resources would be less-than-significant because
the installation of poles would be in compliance with permit requirements, including mitigation for
stream and wetland impacts.
Streams and Buffers. The transmission line would require 15 stream crossings, and three poles
would be in stream buffers. The crossings would not cause long-term impacts to streams, and
impacts to buffers would be minor and mitigated in accordance with applicable permit
requirements.
Wetlands and Buffers. Three of the wetlands along this option are Category I wetlands, in
which the City of Bellevue only permits new or expanded facilities where no technically feasible
alternative exists. Three poles would be located in wetlands, and 23 poles would be located in
wetland buffers. This would cause a minor reduction in wetland and buffer acreage, which would
be mitigated in accordance with permit requirements.
Shorelines. Portions of this option are in the Kelsey Creek shoreline jurisdiction. The City of
Bellevue only permits new or expanded facilities in shoreline critical areas where no technically
feasible alternative exists. The determination of whether there is a technically feasible alternative
that avoids the shoreline would be made through the permit process if this option were selected.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐20
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Bypass Option 2 would be in a new corridor and require the placement of poles in wetlands and
along the buffers of Kelsey and Richard creeks. Impacts to water resources would be less-than-
significant because the installation of poles would be in compliance with permit requirements,
including mitigation for stream and wetland impacts.
Streams and Buffers. The transmission line would require 17 stream crossings, and three poles
would be located in stream buffers. The crossings would not cause long-term impacts to streams,
and impacts to buffers would be minor and mitigated in accordance with applicable permit
requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. Three of the wetlands along this option are Category I wetlands, and the
City of Bellevue only permits new or expanded facilities where no technically feasible alternative
exists. Six poles would be located in wetlands, and 22 poles would be located in wetland buffers.
This would cause a minor reduction in wetland and buffer acreage, which would be mitigated in
accordance with permit requirements.
Shorelines. Portions of this option are in the Kelsey Creek shoreline jurisdiction. The City of
Bellevue only permits new or expanded facilities in shoreline critical areas where no technically
feasible alternative exists. As with Bypass Option 1, the determination of whether there is a
technically feasible alternative that avoids the shoreline would be made through the permit
process if this option were selected.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐21
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
In the Bellevue Central Segment, the Existing Corridor Option would have the least impacts to water
resources of the options considered. No impacts would occur to streams, and the number of poles
located in wetland buffers would be reduced, resulting in beneficial impacts. Bypass Options 1 and 2
involve a new corridor, and both would require multiple new stream crossings and locating new
poles in wetlands and stream and wetland buffers. Bypass Option 1 includes poles located in five
Category I wetlands, and Bypass Option 2 includes poles located in six Category I wetlands. The
City of Bellevue only permits new or expanded facilities in Category I wetlands if no technically
feasible alternative exists. Bypass Options 1 and 2 are located in the shoreline jurisdiction of Kelsey
Creek, where the City of Bellevue only permits new or expanded facilities if no technically feasible
alternative exists.
The potential impacts to water resources are compared below by option (Table 3.3-3).
Table 3.3-3. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
Segment / Option Stream and Buffer
Impacts
Wetland and Buffer
Impacts
Shoreline
Management Impacts
Existing Corridor
Option
Existing corridor
No impacts
Reduced number of
poles in buffers
Beneficial impacts
No impacts
Bypass Option 1 15 new stream
crossings
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
New buffer and
wetland impacts
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
Locating in the five
Category I wetlands
only permitted if no
technically feasible
alternative exists
Poles proposed in Kelsey
Creek the shoreline
jurisdiction
Locating in the shoreline
jurisdiction is only
permitted if no technically
feasible alternative exists
Bypass Option 2 17 new stream
crossings
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
New wetland and
buffer impacts
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
Locating in the six
Category I wetlands
only permitted if no
technically feasible
alternative exists
Poles proposed in the
Kelsey Creek shoreline
jurisdiction
Locating in the shoreline
jurisdiction is only
permitted if no technically
feasible alternative exists
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐22
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Portions of the Oak 1 Option would be in a new corridor and require a new stream crossing. Impacts
to water resources would be less-than-significant because the installation of poles would be in
compliance with permit requirements, including mitigation for stream and wetland impacts.
Streams and Buffers. The transmission line would cross East, Sunset, and Coal creeks, with a
substantial portion of the line in the Coal Creek buffer. The crossings would not cause long-term
impacts to streams, and impacts to buffers would be minor and mitigated in accordance with
applicable permit requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. Wetlands along this option are Category III or IV with relatively small
buffers except for one Category II wetland. The number of poles located in buffers would
decrease from ten to seven. Impacts would be minor and mitigated in accordance with applicable
permit requirements and would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐23
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
The Oak 2 Option would have the same impacts to water resources as the Oak 1 Option. No wetlands
or streams are located along the portion of the Oak 2 Option that differs from the Oak 1 Option.
Streams and Buffers. The transmission line would cross East, Sunset, and Coal creeks, with a
substantial portion of the line in the Coal Creek buffer. The crossings would not cause long-term
impacts to streams, and impacts to buffers would be minor and mitigated in accordance with
applicable permit requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. Wetlands along this option are Category III or IV with relatively small
buffers except for one Category II wetland. The number of poles in buffers would decrease from
ten to seven. Impacts to buffers would be minor and mitigated as required by permits. Therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐24
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
The Willow 1 Option is within the existing corridor. Impacts to water resources would be less-than-
significant along this option because it would cause only minor alterations to or disturbances of water
resources that could be mitigated.
Streams and Buffers. The transmission line crosses unnamed tributaries of East, Sunset, and
Coal creeks. The crossings would not cause long-term impacts to streams, and impacts to buffers
would be minor and mitigated in accordance with applicable permit requirements. Therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. All of the wetlands along this option are Category III or IV with
relatively small buffers. The number of poles located in buffers would decrease from seven to
three, resulting in beneficial impacts.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐25
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option (PSE’s Preferred Alignment)
The Willow 2 Option follows the existing corridor, but would also include a new corridor that loops
to the west, parallel to portions of Coal Creek. Impacts to water resources would be less-than-
significant because installation of the poles would be in compliance with permit requirements,
including mitigation for stream and wetland impacts, and long-term impacts would not occur.
Streams and Buffers. The transmission line crosses the same streams as the Willow 1 Option in
the north, but the new corridor also crosses unnamed tributaries of Coal Creek. The crossings
would not cause long-term impacts to streams, and impacts to buffers would be minor and
mitigated in accordance with permit requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. All of the wetlands along this option are Category III or IV with
relatively small buffers. The number of poles in buffers would decrease from seven to three,
resulting in beneficial impacts.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐26
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Comparison of Bellevue South Options
In the Bellevue South Segment, all of the four options except Willow 1 Option would involve a new
corridor with new stream, wetland, and buffer impacts. All impacts would be minor with
implementation of required mitigation.
The potential impacts to water resources are compared below by option (Table 3.3-4).
Table 3.3-4. Comparison of Bellevue South Options
Segment / Option Stream and Buffer
Impacts
Wetland and Buffer
Impacts
Shoreline
Management Impacts
Oak 1 Option Five new stream
crossings
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
New buffer impacts
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
No impacts
Oak 2 Option Five new stream
crossings
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
New buffer impacts
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
No impacts
Willow 1 Option Existing corridor
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
Existing corridor
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
No impacts
Willow 2 Option One new stream
crossing
Minor impacts with
required mitigation
Fewer poles in buffers
Beneficial impacts
No impacts
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐27
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Newcastle Segment
The Newcastle Segment would be within the existing corridor. Impacts to water resources would be
less-than-significant along this segment because it would cause only minor alterations to or
disturbances of water resources that could be mitigated. No poles would be located in wetlands,
streams, or buffer.
Streams and Buffers. The Newcastle Segment crosses May Creek and a small seasonal drainage
along the existing corridor. No poles would be placed in buffers. The crossings would not cause
long-term impacts to streams, and no impacts to buffers would occur. Therefore, impacts would
be less-than-significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. No poles would be located in wetlands or buffers, so no impacts would
occur.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐28
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Renton Segment
The Renton Segment would be within the existing corridor. Impacts to water resources would be
less-than-significant along this segment because it would cause only minor alterations to or
disturbances of water resources that could be mitigated.
Streams and Buffers. The transmission line would cross three creeks and the Cedar River in the
existing corridor, the same as existing conditions. No poles would be placed in buffers. The
crossings would not cause long-term impacts to streams, and no impacts to buffers would occur.
Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. The one wetland in this segment is Category III with a 100-foot buffer.
One pole would be placed in the buffer. Impacts would be minor and mitigated in accordance
with applicable permit requirements, so impacts would be less-than-significant.
Shorelines. Although the wires would pass over the Cedar River (as they do at present), no poles
would be within the City of Renton’s shoreline jurisdiction for the Cedar River, so no impacts
would occur.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.3‐29
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
3.3.6 Mitigation Measures
For water resources, regulations established in stormwater regulations, shoreline management
programs, and critical area ordinances were reviewed to identify mitigation measures. Because all of
the mitigation measures are specified by code, they would all be required for project development.
The required mitigation measures would fully mitigate adverse impacts; therefore, no mitigation
measures are proposed in addition to code requirements
Regulatory Requirements
All of the segments and options would need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations, some of which would mitigate the potential for long-term adverse impacts to water
resources. Mitigation measures required for compliance with such regulations are not appealable.
The applicable regulations are presented below based on the stage at which they would be applied.
Prior to Construction
Comply with the stormwater regulations of the Partner Cities, which are based on the
standards set by Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
(Ecology, 2014).
Comply with the requirements of Shoreline Master Programs for Bellevue and Renton in
crossing Kelsey Creek and the Cedar River (see Appendix B).
Comply with the requirements of each applicable Partner City’s critical areas ordinances (see
Appendix D). Typical mitigation measures suggested in the ordinances include:
o Replacement of wetland acreage based on replacement ratios in critical areas
ordinances.
o Replacement of lost buffer area.
o Enhancement or restoration of buffers.
Avoid locating poles in wetlands and wetland buffers to the extent possible. It should be
possible to avoid most wetlands by raising the height of poles, allowing for a longer stretch
of transmission line over the wetland.
During Operation
Implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans during maintenance
activities (for poles, the transmission corridor, and access roads) to prevent spills or leaks of
hazardous materials, paving materials, or chemicals from contaminating surface or
groundwater.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
The EIS Consultant Team
collected maps and other
information available from the
Partner Cities, King County,
and Washington State to
describe existing plant and
animal resources. Technical
reports for critical areas were
reviewed to characterize
resources in the study area.
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
This section provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts to wildlife, fish, and plant
communities and their available habitat within the study area (Figure
3.4-1). The study area extends about one-half mile on either side of
the segment and option routes, based on the estimated extent that
construction noise from project activities or project operations could
potentially influence wildlife behavior.
Plant and animal resources in the study area include various
vegetation cover types (including herbaceous, scrub-shrub, forest,
agricultural, and woody and herbaceous wetland vegetation types),
as well as associated upland and aquatic wildlife species. These
resources were identified and assessed primarily based on the critical
areas (wetlands and streams) reports prepared by The Watershed
Company for PSE for the Energize Eastside project (The Watershed
Company, 2016a, 2016b). Additional sources of information on plants and animals in the study area
consulted to describe the affected environment include the following:
Washington Natural Heritage Program (rare or sensitive plant) database
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service websites
U.S. Geological Survey, National Land Cover database
WDFW interactive mapping programs (Priority Habitats and Species on the Web and
SalmonScape)
City of Bellevue, Urban Wildlife Habitat Literature Review
City of Bellevue, Draft Storm and Surfacewater System Plan (City of Bellevue, 2016a)
King County’s GIS mapping website (iMAP)
Critical areas GIS datasets and mapping websites for the study area
Project-specific tree inventory and critical area reports (The Watershed Company, 2016a,
2016b)
Technical reports regarding typical powerline impacts to wildlife, particularly avian species
PSE vegetation management protocols
Aerial imagery
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014.
Figure 3.4-1. Study Area and Land Cover for Plants and Animals
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Resource protection policies and requirements identified during the Phase 1 analysis were reviewed
for completeness and current relevance. Information sources also included federal, state, and local
regulations, policies, ordinances, and programs established to protect natural resources.
Much of the project follows PSE’s existing corridor, which consists of a managed vegetated
easement and right-of-way area (including established access routes), providing habitat and
migration corridors for area wildlife, as well as specific critical habitat areas (wetlands, streams,
ponds, and their associated buffers). The option routes typically occur along existing roadways in
areas that provide limited wildlife habitat, with some exceptions. These existing roadways would also
typically provide access along the option routes. This analysis assesses the long-term impacts
(alterations) to the habitat and the expected changes in species occurrence or use of this altered
habitat.
Wetlands and streams are water resources and are described in Section 3.3, Water Resources. This
section analyzes their value as fish and wildlife habitat.
3.4.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
The study area encompasses a range of habitat areas that support aquatic and terrestrial species,
including the existing corridor managed by PSE. Public entities that manage undeveloped or public
lands include the WDNR, King County, and the Partner Cities.
Federal, state, and local government policies and regulations (see Tables 6-1 and 6-2 in the Phase 1
Draft EIS) are expected to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife species and their habitats. The
Partner Cities’ comprehensive plans include policies associated with the protection and enhancement
of plants and animals, including restoration of natural features, tree retention, targets for tree canopy
cover, and/or protection of ecological processes and functions of natural features (e.g., wetlands and
streams).
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Regulations
A discussion of critical area regulations is provided in Section 3.3, Water Resources, as well as
Appendix D. In addition to the protection of the water-related aspects of critical area regulations
(e.g., wetland and stream buffer requirements), state and local entities have regulations to protect
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The habitat-related regulations are described below,
along with regulations that specifically address utility uses.
City of Redmond Zoning Code (RZC 21.64.020 - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas) allows the construction of utilities and accessory structures in stream buffers if there is no
feasible alternative location, subject to the following:
o Avoid habitat alterations that create adverse impacts to core preservation areas.
o Implement species management recommendations for impacts to species of concern,
priority species, and species of local importance.
o Avoid alteration of quality habitat areas.
o Use native species in any landscaping of disturbed or undeveloped areas and in any
enhancement of habitat or buffers.
o Emphasize heterogeneity and structural diversity of vegetation.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
o Remove and/or control noxious weeds or animals as defined by the City.
o Preserve significant trees, preferably in groups.
City of Bellevue Land Use Code (LUC 20.25H.155 – Uses in Habitat for Species of Local
Importance and LUC 20.25H.160 Performance Standards) requires protection for habitat
areas, not otherwise classified as critical habitat in LUC 20.25H.025, associated with locally
important species. The regulations allow alteration of these habitats with the implementation of
the wildlife management plan developed by WDFW for the applicable locally important species.
City of Newcastle Code (NMC 18.24.302 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas)
requires:
o Establishing buffer areas for activities in or adjacent to these conservation areas.
o Implementing seasonal restrictions to limit impacts to sensitive species.
o Avoiding or minimizing potential adverse impacts to or degradation of habitat functions.
o Mitigating for habitat alterations to achieve equivalent or greater biological functions.
City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050 – Critical Areas Regulations) provides
exemptions from the regulations for the installation, maintenance, and replacement of utilities in
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, providing that habitat alterations are minimized
and disturbed areas restored.
Tree Protection Regulations
Tree protection regulations in the study area include the following:
City of Redmond Zoning Code (RZC 21.72-Tree Protection) provides permit exemptions for
tree removal in easements and rights-of-way, not including critical areas or critical area buffers,
but requires mitigation in compliance with RZC 21.72.080:
o One replacement tree for each significant tree (greater than 6-inch diameter) removed,
except for hazardous, dead, or diseased trees, or those with no reasonable assurance of
regaining vigor.
o Three replacement trees for each landmark tree (greater than 30-inch diameter) removed,
with the same exemptions described above for significant trees.
o On-site tree replacement is preferred (if feasible), although off-site replanting is allowable
for approved sites.
City of Redmond Zoning Code (RZC 21.64-Critical Areas) allows normal and routine
maintenance, operation, and reconstruction of existing roads, streets, utilities, and associated
rights-of-way and structures, provided that reconstruction of any structures may not increase the
impervious area, remove flood storage capacity, or further encroach into a critical area or its
buffer.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐5
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
City of Bellevue City Code (BCC 20.20.900 Tree Retention and Replacement) requires
retention of significant trees for any type of land alteration activity. Areas to be cleared for
utilities are exempt from these tree retention standards. Significant trees are defined as 8-inch
diameter for evergreen trees and 12-inch diameter for deciduous trees; replacement trees would
have a combined diameter equal to the diameter of the removed tree. Subsection E applies to the
R-1 Land Use District in the Bridle Trails Subarea.
City of Newcastle Municipal Code (NMC 18.16 Development Standards – Landscaping and
Tree Retention) exempts utility development from specific tree retention requirements,
including significant trees.
City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing
Regulations) allows tree removal for maintenance activities and essential tree removal for public
utilities except for restrictions in critical areas. The critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050)
permit critical area disturbances for utilities within existing, improved right-of-way or easements
if the impacts are minimized and disturbed areas restored during or immediately after the
disturbance occurs. The removal of landmark trees (30-inch diameter) would require a vegetation
management or land development permit. Tree removal in critical areas may also require
mitigation monitoring.
PSE Vegetation Management Program
PSE’s Vegetation Management Program includes different standards and management/maintenance
practices for 115 kV and 230 kV lines, as described below (PSE, 2014).
Vegetation Management/Maintenance Standards for 115 kV Transmission Lines
The maintenance practice currently followed in PSE’s existing corridor involves removal, pruning,
and trimming of trees that could interfere with the transmission lines. For 115 kV transmission lines,
PSE maintains (i.e., trims or removes) trees that mature to a height of greater than 25 feet that are
located within the Managed Right-of-Way, which includes the area directly under the wires (referred
to as the Wire Zone, which accommodates the area where the conductors and insulators can swing)
and 10 feet outside of the outer transmission wires (referred to as the Border Zone) (Figure 3.4-2).
The overall size of the Managed Right-of-Way typically varies by site-specific conditions. Trees
within the Managed Right-of-Way could be removed, or trimmed or pruned, to maintain adequate
separation between the wires and vegetation. As a result, some trees within the corridor with a height
of greater than 25 feet may be allowed to remain if they can be pruned in a manner that allows
sufficient clearance from the lines (PSE, 2014). Maintenance requirements are typically reviewed on
a 3-year cycle.
In addition to typical maintenance procedures, trees outside of the Managed Right-of-Way that are at
risk of falling or that are likely to come in contact with nearby wires are proactively removed
(referred to as the Danger Tree Zone), which also varies by the height of the trees in this zone.
PSE selectively uses herbicides, in combination with tree removal and pruning, for vegetation
management/maintenance in accordance with BMPs. PSE also implements an ecologically based,
integrated weed management program to control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds. These
weeds can crowd out native plants, degrade habitats, and increase harmful erosion (PSE, 2016a).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐6
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Figure 3.4-2. Vegetation Management Zones for 115 kV Transmission Lines
PSE’s policy is to restore vegetation other than trees within transmission corridors to as like or better
condition. Outside of the Managed Right-of-Way, tree replacement is agreed upon with the property
owner (in some cases the owner may prefer tree removal without replacement). Tree replacement
would also comply with local code requirements, as described above in Section 3.4.1.
Vegetation Management/Maintenance Standards for 230 kV Transmission Lines
To provide reliable service to PSE customers and respond to current standards of the NERC (the
organization in charge of improving the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North
America), PSE has adopted vegetation management/maintenance standards for electric transmission
lines with voltages of 200 kV or higher (Figure 3.4-3). The overall size of the vegetation
management/maintenance area typically varies by transmission pole type (see Appendix E). Based on
these standards, PSE removes any vegetation within the Managed Right-of-Way that matures to a
height of more than 15 feet (PSE, 2014). Trees outside of the Managed Right-of-Way within the
Danger Tree Zone could also be trimmed or removed based on some combination of tree height,
species, health, and distance from the wires. For this analysis, it was assumed that trees with a height
of 70 feet or greater with the potential to fall or contact the powerlines would be removed.
This is the management practice that PSE would use for the 230 kV line in the existing and new
corridors if the project were implemented.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐7
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Figure 3.4-3. Vegetation Management Zone for 230 kV Transmission Lines
PSE’s policies for weed management and vegetation restoration are the same for 230 kV and 115 kV
transmission lines.
PSE Avian Protection Program
PSE implements measures to minimize the effects of its transmission system on avian species
through its Avian Protection Program, with particular emphasis on species protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
The three primary mechanisms for harming birds are electrocutions, collisions, and problem nests
(PSE, 2016b). In addition to the potential for harming birds, these incidences can cause power
outages, fires, and other damage to the electrical system. Between 2009 and 2012, an average of
about 1,500 bird or animal-caused outages occurred over PSE’s entire distribution system. To
improve system reliability and reduce wildlife impacts, PSE completes over 400 avian-safe system
modifications each year system-wide and builds new facilities using avian safe standards. System
modifications include adding safe perching structures, line markers, bird guards, perch discouragers,
wire and equipment covers, and nesting platforms.
3.4.2 Plants and Animals in the Study Area
Vegetation Cover
As with the study area evaluated in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, a substantial portion of the Phase 2 study
area is already developed to varying degrees, with different amounts of vegetation cover (see Figure
3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-4). The primary land cover types within this study area consist of developed
properties with varying levels of vegetation cover, with 35 percent of the study area having 50
percent or less vegetation cover, and 34 percent between 50 and 80 percent vegetation cover. The
remaining area consists primarily of forest (15 percent) and open space (15 percent) habitat, and
about 1 percent shrub/scrub, herbaceous, and wetland habitats. The largest patches of forested
vegetation cover are found in parks, open space areas, and undeveloped areas.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐8
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Figure 3.4-4. Vegetation Cover Types in the Study Area
Rare Plants
As indicated in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, the Washington Natural Heritage Program database, managed
by WDNR, identifies one rare plant occurrence in the vicinity of the study area: Vancouver ground-
cone (Boschniakia hookeri), which is a parasitic plant found in Bridle Trails State Park. While the
study area is adjacent to this park, it does not encompass any portion of the park. No other rare plants
are documented in, or near, the study area (WDNR, 2016).
Plants
As indicated in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (see Section 6.3.3), trees provide numerous functions and
benefits, including wildlife habitat for breeding, rearing, and foraging. They also provide direct and
indirect benefits to aquatic habitats by reducing stormwater flows, controlling stream temperatures
(shade), and reducing stream erosion. Heavily vegetated and forested areas also provide wildlife
corridors to enhance wildlife population connectivity to various habitat types that support such
activities as breeding, foraging, and rearing.
The potential vegetation impacts of the project are based largely on the number of trees that could be
subject to removal or maintenance (trimming) within the existing corridor and along the new corridor
associated with the route options. Project-specific tree inventories were conducted in 2015 and 2016
along the approximately 100-foot-wide easement that includes the existing PSE transmission lines, as
well as along both sides of the road for the route options (The Watershed Company, 2016a)1. These
surveys inventoried a total of over 10,000 trees along the existing corridor and new corridor,
including at least 4,300 trees occurring within the Managed Right-of-Way, depending on segment
and option (see Figure 3.4-5). The purpose of the inventories was to survey the number and location
of all vegetation with a potential to reach a mature height of 15 feet or more (by segment), including
significant trees. Significant trees are defined in this study as healthy evergreen or deciduous trees, 8
inches in diameter or greater, measured 4 feet above existing grade. However, the classification of
what is a significant tree varies slightly between jurisdictions.
1 Approximately 25 trees on both sides of Bel-Red Road between 132nd Avenue NE and 136th Avenue NE and
approximately 25 trees on the east side of Richards Road between SE 23rd Street and SE 26th Street were not
surveyed by The Watershed Company. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all 50 trees would be
considered significant and would be removed as part of Bypass Option 2.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐9
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Based on these surveys, the number of trees within the Managed Right-of-Way ranges from
approximately 340 in the Newcastle Segment to about 2,220 in the Oak 2 Option (see Figure 3.4-5).
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016a.
Figure 3.4-5. Total Trees Surveyed, by Segment, and Trees in the Managed Right-of-Way
Areas, by Segment and Option
The inventory also surveyed the location of smaller (non-significant) trees or shrubs if they were, or
could potentially reach, a height of 15 feet or more, regardless of their current height. Typical criteria
for a 230 kV PSE transmission corridor call for removing or pruning vegetation in the Managed
Right-of-Way areas that could exceed 15 feet in height. The non-significant trees and shrubs were
characterized as groups, ranging from 2 to more than 50 individual plants, ranging from 10 to 25 feet
in height, and one-half to 3 inches in diameter.
Fish and Wildlife
As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, much of the study area consists of substantially modified fish
and wildlife habitat, including extensive landscaped or maintained areas. However, some of the areas
along the existing corridor and new corridor include WDFW-designated priority habitats (WDFW,
2016a) and other natural areas. Animal species typically found in landscaped areas have a high
tolerance for human disturbance. The dominance of these species is due to decreased available
habitat, smaller habitat patch sizes, increased edge habitat, increased non-native vegetation, and
decreased vegetative complexity (The Watershed Company, 2009).
Despite the existing habitat modifications and ongoing maintenance activities, the existing corridor
provides important urban habitat and migration and connectivity corridors for existing wildlife (The
Watershed Company, 2009). Such connectivity corridors are particularly crucial for less mobile
species (e.g., ground-oriented mammals) to forage, reproduce, and travel between larger patches of
available habitat. While still important for larger mammals and birds, which tend to be more mobile,
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐10
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Methods for Analyzing Long-term
Impacts
To determine long-term
(operational) impacts, the EIS
Consultant Team assessed the
number of trees and significant
trees, and acres of habitat
potentially subject to vegetation
management/ maintenance, as well
as the change in the number of
poles to assess changes in habitat
availability. The potential presence
of protected fish, wildlife, and plant
species was also assessed to
determine the significance of such
changes.
these connectivity corridors effectively increase the overall available habitat sizes (The Watershed
Company, 2009). In addition, the pole structures and wires provide potential nesting and roosting
habitat for some avian species.
Several large avian species that tolerate human activity are somewhat common in portions of the
study area, including the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, red-tailed hawk, and great blue heron
(The Watershed Company, 2009). However, these species occur more frequently near open water or
open field foraging areas, which typically do not occur in the study area.
The study area wetlands, streams, floodplains, and rivers (described in Section 3.3, Water Resources)
provide habitat for a variety of native and non-native fish and other aquatic-oriented species. These
include a number of migratory species (sockeye, coho, kokanee, and Chinook salmon, as well as
steelhead, cutthroat trout, peamouth, and lamprey) (WDFW, 2016b; City of Bellevue, 2016b; King
County, 2016). Other common species found in the area streams include stickleback, bluegill, and
sculpin. While most streams in the study area are identified as non-fish bearing waters, the larger
rivers and streams (i.e., Cedar River, and Kelsey, Richards, and Coal creeks) provide important fish
habitat (City of Bellevue, 2016b; King County, 2016).
Sensitive or Protected Fish and Wildlife
As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Section 6.4), the study area provides potential habitat for
several bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, and fish species protected by federal, state, or local
environmental laws and regulations (e.g., federal or state listed endangered or threatened species).
The critical areas ordinances of King County and the Partner Cities also list species of local concern.
A list of these species and their federal/state designation is provided in Appendix C of the Phase 1
Draft EIS. Species of local concern include the following: bald eagle, great blue heron, osprey,
peregrine falcon, Vaux’s swift, red-tailed hawk, northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, purple
martin, marbled murrelet, western grebe, merlin, green heron, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Western
big-eared bat, Keen’s myotis, long-legged myotis, long-eared myotis, western pond turtle, Oregon
spotted frog, western toad, Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and river lamprey.
3.4.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
Potential long-term impacts include impacts to plant and
animal resources in the study area caused by the operation of
the project, as well as permanent impacts caused by
construction. Such activities include the loss of habitat due to
construction, regular vegetation maintenance activities,
facility maintenance protocols, and other potentially
disturbing events. In particular, the analysis of operation
impacts includes the short- and long-term impacts of tree
removal, and is based on the project-specific tree inventory
reports (The Watershed Company, 2016a). These reports
assess the number, size, and type of trees expected to be
removed as part of the project, and the conditions (tree
density) of adjacent properties. The analysis also considered
noise disturbance, habitat loss or alteration, invasive plant
species management protocols, vegetation maintenance, and
stormwater runoff from impervious and/or disturbed surfaces.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐11
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
In general, the project would install new poles as close to the existing poles as practicable, and the
existing poles would be removed. This would typically reduce the number of poles along the existing
corridor, although the size (height) and overall footprint of the new poles would increase to some
degree. Therefore, the amount of natural resource habitat in the study area is not expected to
substantially decrease, although the quality of the habitat and the species uses could potentially
change. Habitat changes would occur primarily due to the number of trees removed along the
existing corridor, as a result of specific vegetation management requirements for 230 kV power lines
compared to the existing 115 kV lines. Additional tree removal would also occur along the new
corridor.
Magnitude of Impact
The magnitude of potential impacts to plants and animals would vary substantially based on the
amount of habitat disturbed or lost, including the number, location, and type of trees removed during
the initial construction phase, and the proximity of construction activities to suitable or occupied fish
and wildlife habitat, sensitive plant species, and critical areas (i.e., wetlands and streams). For this
analysis, the magnitude of project-related impacts is classified as being less-than-significant or
significant, as follows:
Less-than-Significant – Impacts to plants and animals are considered less-than-significant if
project activities would:
o Cause minor alterations or disturbances to study area habitats, including impacts that
could be minimized but not fully mitigated.
o Occur in developed areas with minimal or poor quality habitat.
o Disrupt or disturb wildlife uses, but not prevent or eliminate use.
o Mitigate for impacts through compliance with tree protection or critical areas
ordinances.
This includes moderate interference with the breeding, feeding, or movement of resident or
migratory fish, bird, amphibian, or mammal species; as well as activities that could cause
harassment, injury, or death to common species, whose populations would not be
substantially altered by project activities. This also includes limited or moderate permanent
disturbance or effects on sensitive plant species or wetlands.
Significant – Impacts to plants and animals are considered significant where project
activities would cause any of the following:
o Injury, death, or harassment of federal and state-listed endangered or threatened
species, or bald eagle and peregrine falcon (state sensitive and federal species of
concern).
o A reduction of habitat quality or quantity that can substantially affect the critical
survival activities (breeding, rearing, and foraging) of these protected species.
o Substantial interference with the breeding, feeding, or movement of native resident or
migratory fish, bird, amphibian, or mammal species; or noncompliance with tree
protection ordinances or critical areas (wetland and stream) protective ordinances.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐12
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
3.4.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Long-term impacts of the No Action Alternative are the same as those described in the Phase 1 Draft
EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, PSE would continue current line maintenance activities along
the existing corridor as described in Chapter 2. As a result, the Phase 1 Draft EIS concluded that
there would be a minor loss of vegetation or disturbance to animals from permanent structures.
Therefore, the No Action Alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts to plants and
animals.
While the No Action Alternative would be limited to maintaining the existing transmission lines,
there is a potential for some minor direct and indirect impacts to plants and animals along the
corridor, particularly from the periodic replacement of poles. These activities would include noise
disturbance, habitat alteration or loss (temporary vegetation clearing), degradation of aquatic habitat
from site runoff, and the potential spread of invasive plant species into areas disturbed by
maintenance activities.
Disturbance from Noise and Human Activity
Increased noise and human activity associated with line maintenance activities could impact plants
and animals, depending on the scale of such activities. As described above, animal species living in
urban areas are generally tolerant of noise or disturbance activities. While some individuals could be
temporarily displaced or relocate to surrounding habitats, most would likely return after the noise and
activities associated with temporary maintenance activities cease. In addition, BMPs would be
instituted to minimize or eliminate such impacts. These would include scheduling activities outside
of critical periods (for example, breeding or nesting seasons) and minimizing maintenance activity
noise levels. While the typical vegetation maintenance activities would elevate noise levels above
background levels, no excessive noise levels would likely occur, such as from blasting or pile driving
activities. Increased noise levels would be a significant adverse impact if listed species are harassed,
lost, or permanently displaced. However, such protected species are not known to occupy habitat in
the existing corridor. As a result, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Loss of Habitat
Maintenance activities would require limited grading or vegetation removal in areas that currently
provide wildlife habitat. Impacts from the direct losses of terrestrial habitat would vary depending on
the extent of the impact (how much area is affected), the recovery time for replanted areas, and if
listed species, species of concern, or priority habitats are affected. However, typical maintenance
activities associated with the No Action Alternative are expected to be infrequent (typically every 3
years) and of limited scale (typically trimming and isolated tree removal), which is expected to result
in less-than-significant losses of habitat or species displacement.
PSE’s existing policy is to restore vegetation other than trees within transmission corridors using
plant communities composed of low-growing native ferns and shrubs and small-scale native trees,
particularly those that resist disease and insect infestations (PSE, 2014). The resulting diverse plant
community would be of increased value to resident wildlife. Slow-growing and low-profile native
species that mature at heights compatible with established PSE guidelines would also limit
maintenance requirements. Outside of the Managed Right-of-Way, tree and other vegetation
replacement is coordinated with the property owners (in some cases, the owner may prefer tree
removal with no replacement, or replanting with non-native ornamental species). Tree replacement
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐13
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
would also comply with local code requirements (see Section 3.4.1 for a description of code
requirements).
Sedimentation of Aquatic Habitats
As described in Section 3.3, sedimentation of aquatic habitats (streams and wetlands) due to runoff
from disturbed areas or turbidity from in-water work is not expected to occur during maintenance
activities. In compliance with state and local stormwater permit requirements, PSE would implement
BMPs to control surface water runoff, minimizing the potential for uncontrolled runoff. In addition,
the maintenance activities typically do not result in ground-disturbing activities, thereby limiting
runoff from bare soil areas. In the event of any inadvertent discharge, corrective actions would be
implemented in accordance with permit requirements and local clearing and grading requirements,
such that less-than-significant impacts would occur.
Contamination of Aquatic Habitats
As described in Section 3.3, there is a potential for accidental spills of oils, fuels, solvents, and other
chemicals from equipment used for maintenance activities. If not controlled, such spills could enter
nearby surface waters and contaminate aquatic habitats and species. The potential for spills would be
minimized by fulfilling permit requirements and implementing Spill Prevention and Control Plans. In
addition, the limited and infrequent maintenance activities under the No Action Alternative are
expected to result in less-than-significant impacts.
Invasive Plant Control
Under the No Action Alternative, PSE would continue to selectively use herbicides for vegetation
management, in accordance existing permits and associated BMPs (PSE, 2016a). Therefore, less-
than-significant impacts are expected.
3.4.5 Long-term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines)
Impacts Common to all Components
The primary long-term impacts of the project on plants and animals are the direct and indirect effects
of removing mature trees along the existing corridor and new corridor. As indicated above, most of
the overall study area is developed as urban, suburban, and exurban areas, providing limited and low
quality wildlife habitat. In addition to the existing habitat conditions, ongoing maintenance activities
within and adjacent to the Managed Right-of-Way would continue to occur after the project is built
along the existing corridor. These activities include periodic trimming or the removal of trees within
the vegetation management zones, in accordance with established management criteria. The potential
new route options typically occur in areas that are much more developed than the existing corridor,
or along existing roadways. As a result, the habitat along these new alignments typically consists of
landscaped or maintained vegetated areas.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐14
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Potential Impacts to Plants
The analysis of impacts to plants considered the total number of trees potentially removed in the
study area, the percentage of trees removed of those surveyed by segment or option, and the density
of trees removed within a given segment or option. The analysis also addressed both total trees and
significant trees. Results are described below for these metrics, which present different ways of
considering the potential impacts on plants.
Based on the tree survey data from The Watershed Company, the project alignment with the potential
to remove the greatest number of trees (up to about 5,400 trees) is the combination of segments and
options that include the following:
Richards Creek Substation + Redmond Segment + Bellevue North Segment + Bypass Option
1 + Willow 2 Option + Newcastle Segment + Renton Segment) (The Watershed Company,
2016a).
The project alignment with the potential to remove the least number of trees (up to about 3,600
trees) is the combination of segments and options that include the following:
Richards Creek Substation + Redmond Segment + Bellevue North Segment + Bellevue
Central Existing Corridor + Willow 1 Option + Newcastle Segment + Renton Segment).
PSE’s preferred project alignment has the potential to remove up to about 4,200 trees and includes
the following combination of segments and options:
Richards Creek Substation + Redmond Segment + Bellevue North Segment + Bellevue
Existing Corridor + Willow 2 Option + Newcastle Segment + Renton Segment.
Considering the percentage of potential tree removal of the total trees surveyed by segment and
option, the Redmond, Existing Corridor Option of the Bellevue Central Segment, Oak 1 Option of
the Bellevue South Segment, Newcastle, and Renton Segments would experience the highest
percentage removal of total surveyed trees (Figure 3.4-6). The lowest percentage of tree removal by
segment and option (66 percent) occurs in the Bellevue North Segment. The number of trees
removed could be lower than the estimates noted above because PSE could choose to trim or prune
rather than completely remove trees in a manner that ensures compliance with NERC standards.
Therefore, the estimate represents a worst-case assessment.
Considering the density of potential tree removal, the number of removed trees per acre of area
surveyed is less variable than the percentage of trees removed by segment or option, with most
segments/options ranging between 17 and 26 percent of trees removed per acre (Figure 3.4-7). In
contrast, the number of significant trees removed per acre tends to be lower in the segments within
the existing corridor, compared to the options with new corridors (Figure 3.4-7). Bypass Option 1
would have the highest number of trees removed per acre out of all the segments and options.
Although the amount of potential wildlife habitat (e.g., roosting and nesting) would be reduced
within the study area, substantial habitat would continue to be available along much of the corridor,
with at least 5,000 inventoried trees retained within the surveyed areas, many of which would be
contiguous with trees on adjacent properties (The Watershed Company, 2016a). As a result, the basic
character and functions of the habitat in the existing corridor would be maintained. In addition, the
habitat is used primarily by urbanized wildlife species, and few protected wildlife species regularly
occur in the study area. Therefore, vegetation removal associated with Alternative 1 would result in a
less-than-significant impact.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐15
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Figure 3.4-6. Percentage of Surveyed Trees Subject to Removal, by Segment and Option
Figure 3.4-7. Total Trees and Significant Trees per Acre, Subject to Removal, by
Segment and Option
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐16
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Potential Impacts to Animals and Critical Habitat
Of the more than 5,400 trees that could potentially be removed, depending on the segment or option
combination, about 340 of these trees (6 percent) occur in critical areas (primarily wetland habitat),
and about 1,070 trees (20 percent) occur in wetland and stream buffer areas (Figure 3.4-8) (The
Watershed Company, 2016c). This would increase the potential disturbance of these sensitive
habitats and reduce the shading provided by the trees. These numbers are based on the strict
application of PSE’s vegetation management standards (see Section 3.4.1.2), and represent a
conservatively high rate of tree removal. PSE has the management flexibility of pruning rather
removing trees where adequate clearance can be maintained. To the extent practicable, the number of
trees removed from sensitive habitats would be minimized, and any removal would be mitigated as
required by local critical area ordinances. With mitigation, the effects of impacts to critical areas
would be less-than-significant.
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016c.
Figure 3.4-8. Trees in Critical Habitats and Buffers, Subject to Removal, by Segment and
Option
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐17
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Poles would be replaced in about the same locations as the existing poles, with a small number
within or near critical habitat areas. However, PSE has flexibility in the placement of new poles,
making it possible to maximize avoidance of these areas. For general planning purposes, it was
assumed that the new poles can be placed anywhere within approximately 25 feet of the locations of
the existing poles. This means that a pole currently located in a wetland or floodplain, for example,
may be replaced with a pole in the wetland buffer or outside of floodplain habitat, and in some cases
outside of the buffer. Most of the new poles would be installed outside of critical habitat areas. There
would also be an overall reduction in the number of poles in critical habitat buffer areas because of
the typical change in pole type from paired H-frame structures with multiple poles to a single-pole
design in many locations. As a result of the reduced number of new poles, the reduced number of
poles in sensitive habitats, the limited habitat disturbance that typically occurs from installing and
removing poles, and mitigation required by each jurisdiction, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Replacing existing poles (typically H-frame structures) with primarily single or tandem monopoles
could reduce roosting or nesting opportunities for birds in the study area because poles are sometimes
used for these purposes. Habitat reductions along the existing corridor would be due to a decrease in
the total number of poles (26 to 57 percent, depending on the segment or option). Route options in
the new corridor would result in an increase in the number of poles (relative to the existing corridor).
These locations occur along heavily traveled roadways, which would not encourage nesting behavior
but could provide limited roosting habitat. Overall, the changes in the number of poles would have
less-than-significant impacts because few protected wildlife species occupy the segments and route
options, there are no known nests on the existing structures, and PSE typically discourages nesting on
the pole structures.
The project would reduce the electrocution and collision rates for avian species. The most common
cause of avian electrocution is when birds simultaneously contact two power phases (wires carrying
different charge). Avian electrocutions occur most frequently with lower voltage distribution lines
(30 kV or less) because conductors on most these lines are narrowly spaced and can be bridged by
birds, particularly those with large wing spans (Dwyer et al., 2013; SCL, 2014). Electrocution
incidences are lower with higher voltage transmission lines because of the greater separation between
wires. For the Energize Eastside project, spacing of the 230 kV wires would typically be greater than
the existing 115 kV lines, which would reduce the electrocution potential. The larger conductor size
of the 230 kV lines would also be easier to see, reducing the potential for bird collision (SCL, 2014).
In addition, replacing all of the poles along the corridor would provide the opportunity to include the
latest system designs for reducing impacts to avian species, in accordance with PSE’s Avian
Protection Program (PSE, 2016b). This includes using pole types that discourage nesting and
perching, and installing wire guards and line markers to reduce the risks of birds coming in contact
with system components. Therefore, changes to project-related mortality of avian species would be
less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐18
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
The project would result in less-than-significant impacts to fish or fish habitat, as project activities
would not result in direct impacts to stream habitat, and effects on riparian or floodplain habitat
functions would be minimized through mitigation to the extent practicable. The project activities
would not result in substantial ground disturbance, or a substantial increase the amount of impervious
surface area, so changes in stream water quality and quantity are not expected to occur. In addition,
construction BMPs would be implemented to further minimize or eliminate impacts from project
activities. Finally, PSE will avoid placing poles in streams, floodplains and wetlands, and associated
buffers to the extent feasible; see Section 3.3.5.1, Water Resources.
Impacts specific to the project components (including the new substation, segments, and route
options) are summarized below. The tree inventory numbers reflect PSE’s inventory of trees within
the surveyed area, depending on the segment and option (The Watershed Company, 2016a, 2016b).
Tree removal numbers are preliminary and are considered conservatively high numbers as explained
above. It is very likely that the number of trees ultimately removed with the project would be less
than these conservative estimates.
Consistency with Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
As described above, existing policies and regulations provide exemptions for typical construction and
maintenance activities associated with utility corridors, which would include the proposed project. In
addition, PSE will continue to implement its existing programs to minimize project operational
impacts to fish and wildlife in the study area.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐19
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
New Richards Creek Substation
A portion of the Richards Creek substation site is already cleared of vegetation. In addition, areas to
the north and south of the site are already within PSEs existing vegetation management zone.
However, the proposed substation would be constructed within the forested section along the east
side of the property, resulting in the removal of about 170 large trees. Despite the vegetation clearing,
impacts to wildlife species are expected to be limited because much of the site is currently disturbed,
no protected wildlife species are identified as occurring in this area, and none were observed during
project-specific field investigations (The Watershed Company, 2016a, 2016b). Lamprey, a protected
aquatic species, are known to occur in streams adjacent to the site, but stream and riparian habitat
would not be substantially affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-
than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About
170 (38 percent) of the more
than 500 large trees on the
parcel are within the proposed
project clearing limits,
including about 110
significant trees, three dead or
dying trees, and 29 in a
wetland buffer.
Wildlife Habitat: The
substation would occupy
about 2 acres (26 percent) of
the 7.8 acres at the site,
removing about 2.8 acres of
forest habitat.
Sensitive Species: No
impacts to terrestrial species
are expected because
protected plant or terrestrial
wildlife species are not known
to inhabit the study area. One
protected fish species
(lamprey) occurs in streams
adjacent to the Richards
Creek substation parcel, but
stream habitat would not be
substantially affected by the
project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐20
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Redmond Segment
Although the amount of potential wildlife habitat (e.g., roosting and nesting) would be reduced
within this segment, similar habitat would continue to be available in areas adjacent to the study area
corridor. As a result, the basic character and functions of the existing habitat in the corridor, which is
used primarily by urbanized wildlife species, would be maintained. In addition, few protected
wildlife species regularly occur in the study area. The number of trees removed from sensitive
habitats would be minimized or avoided, and any removal would be mitigated as required by local
critical area ordinances. Although lamprey, a protected aquatic species, occur in streams within this
segment, stream and riparian habitat would not be substantially affected. Therefore, the impacts to
fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 630 trees (81 percent of
the total surveyed in the segment) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 510 significant
trees, as well as about 84 trees from critical areas, 167
trees from critical area buffers, and three landmark
trees. In some cases removal may be avoided by
trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the segment is
illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Extensive tree removal would reduce
the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat, and the
reduction in the number of poles would also reduce
potential avian nesting and roosting habitat. However,
the reduction in poles would reduce potential impacts to
wetland, riparian, or floodplain habitats or functions,
which support aquatic-oriented species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. One
protected fish species (lamprey) occurs in the Willow
Creek drainage, but stream habitat is not expected to be
affected by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐21
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Bellevue North Segment
As described for the Redmond Segment, despite the amount of potential tree removal, habitat
suitable for the urbanized species that typically occur in the area would remain. In addition, the
number of trees removed from sensitive habitats would be minimized or avoided, and any removal
would be mitigated as required by local critical area ordinances. Although several protected aquatic
species occur in streams within this segment, stream and riparian habitat would not be substantially
affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 510 trees (66 percent of the
total surveyed in the segment) could be removed, including
the potential removal of about 190 significant trees, and
three trees from critical areas or buffers. In some cases
removal may be avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per
acre along the segment is illustrated in the graphic to the
right.
Wildlife Habitat: Extensive tree removal would reduce
the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat, and the
reduction in the number of poles would also reduce
potential avian nesting and roosting habitat. However, the
reduction in poles would reduce potential impacts to
wetland, riparian, or floodplain habitats or functions,
which support aquatic-oriented species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. Although
two protected fish species (Chinook salmon and lamprey)
occur in Valley Creek, stream habitat would not be
substantially affected by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐22
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Although the potential effects of tree removal in this option would be similar to those described for
the Redmond Segment, a lower percentage of trees would be removed. Available habitat in adjacent
areas would also continue to provide suitable habitat for the urbanized wildlife species that typically
occur in the area. In addition, few protected wildlife species regularly occur in the corridor, and the
number of trees removed from sensitive habitats would be minimized or avoided. Any removal
would be mitigated as required by local critical area ordinances. Although several protected aquatic
species occur in streams within this option, stream and riparian habitat would not be substantially
affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 620 trees (81 percent of the
total trees surveyed in the option) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 250 significant
trees, as well as about 140 trees from critical areas, and
411 trees from the buffers. In some cases removal may be
avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the
option is illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Tree removal would reduce the quality
and quantity of wildlife habitat, and the reduction in the
number of poles would also reduce potential avian nesting
and roosting habitat. However, the reduction in poles
would reduce potential impacts to wetland, riparian, or
floodplain habitats or functions, which support aquatic-
oriented species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or wildlife species are not
known to inhabit the study area. Although three protected
fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead, and lamprey)
occur in Kelsey and Richards creeks, stream habitat would
not be substantially affected by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐23
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
The potential effects of tree removal in this corridor would be similar to those described for the
Existing Corridor Option. However, a substantial portion of the alignment occurs along existing
roadways, potentially limiting habitat, and adjacent areas would continue to provide suitable habitat
for the urbanized wildlife species that typically occur in the area. In addition, few protected wildlife
species regularly occur in the corridor, and the number of trees removed from sensitive habitats
would be minimized or avoided. Any removal would be mitigated as required by local critical area
ordinances. Although several protected aquatic species occur in streams within this option, stream
and riparian habitat would not be substantially affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and
plants would be less-than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 1,790 trees (86 percent of the
surveyed trees along the option route) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 1,230 significant
trees, as well as 244 trees from critical areas and about 699
trees from their buffers. In some cases removal may be
avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the
option is illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Extensive tree removal would reduce
the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat. This could be
slightly offset by the installation of additional poles along
this new alignment, particularly along the Kelsey Creek
Park wetland complex, although PSE would continue the
practice of discouraging nesting on the new poles. The
limited number and footprint of poles that may be installed
in wetland, riparian, or floodplain habitats would not
measurably affect the functions of these habitats or
associated species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected wildlife species are not known
to inhabit the study area. Although three protected fish
species (Chinook salmon, steelhead, and lamprey) occur in
Kelsey, Richards, and West Tributary of Kelsey creeks,
stream habitat would not be substantially affected by the
project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐24
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Although the potential effects of tree removal in this corridor would be similar to those described for
the Redmond Segment, a lower percentage of trees would be removed. However, much of the
alignment occurs along existing roadways, potentially limiting wildlife use. While adjacent areas
would continue to provide suitable habitat for the urbanized wildlife species, few protected wildlife
species regularly occur in the corridor. The number of trees removed from sensitive habitats would
be minimized or avoided, and any removal would be mitigated as required by local critical area
ordinances. Although several protected aquatic species occur in streams within this option, stream
and riparian habitat would not be substantially affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and
plants would be less-than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 1,240 trees (85 percent of the
trees surveyed along the option route) could be removed,
including potential removal of about 930 significant trees,
and 177 trees from critical areas and 540 trees from critical
area buffers. In some cases removal may be avoided by
trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the option is
illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Extensive tree removal would reduce
the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat. This could be
slightly offset by the installation of additional poles along
this new alignment, particularly along the Kelsey Creek
Park wetland complex, although PSE would continue the
practice of discouraging nesting on the new poles. The
limited number and footprint of poles that may be installed
in wetland, riparian, or floodplain habitats would not
measurably affect the functions of these habitats or
associated species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. Although
three protected fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead,
and lamprey) occur in Kelsey, East, and Richards creeks,
and the West Tributary of Kelsey Creek, stream habitat
would not be substantially affected by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐25
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
All Bellevue Central Segment options contain biological resources that support fish and wildlife
species. The potential impacts to these resources are compared below by option (Table 3.4-1).
In the Bellevue Central Segment, the Existing Corridor Option would result in the least overall tree
removal, the removal of the least number of significant trees, and the removal of the least number of
trees from critical areas and their buffers compared to the other two options.
Bypass Option 1 would remove almost three times as many trees and five times as many significant
trees as the Existing Corridor Option. Bypass Option 1 would have the most impact on trees in
critical areas and their buffers.
Bypass Option 2 would remove about twice as many trees overall, and almost four times as many
significant trees as the Existing Corridor Option.
Table 3.4-1. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
Segment / Option Total Trees
Removed1
Significant
Trees
Removed1
Trees Removed
from Critical
Areas
Trees Removed
from Critical
Area Buffers
Bellevue Central Segment
Existing Corridor Option 620 250 140 411
Bypass Option 1 1,790 1,230 244 699
Bypass Option 2 1,240 930 177 540
1 Total tree and significant tree numbers are rounded to the nearest 10, and typically represent conservatively high estimates of
potential tree removal levels.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐26
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Although the potential effects of tree removal in this corridor would be similar to those described for
the Redmond Segment, a lower percentage of trees would be removed. In addition, the Oak 1 Option
alignment occurs primarily along existing roadways with extensive urban development, where tree
removal is not likely to substantially change the suitability of the habitat for the urbanized wildlife
species that typically occur in the area. As a result, few protected wildlife species are expected to
occur in the corridor. The number of trees removed from sensitive habitats would also be minimized
or avoided, and any removal would be mitigated as required by local critical area ordinances.
Although several protected aquatic species occur in streams within this option, stream and riparian
habitat would not be substantially affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would
be less-than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 1,040 trees (88 percent of the
trees surveyed along the option route) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 670 significant
trees, two trees in critical areas, and about 73 trees from
critical area buffers. In some cases removal may be
avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the
option is illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Tree removal would reduce the quality
and quantity of wildlife habitat. This would be slightly
offset by the installation of additional poles along the new
corridor, although PSE would continue the practice of
discouraging nesting on the new poles. The limited
number and footprint of poles that may be installed in
wetland habitat would not measurably affect the functions
of these habitats or associated species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. Although
three protected fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead,
and lamprey) occur in East, Richards, and Sunset creeks,
stream habitat would not be substantially affected by the
project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐27
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Although the potential effects of tree removal in this option would be similar to those described for
the Redmond Segment, a lower percentage of trees would be removed. While a portion of the
corridor occurs along existing roadways and commercially developed areas, as described for the Oak
1 Option, the remainder of the alignment occurs along the existing corridor. Therefore, tree removal
is not expected to substantially change the basic character and functions of the habitat for supporting
urbanized wildlife species. In addition, few protected wildlife species regularly occur in the corridor,
and the number of trees removed from sensitive habitats would be minimized or avoided. Any
removal would be mitigated as required by local critical area ordinances. Although several protected
aquatic species occur in streams within this option, stream and riparian habitat would not be
substantially affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-
significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 1,610 trees (73 percent of the
surveyed trees along the option route) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 1,100 significant
trees, three trees from critical areas, and about 79 from
critical area buffers. In some cases removal may be
avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the
option is illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Tree removal would reduce the quality
and quantity of wildlife habitat. Although this would be
slightly offset by the installation of additional poles along
the new corridor, PSE would continue the practice of
discouraging nesting on the new poles. The limited number
and footprint of poles that may be installed in wetland
habitat would not measurably affect the functions of these
habitats or associated species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. Although
three protected fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead,
and lamprey) occur in East, Richards, Sunset, and Coal
creeks, stream habitat would not be substantially affected
by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐28
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Effects of tree removal in this option would be similar to those described for the Redmond Segment,
although the amount of potential tree removal would be lower. In addition, available habitat in areas
adjacent to the alignment would continue to provide habitat for the urbanized wildlife species that
typically occur in the area. In addition, few protected wildlife species regularly occur in the corridor,
and the number of trees removed from sensitive habitats would be minimized or avoided. Any tree
removal would be mitigated as required by local critical area ordinances. Although several protected
aquatic species occur in streams within this option, stream and riparian habitat would not be
substantially affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-
significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 1,030 trees (80 percent of
trees surveyed along the option route) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 450 significant
trees, four trees from critical areas, and about 75 from
critical area buffers. In some cases removal may be
avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the
option is illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Tree removal would reduce the quality
and quantity of wildlife habitat, and the reduction in the
number of poles would further reduce potential avian
nesting and roosting habitat. The limited number and
footprint of poles that may be installed in wetland, riparian,
or floodplain habitats would not measurably affect the
functions of these habitats or associated species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. Although
three protected fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead,
and lamprey) occur in East, Richards, Sunset, and Coal
creeks, stream habitat would not be substantially affected
by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐29
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option (PSE’s Preferred Alignment)
Effects of tree removal in this option would be similar to those described for the Redmond Segment,
although the amount of potential tree removal would be lower. In addition, available habitat in areas
adjacent to the alignment would continue to provide habitat for the urbanized wildlife species that
typically occur in the area, and few protected wildlife species regularly occur in the corridor. The
number of trees removed from sensitive habitats would be minimized or avoided, and any removal
would be mitigated as required by local critical area ordinances. Although several protected aquatic
species occur in streams within this option, stream and riparian habitat would not be substantially
affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 1,660 trees (84 percent of the
trees surveyed along the option route) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 970 significant
trees, four trees from critical areas, and about 78 trees from
critical area buffers. In some cases removal may be
avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the
option is illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Tree removal would reduce the quality
and quantity of wildlife habitat, and the reduction in the
number of poles would also reduce potential avian nesting
and roosting habitat. The limited number and footprint of
poles that may be installed in wetland, riparian, or
floodplain habitats would not measurably affect the
functions of these habitats or associated species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. Although
three protected fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead,
and lamprey) occur in East, Richards, Sunset, and Coal
creeks, stream habitat would not be substantially affected
by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐30
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Comparison of Bellevue South Options
All Bellevue South Segment options contain biological resources that support fish and wildlife
species. The potential impacts to these resources are compared below by option (Table 3.4-2).
In the Bellevue South Segment, the Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options would remove the most trees
overall; each would result in about 60 percent more trees removed than either the Oak 1 or Willow 1
Options. The Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options would also remove the most significant trees, with the
Oak 2 Option resulting in the greatest number of significant trees removed. However, all four options
would result in a similar number of trees removed from critical areas or buffers.
Table 3.4-2. Comparison of Bellevue South Options
Segment / Option Total Trees
Removed1
Significant
Trees
Removed1
Trees Removed
from Critical
Areas
Trees Removed
from Critical
Area Buffers
Oak 1 Option 1,040 670 2 73
Oak 2 Option 1,610 1,066 3 79
Willow 1 Option 1,030 450 4 75
Willow 2 Option 1,660 970 4 78
1 Total tree and significant tree numbers are rounded to the nearest 10, and typically represent conservatively high estimates of
potential tree removal levels.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐31
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Newcastle Segment
As described for the Redmond Segment, this segment occurs along the existing corridor. Despite the
amount of potential tree removal, the basic character and functions of the habitat to support
urbanized wildlife species, would be maintained. In addition, few protected wildlife species regularly
occur in the corridor, and the number of trees removed from sensitive habitats would be minimized
or avoided. Any tree removal would be mitigated as required by local critical area ordinances.
Although several protected aquatic species occur in May Creek, stream and riparian habitat would
not be substantially affected. Therefore, the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-
significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 300 trees (82 percent of the
trees surveyed along the segment) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 35 significant
trees, two trees from critical areas, and about 57 trees from
critical area buffers. In some cases removal may be
avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the
segment is illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Tree removal would reduce the quality
and quantity of wildlife habitat, and the reduction in the
number of poles would also reduce potential avian nesting
and roosting habitat. The limited number and footprint of
poles that may be installed in wetland, riparian, or
floodplain habitats would not measurably affect the
functions of these habitats or associated species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. Although
three protected fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead,
and lamprey) occur in May Creek, stream habitat would
not be substantially affected by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐32
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Renton Segment
As described for the Redmond Segment, despite the amount of potential tree removal, the basic
character and functions of the habitat to support urbanized wildlife species would be maintained. In
addition, few protected wildlife species regularly occur in the corridor, and the number of trees
removed from sensitive habitats would be minimized or avoided. Any tree removal would be
mitigated as required by local critical area ordinances. Although several protected aquatic species
occur in the Cedar River, stream and riparian habitat would not be substantially affected. Therefore,
the impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-significant.
Vegetation Clearing: About 350 trees (70 percent of the
trees surveyed along the segment) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 250 significant
trees, three trees from critical areas, and an estimated 38
from critical area buffers. In some cases, removal may be
avoided by trimming. Tree clearing per acre along the
segment is illustrated in the graphic to the right.
Wildlife Habitat: Tree removal would reduce the quality
and quantity of wildlife habitat, and the reduction in the
number of poles would also reduce potential avian nesting
and roosting habitat. The limited number and footprint of
poles that may be installed in wetland, riparian, or
floodplain habitats would not measurably affect the
functions of these habitats or associated species.
Sensitive Species: No impacts to terrestrial species are
expected because protected plant or terrestrial wildlife
species are not known to inhabit the study area. Although
four protected fish species (Chinook salmon, steelhead,
bull trout, and lamprey) occur in the Cedar River, stream
habitat would not be affected by the project.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐33
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
3.4.6 Mitigation Measures
Federal, state, and local regulations, policies, ordinances, and programs, established to protect natural
resources regulations (such as tree protection ordinances and critical areas ordinances), and
comprehensive plan policies were reviewed to identify mitigation measures. Mitigation measures
specified by code and listed below as regulatory requirements would be required and are not
appealable. Potential mitigation measures listed below are based on comprehensive plan policies and
existing PSE programs, and would be at the discretion of the applicant to adopt or the local
jurisdictions to impose as a condition of project approval.
Regulatory Requirements
During Construction
Replace trees removed for the project based on tree protection ordinances and critical areas
regulations in each jurisdiction; some of these trees would likely be planted off-site or, in the
case of the City of Newcastle, mitigated by paying into an in-lieu fee program. Replacement
may be based on cross-sectional diameter of trees removed, or on habitat functions lost due to
tree removal, depending on applicable regulations
During Operation
Trees removed from critical areas in Bellevue and Renton may require mitigation monitoring.
Potential Mitigation
Prior to Construction
Increasing pole heights to allow greater separation between poles, allowing for some poles to
be moved outside of critical areas or buffer.
Partner with local, state, and federal agencies to identify potential off-site mitigation areas
that are currently degraded.
Develop enhancement plans to convert off-site mitigation areas into thriving ecosystems,
with an emphasis on enhancing critical habitat areas and buffers through planting of native
trees and shrubs to provide shade to streams and habitat for birds, woody debris for fish and
amphibians, foraging habitat for mammals, and nesting habitat for avian species.
Pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Bellevue for trees removed in the City’s right-of-way to
offset loss of public amenity.
Pay an in-lieu fee to the City of Renton if tree replacement ratios cannot be met within the
corridor.
During Construction
On-site restoration or enhancement of habitat, disturbed during pole placement and clearing
would occur, and no substantial impacts to fish and wildlife habitat are expected.
In the Bridle Trails Subarea in the City of Bellevue, plant replacement trees as required under
the City’s Tree Retention and Replacement Code.
Replant disturbed areas using native vegetation that would meet transmission line clearance
requirements and would not need to be removed or require maintenance (i.e., trimming) in
the future.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.4‐34
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
During Operation
Continue to implement an ecologically based, integrated weed management program, to
control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds along the corridor, and at PSE substation
facilities.
Continue to implement the PSE Avian Protection Program (PSE, 2016b), and mitigate for the
direct loss of nesting and roosting habitat for protected species (i.e., eagles, osprey, and other
raptors). This mitigation typically occurs by providing nesting platforms in isolated areas
away from power lines when nests need to be removed from the power structures. Any such
removal/replacement would occur outside of the nesting season to minimize the disturbance
of the birds. In addition, PSE will continue to proactively discourage and minimize the use of
the power structures by avian species by retrofitting existing structures with wire guards,
flight diverter devices, and bird guards.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
Emissions of GHGs at the
state and county level have
been estimated and published
by Ecology and King County
as well as Bellevue, Redmond,
and Renton in the study area.
3.5 GREENHOUSE GASES
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as
greenhouse gases (GHGs) because, like a greenhouse,
they capture heat radiated from the earth. The accumulation of
GHGs has been identified as a driving force in global climate
change. Definitions of climate change vary among regulatory
authorities and the scientific community. In general, however,
climate change can be described as the changing of the earth’s
climate caused by natural fluctuations and human activities that
alter the composition of the global atmosphere. This section
quantifies major sources of GHG emissions associated with the
project.
While GHG concentrations are global and not localized, the study area for this analysis consists of
the areas where the project would directly or indirectly result in GHG emissions or where the project
could result in a reduction of carbon sequestration rates (defined in Section 3.5.2).
3.5.1 Greenhouse Gas Compounds Considered in this Analysis
The principal GHGs of concern include the following:
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Electrical utilities, including PSE, often use SF6 in electrical equipment at substations because of its
effectiveness as an insulating gas.
Each of the principal GHGs has a long atmospheric lifetime, existing in the atmosphere for 1 year to
several thousand years. In addition, the potential heat-trapping ability of each of these gases varies
significantly. For example, CH4 is 28 times as potent as CO2 at trapping heat, while SF6 is 23,500
times more potent than CO2 (IPCC, 2013). The ability of these gases to trap heat is called global
warming potential.
In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of metric tons of CO2
equivalents (CO2e). CO2e are calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its
specific global warming potential. While CH4, N2O, and SF6 have much higher global warming
potential than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of
GHG emissions in CO2e, both from residential developments and human activity in general.
The primary human activities that release GHGs include combustion of fossil fuels for transportation,
heating, and electricity; agricultural practices that release CH4, such as livestock production and
decomposition of crop residue; and industrial processes that release smaller amounts of gases with
high global warming potential such as SF6. Deforestation and land cover conversion also contribute
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
to global warming by reducing the earth’s capacity to remove CO2 from the air and altering the
earth’s albedo (surface reflectance), thus allowing more solar radiation to be absorbed.
3.5.2 Carbon Sequestration
Terrestrial carbon sequestration is the process in which atmospheric CO2 is taken up into plants or
soil and subsequently “trapped.” Terrestrial sequestration can occur through planting trees, restoring
wetlands, land management, and forest fire management. This analysis focuses on the terrestrial
sequestration associated specifically with trees and shrubs, as related to the project.
Trees and shrubs act as both carbon sinks and carbon sources. Vegetation can act as a carbon sink by
absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, releasing oxygen through photosynthesis, and retaining the
carbon within the vegetation. Trees also act as a carbon source when they are dying and
decomposing; the carbon that was stored in the trees is released and reacts with oxygen in the air to
form CO2. Younger trees that are growing rapidly can store more carbon in their leaves than older
trees. However, the total amount of carbon sequestered annually by healthy, large trees is greater
than younger trees because the greater number of leaves compensates for the lower productivity of
larger trees (USDA, 2011; Stephenson et al., 2014).
Trees suffering from disease will slow and eventually arrest the process of photosynthesis, thus
limiting the ability of the affected tree to act as a carbon sink. Therefore, maintaining healthy trees
keeps carbon stored in trees; however, certain landscape maintenance activities can generate modest
GHG emissions (USDA, 2011). For example, water use, fertilizer use, exhaust from gas- and diesel-
powered landscape equipment, and vehicle trips for maintenance crews result in CO2 emissions.
Carbon sequestration varies with both the species of trees as well as the age of trees; as a general
example, 1,000 pine trees sequester approximately 32 metric tons of CO2e per year (CAPCOA,
2013).
3.5.3 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Air quality and GHG emissions in the Puget Sound region are regulated and enforced by federal and
state agencies—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ecology. The cities of
Bellevue, Redmond, and Renton have plans or policies addressing GHG emissions (Newcastle has no
plans or policies that specifically address GHGs). King County provides overarching guidance policy
for the region on GHGs and climate change through implementation of its Strategic Climate Action
Plan (King County, 2015). King County has committed to reducing countywide sources of GHG
emissions, compared to a 2007 baseline, by 25 percent by 2020, 50 percent by 2030, and 80 percent
by 2050 (King County, 2015). King County implemented the King County-Cities Climate
Collaboration (K4C), of which Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, and Renton, among others, are
members. They have partnered to coordinate and enhance the effectiveness of local government
climate and sustainability actions by:
1. Collaborating through the Growth Management Planning Council, Sound Cities Association,
and other partners to adopt countywide GHG emissions reduction targets, including mid-term
milestones needed to support long-term reduction goals.
2. Building on King County’s commitment to measure and report on countywide GHG
emissions by sharing data between cities and partners, establishing a public dashboard for
tracking progress, and using the information to inform regional climate action.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
3. Developing and adopting near-term and long-term government operational GHG reduction
targets that support countywide goals, and implementing actions to reduce each local
government’s GHG footprint.
Federal, state, and local regulations and plans are described in detail on pages 4-4 through 4-9 of the
Phase 1 Draft EIS. This section of the Phase 1 Draft EIS also describes actions taken by the Partner
Cities to reduce GHG emissions, such as campaigns to reduce the cost of solar electricity, pursuing
natural resource conservation projects, reducing emissions associated with government operations,
and implementing climate action implementation plans. Bellevue, Renton, and Redmond have also
developed GHG inventories to track emissions.
Of particular applicability is Chapter 173-441 WAC – Reporting of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases,
because the quantitative emission limits of this rule were used in the development of impact
assessment criteria for the project. This rule institutes mandatory GHG reporting for facilities that
emit at least 10,000 metric tons of GHGs per year in Washington or suppliers of liquid motor vehicle
fuel, special fuel, or aircraft fuel that supply products equivalent to at least 10,000 metric tons of CO2
per year in Washington.
In a recent development that has occurred since release of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, on August 2, 2016,
the federal Council on Environmental Quality released final guidance for federal agencies on how to
consider the impacts of their actions on global climate change in their National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) reviews (CEQ, 2016). This final guidance does not recommend quantitative thresholds
that would indicate a substantial impact related to GHG emissions but, rather, provides a framework
for agencies to consider both the effects of a proposed action on climate change, as indicated by its
estimated GHG emissions, and the effects of climate change on a proposed action. While this
guidance applies to proposed federal agency actions that are subject to NEPA analysis, similar
guidance does not currently exist at the state or local level, and consideration of GHG sources
identified in the guidance was used in the impact assessment that follows.
In current state regulation developments, Ecology has adopted a Clean Air Rule to cap and reduce
GHGs in Washington under the state’s Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Rule addresses activities
responsible for about two-thirds of carbon pollution in Washington, such as transportation, refining,
and manufacturing. Under the Clean Air Rule, natural gas distributors, petroleum fuel producers and
importers, large manufacturers, electricity generating plants, waste facilities, and other organizations
that are responsible for more than 100,000 metric tons of GHGs are required to reduce their
emissions or sponsor projects to offset those emissions beginning in 2017. Every 3 years, the
threshold will be lowered and more emitters brought into the program, through 2035 (Ecology,
2016). Although PSE operates electricity generating plants, such infrastructure is not proposed in any
of the alternatives. The newly adopted Clean Air Rule does not apply to the proposed alternatives
and, given its relatively large threshold, is not applied in the following impact analysis.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
3.5.4 Greenhouse Gases in the Study Area
Ecology estimated that in 2010, Washington produced about 96 million gross metric tons (about 106
million U.S. tons) of CO2e (Adelsman, 2014). Sources of GHG emissions in the state are shown in
Figure 3.5-1.
Figure 3.5-1. Sources of GHG Emissions in Washington State
King County last inventoried countywide GHG emissions for the year 2012. Community
consumption-based emissions (which include some lifecycle emissions associated with food
consumed within the county but grown elsewhere) totaled 55 million metric tons of CO2e (King
County, 2015), although only about 15 million metric tons were emitted within the county.
As described on page 4-9 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, the cities of Bellevue and Renton have developed
GHG inventories.
3.5.5 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
Methods for Analyzing Long-term Impacts
The project could result in an increase of GHG emissions from the potential loss of sequestered
carbon from the removal of trees and vegetation to accommodate the new powerlines and substation.
The potential loss of carbon sequestration from tree removal is based on tree inventory data prepared
for PSE (The Watershed Company, 2016) for each project segment and option, and sequestration
calculations using the iTree model. i-Tree is a state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed software suite from the
USDA Forest Service that provides urban and rural forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools (i-
Tree, 2016). See Section 3.10, Economics, for information about the i-Tree model and for a
discussion of the monetary value of lost ecosystem services due to reduced tree cover. This analysis
compares the estimated change in GHG emissions for the project to the State of Washington GHG
reporting thresholds (Chapter 173-441 WAC, Reporting of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases). The
analysis of GHG emissions represents a cumulative impact analysis because impacts are only
important due to cumulative effects GHG emissions have had and are having on global climate.
Impacts are assessed based on the project’s potential to result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the state and overall global GHG burden. Potential mitigation measures to minimize
or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project are considered, as warranted.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐5
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
A quantitative assessment of GHG emissions of sulfur hexaflouoride (SF6) is also included in the
analysis. SF6 is a potent GHG used as an electrical insulator in some high-voltage equipment in
substations and is 23,900 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a GHG. The analysis describes
the state of fugitive SF6 control that is currently used in electrical equipment manufacturing
standardized by the International Electrotechnical Commission in Standard 62271-1 in 2004 (Carey,
2013), and predicted fugitive emission rates associated with large-scale electrical substations and
estimates fugitive SF6 emissions based on a standardized leakage rate.
Operational GHG impacts would result primarily from the removal of trees and vegetation that
would reduce ongoing sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. To a lesser degree, GHG emissions
impacts would result from employee vehicle trips to maintain the new facilities. Additionally, there
may be some fugitive emissions from substation equipment that use SF6 as an insulating gas.
The following specifically defines project-level long-term (operational) impacts to GHGs:
Less-than-Significant – The project would result in operational GHG emissions below the State of
Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e in a given year.
Significant –The project (after implementing mitigation measures) would result in operational GHG
emissions at or above the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e in a
given year.
3.5.6 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no infrastructure improvements, changes to vegetation
management activities, or new or relocated maintenance yards would be required. No new employee
vehicle trips are envisioned under the No Action Alternative. While there would be GHG generated
by ongoing maintenance and operation activities, selecting the No Action Alternative would neither
increase nor decrease such activities. Consequently, there would be no operational GHG impacts
associated with the No Action Alternative.
3.5.7 Long-term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines)
Impacts Common to all Components
Any combination of segment and option routes and the Richards Creek substation site would result in
some level of sequestration losses due to tree removal. Additionally, Alternative 1 would result in
fugitive SF6 emissions from gas-insulated circuit breakers at the Richards Creek, Sammamish, and
Talbot Hill substations. The least impactful combination would be the Existing Corridor Option of
the Bellevue Central Segment combined with the Willow 1 Option in the Bellevue South Segment,
which would result in a project-wide sequestration loss of 134 metric tons of CO2e per year. The
most impactful combination would be Bypass Option 1 of the Bellevue Central Segment combined
with the Oak 2 Option in the Bellevue South Segment, which would result in a project-wide
sequestration loss of 194 metric tons of CO2e per year. In all cases, however, the emissions would be
substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and, therefore,
less-than-significant. Figure 3.5-2 presents the sequestration losses associated with each segment,
and the following narrative describes the tree losses associated with each segment or option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐6
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
Figure 3.5-2. Estimated GHG Sequestration Losses in Project Segments
New Richards Creek Substation and other Substation Improvements
The total lot area for the substation site is 7.8 acres in size, and the substation yard would cover 1.9
acres within a fenced lot. Approximately 170 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of
the substation and equipment (The Watershed Company, 2016). The loss of annual CO2 sequestration
associated with the removal of trees was estimated using the i-Tree model. Tree removal at the
Richards Creek substation site would result in 4.03 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration
losses. These emissions would be substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of
10,000 metric tons and, therefore, less-than-significant.
A small number of vehicle trips are expected to be generated when the completed substation is
operational. As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Chapter 4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions), such
trips would be infrequent and would not result in appreciable GHG emissions. Therefore, such trips
would have a negligible effect on GHG emissions.
The substation would include a 115 kV circuit breaker with a nameplate capacity1 of 128 pounds of
SF6 and five 230 kV circuit breakers, each with a nameplate capacity of 161 pounds. Additionally,
one 230 kV circuit breaker would be installed at the Sammamish substation and two 230 kV circuit
breakers would be installed at the Talbot Hill substation, each with a nameplate capacity of 161
pounds. Consequently, all new breakers would total an SF6 load of approximately 1,416 pounds.
Average leakage rate for gas-insulated switchgear equipment is 0.5 percent per year as standardized
by the International Electrotechnical Commission in Standard 62271-1 in 2004 (Blackman et al.,
2006). This would result in fugitive SF6 emissions of approximately 7.08 pounds per year, which is
equivalent to 75 metric tons of CO2e per year.
1 The total SF6 containing capacity (lbs.) in installed equipment during a year. Note, that “total nameplate” capacity refers to the
manufacturer recommended full and proper charge of the equipment, rather than to the actual charge, which may reflect leakage.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐7
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
Redmond Segment
Approximately 630 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Redmond Segment (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree removal along the Redmond
Segment would result in 11 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses. These emissions
would be substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and,
therefore, less-than-significant.
Bellevue North Segment
Approximately 510 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Bellevue North Segment (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree removal along the
Bellevue North Segment would result in 5.5 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses.
These emissions would be substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000
metric tons and, therefore, less-than-significant.
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Approximately 600 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option (The Watershed Company, 2016).
Tree removal along the Existing Corridor Option would result in 8.49 metric tons of CO2e per year in
sequestration losses. These emissions would be substantially below the State of Washington
reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and, therefore, less-than-significant.
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Approximately 1,790 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1 (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree
removal along the Bypass Option 1 alignment would result in 53 metric tons of CO2e per year in
sequestration losses. These emissions would be substantially below the State of Washington
reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and, therefore, less-than-significant.
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Approximately 1,200 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1 (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree
removal along the Bypass Option 2 alignment would result in 40 metric tons of CO2e per year in
sequestration losses. These emissions would be substantially below the State of Washington
reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and, therefore, less-than-significant.
Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
All options would result in GHG emissions from fugitive releases of SF6 used as an electrical
insulator in some high-voltage equipment at the Richards Creek, Sammamish, and Talbot Hill
substations, while the amount of GHG sequestration losses from tree removal would vary depending
on which option is selected. The potential impacts to these resources are compared below by option
(Table 3.5-1).
In the Bellevue Central Segment, the Existing Corridor Option would avoid the most sequestration
losses of GHGs although GHG emissions associated with all options in this segment would be well
below State of Washington reporting thresholds and would result in minor adverse impacts.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐8
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
Table 3.5-1. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
Segment / Option
GHGs from
Sequestration
Loss of Segment
Option (MT
CO2e/year)
GHGs from
Sequestration
Loss of Other
non-optional
Segments (MT
CO2e/year)
Fugitive Loss of SF6
from New Gas-
Insulated Substation
Equipment (MT
CO2e/year)
Total GHG
Losses (MT
CO2e/year)
Existing Corridor Option 8.5 37 75 121
Bypass Option 1 53 37 75 165
Bypass Option 2 39 37 75 151
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Approximately 1,030 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree removal
along the Oak 1 Option would result in 20 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses. These
emissions would be substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric
tons and, therefore, less-than-significant.
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Approximately 1,600 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree removal
along the Oak 2 Option would result in 29 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses, the
highest losses of any of the Bellevue South Segment options. These emissions would be substantially
below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and, therefore, less-than-
significant.
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Approximately 1,030 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree removal
along the Willow 1 Option would result in 14 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses,
the lowest losses of any of the Bellevue South Segment options. These emissions would be
substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and, therefore,
less-than-significant.
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option (PSE’s Preferred Alignment)
Approximately 1,640 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree removal
along the Willow 2 Option would result in 27 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses.
These emissions would be substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000
metric tons and, therefore, less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐9
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
Comparison of Bellevue South Options
All options would result in GHG emissions from fugitive releases of SF6 used as an electrical
insulator in some high-voltage equipment at the Richards Creek, Sammamish, and Talbot Hill
substations, while the amount of GHG sequestration losses from tree removal would vary depending
on which option is selected. The potential impacts to these resources are compared below by option
(Table 3.5-2).
In the Bellevue South Segment, the Willow 1 Option would avoid the most sequestration losses of
GHGs although GHG emissions associated with all options in this segment would be well below
State of Washington reporting thresholds and would result in minor adverse impacts.
Table 3.5-2. Comparison of Bellevue South Options
Segment /
Option
GHGs from
Sequestration
Loss of Segment
Option (MT
CO2e/year)
GHGs from
Sequestration
Loss of Other
non-optional
Segments (MT
CO2e/year)
Fugitive Loss of SF6
from New Gas-
Insulated Substation
Equipment (MT
CO2e/year)
Total GHG
Losses (MT
CO2e/year)
Oak 1 Option 20 37 75 132
Oak 2 Option 28 37 75 140
Willow 1 Option 14 37 75 126
Willow 2 Option 27 37 75 139
Newcastle Segment
Approximately 300 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Newcastle Segment (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree removal along the Newcastle
Segment would result in 4.2 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses. These emissions
would be substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and,
therefore, less-than-significant.
Renton Segment
Approximately 350 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles
along the Renton Segment (The Watershed Company, 2016). Tree removal along the Renton
Segment would result in 7.1 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses. These emissions
would be substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and,
therefore, less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.5‐10
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
3.5.8 Mitigation Measures
For GHG, regulations and state and local GHG reduction programs were reviewed to identify
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures specified by code would be required, whereas mitigation
measures based on state and local programs would be at the discretion of the applicant to adopt or the
local jurisdictions to impose as a condition of project approval.
Regulatory Requirements
Although there are no regulations specifically limiting GHG emissions, all of the segments and
options would need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, some of which
would mitigate the potential for long-term adverse GHG impacts. Mitigation measures required for
compliance with such regulations are not appealable.
As described in Section 3.4, Plants and Animals, PSE would provide mitigation for impacts to plant
resources, using on- and off-site habitat enhancements, developed in coordination with local, state,
and federal agencies. The following measure is identified in Section 3.4, Plants and Animals, and
would potentially offset the long-term sequestration loss impacts.
Replace trees removed for the project based on tree protection ordinances and critical areas
regulations in each jurisdiction; some of these trees would likely be planted off-site or, in the
case of the City of Newcastle, mitigated by paying into an in-lieu fee program. Replacement
may be based on cross-sectional diameter of trees removed, or on habitat functions lost due to
trees removal, depending on applicable regulations.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on review of ongoing efforts to reduce
GHG emissions related to gas-insulated switchgear throughout the U.S. Long-term operational GHG
impacts would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation measures are required. However, the
following BMPs could be implemented to reduce GHG contributions:
Prior to Construction
Install SF6-filled equipment with manufactured guaranteed leakage rate of 0.1 percent at the
Richards Creek, Sammamish, and Talbot Hill substations. Installation of such equipment
could reduce fugitive SF6 emissions by up to 80 percent over older equipment types.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
The EIS Consultant Team
collected maps and other
information available from the
Partner Cities and King
County to describe existing
recreational resources. Plans
and policies for each Partner
City were reviewed to evaluate
goals and priorities for
recreation in the study area
and to identify planned
improvements and
expansions.
3.6 RECREATION
This chapter provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts to recreation sites in the study area
including parks, natural areas, open spaces, trails, and playfields, as
well as amenities such as community centers, playground
equipment, school play fields, and private recreation facilities (e.g.,
golf clubs). For the purpose of this analysis, informal recreation
includes activities that take place outside of designated recreation
sites (e.g., bicycling on a street). Additionally, analysis of visual
impacts from recreation sites is found in Section 3.2, Scenic Views
and Aesthetic Environment. The study area for recreation resources
includes PSE’s existing and new corridors, and road corridors and
parcels adjacent to the segment and option routes (Figure 3.6-1).
3.6.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Public recreation sites in the study area are managed by King
County, the City of Bellevue, City of Newcastle, City of Redmond,
and City of Renton. Table 12-1 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS lists the
plans for the study area communities. Since the publication of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, two additional
plans have been prepared and adopted: the City of Bellevue Parks & Open Space System Plan (City
of Bellevue, 2016a) and the Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail Final Master Plan (King County,
2016a). Redmond’s Transportation Master Plan, which includes pedestrian and bicycle system plans
(2013), was not originally included in Table 12-1.
The City of Bellevue’s comprehensive plan has a policy to avoid placing overhead lines in greenbelts
or open spaces, which are often recreation sites (City of Bellevue, 2015). The other Partner Cities’
plans do not have specific policies regarding the placement of electric utilities in or near recreation
sites, but they generally discourage the use of recreation sites for non-recreational uses. The cities of
Bellevue, Newcastle, and Redmond all have similar policies to encourage the use of utility corridors
for nonmotorized recreation (see Appendix F) (City of Bellevue, 2015; City of Newcastle, 2016a;
City of Redmond, 2015).
Most recreation sites in the study area were acquired with federal, state, or local grants, bonds, or
other funding sources. The funding usually comes with provisions that protect the land for recreation
in perpetuity. The conversion of recreation land purchased with restricted funds for non-recreation
purposes would need to meet parcel-specific requirements. Recreation sites are often made up of
more than one parcel, and thus restrictions can differ within an individual park. The City of
Bellevue’s Comprehensive Plan (2015) also has a policy that requires a public review process for
proposed conversions of park property to a non-recreational use. The other Partner Cities do not have
specific policies regarding the potential conversion of recreation land.
In addition to parcel-specific requirements, recreation lands transferred from King County to a
Partner City are subject to RCW 36.89.050, which stipulates that a county may transfer recreational
sites to any other governmental agency, provided that the site continue to be used for the same
purpose or that other equivalent sites be conveyed to the county if the site were converted to another
use.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; Bellevue, 2015; Newcastle, 2015; Renton, 2015; Kirkland, 2015; Redmond, 2015.
Figure 3.6-1. Recreation Sites in the Study Area
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.2 Recreation Resources in the Study Area
The study area contains approximately 27 recreation sites plus many miles of trails, shown on Figure
3.6-1. This encompasses approximately 633 acres in recreation sites owned and operated primarily
by local governments, and includes five schools and two privately owned recreation clubs. The sites
provide a variety of recreational opportunities, ranging from small neighborhood or “pocket” parks to
large natural park areas and regional trails that extend across the study area. Table 3.6-1 lists the
recreation sites in each segment and their amenities, as well as any planned improvements and the
owner/manager of the site.
Recreation sites are used primarily by local residents, with the exception of the larger recreation
areas and regional trails, which also draw visitors from neighboring communities. Hiking, walking,
bicycling, enjoying playgrounds, and picnicking are the primary activities. Five schools in the study
area have outdoor sports fields, courts, or playground equipment that are used by students: Rose Hill
Middle School, Chestnut Hill Academy, Newport High School, Tyee Middle School, and Sierra
Heights Elementary. Public school facilities may also be available to the public during non-school
hours. Bannerwood Ballfield Park, Willows Creek Neighborhood Park, Willows Crest Park, and
Lake Boren Park also offer sports fields or courts. Two privately owned recreation clubs offer tennis,
swimming, or golf through paid membership (Table 3.6-1).
A number of the recreation sites in the study area are within PSE’s existing corridor and are crossed
by wires or have a pole located within the site. These include small parks entirely within the
easement, large parks that were created around the existing transmission line corridor after it was
first constructed in the late 1920s, and a number of trails along the corridor (Table 3.6-1).
Recreation sites also provide valuable natural habitat, an important aspect of their function as
recreation resources. The greenspaces of Kelsey Creek, Coal Creek, May Creek, and Cedar River in
particular are large areas made up of a number of parks and natural areas that are important for
habitat (see Section 3.4, Plants and Animals).
Table 3.6-1. Recreation Sites in the Study Area
Recreation Sites Recreation Opportunities Owner/Manager
Richards Creek Substation
Chestnut Hill Academy Multi-use field, basketball court, and
playgrounds.
Private
Redmond Segment
Willows Crest Park Children’s play area, picnic area, and a
basketball hoop.
Private
Willows Creek
Neighborhood Park
Children's play area, basketball half court, and
open space.
Redmond
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Recreation Opportunities Owner/Manager
Trails on the corridor
(unnamed, on corridor,
between the Sammamish
substation and where the
corridor turns south)
Running and walking. Redmond
Rose Hill Middle School Tennis courts, track, soccer field, and baseball
field.
Lake Washington
School District
Bellevue North Segment
Bridle Crest Trail Two miles of trails, for running, walking,
horseback riding, and mountain biking. Crosses
the study area and connects to Bridle Trails
State Park.
Redmond and
Kirkland
Unnamed Trail (crosses
corridor in NE 52nd Ln
right-of-way)
Running, walking, horseback riding, and
mountain biking. Crosses the study area and
connects to Bridle Trails State Park.
Redmond
Viewpoint Park A 13.5-acre natural area with trails. Bellevue
SR 520 Trail Regional multi-use trail (running walking, and
cycling) that crosses the study area.
Washington State
Department of
Transportation
(WSDOT)
Bellevue Central Segment
Unnamed Trail (on corridor
at Bel-Red Rd and NE
Spring Blvd)
Bicycling and walking. Bellevue
Bel-Red Mini Park Picnic area and greenspace in urban area. Bellevue
Highland-Glendale
Property
Forested and undeveloped. Recommended for
improvement in Bellevue Parks & Open Space
Systems Plan (2016a).
Bellevue
Glendale Country Club Membership-based golf club and clubhouse. Private
Unnamed Trails along the
corridor (between SE 10th
St and SE 20th St) and SE
3rd Trail
Trail connecting Kelsey Creek Park along
corridor south to Skyridge Park. This trail is part
of the Lake to Lake Greenway, which connects
Lake Sammamish to Lake Washington. Portion
on SE 3rd Pl is along a sidewalk.
Bellevue
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐5
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Recreation Opportunities Owner/Manager
Kelsey Creek Park Large natural area (150 acres) with trails, forest,
meadows, wetlands, picnic areas, children’s
play area, farm, historic barns, and farm-themed
programs. Portion of park in study area includes
natural area and trails. Part of network of parks
along the Lake Hills Connector and part of the
Lake to Lake Greenway, which connects Lake
Sammamish to Lake Washington.
Bellevue
McDowell House Houses the administrative offices of the Eastside
Heritage Center, located on land owned by the
City of Bellevue Parks & Community Services
Department.
Bellevue
Eastside Rail Corridor
(ERC)
Proposed regional multi-use trail section, part of
a larger regional trail. The section of trail in the
study area is not developed (the railroad tracks
still remain) but is part of the preferred ERC
route. Adjacent to the network of parks along
the Lake Hills Connector.
King County
Wilburton Hill Park and
Bellevue Botanical
Gardens
Large natural area (106 acres) with the Botanical
Gardens, a picnic area, a children’s play area,
baseball fields, and a soccer field. The portion of
park in the study area includes natural area and
trails. It is part of a network of parks along the
Lake Hills Connector and part of the Lake to
Lake Greenway.
Bellevue
West Kelsey Open Space Undeveloped area adjacent to Woodridge Open
Space; the West Tributary of Kelsey Creek
crosses through the park. Part of a network of
parks along the Lake Hills Connector and part of
the Lake to Lake Greenway.
Bellevue
Woodridge Open Space
and Richards Creek Open
Space
Approximately 30 acres of forested open space
with a stream and trails. Part of the Richards
Valley Greenway and the network of parks along
the Lake Hills Connector and part of the Lake to
Lake Greenway.
Bellevue
Bannerwood Ballfield Park Baseball stadium with stands and concession.
Part of network of parks along the Lake Hills
Connector and part of the Lake to Lake
Greenway.
Bellevue School
District
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐6
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Recreation Opportunities Owner/Manager
Skyridge Park Trails and picnic and children’s play area.
Connected to Richards Valley Open Space,
Richards Valley Trail and Parkland Estates Trail,
and a trail along PSE’s corridor.
Bellevue
Richards Valley Greenway Planned greenway between SE 8th St and Lake
Sammamish, along Lake Hills Connector,
Richards Rd, along the south side of
Bannerwood Ballfield Park, through Skyridge
Park, and east along SE 24th Street.
Bellevue
Richards Valley Open
Space
Primarily undeveloped park. Part of the Richards
Valley Greenway and the network of parks along
the Lake Hills Connector.
Bellevue
Bellevue South Segment
Mountains to Sound
Greenway I-90 Trail
Regional multi-use trail (running, walking, and
cycling) that crosses the study area.
Washington State
Department of
Transportation
Tyee Middle School Ballfields, tennis courts, soccer field, and a
track.
Bellevue School
District
Somerset North Slope
Open Space
Fenced and partially forested. Bellevue
Somerset Recreation Club Membership-based club with tennis courts,
swimming pool, water slide, and toddler pool.
Private
Newport High School Ballfields, tennis courts, soccer, lacrosse,
football field, and a track.
Bellevue School
District
Forest Hill Neighborhood
Park & Open Space
Children’s play area, picnic tables, and trails. Bellevue
Forest Drive Open Space Undeveloped, forested greenspace along Forest
Drive.
Bellevue
Coal Creek Natural Area Large natural area (446 acres) and includes Coal
Creek, 4.5 miles of trails, and connects to
Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park.
Bellevue
Newport Hills Mini Park Trail and open space. Bellevue
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐7
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Recreation Opportunities Owner/Manager
Waterline Trail Trail along corridor, south from SE 60th St and
continuing into Newcastle parallel to PSE’s
existing corridor. Adjacent to Newport Hills Mini
Park.
Seattle Public Utilities
Newcastle Segment
Waterline Trail Continues from Bellevue south into Newcastle
crossing PSE’s existing corridor just south of
Newport Way.
Seattle Public Utilities
China Creek Trail
(proposed)
Proposed trail that crosses the study area north
of the Cross Town Trail.
Newcastle
Lake Boren Park Community park with walking paths, children’s
play area, picnic shelters, fishing dock, tennis
courts, a basketball court, and a sand volleyball
court.
Newcastle
Cross Town Trail Primarily east-west trail that crosses the study
area, through the northern edge of Newcastle
Cemetery1. It is part of a large network of trails
connecting to Cougar Mountain and the Coal
and May Creek Natural Areas.
Newcastle
Olympus Trail North-south trail along the corridor. Part of a
large network of trails connecting to Cougar
Mountain and the Coal and May Creek Natural
Areas.
Newcastle
May Creek Natural Area Large natural area (almost 200 acres) and
complex of parks; includes May Creek and May
Creek Trail. Connects Lake Washington Blvd to
Cougar Mountain as well as to the Honey Creek
Open Space.
Newcastle, Renton,
and King County
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐8
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Recreation Opportunities Owner/Manager
Renton Segment
Sierra Heights Park Forested park and trail north of NE 25th St
between PSE and SCL corridors. South of NE
25th St, the park follows both the PSE and SCL
corridors; there is a trail along the SCL corridor,
whereas the PSE corridor is vegetated with
limited access.
Renton
Sierra Heights Elementary
School
Ballfields, open play field, and play areas. Renton School District
May Creek Greenway Portion of the May Creek Natural Area in Renton. Renton
Honey Creek Open
Space/Greenway
Natural area with a creek and trail. Connected to
May Creek Natural Area (36 acres).
Renton
Cedar River Natural Zone Large (550 acres) complex of parks includes
Cedar River and Cedar River Trail (17.3 miles
long). Portion in the study area is natural areas
and trail.
Renton
Riverview Park Picnic tables, shelter, parking, restrooms, open
space, and launch area for kayaks and canoes.
Renton
1 The Newcastle Cemetery is described in Section 3.7, Historic and Cultural Resources.
Source: King County, 2016b; City of Bellevue, 2016b; City of Newcastle, 2016b; City of Redmond, 2016; City of Renton, 2016;
Lake Washington School District, 2016; Bellevue School District, 2016a,b; Glendale Country Club, 2016; Somerset Recreation
Club, 2016; and Google Earth, 2016.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐9
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Methods for Studying Long-
term Impacts
To determine long-term
(operational) impacts, the EIS
Consultant Team overlaid the
segments and route options
on maps of recreation sites in
the study area. The following
factors were used to
determine impacts to
recreation: the presence of
existing electrical
infrastructure; existing
recreational uses and
available amenities; frequency
of use; and existing vegetation
as well as proposed pole size,
height, and location. Changes
in vegetation, amenities, or
other features that would
reduce user enjoyment of a
recreation sites were
considered. The potential
need for easements within a
recreation site was also
considered.
3.6.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
Potential impacts to recreation include the loss of use of a
recreation site; or a substantive change in the overall user
enjoyment or recreational experience (generally related to visual
resources, such as views of a pole or change in vegetation
structure). The following specifically defines project-level long-
term (operational) impacts to recreation:
Less-than-Significant – Long-term impacts to recreation would
be less-than-significant if there is no permanent change to a
recreation site or the current use of the site is not permanently lost.
For example, a change to existing infrastructure within a
recreation site (e.g., a change in pole types) or a change in
vegetation type from forested to low-growing vegetation that does
not change the use of the recreation site would be considered a
less-than-significant impact.
Significant – Impacts would be significant if the current use of
the recreation site is permanently lost, or if the conversion of
vegetation type (e.g., from forested to low-growing vegetation)
would substantively change or negatively impact user enjoyment
of a recreation site such that it would preclude the use of the site.
Non-compliance with recreation plans and policies, including the
acquisition of publicly owned recreation land for transmission line
easements, would be a significant impact.
3.6.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action
Alternative
There would be no changes to recreation sites or opportunities from the No Action Alternative
because no new utility infrastructure would be constructed.
3.6.5 Long-term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines)
3.6.5.1 Impacts Common to all Components
Recreation sites are located within and adjacent to PSE’s existing corridor, as well as near roads in
the new corridor for the options. For the existing corridor, including portions that pass through
recreation sites, PSE has easements or owns the parcels outright. PSE would not acquire new
easements along the existing corridor. Within PSE’s existing corridor, poles would be replaced in
generally the same location as the existing poles. The existing H-frame poles are typically 60 feet
tall. Where poles are replaced in or adjacent to a recreation site, the visual appearance of the
infrastructure would be different than existing conditions, as the poles would be taller. However,
there would be fewer (or the same number of) poles in or adjacent to each recreation site. This
change would not negatively affect the experience of park users, and impacts would be less-than-
significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐10
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Vegetation is currently managed within the existing corridor; however, due to more stringent North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) requirements for 230 kV transmission lines,
Alternative 1 would require a substantial number of trees to be removed (see Vegetation
Management in Section 3.4.1.3, Plants and Animals). The clearing of vegetation would diminish the
enjoyment of recreationists at some recreation sites. At many parks, there would be no change to
existing vegetation, whereas at others many trees would be removed. At some recreation sites, tree
removal would not be visible to recreationists from within the site and thus no change would be
perceived.
The segment options that place the transmission line outside of PSE’s existing corridor would mostly
run along road right-of-way. Wherever possible, PSE would place the transmission poles on adjacent
property or, if not possible on adjacent property, on the outermost portion of the road right-of-way.
This is to minimize the possibility of having to relocate the poles in the event of future road
improvements or other utility-related work in the road right-of-way. Whether the poles would be
placed on adjacent property or on the outermost portion of the road rights-of-way, PSE would have to
obtain easements on properties adjacent to the transmission line to allow for their use, such as tree
removal and vegetation management, consistent with NERC requirements. In some cases, easements
would be needed on recreation properties. Many recreational sites have been purchased with federal,
state, or local grants, bonds, or other funding sources. The funding usually comes with provisions
that protect the land for recreation in perpetuity. The conversion of recreation land purchased with
restricted funds for non-recreation purposes would need to meet parcel-specific requirements. PSE’s
ability to acquire an easement or purchase a recreation site for non-recreation use would require an
evaluation process that would be contingent on approval from the property owner and grant agency
or agencies (personal communication, L. Peterson, 2016). Conversion to a non-recreation use would
require mitigation as agreed upon with the agencies involved. The City of Bellevue’s Comprehensive
Plan (2015) also has a policy that requires a public review process for proposed conversions of park
property to a non-recreational use. The other Partner Cities do not have specific policies regarding
the potential conversion of recreation land. The restrictions, and therefore the possibility of
conversion, would be different for each parcel. Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option 2 in the Bellevue
Central Segment, and in the Bellevue South Segment with the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options
may require the acquisition of easements in publicly owned recreation sites. This would only be
possible if the acquisition complies with covenants set out on the property title. Even if there is no
restriction on the property, acquisition of easements in publicly owned recreation sites would be a
significant impact because it would not be in compliance with City of Bellevue recreation plans and
policies (Appendix F).
Other potential impacts under Alternative 1 would be less-than-significant for all recreation sites, as
none would be permanently lost or substantively altered such that use is precluded. Potential impacts
to specific sites are described below, by component, segment, and option.
3.6.5.2 New Richards Creek Substation
There would be no long-term impacts to recreation from operation of the substation because there are
no recreation sites on or adjacent to the proposed substation site. The Chestnut Hill Academy is
beside the Lakeside Substation and near the proposed Richards Creek Substation site (approximately
200 feet to the north). The new substation would not be visible from recreation facilities at the school
because a forested area between the school and the proposed substation site would remain.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐11
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.3 Redmond Segment
Impacts to recreation in the Redmond Segment would be less-than-significant because vegetation
clearing and changes to poles and wires would not affect the use of recreation sites. Potential impacts
are summarized below, by recreation site.
Willows Crest Park: The taller poles with a differing pole configuration would be visible from
the park, but the change would be less-than-significant. This park is outside of the existing
corridor and would not be affected by vegetation clearing.
Willows Creek Neighborhood Park: This park is outside of the corridor and would not be
affected by vegetation clearing. The taller poles in the corridor would not be visible from the
park, and there would be no impacts to the park.
Trails on the Corridor (unnamed, on corridor, between the Sammamish substation and
where the corridor turns south): Each existing set of two H-frames (four poles) would be
replaced with one 100-foot steel monopole. The poles would look different than existing
conditions. Although vegetation greater than 15 feet tall would be removed, most existing
vegetation in the section of the corridor containing these trails is shrub height, and changes would
therefore be small. These changes would not affect the experience of trail users, and impacts
would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐12
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Rose Hill Middle School: The existing H-frames (two poles) would be replaced with one 100-
foot monopole. The taller poles would look different than the existing poles, but the recreation
experience at the playfields would be maintained. Vegetation clearing would be similar to
existing conditions as the area already has low-growing vegetation, primarily lawn, in the
existing corridor. No trees would be removed on the school property. Impacts would be less-
than-significant. The existing 115 kV lines and monopoles to the east of the project would not
change.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐13
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.4 Bellevue North Segment
Impacts to recreation in the Bellevue North Segment would be less-than-significant because
vegetation clearing and changes to poles and wires would not affect the use of recreation sites.
Potential impacts are summarized below, by recreation site.
Bridle Crest Trail, Trail along NE 52nd Ln, and SR 520 Trail: All of these trails cross the
corridor perpendicularly. Vegetation in the corridor is already maintained for the existing 115 kV
lines; however, vegetation taller than 15 feet may need to be removed within the managed right-
of-way. Three trees would be removed on Bridle Crest Trail. Poles and changes in vegetation
may be visible to trail users as they approach the crossing. There would be little change in the
user experience of these trails as the corridor is only a small portion of the experience, and
impacts would be less-than-significant.
Viewpoint Park: The existing corridor crosses the east edge of the park, and the two H-frames
would be replaced with one 100-foot monopole (there would be one pole in the park). Vegetation
in the corridor is already maintained for the existing 115 kV lines, and no trees would be
removed. Other vegetation in the right-of-way taller than 15 feet may need to be removed.
Vegetation clearing would only occur within the existing corridor and would not affect the
majority of the park. The user experience would be maintained and impacts would be less-than-
significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐14
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.5 Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Impacts to recreation from the Existing Corridor Option would be less-than-significant because
vegetation clearing and changes to poles and wires would not affect the use of recreation sites.
Potential impacts are summarized below, by recreation site.
Unnamed Trail (on Corridor at Bel-Red Road and NE Spring Boulevard): There would be
no change to this segment of trail, and thus no impact.
Highland-Glendale Property: The existing corridor crosses the east edge of the park, but no
poles are located within the park and no new poles are proposed. The portion of the park within
the existing corridor is maintained lawn, and thus there would be no change to vegetation. The
user experience would be maintained and impacts would be less-than-significant.
Glendale Country Club (private): The existing corridor crosses the east edge of the country
club. Six 95-foot tall monopoles would be placed in similar locations as the existing poles. There
would be one pole at each site rather than two H-frames, but poles would be taller and more
visible from the country club property. Vegetation within the corridor is maintained for the
existing lines, and consists of lawn for approximately half the length of the country club. In
other areas, vegetation clearing would be more noticeable and approximately 35–40 trees may
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐15
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
be removed. There would be no changes to the amenities offered by the club or to the experience
of golfers. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
Unnamed Trails along the Corridor (between SE 10th Street and SE 20th Street) and SE 3rd
Trail: There would be fewer poles (one 95-foot monopole at each location instead of two H-
frames) and more vegetation cleared. Removal of trees would change the user experience, but
the trail would still be enjoyable. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
Kelsey Creek Park: The existing corridor is located within Kelsey Creek Park, on its east edge.
There would be three 95-foot monopoles placed near existing poles. The poles would be taller,
but there would be fewer within the park (one monopole at each location instead of two H-
frames). Vegetation is currently managed for the existing 115 kV lines and no trees are proposed
to be removed. These changes would not alter the user experience, and impacts would be less-
than-significant.
Skyridge Park: The existing poles (two H-frame structures) on the east edge of the park in the
existing easement would be replaced with a 95-foot monopole. The pole would be taller but
there would be fewer poles. The majority of the existing easement in the park is maintained
lawn; however, four trees would be removed. The park may look different, but these changes
would not affect the user experience. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
Richards Valley Greenway: The proposed greenway would cross the existing corridor along
SE 24th Street. The poles in this location would be taller, but there would be fewer poles than
existing. The taller poles would not change the experience of future users. Impacts would be
less-than-significant.
Bel-Red Mini Park, Eastside Rail Corridor, Wilburton Hill Park & Bellevue Botanical
Gardens, McDowell House, West Kelsey Open Space, Woodridge Open Space, Richards
Creek Open Space, Bannerwood Ballfield Park, and Richards Valley Open Space: The
Existing Corridor Option is not adjacent to these recreation sites. Thus, they would not be
affected and there would be no impacts.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐16
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.6 Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Impacts to recreation from Bypass Option 1 would be significant because PSE would need to obtain
easements on publicly owned recreation sites, which is not in agreement with City of Bellevue park
plans and policies. Easements may need to be obtained in the following recreations sites along the
new corridor: Wilburton Hill Park and Bellevue Botanical Gardens, Kelsey Creek Park, Eastside Rail
Corridor, Richards Creek Open Space, and Bannerwood Ballfield Park. Potential impacts are
summarized below, by recreation site.
Bell-Red Mini Park: The new corridor would not be adjacent to the park; the new corridor
would jog south along 124th Avenue NE to Bel-Red Road, avoiding the park. It would not be
affected (no impact).
McDowell House: Bypass Option 1 would be located along the ERC on the opposite side of SE
1st Street from McDowell House. Due to vegetation, the option would not be visible from
McDowell House, and there would be no impact.
Wilburton Hill Park and Bellevue Botanical Gardens, and Kelsey Creek Park: These parks
are on the north side of the Lake Hills Connector where the majority of the poles would be
placed. PSE may need to acquire an easement within these parks, adjacent to the road, which
would be a significant impact because it is not in agreement with Bellevue Park policies
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐17
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
(Appendix F). In the new easements within the new corridor, 50–55 trees would be removed at
Wilburton Hill Park, and 100–105 trees would be removed in Kelsey Creek Park. The vegetation
clearing and view of the poles and wires would diminish the enjoyment of recreationists along the
Lake Hills Connector. However, these changes would not limit informal recreation use along the
road.
Eastside Rail Corridor: Poles and wires would follow approximately a ½-mile segment of the
ERC. PSE would need to obtain an easement from King County, which would be a significant
impact because it is not in agreement with Bellevue Park policies or King County Objectives
(Appendix F). Having poles and wires along this option (where none currently exist) would
change the expected look of the trail, and may diminish the enjoyment of the proposed trail.
Vegetation would also need to be cleared within the managed right-of-way, including 65–70
trees.
West Kelsey Open Space and Woodridge Open Space: These two parks are on the opposite
(south) side of the Lake Hills Connector from the new corridor, and there would be no impact.
Easements would not be acquired, no trees would be removed, and poles and wires would not be
visible from within the parks.
Richards Creek Open Space and Bannerwood Ballfield Park: PSE would need to acquire an
easement within these parks, adjacent to the road along the new corridor, which would result in a
significant impact because it is not in agreement with Bellevue Park policies (Appendix F). If
allowed, vegetation would be cleared within the easement. Ten trees would be removed in
Richards Creek Open Space and 45 from Bannerwood Ballfield Park. Clearing vegetation and
view of the poles and wires would diminish the enjoyment of recreationists along the Lake Hills
Connector. However, these changes would not limit informal recreation use along the road.
Skyridge Park: Impacts to Skyridge Park would be the same as the Existing Corridor Option;
they would be less-than-significant.
Richards Valley Greenway: Having poles and wires along the Lake Hills Connector (where
none currently exist) would change the look of the greenway, and would diminish the enjoyment
of users of the proposed greenway. Vegetation would also need to be cleared within the managed
right-of-way, including 148 trees. Additionally, the proposed greenway would cross the existing
corridor along SE 24th Street. The new monopole in this location would be taller, but there would
be fewer poles than existing. The taller pole would not change the experience of users. Bypass
Option 1 would not preclude the development proposed greenway; thus, impacts would be less-
than-significant.
Unnamed Trail (on Corridor at Bel-Red Road and NE Spring Boulevard), Highland-
Glendale Property, Glendale Country Club, SE 3rd Trail, and Richards Valley Open Space:
Bypass Option 1 is not adjacent to these recreation sites; thus, they would not be affected (no
impact).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐18
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.7 Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Impacts to recreation from Bypass Option 2 would be significant because PSE would need to obtain
easements on publicly owned recreation sites, which is not in agreement with City of Bellevue park
plans and policies. Easements may need to be obtained in the following recreations sites along the
new corridor: Wilburton Hill Park and Bellevue Botanical Gardens, Kelsey Creek Park, Eastside Rail
Corridor, Richards Creek Open Space, and Woodridge Open Space. Potential impacts are
summarized below, by recreation site.
Bell-Red Mini Park: There would be no impacts to Bel-Red Mini Park. See Bypass Option 1
for details.
McDowell House and West Kelsey Open Space: Impacts would be the same as for Bypass
Option 1; see the discussion above (no impacts).
Wilburton Hill Park and Bellevue Botanical Gardens and Eastside Rail Corridor: Impacts
would be the same as for Bypass Option 1; see the discussion for Bypass Option 1 (significant
impacts).
Kelsey Creek Park: The wires and poles would be along the north side of the Lake Hills
Connector until Richards Road. PSE would need to acquire an easement within the park,
adjacent to the road along the new corridor, which would be a significant impact because it is
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐19
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
not in agreement with Bellevue park policies (Appendix F). In the new easement within the
park, 35–40 trees are proposed to be removed. Vegetation clearing and view of the poles and
wires would diminish the enjoyment of recreationists along the Lake Hills Connector. However,
these changes would not limit informal recreation use along the road.
Woodridge Open Space and Richards Creek Open Space: For Bypass Option 2, the new
corridor would follow Richards Road. PSE would need to acquire an easement within both open
spaces, adjacent to the road along the new corridor, which would result in a significant impact
because it is not in agreement with Bellevue Park policies (Appendix F). Vegetation would be
cleared in the easements, including 25–30 trees in Woodridge Open Space and 37 in Richards
Creek Open Space. A pole is proposed at the trailhead for the Woodridge Trail and the trailhead
may need to be moved. Additionally, the cleared area at the trailhead may be visible from other
locations along the trail and may decrease the scenic nature of the trail and visitor enjoyment.
However, these changes would not prevent people from using the park or limit recreational uses.
Mitigation for moving the trailhead is described in Section 3.6.6, Mitigation Measures.
Bannerwood Ballfield Park: The new corridor would follow Richards Road and not go past
Bannerwood Ballfield Park. There would be no impacts to the park.
Richards Valley Open Space: Bypass Option 2 would be adjacent to the south edge of
Richards Valley Open Space, but the poles and wires would not be visible from inside the park
and no trees would be removed. Users would not be affected, and there would be no impact.
Richards Valley Greenway: Having poles and wires along the Lake Hills Connector and
Richards Road (where none currently exist) would change the look of the greenway, and would
diminish the enjoyment of users of the proposed greenway. Vegetation would also need to be
cleared within the managed right-of-way, including 240 trees. However, Bypass Option 2 would
not preclude the development proposed greenway; thus, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Unnamed Trail (on corridor Bel-Red Road and NE Spring Boulevard), Highland-Glendale
Property, Glendale Country Club, SE 3rd Trail, and Skyridge Park: Bypass Option 2 is not
adjacent to these recreation sites. Thus, they would not be affected (no impact).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐20
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.8 Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
In the Bellevue Central Segment, there would be potentially significant impacts with Bypass Option
1 and Bypass Option 2. This is because PSE may need to acquire easements through the public
recreation sites along the new corridor. If PSE is restricted from purchasing easements on recreation
parcels purchased with dedicated funds, the poles and vegetation clear zone (i.e., the managed right-
of-way) would need to be placed within the roadway right-of-way, as stipulated in Section 3.6.6,
Mitigation Measures. Public recreation sites along the new corridor where new easements would be
required include the following:
Bypass Option 1: Wilburton Hill Park and Bellevue Botanical Gardens, Kelsey Creek Park,
Eastside Rail Corridor, Richards Creek Open Space, and Bannerwood Ballfield Park.
Bypass Option 2: Wilburton Hill Park and Bellevue Botanical Gardens, Kelsey Creek Park,
Eastside Rail Corridor, Richards Creek Open Space, and Woodridge Open Space.
Bypass Options 1 and 2 would place new poles and wires in recreation sites where transmission
facilities are not currently located. All other segments and options would locate poles and wires
within recreation sites where poles and wires are already located.
All options would involve the removal of trees in recreation sites (see Table 3.6-2). Bypass Option 1
would involve the highest number of trees removed for the Bellevue Central Segment. For tree
removal outside of recreation sites, see Section 3.4, Plants and Animals.
Table 3.6-2. Trees Removed at Recreation Sites by Bellevue Central Option
Segment/Option
Approximate Number of
Trees Removed in
Recreation Sites
New Easement Required
in Recreation Site
Existing Corridor Option 45 No
Bypass Option 1 430 Yes
Bypass Option 2 310 Yes
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐21
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.9 Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Impacts to recreation from the Oak 1 Option would be significant because PSE would need to obtain
easements in Coal Creek Natural Area along the new corridor, which is not in agreement with City of
Bellevue park plans and policies. Potential impacts are summarized below, by recreation site.
Mountains to Sound Greenway I-90 Trail: The Oak 1 Option would cross the trail
perpendicularly along Factoria Boulevard SE, and poles and wires may be visible to trail users as
they approach the crossing. However, this change would be small relative to the overall trail
experience, and trail use would be maintained; thus the impact would be less-than-significant.
The transmission lines in PSE’s existing corridor (which cross the greenway) would not change
under Oak 1.
Newport High School: Eighty- to 85-foot monopoles and wires would replace the existing 115
kV lines along Factoria Boulevard SE, and the existing distribution and telecommunications lines
would be placed underground. At the south end of Factoria Boulevard SE, the poles would be on
the opposite side of the road from the school sports fields; except one pole would be placed on
the corner of Factoria Boulevard SE and Coal Creek Parkway SE. Approximately 45–50 trees
along Factoria Boulevard SE would be removed. The removal of trees and new poles would be
visible from the school sports fields but would not affect recreation opportunities and uses at the
school. The Oak 1 and Willow 2 Options would result in a similar impact (less-than-significant).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐22
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Coal Creek Natural Area: Along Coal Creek Parkway, 80-foot poles would be installed and
existing distribution and telecommunications lines would be placed underground. Poles and lines
would be on the opposite side of Coal Creek Parkway (north side) from the natural area, except
for one pole. This pole would be in the west bending curve where the existing distribution line
pole is. PSE would need to acquire an easement adjacent to Coal Creek Parkway along the new
corridor, which would result in a significant impact because it is not in agreement with Bellevue
park policies (Appendix F). Trees would be removed on the west and south sides of the road,
even though the poles and wires would be on the opposite side of the road from the natural area.
The cleared vegetation, new poles and wires would be visible from trailheads at the edge of the
natural area and decrease the experience of users; however, the opportunities and uses would be
maintained, and impacts would be less-than-significant. South of Coal Creek, the natural area is
on both sides of Coal Creek Parkway, and PSE’s existing corridor crosses through the natural
area. The existing pairs of 60-foot H-frames would be replaced with 100-foot monopoles. The
new poles would be placed in similar locations to the existing poles. This would result in three
monopoles within the natural area, plus four poles along Coal Creek Parkway north of the Coal
Creek. Trees would be cleared within the existing corridor. Trail users along or crossing the
corridor would notice less vegetation and a change in pole configuration (the change from four
poles to a taller monopole). Within the two areas described, 70–80 trees would be removed.
These changes would change the experience of trail users along the corridor; however, the impact
would be less-than-significant because the opportunities and uses available within the natural
area would be maintained. (Impacts would be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2
Options.)
Newport Hills Mini Park: The two H-frame structures in Newport Hills Mini Park have three
poles each (six poles total). These would be replaced with two 85-foot tall poles. Vegetation
would be cleared to PSE standards and five to 10 trees would be removed. Much of the park is
already cleared of vegetation, but park users would notice the change in vegetation and pole type.
However, impacts would be less-than-significant because the opportunities in and uses of the
park would be maintained. (Impacts would be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
Waterline Trail: The trail runs parallel to PSE’s existing corridor in SPU’s easement. Taller
poles and cleared vegetation in the adjacent easement would be visible from the trail, but there
would be no change to the trail itself or the SPU easement. These changes may affect the user’s
experience but would be less-than-significant as the opportunities in and uses of the trail would
be maintained.
Tyee Middle School, Somerset North Slope Open Space, Somerset Recreation Club, Forest
Hill Neighborhood Park & Open Space, and Forest Drive Open Space: There would be no
changes to PSE’s existing corridor with the Oak 1 Option; thus, these recreation sites would not
be affected and there would be no impact.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐23
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.10 Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Impacts to recreation from the Oak 2 Option would be significant because PSE would need to obtain
easements in Coal Creek Natural Area along the new corridor, which is not in agreement with City of
Bellevue park plans and policies. Potential impacts are summarized below, by recreation site.
Mountains to Sound Greenway I-90 Trail: The Oak 2 Option would cross the trail
perpendicularly along Factoria Boulevard SE and in the existing corridor. Poles and wires may be
visible to trail users as they approach the crossing. However, this change would be small relative
to the overall trail experience, and trail use would be maintained; thus, the impact would be less-
than-significant.
Tyee Middle School: The two 60-foot H-frames would be replaced with one 65-foot H-frame, in
similar locations to the existing poles. Most of the area is already maintained with low-growing
vegetation, and vegetation clearing would be similar to existing conditions. However,
approximately 10–15 trees near SE Allen Road may need to be removed. These changes would
not affect recreation opportunities and uses, and impacts would be less-than-significant.
Somerset North Slope Open Space: No poles are currently located within the existing easement
through the park. Under the Oak 2 Option, one 65-foot H-frame would be placed within the park.
Vegetation would be removed within the managed right-of-way that was not previously affected.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐24
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
The change in vegetation would be noticed by people near the park; however, the site is fenced
and thus not used by the public. Impacts would be less-than-significant. (Impacts would be
similar for the Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2 Options.)
Somerset Recreation Club: One 65-foot H-frame would replace the two existing H-frames in a
similar location. The poles would look different and five to 10 trees would be removed, but there
would be no change to recreation uses. For this reason, impacts would be less-than-significant.
(Impacts would be the same for the Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options.)
Newport High School: In addition to the description of impacts under the Oak 1 Option, poles
would be located on the east side of 124th Avenue SE adjacent to the school. There are no
existing poles or wires in this location, and 15–20 trees (both street trees and on school property)
would be cleared on the east side of 124th Avenue SE. Thus, including the 45–50 trees along
Factoria Boulevard SE, a total of 60–65 trees would be removed with this option. Additionally,
lighting structures for the track may need to be relocated. The new poles and the change in
vegetation would be visible from the sports fields. However, they would not affect recreation
opportunities and uses and thus impacts would be less-than-significant.
Forest Hill Neighborhood Park & Open Space: The four 60-foot tall poles would be replaced
with one 65-foot tall steel H-frame (two poles). Only one pole site would be located within the
park. Vegetation clearing would be more than existing conditions; including the removal of 10–
15 trees. Park users may notice a change in vegetation and pole type. The play area and open
space to the east of the corridor would not be affected. There would be no change to the
experience of park users, and impacts would be less-than-significant. (Impacts would be the same
for the Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options.)
Forest Drive Open Space: There would be no change to the open space and thus no impacts.
Coal Creek Natural Area: See the Oak 1 Option for description (significant impact). (Impacts
would be the same as the Oak 1 and Willow 2 Options.)
Newport Hills Mini Park and the Waterline Trail: See the Oak 1 Option for description (less-
than-significant impacts). (Impacts would be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐25
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.11 Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Impacts to recreation from the Willow 1 Option would be less-than-significant because vegetation
clearing and changes to poles and wires would not affect the use of recreation sites. Potential impacts
are summarized below, by recreation site.
Mountains to Sound Greenway I-90 Trail: The Willow 1 Option crosses the trail
perpendicularly. Poles and wires may be visible to trail users as they approach the crossing.
However, trail users would not likely perceive a change, and the impact would be less-than-
significant. (Impacts would be the same for the Willow 1 and Willow 2 Options.)
Tyee Middle School: The two 60-foot H-frame structures would be replaced with a 100-
monopole. Most of the area is already maintained with low-growing vegetation, and vegetation
management would be similar to existing conditions. However, approximately 20–25 trees near
SE Allen Road may need to be removed. These changes would not affect recreation
opportunities and uses, and impacts would be less-than-significant. (Impacts would be the same
for the Willow 1 and Willow 2 Options.)
Somerset North Slope Open Space: No poles are currently located within the existing
easement through the park. Under the Willow 1 Option, one 85-foot pole would be placed within
the park (and a second pole on the adjacent parcel). Vegetation would be removed within the
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐26
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
managed right-of-way that was not previously affected. The change in vegetation would be
noticed by people near the park; however, the site is fenced and thus not used by the public.
Impacts would be less-than-significant. (Impacts would be similar for the Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
Somerset Recreation Club: Two 85-foot poles would be placed in a similar location to the
existing two H-frame structures on the site, and approximately five to 10 trees would be
removed. The new poles would be taller, but there would be no change to recreational uses, and
impacts would be less-than-significant.
Newport High School: The Willow 1 Option is not adjacent to Newport High School and it
would not be affected (no impact).
Forest Hill Neighborhood Park & Open Space: The two 60-foot H-frame structures would be
replaced with two 85-foot tall monopoles. There would be more vegetation clearing than
existing conditions; including the removal of 10–15 trees. Park users may notice a change in
vegetation and pole type. The play area and open space to the east of the corridor would not be
affected. There would be no change to the experience of park users, and impacts would be less-
than-significant.
Forest Drive Open Space: There would be no change to the open space and thus no impacts.
Coal Creek Natural Area: The Coal Creek Natural Area is on both sides of Coal Creek
Parkway south of Coal Creek, and PSE’s existing corridor crosses through the natural area. The
existing pairs of 60-foot H-frames would be replaced with 100-foot monopoles or two 85-foot
tall poles. The new poles and lines would be placed in similar locations to the existing 115 kV
lines. This would result in three poles within the natural area, plus four along Coal Creek
Parkway north of the Coal. Thirty to 35 trees would be cleared, and users of trails along or
crossing the corridor would notice reduced vegetation and a change in pole configuration (the
change from four to two taller poles). This could change the experience of trail users along the
corridor; however, the impact would be less-than-significant because opportunities and uses
would be maintained.
Newport Hills Mini Park and the Waterline Trail: See the Oak 1 Option for description (less-
than-significant impacts). (Impacts would be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐27
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.12 Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option
Impacts to recreation from the Willow 2 Option would be significant because PSE would need to
obtain easements in Coal Creek Natural Area along the new corridor, which is not in agreement with
City of Bellevue park plans and policies. Potential impacts are summarized below, by recreation site.
Mountains to Sound Greenway I-90 Trail: The Willow 2 Option crosses the trail
perpendicularly. Poles and wires may be visible to trail users as they approach the crossing.
However, trail users would not likely perceive a change. (Impacts would be the same for the
Willow 1 and Willow 2 Options.)
Tyee Middle School: Impacts would be the same for the Willow 1 and Willow 2 Options (less-
than-significant). See Willow 1 for description.
Somerset North Slope Open Space and Forest Drive Open Space: See the Oak 2 Option for
descriptions (less-than-significant impacts and no impact, respectively). (Impacts would be
similar for the Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2 Options.)
Somerset Recreation Club: Impacts would be less-than-significant, the same as the Oak 2
Option.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐28
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Forest Hill Neighborhood Park & Open Space: Impacts would be less-than-significant and the
same for the Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options; see the Oak 2 Option description.
Newport High School: Impacts would be less-than-significant and similar to the Oak 1 Option;
see the Oak 1 Option description.
Coal Creek Natural Area: See the Oak 1 Option for description (significant impact). (Impacts
would be the same for the Oak 1 and Willow 2 Options.)
Newport Hills Mini Park and the Waterline Trail: See the Oak 1 Option for descriptions
(less-than-significant impacts). (Impacts would be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐29
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.13 Comparison of Bellevue South Options
In the Bellevue South Segment, there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the
Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options because PSE may need to acquire an easement in the Coal
Creek Natural Area along Coal Creek Parkway. If PSE is restricted from purchasing easements on
recreation parcels purchased with dedicated funds, the poles and vegetation clear zone (i.e., the
managed right-of-way) would need to be placed within the roadway right-of-way, as stipulated in
Section 3.6.6, Mitigation Measures.
Additionally, the Oak 2 Option would place new poles adjacent to Newport High School where
transmission facilities are not currently located. The Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2 Options would
place a new pole in the Somerset North Slope Open Space where transmission poles are not currently
located (although wires cross the open space and there are poles on an adjacent parcel). All other
segments and options would locate poles and wires within recreation sites where poles and wires are
already located.
All options would involve the removal of trees in recreation sites (see Table 3.6-3). The Oak 2
Option would have the highest number of trees for the Bellevue South Segment.
Table 3.6-3. Trees Removed at Recreation Sites by Bellevue South Option
Segment/Option
Approximate Number of
Trees Removed in
Recreation Sites
New Easement Required
in Recreation Site
Oak 1 Option 140 Yes
Oak 2 Option 195 Yes
Willow 1 Option 95 No
Willow 2 Option 190 Yes
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐30
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.14 Newcastle Segment
Impacts to recreation in the Newcastle Segment would be less-than-significant because vegetation
clearing and changes to poles and wires would not affect the use of recreation sites. Potential impacts
are summarized below, by recreation site.
Waterline, Cross Town, China Creek (proposed), and Olympus Trails: At each pole site, the
existing two H-frames would be replaced with two 85-foot tall poles. Vegetation taller than 15
feet would be removed within the managed right-of-way. In areas not previously cleared along
the trails, areas with trees removed would be visible to trail users. The poles would be taller, and
there would be fewer poles than existing conditions. This may change the user experience, but
the use of the trail would remain; thus, the impact would be less-than-significant.
Lake Boren Park: The park is not adjacent to the corridor and would not be impacted.
May Creek Natural Area: At each pole site, the two existing H-frames would be replaced with
two 85-foot tall monopoles in the corridor through the May Creek Natural Area. There would be
two pairs of two poles in the corridor through the natural area. Vegetation is currently maintained
for the existing transmission lines, but vegetation that could grow taller than 15 feet would be
removed, including 80–85 trees. The poles would be taller and there would be fewer poles than
existing conditions. These changes may affect the user experience, but the opportunities in and
uses of the park would be maintained; thus, the impact would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐31
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.5.15 Renton Segment
Impacts to recreation in the Renton Segment would be less-than-significant because vegetation
clearing and changes to poles and wires would not affect the use of recreation sites. Potential impacts
are summarized below, by recreation site.
Sierra Heights Park: Three pairs of H-frames are currently located in the park. The H-frame in
the north part of the park would be replaced with two 85-foot tall poles, and the other two would
be replaced with one 100-foot tall monopole at each pole site. There would be a total of four
poles in the park, less than existing conditions, but the poles would be taller than existing.
Vegetation would be maintained to PSE standards of 15 feet in height, including the removal of
four trees. These changes may alter the experience of park users, but the opportunities in and uses
of the park would be maintained and impacts would be less-than-significant. The SCL poles and
wires that also cross the park would not be changed.
Sierra Heights Elementary School: The PSE corridor crosses the northwest corner of the school
property. The school sports fields are separated from the corridor by a forested area.
Approximately 10 trees would be removed but the cleared area would not be visible from the
school. The poles would unlikely be noticed from the sports fields, and there would be no change
to recreation at the school and no impact.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐32
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
May Creek Greenway: The portion of the May Creek Natural Area in Renton (May Creek
Greenway) is not near the corridor and would not be affected.
Honey Creek Open Space: The two H-frames would be replaced with one 100-foot tall
monopole. The pole would be taller, but there would be fewer poles than existing conditions.
Honey Creek is in a deep ravine and the vegetation in the ravine would not be affected.
Vegetation near the top of the slopes would be removed, including 45–50 trees. The change in
vegetation would be visible to users of the portion of the trail on top of the slope and may change
the visual experience. The opportunities in and uses of the park would be maintained, and thus
impacts would be less-than-significant.
Cedar River Natural Zone including Riverview Park and the Cedar River Trail: The two H-
frames would be replaced with one 100-foot tall monopole, with four poles located within the
natural area. The poles would be taller but fewer in number than existing conditions. Vegetation
is already maintained within the corridor, but 50–55 trees would be removed. The Cedar River is
in a deep ravine, and only vegetation near the top of the slopes would be removed (no trees
would be removed in Riverview Park). The changes would be visible to users of the Cedar River
Trail along the top of the ravine, but the opportunities in and uses of the natural area would be
maintained and impacts would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.6‐33
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
3.6.6 Mitigation Measures
For recreation, regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and park plans were reviewed to identify
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures specified by code would be required, whereas mitigation
measures based on review of park plans and comprehensive plans would be at the discretion of the
applicant to adopt or the local jurisdictions to impose as a condition of project approval.
3.6.6.1 Regulatory Requirements
None of the Partner Cities have regulations that would mitigate project-related impacts to
recreational resources. However, many public recreation sites in the study area were acquired with
federal, state, or local grants, bonds, or other funding sources. The funding comes with provisions
that protect the land for recreation in perpetuity. The conversion of public recreation land purchased
with restricted funds for non-recreation purposes would need to meet site-specific agency
requirements and would be contingent on approval from the grant agency or agencies. Conversion to
a non-recreation use would require an equivalent replacement as agreed upon with the agencies
involved. Compliance with these requirements is not appealable.
Prior to Construction
Avoid placement of infrastructure within or adjacent to recreation sites where there is none
currently to the extent possible.
Meet site-specific agency requirements regarding acquisition of easements that require
conversion of recreation land to a non-recreation use.
3.6.6.2 Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on review of the applicable park plans
and comprehensive plans. Although not all of the planning documents provided policies that directly
address mitigation of impacts to recreational resources, general policies in all communities support
application of the measures listed below. The applicable policies are presented based on the stage at
which they would be applied.
Prior to Construction
Undergo a public review process for the conversion to non-recreational use of public park
lands and facilities (City of Bellevue Plan Policy PA-37).
Design the project so that poles would be placed farther into the road right-of-way and
supports would extend farther over the road so that new easements would not be required for
the pole placement or the associated vegetation clear zone (i.e., the managed right-of-way).
Use vegetation outside of any required clear zone (i.e., the managed right-of-way) to screen
poles and wires where transmission infrastructure is placed within a recreation site.
Work with the City of Bellevue to relocate the trailhead at Woodridge Open Space, if needed
under Bypass Option 2.
Work with Newport High School (Bellevue School District) to relocate lighting structures for
the track, if needed under the Oak 2 Option.
Work with each Partner City to determine mitigation for tree removal within recreation sites
in its jurisdiction.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
The EIS Consultant Team
reviewed information available
from Washington State, King
County, the Partner Cities,
and PSE to describe existing
significant historic and cultural
resources within the study
area, and potential for
encountering unevaluated
historic resources or
unidentified archaeological
resources.
3.7 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
This chapter provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts to known and probable historic and
cultural resources in the study area. Historic and cultural resources
exist belowground and aboveground and can be archaeological
sites, traditional cultural properties, buildings, structures, or
objects. Historic and cultural resources can be listed on historic
registers, recommended eligible for listing, or determined eligible
for listing; collectively, these are referred to hereafter as
“significant historic resources.” Archaeological resources can also
be listed on historic registers. A historic archaeological resource
must be determined eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places before it is considered “protected,” while all
precontact cultural resources are protected regardless of eligibility
determinations; archaeological resources meeting these criteria are
collectively referred to hereafter as “protected archaeological
resources.” Historic and cultural resources that are not listed or
lack eligibility recommendations and determinations can be
qualified for consideration of their potential historic significance due to their age. Historic and
cultural resources not listed but qualified due to their age are referred to hereafter as “unevaluated
historic resources.”
The EIS Consultant Team reviewed the Washington Information System for Architectural and
Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD); the Statewide Predictive Model; national, state, and local
historic registers; existing cultural resources assessments; geological data, historical maps; local
histories; and published ethnographic resources within the study area. Information was also obtained
from preliminary cultural resources assessments prepared for PSE specifically for the project
(Beckner and Gilpin, 2015; Dellert et al., 2016a, 2016b; Gilpin et al., 2014). These assessments did
not include field work to test for unidentified archaeological sites or record and evaluate potential
impacts to unevaluated or significant historic resources in the study area. Additional information was
obtained from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP),
King County Historic Preservation Program (KCHPP), the City of Bellevue, the City of Renton, the
King County Assessor, local libraries, and Environmental Science Associates’ research library.
The study area for unevaluated historic resources follows that established in the cultural resources
assessments prepared for this project (Dellert et al., 2016b; Gilpin et al., 2014); this includes adjacent
parcels of land on both sides of the center of each transmission line segment and option (see Figure
3.7-1 and Figure 3.7-2).
For the identification of significant historic resources and protected archaeological resources, the
study area includes all resources within 0.5 mile of the existing and new corridors (see Figure 3.7-1).
This study area differs from that used by Dellert et al. (2016b) to account for the topography and
potential for visual impacts.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic and Cultural Resource
Key Terms
Protected archaeological resource
– historic sites determined eligible
for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places and any
precontact archaeological
resource, regardless of eligibility
status.
Significant historic resource – a
resource that is either register-
listed, recommended eligible for
listing, or determined eligible for
listing.
Register-listed – resource is on a
national, state, or local historic
register, or is a King County
Landmark.
Determined eligible for listing –
resource has been officially
determined eligible by DAHP but
has not yet been listed.
Recommended eligible for listing –
resource has been recommended
eligible for listing.
Unevaluated historic resource –
resource meets minimum age
threshold for listing but has not
been evaluated for its historic
significance.
Precontact Cultural Resource –
resource that dates prior to the
point of contact between
European-American peoples
(including explorers, fur traders,
and military personnel) with Native
American peoples. In King County,
the precontact period is
considered to have ended with the
arrival of the Denny Party in 1851.
Traditional cultural properties – a
property that is eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP based on its
associations with the cultural
practices, traditions, beliefs,
lifeways, arts, crafts, or social
institutions of a living community.
The methodology for analyzing unevaluated historic resources in the
study area is being developed by PSE. PSE is conducting a historic
property inventory and will conduct an archaeological survey prior to
construction, once all specific excavation locations are known.
3.7.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Since publication of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, no new state laws have
been enacted or official historic preservation registers established that
would apply to the historic and cultural resources in the cities of
Bellevue, Redmond, Newcastle, Renton, and unincorporated King
County (see Section 13.2 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS). However, the
preliminary cultural resources assessments prepared for this project
since the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Dellert et al., 2016a, 2016b) identified
three new unofficial historical lists. These lists are the City of
Renton’s Centennial Markers, the Eastside Heritage Center’s Bellevue
Historic Sites, and a historical inventory reviewed at the request of the
City of Bellevue (City of Renton, 2016; Eastside Heritage Center,
2016; Tobin and Pendergrass, 1993). These lists were not created
through DAHP’s Certified Local Government program, and are
therefore not considered to be official historic registers by the EIS
Consultant Team.
King County and the cities of Redmond, Bellevue, Newcastle, and
Renton have comprehensive plans; some of these have been finalized
since the Phase 1 EIS. The plans generally outline goals and policies
for the identification and preservation of historic and cultural
resources and consideration of potential impacts to historic and
cultural resources (City of Bellevue, 2015; City of Redmond, 2015;
City of Newcastle, 2016; City of Renton, 2015; King County, 2014).
The comprehensive plans do not specify what actions are required to
identify potential impacts and preserve historic and cultural resources.
The cities of Redmond and Newcastle follow procedures of the King
County Historic Preservation Program for identifying potential
impacts to and preservation of historic and cultural resources. The
cities of Renton and Bellevue do not follow King County Historic
Preservation Program procedures; municipal code does not specify
what actions are required to identify potential impacts and preserve
historic and cultural resources (BCC Chapter 22.02).
Buildings and structures included in historic registers are considered
important to national, state, or local heritage. Historic registers
applicable to the study area include the following:
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
Washington Heritage Register (WHR)
Washington Heritage Barn Register (WHBR)
King County and Local Landmarks List (KC Landmarks)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; HRA, 2016.
Figure 3.7-1. Study Area for Historic and Cultural Resources.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Source: King County, 2015; WA Ecology, 2014; DAHP, 2015.
Figure 3.7-2. Statewide Predictive Model for Archaeological Sensitivity.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐5
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Resources listed on the NRHP, WHR, and WHBR are managed by DAHP. Resources on the KC
Landmarks register are managed jointly by KCHPP and the cities where the resources are located
(KCHPP, 2015).
Redmond and Newcastle are members of DAHP’s Certified Local Government program and as such
have an inter-local management agreement with KCHPP regarding historic preservation; KCHPP has
established criteria for evaluating potential KC Landmarks. DAHP delegates management
responsibilities to Certified Local Governments for unevaluated historic resources and significant
historic resources within their jurisdictions. For cities that do not participate in the Certified Local
Government program (Bellevue and Renton), the EIS Consultant Team identified resources 45 years
or older, per a modified age criterion used by the NRHP (50-year threshold with 5 years subtracted in
case the project is delayed). For resources within Redmond, Newcastle, and unincorporated King
County, the EIS Consultant Team identified resources 40 years or older, per the age criterion used by
King County Landmarks (see Table 3.7-1). A resource that has achieved exceptional significance
within a shorter timespan can also be considered eligible for the NRHP and King County Landmarks
(based on age alone), although this is rare.
Table 3.7-1. Age Thresholds Used for Identifying Unevaluated Historic Resources
Local Government Participates in Certified Local
Government Program
Minimum Age Threshold
Applied
Redmond Yes – King County Landmarks 40
Bellevue No 45
Newcastle Yes - King County Landmarks 40
Renton No 45
Unincorporated King
County
Yes - King County Landmarks 40
Historic and cultural resources can be eligible for listing in the NRHP if they meet the minimum age
threshold, and have integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship or feeling, and meet
at least one of the following criteria (NPS, 1997):
Criterion A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past;
Criterion C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or
that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction;
Criterion D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐6
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Under state law (Chapter 27.53 RCW), historic archaeological resources must be determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP before they are considered protected, while all precontact cultural
resources are protected regardless of eligibility determinations. DAHP will make a final
determination whether a resource is eligible or not eligible for listing in the NRHP. Resources
meeting these definitions are hereafter referred to as “protected archaeological resources.” Isolated
(single) artifacts, either precontact or historic, are not protected under state law because they do not
meet the definition of a “site” (WAC 25-48-020(9)).
3.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources in the Study Area
Archaeological evidence indicates human activity in the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound since at
least 12,500 years ago (see Section 13.3 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS). An archaeological site within 2
miles of the Redmond Segment dates to the earliest known time period of human occupation in the
region (Kopperl, 2009). Based on an analysis of published ethnographies, local histories, historical
maps, and the Statewide Predictive Model, the entire study area has a high sensitivity for containing
unevaluated historic and cultural resources (Dellert et al., 2016b).
All segments and options are situated mostly or entirely on upland landforms composed of glacial
deposits, including till, outwash, and drift, that were laid down approximately 17,400 to 16,400 years
ago during the last Ice Age (Troost and Booth, 2008), which is prior to the earliest evidence for
people in western Washington. Since the end of the last Ice Age, these upland locations have not
experienced substantial natural deposition. The lack of deposition has two implications for the
archaeological sensitivity of these landforms. First, cultural remains would tend to remain at or near
the ground surface, rather than becoming deeply buried; therefore, if archaeological sites are present,
they would not be expected to be deeply buried. Second, prolonged surface exposure of any cultural
resources would lead to decomposition of organic materials, as well as the erosion of artifacts and
features.
The study area contains one protected archaeological site (the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad),
seven significant historic resources, and hundreds of unevaluated historic resources (Table 3.7-2).
These resources are under the jurisdiction of DAHP, King County, City of Bellevue, City of
Newcastle, City of Redmond, or City of Renton (see Appendix G-1 – Historic Register Resources).
Three cemeteries are within the study area (Newcastle Cemetery, Greenwood Memorial Park, and
Mt. Olivet Cemetery); this analysis classifies cemeteries as a type of historic resource. All segments
and options contain portions of the existing Sammamish-Lakeside-Talbot Hill Transmission Lines #1
and #2 and the Eastside Transmission Corridor (hereafter referred to as the “Eastside Transmission
System”); this resource has been recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. Other types of
historic and cultural resources in the study area include buildings, structures, cemeteries, farms, and
railroad features. The locations of historic register-listed resources, determined eligible for listing
historic resources, and resources recommended eligible for listing are shown on Figure 3-7-1;
archaeological site locations have been redacted from this map as these locations are exempt from
public disclosure (RCW 42.56.300). However, the probability for encountering archaeological
resources within the study area is shown on Figure 3-7-2. A description of each significant historic
resource is provided below in Table 3.7-2. No traditional cultural properties were identified.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐7 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Table 3.7-2. Historic and Cultural Resources in the Study Area Unevaluated Historic Resources* Significant Historic Resources Arch. Resources Recommended-Eligible Historic Resources Determined Eligible Historic Resources Register-Listed Historic Resources Richards Creek Substation Included in Bellevue South Segment counts, below Eastside Transmission System - - - Redmond Segment 118 Eastside Transmission System - - - Bellevue North Segment 58 Eastside Transmission System - - - Bellevue Central Segment (all Options) 133 total unique resources In Existing Corridor: In Existing Corridor Option: 64 (16 are shared with Bypass Option 1) In Bypass Option 1: 62 (16 are shared with Existing Corridor Option, 35 are shared with Bypass Option 2) In Bypass Option 2: 50 (35 shared with Bypass Option 1) In New Corridor: Bypass Option 1: 2 (both are shared with Bypass Option 2) Bypass Option 2: 8 (2 are shared with Bypass Option 1) Eastside Transmission System Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building Wilburton Trestle (NRHP) Wilburton Trestle (WHR) Twin Valley Dairy Barn at Kelsey Creek Farm Park (WHBR) -
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐8 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Unevaluated Historic Resources* Significant Historic Resources Arch. Resources Recommended-Eligible Historic Resources Determined Eligible Historic Resources Register-Listed Historic Resources Bellevue South Segment (all Options) 217 total unique resources In Existing Corridor: 125 are shared with all options 13 are shared with Oak 1 & Oak 2 12 are shared with Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 18 are in Oak 2 36 are in Willow 2 In New Corridor: Oak 1 & Oak 2: 5 (all are shared) Willow 2: 8 Eastside Transmission System Somerset Neighborhood - - -
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐9 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Unevaluated Historic Resources* Significant Historic Resources Arch. Resources Recommended-Eligible Historic Resources Determined Eligible Historic Resources Register-Listed Historic Resources Newcastle Segment 31 Eastside Transmission System Newcastle Cemetery (NRHP) - Newcastle Cemetery (WHR, KC Landmark) - Renton Segment 83 Eastside Transmission System Mt. Olivet Cemetery - - Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad (Recommended Eligible Historic Archaeological Resource) *Number of unevaluated historic resources within 50 feet of the new corridor or within or adjacent to the existing corridor, following applicable age thresholds. Counts were identified using King County Assessor construction year data. Source: DAHP, 2016; KCHPP, 2015.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐10
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Eastside Transmission System
A recent preliminary cultural resources assessment prepared for PSE by Historical Research
Associates evaluated the existing Eastside Transmission System (see Figure 3.7-1); analysts
recommended it eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic district (Beckner and Gilpin, 2015).
PSE is conducting further evaluation of the resource and will consult with DAHP to obtain an
eligibility determination for it as part of a historic property inventory report.
A historic district is a group of resources that “possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or
continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or
physical development” (NPS, 1997). When evaluating the significance of a potential historic district,
the district “must be important for historical, architectural, archeological, engineering, or cultural
values. Therefore, districts that are significant will usually meet the last portion of Criterion C plus
Criterion A, Criterion B, other portions of Criterion C, or Criterion D” (NPS, 1997; see Section
3.7.1). Historic districts can include resources that are contributing or noncontributing to the district’s
historic significance. Historical Research Associates recommended that the Eastside Transmission
System meets NRHP Criterion A for its contributions to the broad patterns of history regarding the
expansion of the electrical system in central King County, enabling farms and homes to utilize
electricity for new and innovative purposes, and industrial expansion of the electrical system in the
mid-twentieth century; the transmission lines retain their integrity of setting and location, and the line
retains its integrity of feeling and association (for the full evaluation, see Beckner and Gilpin [2015]).
This evaluation followed criteria developed specifically for evaluating potential NRHP eligibility of
transmission lines (Kramer, 2012).
Historical Research Associates recommended that the contributing elements to this potential historic
district are the transmission corridor itself, the wood H-frame structures, and associated substations
(Sammamish, Lakeside, and Talbot Hill). Historical Research Associates recommended the
noncontributing elements are the portions that have been upgraded (i.e., steel poles, conductors,
insulators, and connectors). The transmission corridor was recommended the most significant
contributing element, for it still retains a connection with the original 1920s Beverly Park-Renton
transmission line design. The lines were rebuilt and connected to new substations in the 1960s; this
minimized the original look, feel, and association of the lines with their original destination points
(Beckner and Gilpin, 2015). If determined eligible as a historic district, management of the Eastside
Transmission System would be the responsibility of King County, following the Cities’ interlocal
agreement with the KCHPP.
Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building
Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option 2 are adjacent to and within view of the Safeway Distribution
Center Truck Repair Building on parcel 0671000000, which is on the northwest corner of the
intersection of 124th Avenue NE, Bell-Red Road, and NE 12th Street. The Truck Repair Building is a
detached building constructed in 1958 on the north edge of the parcel, farthest from the bypass
routes. It was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 2011.
Wilburton Trestle
Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option 2 are adjacent to and within view of the Wilburton Trestle,
which spans the Mercer Slough at SE 8th Street. The trestle is part of the abandoned Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad, first constructed in 1904 as part of the Lake Washington Beltline. It is
listed on the WHR and is one of six wooden trestles along the Lake Washington Beltline. The Lake
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐11
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Washington Beltline has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP (Allen and O’Brien, 2007;
Dellert et al., 2016b).
Twin Valley Dairy Barn/Kelsey Creek Farm
All options within the Bellevue Central Segment are within view of the Twin Valley Dairy
Barn/Kelsey Creek Farm. The barn, constructed in 1933, is listed in the WHBR. Historically, the
farmstead extended south, across today’s Lake Hills Connector Trail (the proposed route of Bypass
Option 1 and Bypass Option 2), and east to the existing corridor. Documentation of the historical
significance of the barn states that when the farm was sold to the city, the owners “believed in
preserving the beauty and legacy of the agricultural buildings and the land” (WHBR, 2010).
Somerset Neighborhood
All options of the Bellevue South Segment (Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2) would pass
through the Somerset neighborhood. This neighborhood has been described as a “cohesive
midcentury neighborhood” constructed in the 1950s and 1960s around the pre-existing 1929
transmission corridor (Dellert et al., 2016b). The neighborhood has not been inventoried or fully
evaluated for its potential eligibility for listing in a historic register. Preliminary cultural resources
assessments prepared for PSE by Historical Research Associates recommended further evaluation of
the Somerset neighborhood to evaluate its potential eligibility for listing in the NRHP as a historic
district (Dellert et al., 2016b). PSE is conducting further evaluation of this potential historic district
and will consult with DAHP to obtain an eligibility determination.
Newcastle Cemetery
The Newcastle Segment study area contains the inactive Newcastle Cemetery, also known as the
International Order of Odd Fellows Cemetery, Newcastle Odd Fellows Cemetery, Lake Boren
Cemetery, Coal Creek Cemetery, or Coal Miners’ Cemetery (hereafter referred to as the Newcastle
Cemetery). It is located on parcel 2824059018 and buffered by parcel 6388901430. The cemetery
was established in 1880, and the earliest known grave dates to 1879. Approximately 100 known
graves are located within the Newcastle Cemetery, the majority of which date to the mid-1880s;
individuals buried here were coal miners and their associated families. The cemetery is segregated by
race, with African-American and Chinese buried in the southwest portion (Gilpin et al., 2014). In
2008, the Seattle Genealogical Society mapped the locations of identifiable graves and transcribed
the names of the deceased, where possible. Grave plots extend uphill to the western edge where they
occur at intervals; this is immediately adjacent to the existing corridor (Neurath, 1980). The cemetery
has been subject to vandalism and fire, the latter of which destroyed the wooden grave markers and
left some plots unmarked. This cemetery has the potential of containing unmarked graves beyond its
current dedicated boundaries.
The City of Newcastle acquired the cemetery from the International Order of Odd Fellows Grand
Lodge of Washington. Under state law definitions, the cemetery does not qualify as a “historical
cemetery” because it is managed by the City of Newcastle (Chapter 68.60.010(2)). However, the
cemetery is a designated KC Landmark and listed in the WHR, and therefore meets the state law
definition of a significant historic resource. When inventoried in 1999 and 2010, the cemetery was
recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP, but no determination has been made (MacIntosh,
1999; Sundberg, 2010a). The eligibility recommendation states that the cemetery derives its historic
significance from the diverse ethnicity of buried individuals and its association with the history of
mining in the Newcastle area.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐12
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Newcastle Cemetery is listed in the WHR and is a KC Landmark. Being listed on the WHR, it meets
the definition of a protected historic archaeological resource under state law (Chapter 27.53.30(9)). It
is also protected under Chapters 27.44 RCW, 68.60 RCW, and 68.50 RCW. Knowingly disturbing a
protected historic archaeological resource or historic grave on private or public lands in Washington
State without a written permit from DAHP is a class C felony (Chapter 27.53.060(1)).
Mt. Olivet Cemetery
The Renton Segment is adjacent to and within view of the active Mt. Olivet Cemetery, located at 100
Blaine Avenue NE on parcels 1723059085, 1723059106, 1723059125, 1723059127, 1723059128,
1723059143, and 1723059149. It was platted in 1891; however, the earliest known burial was in
1875. Significant individuals buried here include Duwamish Chief William; other well-known
Indians and local pioneers; Mrs. Jennie Moses; and Dr. James, who was nephew to Chief Sealth. In a
county-wide survey of cemeteries, Mt. Olivet Cemetery was noted as one of several cemeteries
believed to occupy the general locations of preexisting Native American cemeteries (Sundberg,
2011). This cemetery has the potential of containing unmarked graves beyond its current dedicated
boundaries.
The cemetery is not listed in a historic register, nor has it been determined eligible for listing in a
historic register. When inventoried in 2010 as part of a county-wide cemetery survey, it was
recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP, but no determination has been made (Sundberg,
2010c, 2011). Until determined eligible, it is not considered a protected historic archaeological
resource, but is still subject to protection as a cemetery under state law (Chapters 68.60 RCW and
68.50 RCW).
Graves found outside of the boundaries of a dedicated cemetery are subject to protection under state
law (Chapter 27.44 RCW and 68.60.050). As is common with cemeteries of the late 1800s, there is a
moderate probability for identifying graves outside of the boundaries of the dedicated cemetery
(Dellert el al., 2016b). Newcastle Cemetery, Mt. Olivet Cemetery, and Greenwood Memorial Park
fall into this time period. Any graves outside of a dedicated cemetery that are discovered prior to
1990, except Native American graves and burial cairns, are considered “historic graves” under state
law and are protected (Chapter 68.60.010(3)). Native American graves and burial cairns located
outside of a dedicated cemetery are protected under state law (Chapter 27.44 RCW).
Greenwood Memorial Park
The Greenwood Memorial Park, also known as Tachell’s Greenwood Cemetery and Greenwood
Cemetery (referred to hereafter as Greenwood Memorial Park), is located at 3401 NE 4th Street in the
southeast corner of the intersection of NE 4th Street and Monroe Avenue NE, on parcel 1623059079.
It was platted in 1917; however, the earliest known grave dates to 1910. Significant individuals
buried here include Jimi Hendrix and cemetery founder James Tachell. It is currently owned by
Service Corporation International and does not meet the definition of a “historical cemetery” under
state law (Chapter 68.60.010(2)). This cemetery has the potential of containing unmarked graves
beyond its current dedicated boundaries. The cemetery is not listed in a historic register, nor has it
been determined eligible for listing in a historic register. When inventoried in 2010 as part of a
county-wide cemetery survey, Greenwood Memorial Park was recommended not eligible for listing
in the NRHP (Sundberg, 2010b, 2011).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐13
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Methods for Analyzing
Long-term Impacts
The analysis considers the
cumulative impacts and
potential mitigation measures
to minimize or avoid project
impacts to historic and
cultural resources. Potential
impacts were assessed by
reviewing the known or
potential presence of historic
and cultural resources within
each study area.
How is “significant” used in
this section?
The term “significant” is used
in the SEPA regulations and
as a standard to evaluate
historic resources. In SEPA,
the term significant is related
to environmental impacts that
are more than moderate. For
historic resources, a
significant building, structure,
site, or object is historically
important and meets the
criteria for inclusion on a
historic register. To reduce
confusion, the EIS Consultant
Team consistently refers to
significant impacts and
significant historic resources.
Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad
The Renton Segment passes over the former grade of the Cedar River branch line of the Columbia &
Puget Sound Railroad (C&PSRR). The section of this branch line is now part of the developed Cedar
River Trail Walk. It was constructed in 1891 to connect the towns of Renton, Newcastle, and Coal
Creek (Robertson, 1995) and is a recorded historic archaeological site (45KI538; this is the
Smithsonian number format assigned to recorded archaeological and historic resources). It is
recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP based on its contribution to the broad patterns in
history (Dellert et al. 2016b). Because it recommended eligible, PSE will request an eligibility
determination from DAHP.
3.7.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts
Considered
Potential long-term impacts to archaeological and historic
resources from operation of the Energize Eastside project are
defined and described below.
Archaeological Resources (belowground)
The following specifically defines project-level long-term
(operational) impacts to archaeological resources:
Less-than-Significant–Long-term impacts would be
considered less-than-significant if no protected archaeological
resources are disturbed as a result of the project.
Significant–Archaeological resources are non-renewable, and
any impact to the depositional integrity (i.e., context) of a
protected archaeological resource would be considered a
significant long-term impact. Any ground-disturbance or
modifications to the ground surface that impacts a protected
archaeological site would be significant. Depending on the
archaeological resource, impacts could be mitigated through
resource-specific measures (e.g., minimizing the amount of
disturbance, avoidance, documentation, or data recovery).
Proposed activities that have the potential to significantly
impact an archaeological site, if present, are any ground
disturbance from pole removal, pole installation, grading,
substation construction, access roads, preparation of equipment
staging areas, and relocating existing distribution lines
underground. Significant impacts to archaeological sites, if
present, can also result from ground surface alterations during
vegetation clearing, and ground compression from the use or
movement of heavy machinery equipment and storage of
equipment within staging areas and at construction sites.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐14
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic Resources (aboveground)
Thresholds for potential impacts to significant historic resources were defined based on the criteria
used to assess adverse effects for resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP (36 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties). The following specifically
defines project-level long-term (operational) impacts to significant historic resources:
Less-than-Significant–Less-than-significant operational impacts to significant historic
resources are defined in this analysis as those that are permanent but would not impact a
resource’s integrity of setting or feeling, or if impacts to the integrity of the resource’s setting
and feeling can be sufficiently mitigated through design choices (e.g., using vegetation
screening or adjusting pole locations to avoid visual impacts to a resource).
Significant–Significant operational impacts to significant historic resources are defined in
this analysis as those that cannot be mitigated and would permanently impact the historic
register eligibility of the resource. Significant impacts would either prevent a potentially
eligible resource from meeting criteria for listing in a historic register, or reduce the ability of
a register-listed resource to convey its historic significance.
Operational impacts that may result in significant impacts to significant historic resources depend on
the type of resource being impacted and the characteristics that define its historic significance. For
example, installation of monopoles in the vicinity of a cemetery or farm could impact the integrity of
setting and feeling for that resource, if pole locations are within view of the resource.
3.7.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, ground disturbance would occur as part of routine pole
replacement, which is anticipated to take place along the existing Sammamish to Talbot Hill
transmission corridor. In some cases, wood poles could be replaced by steel poles, and H-frame
structures could be replaced by monopoles. Any ground disturbance has the potential for impacting
protected archaeological resources, if present. The Eastside Transmission System is recommended
eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic district (see Section 3.7.2.1). The existing H-frame
structures are recommended as a contributing element; removal has the potential to be significant
because it would be permanent and would minimize the integrity of elements that contribute to the
resource’s historic register eligibility. If the Eastside Transmission System is determined eligible by
DAHP for listing in the NRHP, pole replacement could be a significant impact, but it is possible that
the impacts could be mitigated.
3.7.5 Long-term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines)
Impacts Common to all Project Components
Historic and cultural resources are located along and adjacent to PSE’s existing corridor. For most
locations, the infrastructure in the existing corridor includes two sets of 115 kV lines, each supported
by H-frame structures. A typical H-frame structure is made of two poles with a crossbeam that
supports the wires; in some cases, an H-frame structure has three poles. In the existing corridor, each
H-frame structure would be replaced with either one steel monopole, one steel H-frame structure, or
two steel monopoles, depending on the segment and option (see Section 2.1.2.2, and Table 2.1-1).
Poles would be replaced in generally the same location as the existing poles (i.e., within 25 feet up or
down the line). Where poles would be replaced in the existing corridor, the visual appearance of the
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐15
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
infrastructure would be different than existing conditions, as the poles would be taller and made of
steel instead of wood. Steel poles would also be used in the new corridors, except for the portion of
the Oak 2 Option along 124th Avenue.
Alternative 1 would result in both less-than-significant and potentially significant impacts to
significant historic resources. Depending on the resource, it is probable that significant impacts could
be mitigated.
The Eastside Transmission System is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic
district (see Section 3.7.2.1). The H-frame structures are recommended as a contributing element;
removal has the potential to be significant because it would be permanent and would minimize the
integrity of elements that contribute to the resource’s historic register eligibility. The Redmond,
Bellevue North, Bellevue Central Existing Corridor Option, Newcastle, and Renton Segments, and
the Bellevue South Segment Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2 Options would remove portions of the
existing H-frame structures; this would have significant impacts to the Eastside Transmission
System, if impacts cannot be mitigated. The Bellevue Central Segment Bypass Option 1, Bypass
Option 2, and the Bellevue South Segment Oak 1 Option propose retaining portions of the existing
wood H-frame structures. PSE will evaluate this resource during a historic property inventory and
request an eligibility determination from DAHP. If determined eligible by DAHP, impacts to
contributing elements would be significant if unable to be mitigated. Mitigation measures will be
developed by PSE and DAHP that address significant features of the resource. In the experience of
the EIS Consultant Team, retention of H-frame structures is not a typical mitigation measure.
Two historic cemeteries are in the Alternative 1 study area. The Newcastle Segment would construct
poles approximately 30 feet southwest and 300 feet northwest of the Newcastle Cemetery. The
Renton Segment would construct poles approximately 750 feet southeast and 900 feet southeast of
Mt. Olivet Cemetery. Both cemeteries contain graves dating to the 1870s, and cemeteries of this age
often have unmarked graves outside of the dedicated boundaries. Disturbance of a historic cemetery
could impact unmarked graves located outside of the dedicated boundaries. If graves are discovered
during the project, this would be a significant impact and if disturbance is unavoidable, an excavation
permit from DAHP would be required. Cemeteries and unmarked graves are protected under state
law (Chapters 68.60 RCW, 68.50 RCW, 27.44 RCW, and 68.60.50 RCW).
All segments and options in Alternative 1 are adjacent to or contain unevaluated historic resources.
Installation of new poles could result in indirect impacts to these resources through visual changes to
their setting. In the new corridor, ancillary structures that are unevaluated historic resources could be
directly impacted by demolition or relocation to make room for the proposed project. Impacts to
unevaluated historic resources will be known when the historic property inventory is completed and
eligibility is determined by DAHP, which is anticipated prior to the Final EIS. If determined eligible,
impacts would be significant if unable to be mitigated; however, it is probable that not all would be
determined eligible. If none are determined eligible, there would be no impacts to these resources. If
eligible resources are proposed for relocation or demolition, mitigation would be determined if there
are significant impacts. No relocation sites have been identified since there is no known need for
relocation.
Using King County Assessor data, the EIS Consultant Team identified 634 unique unevaluated
historic resources within the study area that are at least 40 or 45 years in age, depending on
jurisdiction over the location (see the discussion below, as well as Appendix G-2 – Unevaluated
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐16
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historic Resources by Segment/Option). Because portions of the options follow the same routes,
some resources are associated with more than one option (see Section 3.7.2).
All segments and options in Alternative 1 have the potential for significant impacts to protected
archaeological resources if an archaeological site is identified during construction of the project.
Disturbance of a protected archaeological site would be a significant impact, but it is probable that
these impacts could be mitigated. All segments and options propose ground disturbance through pole
removal and installation and construction of access roads. Access road construction and ground
compaction from continued use have the potential to disturb archaeological sites. Ground disturbance
from the removal, installation, and relocation of fences and removal and replanting of vegetation also
has the potential to disturb archaeological sites.
With a few exceptions described below, all segments and options are situated on landforms
composed of Vashon-stade glacial till, drift, and outwash (Troost and Booth, 2008), which have a
very low sensitivity for archaeological resources due to their extreme age and the environmental
conditions under which they were deposited. Since the end of the last Ice Age, these landforms have
remained sufficiently stable for the glacial deposits to form soils, primarily Alderwood, Everett, and
Arents gravelly sandy loam (NRCS, 2016). As described below, several segments and options cross
younger Holocene-aged landforms with a higher sensitivity for archaeological resources.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐17
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
New Richards Creek Substation
The New Richards Creek substation would require new connections to the existing Eastside
Transmission System and the Lakeside substation. No additional protected archaeological or
significant historic resources are known at or adjacent to the proposed site.
Lakeside substation looking southeast
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. The Lakeside substation
is recommended as a contributing element to the Eastside Transmission System. If determined
eligible, impacts from an adjacent new substation and new lines to interconnect with the existing
115 kV system would be significant if unable to be mitigated.
Unevaluated Historic Resources: These are analyzed as part of the Bellevue South Segment,
below.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources within or adjacent to
the Richards Creek substation site. Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for
archaeological resources is very low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐18
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Redmond Segment
In the Redmond Segment, the project would replace existing H-frame structures of the Eastside
Transmission System. No additional protected archaeological or significant historic resources are
known at or adjacent to the proposed pole locations.
Existing transmission line H-frame structure
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 118 unevaluated historic resources in this segment,
primarily detached single-family residences constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Impacts to these
resources will be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is
determined by DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are
determined eligible there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these
could be significant if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey
their historic significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources in this segment.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low,
except for the Sammamish Substation area, which has a very high sensitivity.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐19
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bellevue North Segment
In the Bellevue North Segment, the project would replace existing H-frame structures of the Eastside
Transmission System. There are no additional protected archaeological sites or significant historic
resources at or adjacent to the proposed pole locations.
Existing transmission line, looking north from NE 24th Street
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 58 unevaluated historic resources in this segment,
primarily detached single-family residences constructed in the 1960s. Impacts to these resources
will be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is
determined by DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are
determined eligible there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these
could be significant if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey
their historic significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources in this segment.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐20
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
In the Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option, the project would replace existing H-
frame structures of the Eastside Transmission System. One significant historic resource is within 0.5
mile of the proposed pole locations (the Twin Valley Dairy Barn/Kelsey Creek Farm). No protected
archaeological resources are known to be at or adjacent to the proposed pole locations.
Existing transmission line, looking north on
136th Ave NE
Twin Valley Dairy Barn.
Source: DAHP, 2016.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Twin Valley Dairy Barn/Kelsey Creek Farm: Impacts would be less-than-significant, as the
resource is not immediately adjacent to the existing corridor and the project would not result in
direct effects to this resource.
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 64 unevaluated historic resources in this option;
some are shared with those in Bypass Option 1. These are primarily detached single-family
residences constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. Impacts to these resources will be determined
when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. It is
probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are determined eligible there would be
no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these could be significant if the change in
pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey their historic significance and impacts
are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources along this option.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐21
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
In the Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1, the project would replace a portion of the existing
H-frame structures of the Eastside Transmission System. In addition to the Eastside Transmission
System, there are two additional significant historic resources adjacent to the proposed pole locations
(the Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building, and the Wilburton Trestle), and one
significant historic resource is within 0.5 mile (the Twin Valley Dairy Barn). There are no known
protected archaeological sites either at or adjacent to the proposed pole locations.
Installation of monopoles within the viewshed of the Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair
Building, Wilburton Trestle, and Twin Valley Dairy Barn could result in less-than-significant
impacts because alterations to their integrity of setting, place, and feeling would not reduce their
ability to convey their historic significance, which is instead associated with contributions to broad
patterns in history (Criterion A; see Section 3.7.1) and architectural style.
Existing transmission line, looking northwest at 134th PL SE
and 135th PL SE
Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building.
Source: DAHP, 2016.
Wilburton Trestle. Twin Valley Dairy Barn.
Source: DAHP, 2016.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐22
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building: Impacts would be less-than-significant,
as the resource is not immediately adjacent to the existing corridor and the project would not
result in direct effects to this resource.
Wilburton Trestle: Impacts would be less-than-significant, as the resource is not immediately
adjacent to the existing corridor and the project would not result in direct effects to this resource.
Twin Valley Dairy Barn: Impacts would be less-than-significant, as the resource is not
immediately adjacent to the existing corridor and the project would not result in direct effects to
this resource.
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 62 unevaluated historic resources along this option
(including resources in both the existing and new corridors); many are shared with those in the
Existing Corridor Option and Bypass Option 2. These are primarily commercial buildings
constructed in the 1960s. Of these, two of the unevaluated historic resources are within the new
corridor (these are both shared with those in Bypass Option 2); there is a potential for direct
impacts if ancillary structures associated with these are demolished or relocated. Impacts to the
unevaluated resources will be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and
eligibility is determined by DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if
none are determined eligible there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts
to these could be significant if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to
convey their historic significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources along this option.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low,
except within the Kelsey Creek area, which has a very high sensitivity.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐23
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
In the Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2, the project would replace a portion of the existing
H-frame structures of the Eastside Transmission System. In addition to the Eastside Transmission
System, there are two additional significant historic resources adjacent to the proposed pole locations
(the Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building, and the Wilburton Trestle), and one
significant historic resource is within 0.5 mile (the Twin Valley Dairy Barn). No protected
archaeological sites are known to be at or adjacent to the proposed pole locations.
Installation of monopoles within the viewshed of the Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair
Building, Wilburton Trestle, and Twin Valley Dairy Barn could result in less-than-significant
impacts because alterations to their integrity of setting, place, and feeling would not reduce their
ability to convey their historic significance, which is instead associated with contributions to broad
patterns in history (Criterion A; see Section 3.7.1) and architectural style.
Existing transmission line, looking northwest at 134th PL SE
and 135th PL SE
Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building.
Source: DAHP, 2016.
Wilburton Trestle. Twin Valley Dairy Barn.
Source: DAHP, 2016.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐24
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Safeway Distribution Center Truck Repair Building: Impacts would be less-than-significant,
as the resource is not immediately adjacent to the existing corridor and the project would not
result in direct effects to this resource.
Wilburton Trestle: Impacts would be less-than-significant, as the resource is not immediately
adjacent to the existing corridor and the project would not result in direct effects to this resource.
Twin Valley Dairy Barn: Impacts would be less-than-significant, as the resource is not
immediately adjacent to the existing corridor and the project would not result in direct effects to
this resource.
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 50 unevaluated historic resources along this option
(including resources in both the existing and new corridors); many are shared with those in
Bypass Option 1. These are primarily commercial buildings constructed in the 1950s and 1960s.
Of these, eight of the unevaluated historic resources are within the new corridor (two of these
are shared with those in Bypass Option 1); there is a potential for direct impacts if ancillary
structures associated with these are demolished or relocated. Impacts to the unevaluated
resources will be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is
determined by DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are
determined eligible there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these
could be significant if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey
their historic significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources along this option.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low,
except within the Kelsey Creek area which has a very high sensitivity.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐25
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
All options contain historic and cultural resources. The potential impacts to these resources are
compared below by option (Table 3.7-3). Comparisons are presented based on the option’s sensitivity
for unrecorded archaeological resources, proposed retention of existing H-frame structures in the
Eastside Transmission System, potential for demolition or relocation of unevaluated historic
resources, and proposed ground disturbance from undergrounding existing distribution and
communication lines. Each category can have lower, moderate, or higher potential for impacts to
historic and cultural resources.
The Existing Corridor Option has the least potential for impacts; however, this option would not
retain the existing H-frame structures of the Eastside Transmission System, which have been
recommended as contributing elements to the historic district.
In the Bellevue Central Segment, two of the three options would retain a portion of the existing H-
frame structures, which were recommended as contributing to the historic register eligibility of the
resource. Retention of the H-frame structures could minimize potential direct impacts to the Eastside
Transmission System. As described above, it is probable that these potential impacts could be
mitigated by other means as well. In general, the sensitivity for unrecorded archaeological sites is
very low in the Bellevue Central Segment, except where Bypass Options 1 and 2 pass near the
Kelsey Creek area (which has a very high sensitivity). Bypass Options 1 and 2 would also involve a
new corridor, which would require new easements in areas with unevaluated historic resources.
Table 3.7-3. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options
Scale: Lower Potential for Impact Moderate Potential for Impact Higher Potential for Impact
Segment /
Option
Sensitivity for
Unrecorded
Archaeological
Resources
Portions of
Existing H-frame
Structures
Retained
New Easements
Proposed for New
Corridor
Undergrounding
Existing
Distribution and
Communication
Lines Proposed
Existing Corridor
Option Very Low No No No
Bypass Option 1
Predominately Very
Low
Very High within
the Kelsey Creek
area
Yes Yes No
Bypass Option 2
Predominately Very
Low
Very High within
the Kelsey Creek
area
Yes (longest
continuous
section)
Yes No
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐26
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
In the Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option, the project would replace a portion of the existing H-
frame structures of the Eastside Transmission System. The Oak 1 Option would cross through the
Somerset neighborhood, but the existing poles within this neighborhood would remain unchanged;
therefore, no impacts to the Somerset Neighborhood are anticipated.
No protected archaeological sites are known to be at or adjacent to the Oak 1 Option. The Oak 1
Option proposes placing the existing communication and distribution lines underground along
Factoria Blvd SE; this would require ground disturbance and has the potential for impacts to
archaeological resources, if present.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Somerset Neighborhood: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic property
inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible, impacts to
contributing elements of this potential historic district would be significant, if unable to be
mitigated; however, because no poles would be replaced in the Somerset Neighborhood, impacts
are not anticipated.
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 150 unevaluated historic resources along this option
(including resources in both the existing and new corridors); many are shared with those in the
Oak 2 Option, Willow 1 Option, and the Willow 2 Option. These are primarily detached single-
family residences constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. Of these, five of the unevaluated historic
resources are within the new corridor (these are shared with those in the Oak 2 Option); there is a
potential for direct impacts if these are demolished or relocated. Impacts to these resources will
be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by
DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are determined eligible
there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these could be significant
if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey their historic
significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources along this option.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐27
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
In the Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option, the project would replace existing H-frame structures
of the Eastside Transmission System and would cross through the Somerset neighborhood. Poles
within this potential historic district would be replaced.
No protected archaeological sites are known to be at or adjacent to the Oak 2 Option. The Oak 2
Option proposes placing the existing distribution lines underground along Factoria Blvd SE and Coal
Creek Parkway; this would require ground disturbance and has the potential for impacts to
archaeological resources, if present. The Willow 2 Option and Bypass Option 2 routes within the new
corridor contain the highest number of ancillary structures (8) with the potential to be demolished or
relocated.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Somerset Neighborhood: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements of this potential historic district would be significant, if unable
to be mitigated (see Section 3.7.2.1).
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 168 unevaluated historic resources along this option
(including resources in both the existing and new corridors); many are shared with those in Oak 1
Option, Willow 1 Option, and Willow 2 Option. These are primarily detached single-family
residences constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. Of these, five of the unevaluated historic
resources are within the new corridor (these are shared with those in the Oak 1 Option); there is a
potential for direct impacts if these are demolished or relocated. Impacts to these resources will
be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by
DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are determined eligible
there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these could be significant
if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey their historic
significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources along this option.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐28
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
In the Bellevue South Segment, Willow Option 1, the project would replace existing H-frame
structures of the Eastside Transmission System and would cross through the Somerset neighborhood.
Proposed poles within this potential historic district would be replaced. No protected archaeological
sites are known to be at or adjacent to the Willow 1 Option.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Somerset Neighborhood: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic property
inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible, impacts to
contributing elements of this potential historic district would be significant, if unable to be
mitigated (see Section 3.7.2.1).
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 125 unevaluated historic resources along this
option; many of these are shared with those in the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options. These
are primarily detached single-family residences constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. Impacts to
these resources will be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and
eligibility is determined by DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if
none are determined eligible there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts
to these could be significant if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to
convey their historic significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources along this option.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐29
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option (PSE’s Preferred Alignment)
In the Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option, the project would replace existing H-frame
structures of the Eastside Transmission System and would cross through the Somerset neighborhood.
Proposed poles within this potential historic district would be replaced. No protected archaeological
sites are known to be at or adjacent to the proposed pole locations.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Somerset Neighborhood: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic property
inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible, impacts to
contributing elements of this potential historic district would be significant, if unable to be
mitigated (see Section 3.7.2.1).
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 173 unevaluated historic resources along this option
(including resources in both the existing and new corridors); many of these are shared with those
in the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 1 Options. These are primarily detached single-family
residences constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. Of these, eight of the unevaluated historic
resources are within the new corridor; there is a potential for direct impacts if ancillary structures
associated with these are demolished or relocated. Impacts to these resources will be determined
when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. It is
probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are determined eligible there would be
no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these could be significant if the change in
pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey their historic significance and impacts
are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources along this option.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐30
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Comparison of Bellevue South Options
All Bellevue South Options contain historic and cultural resources. The potential impacts to these
resources are compared below by option (Table 3.7-4), using the methodology described in Section
3.7.5.8.
In the Bellevue South Segment, all four options are in areas with very low sensitivity for unrecorded
archaeological resources. One option (the Oak 1 Option) would retain a portion of the existing H-
frame structures, which were recommended as contributing to the historic register eligibility of the
Eastside Transmission System. All but the Willow 1 Option would involve a new corridor, which
would require new easements in areas with unevaluated historic resources. Similarly, all but the
Willow 1 Option would involve undergrounding existing distribution and communication lines, with
potential impacts associated with ground disturbance.
The Willow 1 Option has the least potential for impacts; however, this option would not retain the
existing H-frame structures of the Eastside Transmission System, which have been recommended as
contributing elements to the historic district. The Oak 2 Option and Willow Option 2 have the
greatest potential for impacts; these would replace the H-frame structures, require new corridor
easements that could impact unevaluated historic resources, and require ground disturbance for
undergrounding existing distribution and communication lines.
Table 3.7-4. Comparison of Bellevue South Options
Scale: Lower Potential for Impact Moderate Potential for Impact Higher Potential for Impact
Segment /
Option
Sensitivity for
Unrecorded
Archaeological
Resources
Portions of
Existing H-frame
Structures
Retained
New Easements
Proposed for New
Corridor
Undergrounding
Existing
Distribution and
Communication
Lines Proposed
Oak 1 Option Very Low Yes Yes Yes (along Factoria
Blvd SE)
Oak 2 Option Very Low No Yes
Yes (along Factoria
Blvd SE and Coal
Creek Parkway)
Willow 1 Option Very Low No No No
Willow 2 Option Very Low No Yes
Yes (along Factoria
Blvd SE, Coal
Creek Parkway,
and Newport Way)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐31
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Newcastle Segment
In the Newcastle Segment, the project would replace existing H-frame structures of the Eastside
Transmission System. The Newcastle Cemetery is listed on the WHR and is a KC Landmark, and
poles are proposed within approximately 300 feet northwest and 30 feet southwest of the current
western boundary of the cemetery. No known protected archaeological sites are at or adjacent to the
proposed pole locations near this cemetery; however, cemeteries can contain archaeological
resources. Due to the age of the Newcastle Cemetery, the EIS Consultant Team considers the area
around the cemetery to have a high risk for containing unmarked graves. Disturbance of unmarked
graves would be a significant impact. Alterations to the views from the cemetery would be less-than-
significant impacts if they are mitigated through design choices such as screening or adjustments to
the locations of new poles.
Existing transmission line, looking north at Newcastle
Cemetery (on right).
Newcastle Cemetery, 1999 view to west.
Source: DAHP, 2016.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Newcastle Cemetery: Impacts to unmarked graves would be significant, if unable to be
mitigated.
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 31 unevaluated historic resources in this segment.
These are primarily detached single-family residences constructed in the 1970s. Impacts to these
resources will be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is
determined by DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are
determined eligible there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these
could be significant if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey
their historic significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There are no recorded archaeological resources in this segment.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low,
except as noted around the Newcastle Cemetery.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐32
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Renton Segment
In the Renton Segment, the project would replace a portion of the existing H-frame structures of the
Eastside Transmission System, pass within view of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery, and span a segment of
the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad. The Renton Segment would also pass in close proximity to
the Greenwood Memorial Park, which is an unevaluated historic resource. Poles are proposed at
approximately 750 feet southeast and 900 feet southeast of Mt. Olivet Cemetery, and approximately
250 feet northwest and 220 feet southwest of Greenwood Memorial Park’s northwest corner. No
additional protected archaeological sites are known to be at or adjacent to the Renton Segment;
however, cemeteries can contain archaeological resources.
Impacts to Mt. Olivet and the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad will be determined when an
eligibility determination is made by DAHP; however, impacts are anticipated to be less-than-
significant due to Mt. Olivet’s distance from the corridor and due to the conversion of the Columbia
& Puget Sound Railroad into a developed trail.
Due to the ages of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery and Greenwood Memorial Park, the EIS Consultant
Team considers the areas around these cemeteries to have a high risk for containing unmarked
graves. Disturbance of unmarked graves would be a significant impact, but mitigation measures to
identify unmarked graves without ground disturbance are available and locations of proposed new
poles could be adjusted. Alterations to the visual setting of the cemeteries would be a less-than-
significant impact, as it would not prevent the potentially eligible resources from meeting criteria
used for listing in a historic register, or reduce their ability to convey their historic significance,
which is associated with the individuals buried there, not their integrity of setting, place, and feeling.
Existing transmission line, looking northwest from
Greenwood Memorial Park
Mt. Olivet Cemetery.
Source: King County Assessor, 2016.
Eastside Transmission System: Impacts to this resource will be determined when the historic
property inventory is completed and eligibility is determined by DAHP. If determined eligible,
impacts to contributing elements would be significant, if unable to be mitigated. It is probable
that impacts could be mitigated.
Mt. Olivet Cemetery: Impacts to graves would be significant, if unable to be mitigated;
however, due to the distance of the resource from the proposed poles, impacts are unlikely.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐33
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 83 unevaluated historic resources in this segment.
These are primarily detached single-family residences constructed in the 1960s. Impacts to these
resources will be determined when the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility is
determined by DAHP. It is probable that not all would be determined eligible; if none are
determined eligible there would be no impacts. If some are determined eligible, impacts to these
could be significant if the change in pole types reduces the ability of these resources to convey
their historic significance and impacts are unable to be mitigated.
Archaeological Resources: There is one recorded archaeological site (a part of the Columbia &
Puget Sound Railroad) along this segment; impacts are anticipated to be less-than-significant
because it is now a developed trail. No other recorded archaeological resources are present in the
segment. Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is
very low, except within the Cedar River crossing and Maple Valley Highway areas, which have a
very high sensitivity. No operational or construction activities are proposed for the very high
sensitivity areas.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐34
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.7.6 Mitigation Measures
For cultural resources, state laws and local ordinances were reviewed to recommend potential
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures required under state law and local ordinances would need
to be met and cannot be appealed, although in some cases, mitigation measures are negotiated with
Tribes and agencies prior to permit issuance. Additional mitigation measures may be developed
through consultation between the SEPA lead agency, DAHP, affected Tribes, KCHPP, and any other
stakeholders. Such potential mitigation measures can be adopted voluntarily by the applicant or
imposed as conditions as part of the permit process. These would need to be implemented prior to
and during construction of the project.
Typically, mitigation measures seek to avoid, minimize, document, or interpret the impacted
resource. Measures could include, but are not limited to, documentation, preservation, publically
distributed materials that interpret the resource, or preparation of historic context statements for the
impacted region. For impacts to historic districts, which the Eastside Transmission System and
Somerset Neighborhood are recommended to be, mitigation measures could include documentation
to determine contributing and non-contributing elements to the district and preparation of publically
available district-specific historic context statements.
It is probable that significant impacts (e.g., loss or destruction) to protected archaeological resources
and significant historic resources could be mitigated. Mitigation measures would be developed
through consultation between PSE and DAHP, with involvement from KCHPP, municipal
governments, and affected Tribes as applicable to the resource. Typical mitigation measures could
include avoidance, minimizing impacts, documentation, or interpretation of the impacted resource.
Regulatory Requirements
Prior to Construction
Develop resource-specific mitigation measures during consultation with DAHP, affected
Tribes, KCHPP, and other appropriate stakeholders if a protected archaeological resource is
identified during pre-construction archaeological survey or historic property inventory.
Apply for an archaeological excavation permit from DAHP (WAC 25-48-060) if impacts to a
protected archaeological resource cannot be avoided.
Request an eligibility determination from DAHP for resources listed as eligible for listing in
the NRHP (Eastside Transmission System, Somerset Neighborhood, Newcastle Cemetery,
Mt. Olivet Cemetery, and the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad). If any are determined
eligible, mitigation measures specific to those resources will be developed during
consultation with DAHP, affected Tribes, and any other appropriate stakeholders.
Obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from KCHPP (KCC 20.62) if there are
potential impacts to a designated KC Landmark.
Avoid cemeteries in accordance with state law (Chapters 68.60 RCW and 68.50 RCW).
Avoid graves outside of the dedicated boundaries of a cemetery in accordance with state law
(Chapters 27.44 RCW and 68.60.050).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.7‐35
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
During Construction
Develop mitigation measures during consultation with DAHP, affected Tribes, and any other
appropriate stakeholders if a protected archaeological resource is identified during
construction. In accordance with RWC 27.53, an archaeological resource identified during
construction is protected until DAHP determines whether it is eligible for listing in the
NRHP.1
Follow procedures dictated by state law (RCW 27.44) if human skeletal remains are
discovered.
Obtain an excavation permit from DAHP if unmarked graves would be disturbed.
Potential Mitigation Measures
General mitigation measures for impacting a protected archaeological or significant historic resource
are developed through consultation with the SEPA lead agency, DAHP, affected Tribes, and any
other stakeholders, and would need to be implemented prior to construction of the project. Typical
potential mitigation measures are listed below. Many of these measures will be developed during the
pre-construction consultation process. Depending on the results of the selected alternative and results
of the pre-construction consultation, these mitigation measures may also be necessary; however, the
necessity for conducting these measures has not been finalized.
Prior to Construction
Conduct a historic property inventory.
Conduct archaeological resource surveys for the selected route that include subsurface
testing.
Prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) for the project and discuss the IDP during pre-
construction meeting(s).
Conduct subsurface testing.
Consult with DAHP and any other appropriate stakeholders to develop resource-specific
mitigation measures for impacts to significant cultural resources.
Preserve or add screening at proposed pole sites to minimize potential impacts to the
viewsheds of historic cemeteries.
Adjust the proposed pole locations to reduce potential direct impacts to historic cemeteries.
Conduct ground penetrating radar analysis in areas adjacent to Newcastle Cemetery, if
conditions are determined appropriate.
During Construction
Follow the procedures identified in the IDP if any cultural resources are encountered during
construction.
1 Isolated (single) artifacts, either precontact or historic, are not protected because they do not meet the definition of
a “site” under state law (WAC 25-48-020(9)).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
Electric fields that would occur as
a result of the Energize Eastside
project are described in the
Phase 1 Draft EIS and are not
further evaluated here. To
evaluate changes in magnetic
fields that would occur as a result
of the project, PSE retained
Power Engineers to calculate
existing magnetic fields at
locations along the transmission
line corridor (Power Engineers,
2017). Methodologies used by
Power Engineers were reviewed
by the EIS Consultant Team to
verify compliance with industry
standards (Enertech Consultants,
2017a and 2017b). Measured
magnetic fields were compared
to expected magnetic field levels
described in the Phase 1
Draft EIS.
3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - ELECTRIC AND
MAGNETIC FIELDS
This section provides project-level discussion and analysis of potential health and safety
impacts related to power frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF), which are generated by
power lines1. The study area for this analysis is consistent with the study area used by Power
Engineers (2017) (see the Methods for Studying the Affected
Environment, to the right), and includes the areas immediately
under and adjacent to the transmission lines, including areas
within 250 feet from the centerline of the transmission line
corridor (Figure 3.8-1). This study area of 250 feet from the
centerline of the corridor is the distance generally necessary for
magnetic field values to drop down to or near typical
background levels of magnetic field strength in most residential
settings2, and is wider than PSE’s existing right-of-way.
As described in Section 8.6.1.4 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS,
extensive health studies have not found a causal link between
adverse health effects and EMF from electrical transmission
lines. However, while it does not appear that EMF from the
project would pose an environmental health hazard, it is
analyzed in this document due to public concerns raised during
EIS scoping. See the Phase 1 Draft EIS for a full discussion of
environmental health studies related to EMF.
Typical magnetic field levels associated with transmission lines
for the Energize Eastside project are described in the Phase 1
Draft EIS, but no information was provided for existing
conditions because of the programmatic nature of that analysis.
This Phase 2 analysis describes both existing conditions for
representative areas along the segments and options, and
projected magnetic field levels for representative areas.
1 The term EMF in this section refers to electric and magnetic fields at extreme low frequencies (ELF). EMF can be
used in a much broader sense as well, encompassing electromagnetic fields with low or high frequencies. In the ELF
range, electric and magnetic fields are not coupled or interrelated the same way that they are at higher frequencies.
This is why the term is described as “electric and magnetic fields” and not “electromagnetic fields.”
2 Most people in the United States are exposed to magnetic fields that average less than 2 milligauss (mG) in
strength, although exposures for each individual vary. Average magnetic field levels within rooms are
approximately 1 mG based on several large surveys, while in the immediate area of appliances, the measured values
range from 9–20 mG (Severson et al., 1988; Silva et al., 1988). An EPRI study of 992 homes reported the average
residential magnetic field value at 0.9 mG (Zaffanella, 1993).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐2 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF Redmond SegmentBellevue North SegmentSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 3.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐3 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor OptionBellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1Sources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 3.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐4 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 OptionSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 3.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐5 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 OptionBellevue South Segment, Willow 1 OptionSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 3.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐6 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 OptionNewcastle SegmentSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 3.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐7 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF Renton SegmentSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 3.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐8
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
3.8.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
As described in Section 8.2.3 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, policies addressing EMF exposure are
established locally in the City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan (City of Bellevue, 2015). The City of
Redmond also has adopted policies in their Comprehensive Plan related to EMF reduction, which
were not identified in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. The policies recommend requiring designs that
incorporate known and accepted low-cost technological methods to reduce magnetic fields or the
exposure to them, such as line configurations that reduce field strength, sufficient right-of-way
widths, and sufficient height of lines from the ground, when siting high-voltage electrical facilities.
The policies also recommend a periodic review of the state of scientific research on power frequency
EMF and to modify policies and regulations, if warranted, by changing knowledge or new state or
federal regulations requiring such changes (Policies UT-67 and UT-68) (City of Redmond, 2011).
Section 8.2.3 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS also identifies the only two states in the U.S. that have enacted
their own standards for magnetic fields from overhead transmission line: Florida and New York (see
Table 8-1 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS). The State of Washington does not have adopted EMF guidelines
or standards for electric transmission lines.
There are industry guidelines for limiting magnetic field exposure. Guidelines have been adopted by
three organizations:
1. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a non-
profit organization that provides scientific advice and guidance on the health and
environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation (including EMF) to protect people and the
environment from detrimental exposure.
2. The American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) is a non-profit
organization with the core purpose of advancing occupational and environmental health.
3. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standards Association is a
technical professional organization for engineering, computing, and technology information
focused on advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.
These three organizations have developed guidelines by for limiting magnetic field exposure based
on known biological effects from very high fields, such as occur in some occupations. The guidelines
are presented in Tables 3.8-1 to provide context for understanding the calculated magnetic fields for
the Energize Eastside project. These guidelines are generally accepted to protect the health of
workers and/or the general public based on expert review of the available science. The guidelines are
expressed in terms of the maximum levels of exposure that should be allowed for various groups
based on the expected length of exposure (typically 8 hours for Occupational and 24 hours for
General Public) (WHO, 2002) and the sensitivity of the group. The strength of magnetic fields is
measured in units referred to as milligauss (mG).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐9
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Table 3.8-1. Exposure Guidelines and Levels from the ICNIRP, ACGIH, and IEEE
Exposure (60 Hz) Magnetic Field
ICNIRP Exposure Guidelines
Occupational 10,000 mG
General public 2,000 mG
ACGIH Exposure Guidelines
Occupational exposure should not exceed: 10,000 mG
Exposure of workers with cardiac
pacemakers should not exceed: 1,000 mG
IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety Exposure Levels
General public should not exceed: 9,040 mG
Controlled environments should not exceed: 27,100 mG
ACGIH = American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; Hz = hertz; ICNIRP = International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; mG = milligauss.
Source: ICNIRP, 2010; ACGIH, 2009; IEEE, 2002.
3.8.2 Magnetic Fields in the Study Area
Magnetic fields in the study area are associated with existing transmission lines and substations. This
includes areas immediately under and adjacent to PSE’s existing corridor with overhead 115 kV
transmission lines, as well as the Sammamish, Lakeside, Somerset, and Talbot Hill substations. It
also includes areas under and adjacent to existing transmission and distribution lines on the route
options in the Bellevue Central and Bellevue South Segments.
Power Engineers, Inc., performed an EMF investigation for the proposed project, titled Puget Sound
Energy, 230 kV Energize Eastside Project, EMF Calculations and Report in March 2017 (Power
Engineers, 2017). The report identified magnetic field strength at 35 representative locations along
the project segments based on computer modeling. The analysis compared electric and magnetic
fields between the existing and proposed transmission lines.
Magnetic field strength is dependent on the arrangement and spacing of the lines, distance of the
lines above ground, and amount of current (amperes) or loading. Certain conductor (wire)
arrangements and spacing can reduce or cancel magnetic field levels. Magnetic fields can also be
reduced by increasing the operating voltage and reducing the amperage to deliver the same amount of
electrical power.
Table 3.8-2 shows calculated magnetic field levels based on 2013–2014 load data for the existing
115 kV transmission lines within the study area. The values presented are based on summer peak and
winter peak load data, which, although rare in occurrence, present the highest potential magnetic
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐10
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
field levels. This ensures that the “worst-case” information is used for purposes of this analysis.
Calculated magnetic field levels were computed as a function of distance away from the centerline of
the existing transmission line corridor. The results are reported at one meter (3.28 feet) above the
ground (based on standard industry practice). The maximum calculated magnetic field levels would
typically occur within the transmission line corridor and drop in value at the edge of the transmission
ROW. As shown in Table 3.8-2, the calculated magnetic field levels within the existing corridor are
well below industry guidelines. They are also within the range of magnetic field levels presented in
Section 8.3.5 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS (see overhead peak loads in Figure 8-5). Calculated magnetic
field levels are highest in the Renton Segment because of the following two reasons: (1) portions of
the segment have three conductors within the corridor, while other segments only have two
conductors; and (2) transmission line loads are typically higher between the Talbot Hill and Lakeside
substations than between the Sammamish and Lakeside substations, and would continue to be so in
the future.
Table 3.8-2. Calculated Magnetic Fields along the Existing Transmission Line Corridor
based on 2013–2014 Loading
Segment
Maximum At Edge of Right-of-Way
Summer Peak
(mG)
Winter Peak
(mG)
Summer Peak
(mG)
Winter Peak
(mG)
Redmond 87 83 55 51
Bellevue North 87 83 55 51
Bellevue Central,
Existing Corridor
87 83 55 51
Bellevue South,
Existing Corridor
102 123 69 83
Newcastle 102 123 69 83
Renton 126 152 90 108
1Load data for 2013/2014 were used to be consistent with the study years considered in the initial reports prepared
for the Eastside to assess electrical needs.
Source: Power Engineers, 2017.
The study area for EMF contains approximately 4,665 acres of land within King County and the
cities of Bellevue, Newcastle, Redmond, and Renton.
Potential EMF exposure levels depend on how long a person is in the vicinity of the existing
transmission lines. Land uses in the area generally indicate what population groups are most likely to
be exposed to magnetic fields from the existing and proposed transmission lines. In areas with
commercial and industrial land uses, exposure would typically be workers, whose exposure limits are
subject to occupational safety and health standards based on a standard work week. In residential
areas, parks, schools, and other institutions open to the public, the general public is more likely to be
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐11
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
present. The potential length of exposure is greater among the general public in these areas than in an
occupational setting. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that people in residential settings
could be exposed 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Residential is the most common land use found
in the study area, and accounts for 35 percent.
The mix of land uses by segment and option is shown in Table 3.8-3. The table includes pie charts
that present each land use as a percentage of the total study area within each segment or option.
Table 3.8-3. Existing Land Uses in the Study Area
Segment/Option Existing Land Uses
Richards Creek
Substation
Existing land use in the Richards Creek substation study area is a mix of industrial,
institutional, single-family residential, vacant lands, and utility (PSE’s Lakeside
substation), and includes a private school (Chestnut Hill Academy) located north of
the substation site, adjacent to (and just east of) the Lakeside substation.
Redmond The largest categories of existing land use are utility and multi-family.
Bellevue North The largest category of existing land use is single-family residential.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐12
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Segment/Option Existing Land Uses
Bellevue Central,
Existing Corridor
Option
The largest category of existing land use is recreation.
Bellevue Central,
Bypass Option 1
The largest category of existing land use is commercial.
Bellevue Central,
Bypass Option 2
The largest category of existing land use is commercial.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐13
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Segment/Option Existing Land Uses
Bellevue South,
Oak 1 Option
The largest category of existing land use is recreation.
Bellevue South,
Oak 2 Option
The largest categories of existing land use are single-family residential and
recreation.
Bellevue South,
Willow 1 Option
The largest category of existing land use is recreation.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐14
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Segment/Option Existing Land Uses
Bellevue South,
Willow 2 Option
The largest category of existing land use is single-family residential.
Newcastle The largest category of existing land use is vacant lands (some of which are
associated with May Creek Park).
Renton The largest category of existing land use is vacant land, largely because this
category includes large parcels associated with the bed and floodway of the Cedar
River.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐15
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
During the Phase 2 Draft EIS scoping period, several members of the community expressed concern
about EMF exposure at unique sites, such as parks, schools, and daycare facilities. These land uses
are unique in that they are non-residential uses, but are places where the general public congregates,
sometimes for extended periods of time. Together with residential uses and trails that run along or
underneath the transmission line corridor, such unique sites potentially extend the general public’s
length of exposure to power frequency EMF. In this analysis, unique sites were considered to include
the following: schools, parks, trails, a fire station, and a museum. Table 3.8-4 identifies unique sites
within the study area (see Section 3.6.2, Recreation Resources in the Study Area for a list of parks
and trails located in or adjacent to the transmission line corridor). There are five sites within 50–150
feet, one site within 50-250 feet, and four sites within 150–250 feet. See Appendix H for a map of
these unique uses. These unique sites represent a relatively small portion of the total land uses within
the study area.
Table 3.8-4. Sites with Unique Uses within the Study Area
Segment/Option Unique Use Type Distance from
Transmission Line
Redmond Rose Hill Middle School School 150–250 ft
Bellevue Central, Bypass
Options 1 and 2 Chestnut Hill Academy School 150–250 ft
Bellevue Central, Bypass
Options 1 and 2 Bellevue Fire Station 6 Fire Station 50–150 ft
Bellevue Central, Bypass
Options 1 and 2 Eastside Heritage Center Museum 150–250 ft
Bellevue Central, Bypass
Option 2
Asian Pacific Language
School School 50–150 ft
Bellevue South, all Options Tyee Middle School School 50–250 ft
Bellevue South, Willow 2
Option Newport Children’s School School 50–150 ft
Bellevue South, Oak 2 Option KinderCare School 50–150 ft
Renton Renton Technical College School 50–150 ft
Renton Sierra Heights Elementary
School School 150–250 ft
Source: Compiled by ESA. from project GIS data.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐16
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Methods and Approach for
Studying the Long-term
(Operation) Impacts
Power Engineers calculated
potential magnetic fields at 35
representative calculation
locations along the transmission
line corridor for multiple load
current scenarios (Power
Engineers, 2017). The
methodology and assumptions
used by Power Engineers to
calculate magnetic fields were
reviewed by the EIS Consultant
Team to verify compliance with
industry standards and verify
accuracy and technical soundness
of the analysis (Enertech
Consultants, 2017a; 2017b).
Magnetic field levels for
Alternative 1 are presented by
segment and option and
compared to the No Action
Alternative. Magnetic field levels
are presented for the winter
2027/2028 and summer 2028
peak periods (whichever is
highest) at the centerline of the
transmission right-of-way and at
the edge of right-of-way.
3.8.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
Magnetic field calculations were performed to generally
characterize changes in magnetic field levels within the study
area that could occur under the No Action Alternative and
Alternative 1. Power Engineers calculated potential magnetic
field levels from the transmission lines based on the
following load current scenarios that were provided by PSE:
1) Average and peak loads for winter 2017/2018 and
summer 2018 under the No Action Alternative.
2) Average and peak loads for winter 2017/2018 and
summer 2018 under Alternative 1.
3) Average and peak loads for winter 2027/2028 and
summer 2028 under the No Action Alternative.
4) Average and peak loads for winter 2027/2028 and
summer 2028 under Alternative 1 (Power Engineers,
2017).
To evaluate the worst-case scenario, the EIS presents only
the magnetic field levels for winter or summer peak loads
(whichever is highest), even though peak loads occur only
for a few hours of the day over a few days of each year. The
magnetic field strengths calculated based on average loads
will be the more common levels expected for the project.
Summer peak loads under Alternative 1 are typically 33
percent higher than summer average loads, and winter peak
loads are typically 66 percent higher than winter average
loads. The EIS presents the peak loads for 2027/2028 for
both the No Action and Alternative 1 because loads for
Alternative 1 are expected to be at their highest at that time
based on projected electrical demand. Electrical load
scenarios during 2027/2028 for the No Action Alternative are not anticipated to increase beyond the
load scenarios in 2017/2018. Although the electrical demand is projected to increase, the existing
transformers feeding the 115 kV lines are not designed to handle more amperage than what would be
carried during peak loads in 2017/2018 (Kothapalli, pers. comm., 2017).
Magnetic fields from electrical equipment at the Richards Creek substation were not evaluated
because the magnetic fields associated with the overhead transmission lines entering or leaving the
substation are anticipated to be higher than the magnetic fields from electrical equipment (EPRI,
2005).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐17
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Magnitude of Impact
The magnitude of the potential impacts from magnetic fields on environmental health is classified as
less-than-significant or significant, defined as follows:
Less-than-Significant – Impacts from magnetic fields would be considered less-than-significant if
the projected levels are below the guidelines established by the ICNIRP, ACGIH, and the IEEE
International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety.
Significant – Impacts from magnetic fields would be considered significant if, after mitigation were
applied, levels in areas of human exposure could exceed the guidelines established by the ICNIRP,
ACGIH, and the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety to protect human health.
3.8.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, PSE would continue to operate their existing 115 kV transmission
lines as described in Chapter 2. Although the arrangement and spacing of the lines, distance of the
lines above ground, and voltage would stay the same, the load (amperes) would change over time to
accommodate changes in electrical demand. The change in load would increase the magnetic field
levels during winter peak periods and decrease levels during summer peak periods for segments
south of the Lakeside substation (Bellevue South, Newcastle, and Renton Segments). The change in
load would decrease magnetic field levels during winter and summer peak periods in the segments
north of the Lakeside substation (Redmond, Bellevue North, and Bellevue Central Segments).
Table 3.8-5 presents calculated magnetic field levels for the No Action Alternative based on load
current scenarios during the winter 2027/2028 and summer 2028. Calculated magnetic field levels
were computed as a function of distance away from the centerline of the existing transmission line
corridor. The results are reported at one meter (3.28 feet) above the ground (based on standard
industry practice). The maximum magnetic field levels would typically occur within the transmission
line corridor and drop in value at the edge of the transmission right-of-way. Transmission lines north
of the Lakeside substation would have the highest magnetic field levels during the summer peak
condition, while transmission lines south of the Lakeside substation would have the highest magnetic
field levels during the winter peak condition.
There are no known health effects from power frequency EMF. The magnetic field levels indicate
that the existing corridor under the No Action Alternative would have calculated magnetic field
levels well below industry guidelines. (Power Engineers, 2017). Therefore, under the No Action
Alternative, impacts would be less-than-significant. Please refer to Chapter 8 of the Phase 1 Draft
EIS for the complete discussion.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐18
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Table 3.8-5. Calculated Magnetic Fields along the Existing Transmission Line Corridor
based on 2027–2028 Loading
Segments
Maximum At Edge of Right-of-Way
Summer Peak
(mG)
Winter Peak
(mG)
Summer Peak
(mG)
Winter Peak
(mG)
Redmond 71 27 47 18
Bellevue North 71 27 47 18
Bellevue Central,
Existing Corridor
71 27 47 18
Bellevue South,
Existing Corridor
61 177 41 120
Newcastle 61 177 41 120
Renton 61–75* 177–219* 41–53* 120–155*
*Varies depending on the calculation location.
Source: Power Engineers, 2017.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐19
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
3.8.5 Long-term Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines)
Impacts Common to all Components
All parts of the Energize Eastside project would have associated magnetic fields during operation.
Magnetic field levels would vary depending on the electrical load being transmitted and the pole type
proposed, including pole height and the arrangement and spacing of the lines.
Magnetic field levels diminish with distance from the source. Therefore, the greater the distance from
the centerline of the transmission line, the lower the magnetic field levels. Taller poles would
generally result in lower magnetic field levels at the measured height of one meter from the ground
than would shorter poles carrying the same power lines. The configuration of lines also affects
magnetic field levels, because the field from one line can “cancel out” the field from another line,
depending on the geometric arrangement of the lines that make up a complete circuit. The loading
(amperes) of the line can vary depending on seasonal electrical demands (winter versus summer), and
the operational year (beginning of the project versus in 10-years’ time). For these reasons, the
expected magnetic field levels would vary by segment and option, as described in greater detail
below.
For each segment and option, the following pages present magnetic field levels as bar graphs for the
35 representative calculation locations. The bar graphs provide the estimated magnetic field levels (in
mG) for the highest peak period in 2027/2028 (winter or summer, whichever is highest), at the
centerline of the transmission line right-of-way (shown as “Max.”) and at the edge of the right-of-
way for both the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. The magnetic field values would generally
drop below 5 mG toward the outermost edge of the study area (see the Power Engineers report for
graphs that depict the magnetic field levels as a function of distance). This level of magnetic field
strength is higher than typical background levels away from power lines, but lower than the levels in
the current transmission corridor. One bar chart is provided for multiple calculation locations when
the calculated magnetic field levels are identical across those locations.
Operation of the proposed transmission lines would result in a decrease of magnetic field levels
relative to the No Action Alternative for all segments and options that utilize the existing corridor.
Magnetic field levels would decrease for the following reasons:
1. The proposed configuration of the phase conductors (wires) is in a vertical arrangement,
while the existing structures under the No Action Alternative use a horizontal arrangement. A
vertical arrangement results in a narrower magnetic field profile (pole types and wire
arrangement are shown in Table 2.1-2).
2. The proposed poles provide a higher minimum clearance for the lowest hanging phase
conductors (wires) than the existing structures under the No Action Alternative. Raising
phase conductors higher allows more room for magnetic field levels to decrease before they
reach the ground.
In locations where Alternative 1 would utilize a new corridor, there would be an increase in magnetic
field levels. Portions of the road rights-of-way that Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option 2 would
utilize do not currently have any overhead transmission lines. Therefore, a new source of power
frequency EMF would be introduced along Bypass Option 1 and Bypass Option 2. A new source of
power frequency EMF would also be introduced along 124th Avenue SE and SE 38th Street as part of
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐20
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
the Oak 2 Option; and along SE Newport Way as part of the Willow 2 Option because these streets
do not currently have any overhead transmission lines. An existing source of power frequency EMF,
overhead 115 kV transmission lines, is present along the remaining streets associated with the Oak 1,
Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options (SE 30th Street, Richards Road, Factoria Boulevard, Coal Creek
Parkway SE). There would be an overall increase in magnetic field levels along these streets because
Alternative 1 would result in an overall increase in the number of circuits compared to existing
conditions, as well as a larger load current in the line.
Alternative 1 would be consistent with the policies in the Bellevue and Redmond Comprehensive
Plans that address EMF exposure because the project design results in reduced magnetic field
strength compared to the No Action Alternative in locations where the project would utilize a new
corridor. Although no mitigation measures are identified to reduce magnetic field strengths for
portions of the project along new corridors, the calculated magnetic field levels would be sufficiently
low enough to avoid known health effects, and therefore considered consistent with Bellevue and
Redmond policies.
There are no known health effects from power frequency EMF at the levels expected from the No
Action Alternative or Alternative 1. For all proposed segments and options in Alternative 1, the
calculated magnetic field levels would be at least 1,800 mG below the lowest industry guideline for
magnetic field exposure for the general public (Power Engineers, 2017)3. This includes all of the
unique sites listed in Table 3.8-4. Therefore, for all proposed segments and options under Alternative
1, impacts would be less-than-significant. Please refer to Chapter 8 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS for the
complete discussion.
3 The highest calculated magnetic field level for Alternative 1 would be 174 mG (see Bellevue South Segment). The
lowest industry guideline established for general public exposure to magnetic fields is 2,000 mG.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐21
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Redmond Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Redmond Segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project along the
Redmond Segment would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐22
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Bellevue North Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Bellevue North Segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project along the
Bellevue North Segment would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would be less-
than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐23
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option. The calculated magnetic field levels
generated by the project along the Existing Corridor Option would be well below industry guidelines;
therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐24
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Because there are no existing transmission lines along the Bypass Option 1 corridor, Alternative 1
would result in a new source of magnetic fields. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by
the project along Bypass Option 1 would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would
be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐25
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Because there are no existing transmission lines along the Bypass Option 2 corridor, Alternative 1
would result in a new source of magnetic fields. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by
the project along Bypass Option 2 would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would
be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐26
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Summary: Comparison of Segments and Options, Bellevue Central
Segment
In the Bellevue Central Segment, the Bypass Options 1 and 2 would result in a net increase of
magnetic field levels compared to the No Action Alternative because the transmission line would
follow a new corridor. The Existing Corridor Option would reduce the magnetic field levels
compared to the No Action Alternative but would have higher magnetic field levels than Bypass
Options 1 and 2. The magnetic field levels for Bypass Options 1 and 2 would be identical, and are
well below industry guidelines.
Table 3.8-6. Comparison of Bellevue Central Options, Calculated Magnetic Field Levels
Segment / Option
Alternative 1, 2027/2028 Winter Peak
Maximum At Edge of ROW
Existing Corridor
Option 36 mG 26 mG
Bypass Option 1 22 mG* 19 mG*
Bypass Option 2 22 mG* 19 mG*
*The calculated magnetic field levels shown in the table are associated with the 230 kV lines proposed along a new
corridor. The 115 kV line within the existing transmission corridor would remain but would likely have lower magnetic
field values than the No Action Alternative.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐27
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Oak 1 Option for portions of the alignment along the existing PSE corridor. The magnetic field
levels would increase under Alternative 1 for portions of the alignment along SE 30th Street, Richards
Road, Factoria Boulevard, and Coal Creek Parkway, which currently have an overhead 115 kV
transmission line and Alternative 1 would add a 230 kV line. The calculated magnetic field levels
generated by the project along the Oak 1 Option would be well below industry guidelines; therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐28
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Oak 2 Option for portions of the alignment along the existing PSE corridor. The magnetic field
levels would increase under Alternative 1 for portions of the alignment along SE 30th Street, Richards
Road, Factoria Boulevard, and Coal Creek Parkway, which currently have an overhead 115 kV
transmission line and Alternative 1 would add high-capacity 115 kV lines. Alternative 1 would result
in a new source of magnetic fields on 124th Avenue SE and SE 38th Street, which currently do not
have an overhead transmission line. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project
along the Oak 2 Option would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would be less-
than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐29
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Willow 1 Option. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project along the Willow
1 Option would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐30
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option (PSE’s Preferred Alignment)
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Willow 2 Option for portions of the alignment along the existing PSE corridor. The magnetic
field levels would increase under Alternative 1 for portions of the alignment that utilize a new
corridor, including Factoria Boulevard and Coal Creek Parkway, which currently have an overhead
115 kV transmission line and Alternative 1 would add high-capacity 115 kV lines. Alternative 1
would result in a new source of magnetic fields on SE Newport Way, which does not currently have
an overhead transmission line. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project along the
Willow 2 Option would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐31
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Summary: Comparison of Segments and Options, Bellevue South
Segment
In the Bellevue South Segment, the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options would increase magnetic
field levels compared to the No Action Alternative where the transmission line follows a new
corridor. Willow 1, and the portions of the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options that follow the
existing corridor, would reduce the magnetic field levels compared to the No Action Alternative. The
Oak 1 Option would have the highest upper range of magnetic field levels, while the Willow 1
Option would have the lowest upper range of magnetic field levels, and are well below industry
guidelines.
Table 3.8-7. Comparison of Bellevue South Options, Calculated Magnetic Field Levels
Segment / Option
Alternative 1, 2027/2028 Winter Peak
Maximum At Edge of ROW
Oak 1 88–174* 62–127*
Oak 2 27–157 23–96
Willow 1 41–88 38–62
Willow 2 53–157 40–92
Note: Magnetic field levels range depending on the calculation location.
*The calculated magnetic field levels shown in the table are associated with the 230 kV lines proposed along a new
corridor. The 115 kV line within the existing transmission corridor would remain but would likely have lower magnetic
field values than the No Action Alternative.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐32
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Newcastle Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Newcastle segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project along the
Newcastle Segment would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐33
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
Renton Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under Alternative 1 in
the Renton segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project along the Renton
Segment would be well below industry guidelines; therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.8‐34
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ EMF
3.8.6 Mitigation Measures
No adverse impacts from magnetic fields are expected; therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
As noted in Section 3.9.7, Mitigation Measures (for Pipeline Safety), mitigation for potential
corrosion of the pipeline could include optimizing the geometry of the phase conductors in a
triangular pattern, which results in higher cancellation of magnetic fields (DNV GL, 2016). If that
mitigation is incorporated into the project, it would further reduce magnetic field levels at the ground
level from the proposed transmission lines.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
To evaluate changes in pipeline
safety that would occur as a result
of the Energize Eastside project,
the ESA Consultant Team retained
EDM Services to conduct a risk
assessment (EDM Services, 2017).
This assessment relied on
information from relevant plans,
policies, regulations, and
frameworks that prevent and
respond to an incident, and
background data provided by the
Olympic Pipe Line Company on
pipeline condition, inspection
techniques, and operating
parameters. Several Phase 2
scoping comments addressed
other pipeline safety guidance and
studies, which were also
incorporated to characterize
pipeline safety considerations and
issues.
3.9 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
This section evaluates the human health, safety, and environmental risks associated with
the existing Olympic Pipeline system within PSE’s corridor, and identifies the
incremental change in these risks associated with the Energize Eastside project. Two petroleum
pipelines are co-located with PSE’s existing corridor within all of the segments; through the Renton
Segment, however, it is only co-located in the north part of the segment. As part of the EIS
Consultant Team, EDM Services, a firm specializing in pipeline safety, conducted a probabilistic
pipeline risk assessment (risk assessment). This section summarizes the results of the risk
assessment, and provides an analysis of long-term impacts on resources in the event of a pipeline
incident related to the project. As a factor considered in
EDM’s risk assessment, this section also summarizes the
results of an electrical interference study conducted by the
firm DNV GL, an engineering consultant working for PSE
on the Energize Eastside project (DNV GL, 2016). The EDM
Services Pipeline Safety Technical Report (EDM Services,
2017) is included in full in Appendix I.
The study area for pipeline safety focuses on the area
potentially affected by an Olympic Pipeline leak or fire
caused by the construction or operation of the Energize
Eastside project. The study area for this analysis is the
transmission line corridor, including all segments and
options, and the surrounding area including human
populations, urban environment, and natural resources that
could be affected by an incident. Although the probability of
a leak or fire caused by the project is low, the potential
damage from such an incident could be high, given the
population density in the study area. The potential magnitude
of such an event, if it did occur, would be the same
regardless if it were the result of construction or operation of
the project. For this reason, the analysis of the environmental
consequences of such an incident is presented in Section 3.9
along with a description of the operational concerns for the
Energize Eastside project that affect pipeline safety. Section
4.9 addresses the construction aspects of the project that
affect pipeline safety, and refers back to this section with regard to the consequences of a leak or fire.
3.9.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
As described in Chapter 8 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, environmental health and safety issues related to
pipeline safety are regulated at federal, state, and local levels. Table 3.9-1 summarizes the applicable
laws and regulations addressing pipeline safety, which is followed by a detailed summary of the
major pipeline safety regulations. More information about the applicable laws and regulations is
provided in Chapter 8 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS and the Pipeline Safety Technical Report (Appendix
I). Federal and state regulations apply to the operation of existing pipelines, and the regulations
identified below apply to the Olympic Pipeline located in the transmission line corridor.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Table 3.9-1. Pipeline Safety Regulations
Regulation Summary
Federal
Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
(49 United States Code [USC] Section
60101)
Granted authorization to the U.S. Department of
Transportation to develop minimum safety standards for
natural gas pipelines.
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act
of 1979
(Public Law 96-129)
Granted authorization to the U.S. Department of
Transportation to develop minimum safety standards for oil
and hazardous liquid pipelines.
49 CFR, Parts 190 through 199 Primary U.S. Code sections that cover pipeline safety.
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty,
and Jobs Creation Act of 2011
(Public Law 112-90)
Increased the number of pipeline inspectors and mandated
a variety of new safety measures. Required studies of
pipeline safety.
Protecting Our Infrastructure of
Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of
2016
Reauthorized the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and
Jobs Creation Act of 2011; reaffirmed mandates of the
2011 act; and established new mandates.
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2002
(CFR 192 Subpart O, Pipeline Integrity
Management)
Strengthened federal pipeline safety programs, state
oversight of pipeline operators, and public education
regarding gas pipeline safety. Required gas pipeline
operators to conduct a risk assessment and implement
integrity management programs for pipelines in high
consequence areas.
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(49 CFR Part 194)
Expanded EPA’s oversight of oil storage facilities and
vessels. Required some oil storage facilities to prepare
Facility Response Plans.
2006 Pipeline Inspection, Protection,
Enforcement and Safety Act
(Public Law 109-468)
Created state grant system to improve damage prevention
programs, and established the national “Call Before You
Dig” program. Required a review of the adequacy of federal
pipeline safety regulations related to internal corrosion
control.
State
WAC, Title 480, Chapter 480-75,
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
Adopted the federal hazardous liquids pipeline regulations.
Underground Utilities – Damage
Prevention Law
(RCW 19.122)
Established a comprehensive damage prevention program.
Required pipeline companies, underground facility owners,
and excavators to participate in protecting the public health
and safety when excavating.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Regulation Summary
WAC 173-182 – Oil Spill Contingency
Plan
Established covered vessel and facility oil spill contingency
plan requirements, drill and equipment verification
requirements, primary response contractor standards, and
recordkeeping and compliance information.
Local
Redmond Zoning Code (RZC)
21.26.040 Setback Requirements
Established minimum setback requirements from the
hazardous pipeline corridors. Purpose is to minimize risk to
public health, safety, and welfare due to hazardous liquid
pipelines. No construction or expansion of structures is
allowed in the pipeline corridor. No setback is required for
utilities for areas along the hazardous liquid corridor, but
the Director of Planning and Community Development (or
their designee) may require a setback based on site-
specific conditions.
Federal
The U.S. Department of Transportation oversees the nation’s pipeline system. Its responsibilities
were established under the Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (49 USC Section 60101). The Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety, administers the national
regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of gas and other hazardous materials by pipeline.
The Office of Pipeline Safety shares this responsibility with state agency partners and others at
federal, state, and local levels.
The Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 provide the
framework for federal pipeline regulations. Federal pipeline regulations are published in Title 49
CFR, Parts 190 through 199. Many of these pipeline regulations are performance standards. These
regulations set the level of safety to be attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various
methods and technologies to achieve the desired level of safety.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Due to concerns surrounding pipeline ruptures in 2010 (in
Marshall, Michigan, and San Bruno, California), Congress
passed the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Jobs
Creation Act of 2011. This law mandated a variety of new
safety measures, and directed the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to evaluate
concerns surrounding the pipeline ruptures and to submit a
report to Congress. Based on those findings, PHMSA is
developing rule changes to 49 CFR Part 195, Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Regulations.
The Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and
Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 reauthorized the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Jobs Creation Act of
2011, and directed PHMSA to accomplish the mandates of
the 2011 act. It also created new mandates in response to
the 2015 gas leak in Aliso Canyon, California.
Pipeline Integrity Management
Pipeline integrity management, which “provides for
continual evaluation of pipeline condition; assessment of
risks to the pipeline; inspection or testing; data analysis;
and follow-up repair; as well as preventive or mitigative
actions,” has been a part of PHMSA requirements for the
pipeline industry since 1997 (CRS, 2010). In 2002,
Congress passed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act to
strengthen pipeline safety laws following two major
pipeline incidents (see Appendix I for descriptions of these
incidents, which occurred in Bellingham, Washington and
Carlsbad, New Mexico). CFR 192 Subpart O, Pipeline
Integrity Management, was established to promulgate rules
implementing the act. This subpart requires operators of
liquid or natural gas pipeline systems in high consequence
areas to develop a written integrity management program
and to significantly increase their minimum required
maintenance and inspection efforts. For example, all
existing pipelines in high consequence areas must be
analyzed by conducting a baseline risk assessment. In
general, the integrity of the pipelines must also be evaluated using an internal inspection device or a
direct assessment. The federal Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 also enabled shared
oversight of hazardous liquid pipelines with authorized state agencies.
Pipeline Offsets
Requirements for minimum offsets (or clearance) between any underground structures and hazardous
liquid pipelines are 12 inches (49 CFR 195.250). Olympic Pipe Line’s practice is to require a
minimum of 24 inches of clearance between underground structures and the pipeline, and 10 feet of
clearance aboveground, to facilitate access to the pipeline for maintenance purposes. Alternative
Proposed Rule Changes to
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Regulations are to:
(1) extend reporting requirements; (2)
require inspections of pipelines in
areas affected by extreme weather
and natural disasters; (3) require
periodic inline integrity assessments
for lines that are outside of high
consequence areas; (4) require the
use of leak detection systems in all
locations; (5) modify pipeline repair
provisions; and (6) expand
requirements for accommodating use
of inline inspection tools. If enacted as
published in the Federal Register, the
existing Olympic Pipelines would be
subject to these new requirements.
High Consequence Areas are
defined under the Pipeline Integrity
Management Program as either:
High population areas, defined by
the Census Bureau as urbanized
areas.
Other populated areas, defined by
the Census Bureau as places that
contain a concentrated
population.
Unusually sensitive areas.
Commercially navigable
waterways.
The study area for this project is
entirely within a high consequence
area and is covered under Pipeline
Integrity Management Program
requirements.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐5
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Northwest Area Contingency
Plan
The Northwest Area Contingency
Plan is a guideline for coordination
of spill response actions and
ensures consistency in response
to spills of oil or other hazardous
substances. Federal and state
rules require that a responsible
party (or spiller) must be able to
manage spills with a pre-
designated response management
organization that accommodates a
Unified Command structure in
recognition of federal, state, tribal,
or local jurisdiction. The National
Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (40
CFR Part 300) requires that facility
response plans be compatible with
the applicable area plan.
plans for aboveground clearance can be developed on a case-
by-case basis where access is more limited (Olympic, 2016).
Oil Spill Prevention and Response
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (49 CFR Part 194) streamlined
and strengthened EPA's ability to prevent and respond to
catastrophic oil spills. This legislation requires pipeline
operators to prepare oil spill response plans for onshore oil
pipelines (including pipelines transporting petroleum, fuel oil,
etc.). The intent of the regulations is to reduce the
environmental impact of oil discharged from onshore
pipelines. The operator is required to determine the worst-case
discharge in each response zone and meet specified criteria.
The completed plan must be submitted to the U.S. Department
of Transportation Pipeline Response Plans Officer for review
and approval. These spill response plans must be consistent
with the National and Area Contingency Plans for oil spill
response (see state regulations below establishing the
Northwest Area Contingency Plan).
State
The State of Washington’s Utilities and Transportation
Commission (UTC) is responsible for the administration and oversight of hazardous liquid pipeline
operations in the state as authorized by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The following section
summarizes state regulations addressing hazardous liquid pipelines, damage prevention, and
contingency plan requirements in the event of a spill.
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Regulations
The state has adopted the federal hazardous liquids pipeline regulations as a part of its own enhanced
regulations contained in WAC, Title 480.
Chapter 480-73: Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Companies – Defines the applicability of the
regulations and the administrative guidelines and rules that hazardous liquid pipeline
companies must follow.
Chapter 480-75: Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, Safety – Provides pipeline safety rules
specific to Washington State. This regulation contains requirements similar to 49 CFR Part
195 for the design, construction, operation and maintenance, and reporting for hazardous
liquid pipelines. The Chapter requires compliance, by reference, with 49 CFR Part 195.
Damage Prevention
The Underground Utilities – Damage Prevention Law (RCW 19.122) addresses one of the assigned
responsibilities of the UTC for administering hazardous liquids pipelines. This responsibility
includes requiring pipeline companies, underground facility owners, and excavators to participate in
protecting the public health and safety when excavating. As a result of several high-profile fatal
pipeline failures related to excavator damage (including the incident in Bellingham- see Appendix I),
Congress mandated that each state address criteria included in the 2006 Pipeline Inspection,
Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act to ensure the adequacy of state damage prevention laws. As
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐6
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
a result of this legislation, the State of Washington passed the Underground Utilities Damage
Prevention Act in 2011 that revised RCW 19.122 in the following ways:
Specifies that failure by an underground facility operator to subscribe to a one-number
locator service constitutes a willful intent to avoid compliance with underground utilities
damage prevention law.
Requires that damage to underground utilities be reported to the UTC, and for the UTC to
evaluate damage data.
Establishes the Damage Prevention Account, funded by penalties, and specifies that
expenditures from the Account by the UTC must be used to educate excavators and operators
to improve safety and compliance.
Establishes a Safety Committee of stakeholder representatives to advise on underground
utility safety and to review complaints of alleged underground utility violations.
Establishes enforcement procedures for the UTC or Attorney General to address violations.
RCW 19.122.033 (4) specifies that when permitting construction or excavation within 100 feet, or
greater distance if required by local ordinance, of a right-of-way or utility easement containing a
transmission pipeline, local governments must:
(a) Notify the pipeline company of the permitted activity when it issues the permit; or
(b) Require, as a condition of issuing the permit, that the applicant consult with the pipeline
company.
Oil Spill Contingency Plans
WAC 173-182 – Oil Spill Contingency Plan establishes oil spill contingency plan requirements, drill
and equipment verification requirements, private response contractor standards, and recordkeeping
and compliance information. On October 12, 2016, Ecology amended the Oil Spill Contingency Plan
rule to update standards to ensure that required oil spill response equipment is appropriate for the
pipeline risks and operating environments (both marine and inland). The amendments enhance oil
spill contingency plan requirements for hazardous liquids pipelines, and for primary response
contractors that support the implementation of pipeline plans. This amendment requires pipeline
operators to update their contingency plans (e.g., facility response plans) in accordance with the
applicable area plan, and submit them to Ecology for approval. The Northwest Area Contingency
Plan is the applicable area plan for Washington State.
Local
The Partner Cities generally do not directly regulate pipeline safety, but they have the authority to
regulate land uses near pipelines within their jurisdictions to protect public health and safety. The
City of Redmond establishes minimum setback requirements from hazardous liquid pipelines with
the expressed purpose of minimizing risk to public health and safety (see Table 3.9-1). Other
planning policies and regulations of King County and the Partner Cities related to co-location of
transmission lines with pipelines, are described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Chapter 8 and Appendix F.
Setback requirements established by the City of Newcastle are described in Section 3.1 in the Phase 2
Draft EIS.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐7
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Partner Cities’ Franchise
Agreements with Olympic
Pipe Line Company:
Bellevue Ordinance 6275
Kirkland Ordinance 4298
Newcastle Ordinance
2008-0388
Redmond Ordnance 2289
Renton Ordinance 5788
High-Voltage AC Power
Lines
Most transmission lines in the
region are high-voltage
alternating current (AC)
operating at 115 kV or higher.
Both the existing 115 kV
transmission lines and the
proposed transmission lines
are high-voltage AC lines.
Ownership and Operation of
the Olympic Pipeline System
BP Pipelines-North America
(BP) is the operator of the
Olympic Pipeline system, and
partial owner of the Olympic
Pipe Line Company, with
Enbridge, Inc. In the EIS, the
pipeline ownership and
operator are collectively
referred to simply as Olympic.
Franchise Agreements
The Partner Cities have franchise agreements, established by
ordinance, with Olympic Pipe Line Company that cover its existing
petroleum pipelines. These agreements grant the company the right
to construct, operate, maintain, and improve its facilities within the
cities’ boundaries while adhering to applicable local, state, and
federal laws. They state that the company must comply with the
duties imposed on pipeline operators by 49 CFR Part 195, including
the requirement of regular inspections and testing to determine
whether the pipeline was damaged by excavation work in the
vicinity. In the event of a leak or other emergency, the company is
required to investigate and report on the incident, and is responsible
for all costs relating to the spill response effort. Both the City of
Bellevue’s and City of Redmond’s agreements state that, if the
company is aware that a third party conducts any excavation or other significant work that may affect
the pipelines, the company must conduct inspections and/or testing as necessary to determine that no
direct or indirect damage was done and that the work did not abnormally load the pipelines or impair
the effectiveness of the cathodic protection system.
Non-Regulatory Guidance
PSE follows non-regulatory guidance included in the Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) report (INGAA
Report) Criteria for Pipelines Co-Existing with Electric Power
Lines (DNV GL, 2015). The report presents the technical
background, and provides best practice guidelines and summary
criteria for pipelines co-located with high-voltage alternating
current (AC) power lines. PSE retained DNV GL (the author of the
INGAA Report) to develop a detailed analysis of risks and
recommendations for the Energize Eastside project. DNV GL
produced A Detailed Approach to Assess AC Interference Levels
Between the Energize Eastside Transmission Line Project and the
Existing Olympic Pipelines, OLP16 & OPL20, referred to in this
Draft EIS as the AC Interference Study (DNV GL, 2016), which
was also used in preparing the analysis for the EIS.
Recommendations from that analysis are included under Section
3.9.7, Mitigation Measures.
3.9.2 Pipelines in the Study Area
Study Area Characteristics
The study area contains both natural gas and petroleum pipelines
(Figure 3.9-1). Natural gas lines that cross the study area are owned
by PSE and Northwest Pipeline. See the Phase 1 Draft EIS Chapter
8, Environmental Health, and Chapter 16, Utilities, for more details
on the natural gas pipelines. Scoping comments expressed particular
concern about the potential for the Energize Eastside project to
damage the co-located petroleum pipelines (Olympic Pipelines). As
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐8
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Electrical System Upgrades
within the Shared Corridor
Electrical system upgrades
and pole replacements in the
shared utility corridor are not
uncommon. PSE previously
upgraded its 115 kV line to a
230 kV line for 15 miles north
of the Sammamish substation
in Redmond. In 2007 and
2008, PSE replaced and
reframed hundreds of poles in
the shared corridor. In 2016,
PSE replaced poles to
address a specific safety
concern created by nearby
construction in Newcastle. For
all of these upgrades and
replacements, PSE
coordinated closely with
Olympic in the design and
construction of these activities
(Strauch, pers. comm., 2017).
a result, this section focuses on safety issues related to petroleum
pipelines.
During the Phase 2 Draft EIS scoping period, several members of
the community expressed concern about pipeline safety at unique
sites, such as schools, parks, and other facilities where the public
congregates. Together with residential uses, such unique sites
potentially increase the exposure of the general public to pipeline
safety risks. Figure 3.9-1 identifies unique sites within the study
area (see Section 3.6.2, Recreation Resources in the Study Area
for a list of parks and trails located in or adjacent to the
transmission line corridor).
Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area
Petroleum pipelines in the study area include the Olympic Pipeline
system. The Olympic Pipeline system consists of 400 miles of
high-strength carbon steel underground pipeline located within a
299-mile corridor. It connects four refineries in northwestern
Washington near the Canadian border to markets throughout
western Washington and Portland, Oregon. Approximately 4.5
billion gallons of refined petroleum products are transported
through the pipelines on an annual basis. As described in Chapter
2, BP is the operator of the Olympic Pipeline system, and partial
owner of the Olympic Pipe Line Company, with Enbridge, Inc.
(Olympic Pipe Line Company, 2017). In the EIS, the pipeline
ownership and operator are collectively referred to simply as Olympic. Olympic has been working
with PSE in connection with PSE’s Energize Eastside project, sharing information and supporting
requests for information about its facilities and operations. Olympic and PSE meet regularly to
discuss, identify, and develop mitigation strategies for potential threats to the pipeline’s integrity.
Buried hazardous liquids pipeline, similar to the Olympic
Pipelines
Pipeline warning sign in the project corridor
In the Energize Eastside study area, the Olympic Pipeline system includes two pipelines (16-inch and
20-inch diameter). One or both of the pipelines are co-located with PSE’s transmission line within all
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐9
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
of the segments, although in the Renton Segment it is only co-located in the north part of the segment
(Figure 3.9-1). In most of the segments, the pipelines are along either the east or west side of the
right-of-way, crisscrossing the right-of-way from east or west in numerous locations. In parts of the
corridor (especially the Newcastle Segment), however, the pipelines are in the center of the right-of-
way. In the Bellevue South Segment, one of the pipelines is along PSE’s existing corridor while the
other follows Factoria Blvd SE and Coal Creek Parkway SE before rejoining the corridor (Stone,
pers. comm., 2016). Construction of the pipeline began in 1964 after PSE’s transmission line corridor
was built in the late 1920s and early 1930s (Newton, 1965).
Both pipelines are constructed of welded carbon steel and were generally installed at depths of 3 to 4
feet. They carry diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline and operate about 95 percent of the time (West, pers.
comm., 2016).
Preventing Unintentional Releases
As the pipeline operator, Olympic is responsible for operating and maintaining their pipelines in
accordance with or to exceed PHMSA’s Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 195. The
regulations are intended to protect the public and prevent pipeline accidents and failures. PHMSA
specifies minimum design requirements and protection of the pipeline from internal, external, and
atmospheric corrosion. In addition, 49 CFR 195 established the following broad requirements that
apply to Olympic as the pipeline operator:
49 CFR 195.577(a) requires, “For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a
program to identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such currents.”
49 CFR 195.401 (b) (1) requires, “Non Integrity Management Repairs, whenever an operator
discovers any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it
must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a
nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not
operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.”
In response to these federal requirements, Olympic has a number of programs and systems in place to
prevent unintentional releases, as summarized below.
Integrity Management Program. Pipelines and high voltage AC transmission lines often share the
same corridor. As a result, the industry implements numerous practices and guidelines to mitigate
potential electrical interference-related-corrosion on pipelines. In connection with the governing
federal safety requirements, including 49 CFR 195, Olympic has an Integrity Management Program
to monitor and, where necessary, mitigate the impact of electrical interference on its pipelines. In
accordance with program requirements, Olympic patrols the pipeline corridor on a weekly basis and
periodically inspects its pipelines using in-line inspection, pressure testing, and other direct
inspection methods. The last in-line inspections of the 16-inch and 20-inch pipelines were in April
2014, and the next planned in-line inspections are in early 2019 (West, pers. comm., 2016).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐10 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Redmond Segment Bellevue North SegmentSource: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; WA UTC, 2015. Figure 3.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐11 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; WA UTC, 2015. Figure 3.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐12 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2 Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 OptionSource: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; WA UTC, 2015. Figure 3.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐13 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 OptionSource: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; WA UTC, 2015. Figure 3.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐14 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option Newcastle SegmentSource: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; WA UTC, 2015. Figure 3.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐15 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Renton Segment Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; WA UTC, 2015. Figure 3.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area (continued)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐16
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Electrical Interference Protection. Federal regulations also require control of external corrosion
via cathodic protection. Electrical interference, external corrosion, and cathodic protection are
described below in Section 3.9.3.3 and in Section 16.3.37 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Additional
information is provided in the AC Interference Study (DNV GL, 2016).
Pipeline Leak Detection System and Controls. Olympic monitors system pressures, flows, and
customer deliveries on its entire system. The 16-inch and 20-inch pipelines in the study area are
within the coverage area for Olympic’s Pipeline Leak Detection System, which is a real-time pipeline
simulation in Olympic’s Control Center that detects and locates leaks by comparing a modeled flow
rate to the measured flow balance in a defined pipeline section. When the difference exceeds a
defined loss threshold, the software declares a warning, followed by an alarm if the condition
persists. Alarms are communicated through the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
alarm and event system. The Pipeline Leak Detection System meets and in some cases exceeds state
and federal requirements for pipeline leak detection, including WAC 480-75-300: “Leak detection
systems must be capable of detecting an eight percent of maximum flow leak within fifteen minutes
or less” (West, pers. comm., 2016). Information on shut-off valves and response systems was not
available from Olympic. Olympic treats these data as confidential information that is not available
for public disclosure due to potential security risks.
General Construction Requirements. Olympic has a general list of requirements as part of BP
Pipelines (North America) General Construction Requirements for all work proposed near the
pipelines (see Appendix I). These include specific requirements related to excavation near the
pipelines and transport of construction materials or equipment over the pipelines. The requirements
also prohibit the placement of foreign utility lines underground within the pipeline easement. It also
includes specific notification and monitoring requirements, consistent with federal, state, and local
requirements. Individuals, businesses, and government entities planning to excavate within the
corridor in proximity to the pipelines are required to notify Olympic at least 48 hours prior to the
start of any work to comply with the state’s “one-call” locator service law (Chapter 19.122 RCW).
Local governments must also notify Olympic when they issue a permit that allows construction or
excavation within 100 feet, or condition the permit to require the permit applicant to consult with
Olympic (RCW 19.122.033[4]; see Section 3.9.1.2, Damage Prevention, for more detail). As
company practice, if a project is within 100 feet of the pipeline, Olympic’s Damage Prevention Team
will meet the construction crew on-site at the beginning of the project and weekly thereafter. If
excavation has the potential to be within 10 feet of the pipeline, the Damage Prevention Team would
be on-site to monitor excavation.
Protections in Place to Prepare for and Respond to an Incident
Several Phase 2 Draft EIS scoping comments requested additional information on emergency
response procedures, which are summarized below.
Frameworks for preparing for and responding to emergency incidents (including pipeline incidents)
are specified in each local jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (City of
Bellevue, 2013; City of Newcastle, 2008; City of Redmond, 2015; and City of Renton, 2012). The
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans are reviewed and updated periodically. All applicable
personnel receive annual training on the Emergency Management Plans, and the area offices conduct
emergency response exercises on an annual basis. Chapter 15 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS provided
additional information on emergency response procedures of local jurisdictions within the corridor.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐17
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Olympic’s Facility Response Plan provides guidelines to prepare
for and respond to a spill from the Olympic Pipeline system. The
Facility Response Plan, which received final 5-year approval by
Ecology in 2016, serves as Olympic’s oil spill contingency plan
under WAC 173-182. The Facility Response Plan is based on the
Northwest Area Contingency Plan (Regional Response Team 10
and Northwest Area Committee, 2016), as approved by Ecology
and the federal PHMSA (see Section 3.9.1). The Facility Response
Plan is not made available to the public, but is shared with federal,
state, and local officials, including emergency planning agencies
and first responders, to strengthen and coordinate planning and
prevention activities, with certain key information redacted due to
potential security risks.
As described in Chapter 15 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, in the event of
an incident requiring evacuation along the pipeline right-of-way,
local first responders and the Olympic Pipeline response team
would set up exclusion zones to evacuate and prevent public access
in potentially unsafe areas. Affected homeowners may be notified
door-to-door if appropriate staffing levels are available and the area
would be safe to access. The City of Bellevue and King County
recently acquired an emergency notification software system called
“Code Red” (referred to respectively as Bellevue Inform/Alert
King County) that permits phone, text, and email alerts to be sent to
specific geographical areas very quickly. In most cases, the local
first responders would use this tool to contact people should a
large-scale event occur. Air monitoring would be conducted and
documented throughout the entirety of the incident to ensure that
the exclusion zones are properly identified in accordance with the conditions of the day (wind speed,
direction, etc.). Olympic maintains a 24-hour Emergency Hotline (1-888-271-8880).
3.9.3 Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Incident Data
Scoping comments expressed concern about the potential for the Energize Eastside project to damage
the co-located Olympic Pipelines, resulting in releases. In response, EDM Services conducted a risk
assessment to evaluate what could go wrong (causes of pipeline incidents), how likely those are to
occur (probability of incidents), and what the consequences would be if there were an unintentional
release.
The baseline data used for the risk assessment are summarized below, and include information on the
frequency, major causes, and major risks associated with pipeline releases. The Pipeline Safety
Technical Report (Appendix I) presents additional information on the baseline data used.
Reported Incidents in the United States
PHMSA categorizes pipelines as hazardous liquid, liquefied gas, and natural gas distribution and
transmission. The Olympic Pipelines are categorized as hazardous liquid pipelines. In general, a
small percentage of pipelines in Washington (2%) and nationally (by mileage) are hazardous liquid
pipelines (PHMSA, 2016a). Natural gas distribution lines make up the majority of all pipelines, are
in most residential streets, and do not have large rights-of-way and pipeline markers common to
Unified Command Structure
The Unified Command
structure allows for a
coordinated response that
takes into account the
federal, state, tribal, local,
and responsible party
concerns and interests when
implementing a response
strategy. It is part of the
Incident Command System,
which is a standardized
approach to command,
control, and coordinate
emergency response for
incidents involving multiple
jurisdictions or agencies.
During responses to oil and
hazardous substance spills,
local agencies may be
involved as part of the Unified
Command and may provide
agency representatives who
interface with the command
structure through the Liaison
Officer or the State On-Scene
Coordinator.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐18
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration, (PHMSA)
The PHMSA Office of Pipeline
Safety administers the
national regulatory program to
ensure the safe transportation
of gas and other hazardous
materials by pipeline. PHMSA
uses incident data to assess
safety trends and guide the
development of new initiatives
to enhance safety.
In accordance with 49 CFR
195.248:
All pipes must have a
minimum cover of 3 feet.
In accordance with 49 CFR
195.250
All pipes must have a
minimum clearance of 12
inches from any other
underground structure.
regulated transmission pipelines (Rathbun, pers. comm.,
2016). In contrast, hazardous liquid pipelines are present in a
limited number of rights-of-way and routinely patrolled by
the operator to inspect surface conditions on or adjacent to
the pipeline right-of-way. For these reasons, incidents are
much less common with hazardous liquid pipelines than with
natural gas distribution lines.
Pipeline companies are required to report hazardous liquid
pipeline failures to PHMSA (49 CFR 195.50). Table 3.9-2
lists the unintentional release incidents (in the PHMSA
database) for hazardous liquid pipelines from 2010 to 2015,
which is the most recent data range under current rules.
During this reporting period, there were 2,362 reported
hazardous liquid pipeline incidents and seven fatalities
nationwide associated with hazardous liquid pipelines (EDM
Services, 2017; PHMSA, 2016b).
When there is a change in pipeline operator requirements,
PHMSA often begins a new database to ensure that all data
within a given database are consistent. This most recent
database began in January 2010 following new requirements
established as a result of several pipeline incidents (see
Appendix I). Using this current database (2010 to 2015) is
appropriate for conducting a risk assessment because it
allows for estimating risks based on rules currently in place.
To use a broad analogy, if one were to estimate the rate of
wetlands loss in the U.S., using data prior to the 1990s would
overestimate the rate of wetland loss, compared to using data
for the most recent period of time when more stringent
regulations are in place. Although the current database only
provides a 6-year timeframe (2010–2015), the reported
incidents and fatalities are associated with hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline (see total
pipeline mileage in Table 3.9-2), providing a large and appropriate sample size for conducting a risk
assessment.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐19
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Mile Years
A means of predicting the
number of incidents for a
given length of line, over a
given period of time. For
example, if one considered an
incident rate of 1.0 incident
per 1,000 mile years, one
would expect one incident per
year on a 1,000-mile pipeline.
Table 3.9-2. Reported U.S. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Unintentional Release Leaks and
Fatalities, 2010–20151
Reported
Incidents
General Public
Fatalities Total Fatalities2 Total Pipeline Mileage
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines (total)
2,362 4 7 1,143,8313
Refined Petroleum Products (only)
805 0 0 379,0864
1 Because pipeline safety is expected to improve with each successive change in federal safety rules, PHMSA reports data based
on the period reflecting the most recent rule changes to ensure consistent data (see further explanation above).
2 Includes pipeline operator employees, contractor employees, and the general public.
3 This is a sum of the individual pipeline mileages for each year, from 2010 through 2015.
4 This is a sum of the individual pipeline mileages for each year, from 2010 through 2015.
Source: PHMSA, 2016b.
Of the incidents for hazardous liquid pipelines, 805 were on pipelines or facilities that carry refined
petroleum products; of these, 648 occurred at facilities (e.g., tank farm, station equipment, pump
station, appurtenance piping, and valve station) and 157 occurred along pipeline rights-of-way. The
number of incidents over the total mileage of refined petroleum product pipelines indicates that the
likelihood is low for an incident at any given location.
The frequency of incidents along refined petroleum product
pipeline systems was 2.12 incidents per 1,000 mile years. For
those incidents occurring on pipeline rights-of-way only (and
not at facilities), this rate was 0.51 incidents per 1,000 mile
years; none resulted in fatalities. The average spill size of these
incidents1 was 306 barrels (12,900 gallons). The largest reported
unintentional release was 9,000 barrels (378,000 gallons).
1 This is the average spill size inclusive of incidents that occurred within pipeline rights-of-way and incidents that
occurred at pipeline facilities (e.g., valve stations) where the release migrated beyond the parcel boundary.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐20
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Reported Olympic Pipeline Incidents
Table 3.9-3 shows data on releases from the Olympic Pipeline system (the entire 400-mile system)
provided by the PHMSA incident database for hazardous liquid pipeline releases. The data show that
the Olympic Pipeline system has had incidents at about the same frequency as the national average
during the reporting period, but with far smaller average volume of spilled product per incident. All
of the releases occurred at valve stations. There were no reported releases along the pipeline right-of-
way.
Table 3.9-3. Olympic Pipeline Reported Releases, January 2010 through December 2015
Date1 Release Volume
(barrels) Location Cause
9/19/2011 0.29 MP 7 Block Valve Instrumentation Connection Failure
3/31/2012 1.96 Allen Station Threaded Connection/Coupling Failure
4/1/2012 0.97 Allen Station Instrumentation (Pressure Gauge) on Pig
Trap Door
7/20/2014 0.19 Renton Station O-Ring Connection Failure on Pig Trap Door
11/10/2014 7.49 Allen Station Threaded Connection Failure
1 Reported releases between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. No reported releases were identified for 2010 and 2015.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
The resulting frequency of unintentional release along the Olympic Pipeline system was estimated at
2.08 incidents per 1,000 mile years over this reporting period; this is a slightly lower frequency of
unintentional release compared to the frequency of incidents that occurred along U.S. refined
petroleum product pipeline systems over this same period (2.12 incidents per 1,000 mile years). The
average spill size was 2.2 barrels (92 gallons), less than the national average of 306 barrels (12,900
gallons).
Olympic Pipe Line Company Violations (2012 – 2016)
The Washington UTC inspects pipelines to assess compliance with federal and state pipeline safety
rules in accordance with WAC, Title 480. Several Phase 2 scoping comments referred to or requested
information on Olympic’s past violations of these safety rules. The inspection reports on UTC’s
website for Olympic’s facilities in Washington State are only available for the years 2012 through
2016. In these inspection reports, several violations and areas of concern were noted (as summarized
in Table 3.9-4). These inspections included a review by UTC of Olympic’s records, operation and
maintenance, emergency response, and field inspection of the pipeline facilities. Violations included
late reporting and defects at test sites.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐21
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Table 3.9-4. UTC Reports on Olympic Pipeline Violations and Areas of Concern, 2012–
20161
Violation or Area
of Concern Code Section Explanation of Violation or
Area of Concern
2012
Area of Concern 49 CFR 195.432 (operators must
inspect in-service atmospheric and
low-pressure steel aboveground
breakout tanks, and conditions must
be documented for follow-up action by
authorized inspector).
The seal for a breakout tank in
Anacortes was faulty. After the
inspection, a new sealant was applied.
Area of Concern 49 CFR 195.430 (adequate firefighting
equipment must be maintained at
each pump station and in proper
operating condition).
Some fire extinguishers had missing
inspection tags. After the inspection,
the missing tags were reattached to
the fire extinguishers.
2013
Area of Concern N/A Incident at Allen Station resulted in a
release of 84 gallons of diesel, which
the Programmable Logic Controller did
not register the pressure data
correctly. UTC recommended that
personnel trained in Programmable
Logic Controllers be available to assist
investigations of future incidents that
involve the SCADA system.
Area of Concern 49 CFR 195.446 (operators must
submit Control Room Management
procedures to PHMSA or state
agency).
BP would not provide a copy of their
Control Room Management
procedures prior to inspection.
2014
Violation 49 CFR 195.583 (mandates that
pipeline company must inspect
onshore pipelines that are exposed to
the atmosphere for evidence of
atmospheric corrosion once every 3
years, not to exceed an interval of 39
months).
For the Seatac Delivery Facility,
Tacoma Junction, and Tacoma
delivery facility, the required
atmospheric corrosion reads for 2014
were late (should have been read by
March, but were read in November
instead).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐22
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Violation or Area
of Concern Code Section Explanation of Violation or
Area of Concern
Violation WAC 480-75-510 (mandates that
pipeline companies must initiate
remedial action to correct deficiencies
within 90 days of detection).
Defective test sites were noted. It
could not be determined whether the
pipeline was adequately protected in
these areas. Olympic needs to ensure
their pipelines are adequately
cathodically protected and to repair,
as necessary, the defective test sites.
Area of Concern 49 CFR 195.573 (pipeline company
must test protected pipelines at least
once a year and not to exceed an
interval of 15 months to determine
whether cathodic protection complies
with Section 195.571).
BP self-reported instances where they
were late in conducting pipe-to-soil
readings. BP presented a list of
changes made to ensure compliance
with this section in the future.
2015
None
2016
Violation 49 CFR 195.583 (mandates that
pipeline company must inspect
onshore pipelines that are exposed to
the atmosphere for evidence of
atmospheric corrosion once every 3
years, not to exceed an interval of 39
months)
For the Seattle Delivery Facility,
corrosion was noted coming from
under a non-adjustable pipe support.
Olympic is required to inspect each
portion of the pipeline that is exposed
to atmospheric corrosion. Olympic is
also required to evaluate the condition
of the coating under pipe support and
determine if the pipeline integrity is
compromised. Olympic is also
required to inspect its other non-
adjustable pipe supports in their other
intrastate facilities to ensure pipeline
integrity is not compromised.
1 Inspection reports on UTC’s website for Olympic’s facilities in Washington State are only available for the years
2012 through 2016.
Source: UTC, 2017.
Reported Causes of Unintentional Pipeline Damage
In addition to incident frequency, the risk assessment considered major causes of unintentional
pipeline damage as included in the PHMSA incident database for refined petroleum product pipeline
releases. The dominant causes of pipeline incidents are equipment failure (25 percent), external
corrosion (22 percent), outside force/excavation (20 percent), and material failure (17 percent).
Figure 3.9-2 shows the distribution of these incidents by cause. Figure 3.9-3 shows the volume
(barrels) of reported incidents by cause.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐23
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Note: this data set excludes incidents that were limited to pipeline facilities (e.g., tank farm, station equipment,
pump station, appurtenance piping, and valve station); the Energize Eastside project would not affect pipeline
facility operation.
“Equipment failure” can occur on any part of the system, including valve stations, junctions, pump stations, or the
pipeline itself. This includes items such as defective or loose components, malfunction of control or relief
equipment, and other equipment failures.
“Incorrect operation” includes items such as incorrectly installed equipment, over-pressure, overfill tank or vessel,
valve left in wrong position, wrong equipment installed, etc.
“Natural force” includes earthquakes, floods, lightning, extreme temperature, etc.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-2. Number of Reported Incidents by Cause, 2010–2015
Of the causes of unintentional pipeline damage identified, the Energize Eastside project could affect
pipeline safety primarily in three ways: outside force/excavation, external corrosion of the pipeline,
and natural forces. These causes could result in unintentional releases from the pipeline, placing the
public at risk. Natural forces, specifically lightning strikes or wires downed by extreme weather
events, present risks of arcing from the transmission lines to the pipelines. For the risk assessment,
the causes of unintentional pipeline damage associated with external corrosion and natural forces
were included under the topic of electrical interference. The ways that the Energize Eastside project
could affect pipeline safety are described in more detail below.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐24
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Surcharge Loading
Equipment and other loads on
the soil surface (surcharge
loads) can place stress on the
underlying substructures,
including pipelines. These
stresses can over-stress the
pipe, causing damage.
Note: this data set excludes incidents that were limited to pipeline facilities (e.g., tank farm, station equipment,
pump station, appurtenance piping, and valve station); the Energize Eastside project would not affect pipeline
facility operations.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-3. Average Volume (Barrels) Per Release by Cause, 2010–2015
Outside Force/Excavation
Outside force/excavation hazards generally relate to construction
activities near pipelines. Commonly referred to as third party
damage, pipelines can be damaged by excavation and other
heavy equipment operation near pipelines. Excavation or
construction near a hazardous liquid pipeline carries a risk that
the line will be directly hit or damaged. Also, equipment
operating over or near a pipeline can cause pipe stresses due to
surcharge loading.
The Energize Eastside project would involve excavation and
heavy equipment to construct the project, and occasional truck
activity during operation for maintenance and repair (as currently occurs within the corridor). Risks
to pipeline safety associated with construction of the project are addressed in Section 4.9.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐25
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
AC Current Density
AC current densities below 20
amps per square meter do not
cause AC corrosion; AC
current densities between 20
and 100 amps per square
meter may or may not cause
AC corrosion.
Electrical Interference
Electrical interference can occur during normal high voltage AC transmission line operation, which
can contribute to accelerated external corrosion damage on the pipeline, or as a result of fault
conditions. Fault conditions, usually initiated by lightning, result in the transfer of electrical power
indirectly from one or more AC powerline conductors (i.e., wire) via the metallic transmission line
pole to the ground, or directly to the ground as a result of an overhead conductor falling to the
ground.
External Corrosion. External corrosion occurs when the metal of the pipeline reacts with the
environment, causing the pipeline to corrode (or rust) on the outside of the pipe. It can be influenced
by a number of conditions, including soil conditions and electrical interference.
Soil Conditions. The moisture, temperature, and chemical content of soil, also referred to as soil
resistivity, can have an effect on external corrosion. Typically, the lower the soil resistivity, the
higher the potential for corrosion. Soil resistivity generally decreases with increasing water content
and the concentration of ionic species (chemically identical ions). For example, sandy soils are high
on the resistivity scale and therefore considered the least corrosive, while clay soils, especially those
contaminated with saline water, are low on the resistivity scale and considered the most corrosive.
Electrical Interference. High voltage AC power lines near pipelines
can be a source of electrical interference. In the study area, the
existing transmission lines and substations can cause electrical
interference. This includes areas immediately under and adjacent to
PSE’s existing 115 kV transmission lines, as well as areas near the
Sammamish, Lakeside, Somerset, and Talbot Hill substations.
AC current density is a measure of electrical interference adjacent to
the pipeline. AC current density levels less than 20 amps per square
meter do not cause AC-induced corrosion. The AC current density is
related to soil conditions, voltage, and the presence and size of any
flaws in the pipeline’s protective coating (DNV GL, 2016).
Cathodic protection systems are used to reduce the potential for corrosion from occurring on the
exterior of pipes, by substituting a new source of electrons, commonly referred to as an anode
(Figure 3.9-4). Throughout the study area, the Olympic Pipelines are externally coated and
cathodically protected, primarily with overlapping impressed current systems (West, pers. comm.,
2016). These systems consist of an array of metallic anodes buried in the ground along the pipeline
with a connection to a source of electric direct current (DC) to drive the protective electrochemical
reaction.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐26
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Representative photograph from PHMSA report
showing hole in a pipe wall caused by electrical fault
(not Olympic Pipeline)
Figure 3.9-4. Cathodic Protection System Components
Fault Damage. Faults (or fault currents) are an abnormal current flow from the standard intended
operating conditions. These faults are typically caused by lightning, insulator failure, mechanical
failure, and transformer failure. For example, a lightning strike on a pole can cause current to travel
through the pole and into the soil, where it may transfer to an adjacent steel pipeline.
Under fault conditions, elevated electric currents can lead to fault damage (related to coating stress)
or direct arcing damage (see arc damage below) to the pipeline.
The Olympic Pipelines have an exterior coating to protect against corrosion. The susceptibility of this
coating to breakdown is based on the type and thickness of the coating and the voltage the pipeline is
subject to (coating stress voltage).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐27
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Pool Fire
A pool fire occurs when
flammable liquid pools on
the ground and comes in
contact with an outside
ignition source.
In many cases, a shield wire on transmission poles is used to provide multiple pathways to carry a
fault current to the ground thereby diffusing the strength of the current (Figure 3.9-5). In the absence
of a shield wire, the entire fault current returns to ground at a single location where it could arc
through the ground to the pipeline causing damage to the pipeline over time. While other protective
measures are in place along the Olympic Pipelines, such as exterior coating, the existing transmission
lines do not have a shield wire.
Figure 3.9-5. Shield Wire
Arc Damage. High currents from a fault condition can cause arcing damage to the pipeline. The
distance the current can travel to the ground (the arc distance) can be calculated based on pole
configurations and shield wire characteristics. As noted previously, soil conditions also influence the
amount of current that travels through the ground to the pipeline. If transmission line poles are within
the arc distance, arc shielding protection is typically installed, often consisting of a zinc ribbon
extending past the transmission line pole grounding cables.
External corrosion is described in Section 16.3.37 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and additional
information is provided in the AC Interference Study (DNV GL, 2016).
3.9.4 Major Risks to Public from Unintentional Pipeline Release
Major risks to the public from unintentional pipeline releases relate to
the characteristics of the pipeline product, the presence of ignition
sources, and the release setting. Depending on these characteristics
and conditions, pipeline releases can result in a pool fire, flash fire, or
explosion, as described below.
The Olympic Pipelines transport refined petroleum products,
including diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline. The product or the mix of
products transported varies. The National Fire Protection Association
assigns hazard ratings for each of these fuels, as depicted in Figure
3.9-6. For each hazard, the severity ranges from 0 (no hazard) to 4 (severe risk).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐28
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Spill Release Volume
For reference, the
Bellingham incident of
June 10, 1999 released
about 237,000 gallons of
gasoline. Because the
release migrated along a
waterbody, pool fire
characteristics were
different than the
depiction in Figure 3.9-7.
Figure 3.9-6. National Fire Protection Association Ratings for Jet Fuel, Diesel, and
Gasoline
Pool Fires
For a buried pipeline transporting refined petroleum product, the greatest risk to the public is posed
by pool fires. When a release occurs, the pipe contents are released into the soil. Depending on the
release rate, soil conditions, groundwater level, and other factors, the released material may come to
the surface. Depending on local terrain, it may flow for some distance away from the location of the
release. If an ignition source is present, the accumulated pool could catch fire (the pipeline itself
would not be expected to catch on fire, just the released material).
EDM Services (2017) used a number of reasonable assumptions and data inputs, including the
estimated release rate and pipe contents of the Olympic Pipelines, to model a release and subsequent
pool fire as described in Sections 7.1 and 8.3 of their report (see Appendix I). Based on these inputs,
EDM Services estimated the following maximum release volume:
372,162 gallons
Figure 3.9-7 is a graphical depiction of the estimated pool fire size
based on the maximum release volume (yellow circle) and the resulting
heat flux zones. The yellow, orange, blue, and green heat flux zones
are where the heat from the fire would cause fatalities. The area
outside of these rings would be hot but typically would not result in
fatalities.
The estimated maximum downward distance to potentially fatal
impacts, measured from the center of the pool fire, is 113 feet. This
distance represents the area where released pipe contents would spread
(or pool) and result in a fire (if an ignition source is present). This
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐29
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Heat Flux
Humans in the vicinity of a
fire receive heat from the fire
in the form of thermal
radiation. Radiant heat flux
decreases with increasing
distance from a fire. Those
close to the fire would
receive thermal radiation at a
higher rate than those farther
away.
schematic figure is a simplistic representation and does not show
site-specific conditions. For example, this figure illustrates a release
where no hills, waterbodies, or catch basins are present. If hilly
conditions, waterbodies, or catch basins were present, the pipe
contents could flow away from the site of the release, resulting in an
elongated pool fire and heat flux areas. This figure also does not
show where the fire could spread to if adjacent vegetation or
structures caught on fire. A larger pool fire and heat flux areas could
have a higher degree of harm to the environment. Although the pool
fire and heat flux areas could be larger, this diagram provides the
basis for calculating the number of potential fatalities assuming a
worst-case scenario, and informed the risk assessment results that are
presented in Section 3.9.5.3.
Note: This diagram is meant to be a simplistic representation of where released pipe contents would spread (or
pool) and result in a fire (if an ignition source is present), and does not show site-specific conditions. See Sections
7.1 and 8.3 of the EDM Services report in Appendix I for more information on assumptions and data inputs used to
develop this diagram.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-7. Typical Pool Fire and Heat Flux Areas Diagram
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐30
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
The effects of radiant heat flux to humans are summarized below. The following three endpoints are
commonly used to evaluate the risk of public fatalities (CDE, 2007).
12,000 Btu (British thermal unit)/ft2-hr (combined yellow pool and orange band) – 100%
mortality after 30-second exposure.
8,000 Btu/ft2–hr (blue band) – 50% mortality after 30-second exposure.
5,000 Btu/ft2-hr (green band) – 1% mortality after 30-second exposure.
Flash Fires
Flash fires can occur when a vapor cloud is formed, with some portion of the vapor cloud within the
combustible range, and the ignition is delayed. To be in the combustible range, the fuel vapor must
be sufficiently concentrated; therefore, flash fires only occur when the liquid fuel has a high enough
evaporation rate and the vapor cloud is not dispersed by wind. In a flash fire, the portion of the vapor
cloud within the combustible range burns very quickly, minimizing the potential impact to humans.
For gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel, the potential for extensive vapor migration is limited by their
relatively low evaporation rates when in liquid pools.
Explosions
Gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel generally do not explode, unless
the vapor cloud is confined in some manner, called a vapor cloud
explosion. For the most recent PHMSA incident database (2010 –
2015), there were no reported explosions for refined petroleum
product pipelines. Impacts for vapor cloud explosions are
expressed in terms of a shock wave measured as overpressure
(pounds per square inch) above atmospheric pressure. EDM
Services modeled the potential releases from each of the refined
petroleum products transported by the Olympic Pipelines within
the project corridor. The resulting peak overpressure level was
0.38 pounds per square inch due to the relatively open
environment (medium fuel reactivity and low obstacle density).
This overpressure level is not high enough to pose potential
explosion risks. As a result, explosions are not described any
further in this EIS chapter. For additional information on explosions, see the Pipeline Safety
Technical Report (Appendix I).
3.9.5 Risks During Operation
This section addresses the potential pipeline safety risks associated with the operation of the project
within the study area. The section begins with a description of the methodology used to conduct a
risk assessment, identification of the key risk assessment steps that were followed by EDM Services,
limitations of the data used to inform the risk assessment, and a description of key terms used to
present the risk assessment results. The existing pipeline safety risks that would remain under the No
Action Alternative are presented in this section as baseline information. The section then describes
the incremental change in risks from baseline conditions under Alternative 1. This section addresses
the potential risk of human fatalities occurring as a result of a pipeline leak or pool fire; the impacts
of a leak or pool fire on environmental resources are addressed in Section 3.9.6.
Vapor Cloud Explosion
Occurs when there is a sudden
release of flammable vapor, it
mixes with air, and then is
ignited by an outside source.
Note: The Bellingham incident of
June 10, 1999 was technically a
pool fire, and not an explosion.
The pipeline release flowed into
a creek and ignited
approximately 1.5 hours after
the pipeline rupture.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐31
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Methods for Assessing Risks
During Operation
To evaluate changes in pipeline
safety risk that would occur as a
result of the Energize Eastside
project, EDM Services was
retained to conduct a probabilistic
pipeline risk assessment. The
Pipeline Safety Technical Report
(Appendix I) describes the current
risks of an incident happening
along the corridor. It describes
these risks with consideration of
fuel type, pipe parameters, safety
features, and other factors. The
primary data source used was the
PHMSA Incident Report database
and information obtained from
Olympic. Modeling was used to
show probability of a potential leak
or fire. Estimated existing pipeline
safety risk was then compared to
estimated pipeline safety risk
under Alternative 1.
Methodology
As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and as addressed in
numerous scoping comment letters for the Phase 2 Draft EIS,
the Energize Eastside project could pose additional risks to the
public. For example, if the Energize Eastside project were to
damage one or both of the Olympic Pipelines, refined petroleum
product could be released. If the fluid reached a combustible
mixture and an ignition source were present, a fire could occur,
resulting in possible injuries and/or fatalities.
To quantify this risk, EDM Services conducted a probabilistic
pipeline risk assessment for the following conditions:
Olympic Pipelines Co-located with Existing
Transmission Lines (No Action).
Olympic Pipelines Co-located with Proposed
Transmission Lines (Alternative 1).
A probabilistic pipeline risk assessment is a type of risk
assessment used to estimate event frequencies or probabilities,
for a specified time period, associated with specific, measurable
consequences. The pipeline industry commonly uses such
assessments to rank and manage risk, and to establish priorities
for inspection, testing, and repairs.
To identify the change in risk associated with Alternative 1, the
risk assessment estimated the change in frequency of pipeline
incidents for the following three main causes of pipeline damage
resulting from electrical interference:
(1) External Corrosion
(2) Fault Damage
(3) Arc Damage
The estimated change in frequency for each of these main causes was considered in combination with
all other causes of pipeline damage identified in Section 3.9.3.3 in order to present the overall
pipeline safety risk associated with Alternative 1. For results of the risk assessment related to outside
force/excavation, see Chapter 4.
Risk Assessment Steps
EDM Services completed the risk assessment using the five steps described below (and illustrated in
Figure 3.9-8).
1. Baseline Data Compilation – To estimate the probability of pipeline failures, historical data
on similar systems are most commonly used in conjunction with information on the
characteristics of the pipeline system being evaluated. However, it should be acknowledged
that using this information has limitations, as described in more detail in the next section.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐32
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
How is Risk Expressed?
Risk = Event Probability
(Likelihood) x Severity of
Consequences (Impact)
Risk is presented as the
probability (or likelihood) that a
specific consequence will occur
within a specified time period.
The severity of the consequence
(or impact) depends on the
nature and quantity of the
substance released, as well as
proximity to people.
For this risk assessment, the
severity of consequences (or
impact) is the same with or
without the project because the
project does not alter the
operation of the Olympic
Pipelines (e.g., type and amount
of hazardous liquids in the
pipelines), nor would the project
result in a change to the
population potentially exposed to
a leak or pool fire near the
corridor. Only the event
probability of an incident
occurring could potentially
change as a result of this project.
Limitations relate to the national database, which does
not independently collect and evaluate co-location of
pipeline and transmission line systems information, and
certain data not provided by Olympic. As an initial step,
baseline data were compiled from sources summarized
in Section 3.9.3, including historic release data. EDM
Services also reviewed information provided by
Olympic on the operating conditions of the Olympic
Pipelines in the study area (West, pers. comm., 2016;
Stone, pers. comm. 2016). This information was used to
estimate:
o Frequency of release
o Frequency of public injuries and fatalities
o Spill size distribution
o Causes of release
o Likelihood of fires or explosions following a
release.
2. Probability Analysis – Using the above baseline data,
estimates of the likelihood of various size releases,
fires, and public fatalities resulting from unintentional
releases from the Olympic Pipelines were developed.
This included a review of a number of publications and
reports, including DNV GL’s AC Interference Study
(2016), to identify the potential change in risk
associated with the proposed high-voltage AC
transmission lines.
3. Consequence Analysis –Using Olympic Pipeline
operating parameters, EDM performed release
modeling to evaluate the potential impacts from
unintentional releases (leaks) alone, as well as leaks that result in a pool fire. For a buried
refined petroleum product pipeline, the greatest risk to the public is posed by pool fires.
4. Conditional Probabilities – Using the above data, the probabilities for a number of
conditions were estimated, including:
o Probability of various size unintentional releases from the Olympic Pipelines.
o Probability of fires following an unintentional release.
o Probability of fatal injuries following a fire.
5. Risk Determination – The risks were then calculated to present a numerical combination of
both the probability of an event and its consequences. The presentation of risk results and the
terminology used in this assessment are described below.
These risk assessment steps are described in more detail in Sections 6.0 through 11.0 of the Pipeline
Safety Technical Report (EDM Services, 2017).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐33
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Figure 3.9-8. Conceptual Illustration of the Risk Assessment Methodology
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐34
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Limitations of the Baseline Data
The baseline data used for the EDM Services risk assessment have a number of limitations. These are
described below and relate to the following: (1) limitations of the national database for addressing
co-located pipeline and transmission line systems, and (2) limited data provided by Olympic.
Limitations of PHMSA Incident Database
Despite it being relatively common for transmission lines and underground pipelines to be co-
located, the available data sources on release incidents do not distinguish between co-located and
non-co-located pipelines. The PHMSA incident database does not include an inventory of pipelines
that are co-located with high-voltage transmission lines, nor do the incident data reports identify
incidents that occurred where the pipeline was co-located with high-voltage transmission lines. As a
result, it is not possible to directly develop and quantify the difference in risk that may exist between
a co-located pipeline system and those that are not co-located with transmission lines.
In the absence of national collocation data, EDM Services used national data on releases associated
with all pipelines and attempted to identify releases that may have been caused by a pipeline’s
proximity to electrical utility facilities. Unfortunately, the reports on external corrosion-caused
releases do not include data to identify whether releases were caused by electrical interference with
cathodic protection systems. The reports also do not identify whether releases caused by excavation
damage were related to overhead power line construction.
Limited Olympic Pipeline Data
To provide a more project-specific risk assessment, information was requested from Olympic on the
Olympic Pipelines in the study area to supplement the national data (information requested and
received is identified in Appendix I). Some of the requested information was provided; however, for
some information requests, only partial responses or no response were provided due, in part, to
information being identified as confidential for security reasons. In the risk assessment field, it is not
uncommon for certain pipeline information to be unavailable from the pipeline operator due to
proprietary or security reasons (CDE, 2007). In the absence of specific information, the risk
assessment largely relied on actual reported pipeline release volumes from national data.
To address the lack of available data related to coating stress and arc distance information for the
existing 115 kV corridor (presented below as the No Action condition), several assumptions were
used in the risk assessment. To estimate the maximum, or worst-case, incremental change in risk
from the No Action Alternative to Alternative 1, the risk assessment included an assumption that the
coating stress voltages and resulting coating stress caused pipeline releases for the existing 115 kV
corridor are the same as those for the proposed 230 kV corridor. Similarly, the risk assessment
included an assumption that the ground fault arc distances and arc caused frequency of unintentional
releases for the existing 115 kV corridor are the same as those for the proposed 230 kV corridor.
Using these assumptions likely understates the existing risk (No Action), thereby overstating the
actual difference in risk between the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐35
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Individual Risk
Annual probability of fatality
resulting from a pipeline failure
and release for an individual,
at a specific location.
Risk Terminology
Results of the risk assessment are presented in two main forms: individual risk and societal risk.
Individual risk is most commonly defined as the frequency that an individual may be expected to
sustain a given level of harm from the realization of exposure to specific hazards, at a specific
location. The individual risk results can be expressed as likelihood of a specific outcome (e.g.,
fatalities per year).
Societal risk builds on the individual risk results by considering the number of people in proximity to
a potential pipeline safety hazard and groups of people in the surrounding study area. Societal risk is
expressed as the cumulative risk to a group of people who might be affected by an unintentional
release.
Risk is calculated by first estimating the frequency of pipeline incidents (see below incident
frequency) and is presented as an annual probability of fatality (see below risk results).
Incident Frequency
The risk assessment developed anticipated frequencies of pipeline incidents for various causes
(called “incident frequency” in this EIS). Causes of pipeline damage include external corrosion, fault
damage, and arc damage that have the potential to cause an unintentional release of pipeline contents.
Incident frequencies are described (and presented below for the No Action alternative and
Alternative 1) in terms of mile years. Mile years are a standard measure for pipeline risk assessments
and describe the number of predicted incidents for a given length of pipeline (one mile), over a given
period of time expressed in years. For example, for an incident frequency of 1.0 incident per 1,000
mile years, one would expect one incident per year on 1,000 miles of pipeline, or 0.001 incidents on
1 mile of pipeline per year. Pipeline incidents are in reference to any unintentional release of pipeline
contents, which could be a minor or major spill. Not all incidents result in fires that could cause
injury or fatality.
Risk Results
Individual risk results are presented as the annual probability of
fatality (e.g., 1 in 1.0 million). The results are developed and
presented using a standard risk assessment method, which
allows for comparison with other risk results or with risk criteria
in use by other jurisdictions for other settings. There are no
adopted federal or Washington State criteria for acceptable
levels of individual risk. Several jurisdictions have adopted
criteria (or thresholds) for use in siting new facilities or sensitive
land uses (e.g., schools) near pipelines. There are no known criteria in use by other jurisdictions that
address modifications to existing transmission lines co-located with pipelines.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐36
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Figure 3.9-9 presents the individual risk thresholds for several jurisdictions where such thresholds
have been adopted. Risk values for the jurisdictions are depicted by green (broadly acceptable risk),
red (unacceptable risk), or yellow (tolerable risk2). For example, the California Department of
Education and Santa Barbara County have established as their threshold between acceptable and
unacceptable risk a 1 in 1.0 million likelihood that an individual at a specific location would be
fatally injured over a 1-year period. This risk criterion has the highest factor of safety in use by other
jurisdictions. This criterion was originally in use by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands for
siting certain industrial facilities. It was later adopted by the California Department of Education for
siting new schools within 1,500 feet of pipelines.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-9. Individual Risk Criteria by Jurisdiction
2 Generally, risks within the yellow area may be tolerable only if risk reduction is impractical or if its cost is grossly
disproportionate to the risk improvement gained.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐37
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Societal Risk
The annual probability that a
specified number of people
will be affected by a given
pipeline release event.
Societal risk is expressed as the cumulative risk to a group of
people who might be affected by an unintentional release. As with
individual risk, there are no adopted federal or Washington State
criteria for acceptable levels of societal risk. As shown in Figure
3.9-10, the acceptable values for societal risk vary greatly by
different agencies and jurisdictions where risk criteria have been
adopted. The California Department of Education (shown on the
figure as CDE) and the County of Santa Barbara (shown on the
figure as SBCO), California have upper and lower bounds for
unacceptable (intolerable) as shown in red and acceptable (negligible) as shown in green societal risk
levels. Between these two bounds is a “yellow area” similar to the tolerable risk category described
above for individual risks. For example, for 100 fatalities, as shown the “x” axis, the threshold for
California Department of Education (green line) is 1.00E-09 (or 1:1.0 billion), as shown on the “y”
axis. In other words, if the likelihood of 100 fatalities is less than one in one billion, the risk is
deemed negligible. If greater than 1 in 10 million, the risk is considered intolerable. Between these
levels, the risk may be considered acceptable only after additional analysis and alternatives are
examined. For the United Kingdom (shown on the figure as UK) and the Netherlands, risks above the
lines are considered unacceptable, and risks below the line are considered acceptable.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-10. Societal Risk Criteria by Jurisdiction Significance Thresholds
A review of policies and regulations applicable to the study area revealed that the existing regulatory
framework was insufficient for determining significance thresholds because there are no clear written
standards addressing pipeline safety in adopted plans, programs, or ordinances for the Partner Cities.
To develop a threshold for significance that reflects the policies of the Partner Cities, the EIS
Consultant Team held two workshops with staff from the Partner Cities, one in November 2016 and
one in February 2017. The threshold for significance established below is based on the Partner Cities
workshop discussions.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐38
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Key Assumptions
To address the lack of available data
related to coating stress and arc
distance information for the existing
115 kV corridor, several
assumptions were used in the risk
assessment. To estimate the
maximum, or worst-case
incremental change in risk from the
No Action Alternative to Alternative
1, the risk assessment included an
assumption that the coating stress
voltages and resulting coating stress
caused pipeline releases for the
existing 115 kV corridor the same as
those for the proposed 230 kV
corridor. Similarly, the risk
assessment included an assumption
that the ground fault arc distances
and arc caused frequency of
unintentional releases for the
existing 115 kV corridor are the
same as those for the proposed 230
kV corridor. Using these
assumptions likely understates
the existing risk (No Action),
thereby overstating the actual
difference in risk between the No
Action Alternative and
Alternative 1.
Mile Years
A means of predicting the number of
incidents for a given length of line,
over a given period of time. For
example, if one considered an
incident rate of 1.0 incident per
1,000 mile years, one would expect
one incident per year on a 1,000-
mile pipeline.
For this analysis, project-related risks are classified as being
significant or less-than-significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant
With implementation of mandatory safety standards and
design measures, there would be no substantial increase
in risk of pipeline release or fire as a result of project
operation that could result in public safety impacts or
damage to property and environmental resources.
Significant
Even with the implementation of mandatory safety
standards and design measures, there would be a
substantial increase in risk of pipeline release or fire as a
result of project operation that could result in public
safety impacts or damage to property and environmental
resources.
Risk Assessment Results
The results of the risk assessment (as described in Section
3.9.5.1, Methodology) are presented in this section beginning
with the incident frequencies for each of the three electrical-
interference-related causes of pipeline damage (external
corrosion, fault damage, arc damage). These frequencies were
used to develop the final risks results, which follow.
The incident frequencies (or estimated number of incidents per
1,000 mile years) were developed for individuals (individual
risk) and groups of people (societal risk) for each of the
electrical-interference-related pipeline damage (external
corrosion, fault damage, arc damage) and are presented in Figure
3.9-11. The incident frequencies are presented for the No Action
Alternative and Alternative 1, and the change in frequency is
presented in the far right column. For two of the causes (fault
damage and arc damage), data were not made available from
Olympic to quantify the No Action Alternative.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐39
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
For the purposes of Figure 3.9-11, the predicted changes in frequency are based on qualitative
considerations.
1. As described in Section 3.9.5.1, Olympic did not provide information to estimate the coating stress voltage for the existing 115
kV transmission lines, and the arcing distance of the existing 115 kV transmission lines.
2. While decrease is likely, the results for individual risk and societal risk presented in Figure 3.9‐12 below assumed there would
be no change in incident frequency related to fault damage or arc damage. This ensures that the change in risk for Alternative 1
is likely overstated while the existing risk is understated.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-11. Change in Incident Frequency
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐40
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
What is meant by the
“increase in risk”?
Risk is characterized as a 1 in x
chance of a specified event
occurring. The “increase in risk”
is the chance that the specified
event (e.g., an individual fatality
from an unintentional release
from the pipeline) would occur
that would not have occurred if
the project had not been built.
In this case, there is an
estimated 1 in 51 million
chance that an individual fatality
would occur that would not
have occurred if the project was
not built.
In consideration of the separate incident frequencies for individual risk and societal risk developed
for the three conditions noted above, Figure 3.9-12 presents the combined incident frequency for the
No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, and the change in incident frequency that could be
anticipated.
*Under the No Action Alternative, the incident frequencies for societal risk is in fact 0.5193 per 1,000 mile years
and for Alternative 1, the incident frequency for societal risk is 0.5235 per 1,000 miles years. The figure shows
rounded values.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-12. Change in Incident Frequency (Combined)
Using the incident frequency results in Figure 3.9-12, the individual risk results for Alternative 1 are
presented in Figure 3.9-13.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-13. Alternative 1 Individual Risk (of Fatality) Results
The annual individual risk of fatality for operation of the 230 kV lines within the corridor is 1 in 4.5
million (Figure 3.9-13). In other words, it is estimated that there could be a 1 in 4.5 million
likelihood that an individual at a specific location would be fatally injured over a 1-year period.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐41
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
These results are below the common threshold of 1 in 1.0 million used by Santa Barbara County, the
California Department of Education, and other jurisdictions in determining unacceptable and
acceptable risk. Based on the results of the risk assessment, the individual risk for the proposed 230
kV lines would incrementally increase over that posed by the existing 115 kV lines (No Action). This
maximum estimated increase in risk is slight, approximately 1 in 51 million. In other words, the
assessment estimates that there would be an approximately 9 percent3 increase in individual risk
during operation of Alternative 1 before any mitigation is applied. Because the risk level is already
very low, this 9 percent increase is not considered substantial.
To put individual annual risk results in context, the following are annual risks for a relatively
common type of incident (vehicle fatality) and a relatively uncommon type of incident (being struck
or being killed by lightning), as illustrated in Figure 3.9-14.
Source: Insurance Information Institute, 2013; National Weather Service, 2017.
Figure 3.9-14. Annual Risk of Other Incidents, for Comparison
The assessment also considered the broader societal risk, or risk to groups of people, which takes into
account the number of individuals who may be present near the project corridor at any given time
and the duration of their presence. Societal risk takes into account multiple release scenarios. The
societal risk results for any 1-mile segment are presented below in Figure 3.9-15 for the maximum
and minimum fatalities under the possible release scenarios, which are further described in Pipeline
Safety Technical Report (EDM Services, 2017). While it is possible that a more severe event could
occur, the maximum number of fatalities, 17, is the most severe event estimated by the model based
on the data assumptions and event scenarios, and represents a worst-case scenario for purposes of
this EIS.
3 Calculated as: 1 in 51 million / 1 in 4.5 million = 9 percent.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐42
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 3.9-15. Alternative 1 Societal Risk Results
In other words, there is a one in 2 million probability of an event resulting in 17 fatalities occurring
in any 1-year time period, and a one in 60,000 probability of an even resulting in a single fatality
occurring in any 1-year period. These results are above the thresholds for negligible impacts, and
below the thresholds for intolerable impacts as used by Santa Barbara County and the California
Department of Education for school siting purposes.
Based on the results of the assessment, the increased societal risk of the proposed 230 kV lines over
that posed by the existing 115 kV lines (No Action) is 1 in 253 million (for a scenario resulting in 17
fatalities) and 1 in 7.45 million (for a scenario resulting in one fatality). In other words, the
assessment estimates that there would be a 0.8 percent increase in societal risk during operation of
Alternative 1. Because the risk level is already very low, this 0.8 percent increase is not considered
substantial.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐43
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
No Action Alternative
This section describes the potential pipeline safety risks that could occur under the No Action
Alternative.
The pipeline safety risks within the existing corridor are associated with refined petroleum products
that are currently transported in the Olympic Pipelines where they are within PSE’s existing
transmission line corridor. Safety risks to the public from these materials could occur due to incidents
caused by pipeline failure from electrical interference (external corrosion, fault damage and arc
damage), outside force/excavation, or other causes either related to (or unrelated to) co-location with
the existing 115 kV PSE transmission lines. Depending on the circumstances of an incident and the
properties of the pipeline product, incidents could result in the potential for pool fire or flash fire.
These existing risks are described at a general level in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Chapter 8. Safety risks
related to outside force/excavation are addressed in Chapter 4 of this Phase 2 Draft EIS.
As described above, the risk assessment estimated the likelihood of potential impacts occurring as a
result of the operation of the pipelines co-located with the existing 115 kV transmission lines for the
three ways a transmission line can interact with a pipeline to cause damage: (1) external corrosion
(related to AC density), (2) fault damage (related to coating stress), and (3) arcing damage (related to
arc distances). These conditions are described in Section 3.9.3.3. The estimated incident frequencies
(or estimated incidents per 1,000 mile years) for individuals (individual risk) and groups of people
(societal risk) are presented above in Section 3.9.5.3.
External Corrosion. There are two short segments in the study area where the estimated AC current
density under existing peak winter loads exceeds 20 amps per square meter. (As described above, AC
current density levels less than 20 amps per square meter do not cause AC-induced corrosion.) The
current densities in these areas are estimated to range from 22 to 35 amps per square meter. The
incident frequencies presented above were developed using worst-case assumptions about length of
pipeline affected and the duration of peak winter voltages.
Fault Damage. Because no data were available from Olympic to estimate the coating stress voltages
on the existing Olympic Pipelines within the existing 115 kV corridor, the existing pipelines were
assumed to have the same coating stress voltages and potential for coating stress-caused pipeline
releases as for Alternative 1. See Section 3.9.5.2 (Alternative 1) below for information on fault
damage. Using this assumption in the risk assessment calculation likely overstates the overall change
in risk associated with Alternative 1 because the proposed design for Alternative 1 would include a
shield wire, while the existing system does not.
Arcing Damage. Because no data were available from Olympic to estimate the arc distances for the
existing Olympic Pipelines within the existing 115 kV corridor, the existing pipelines were assumed
to have the same ground fault arc distances and potential for arc-caused pipeline releases as for
Alternative 1. See Section 3.9.5.2 (Alternative 1) below for information on arcing damage. Using this
assumption in the risk assessment calculation likely overstates the overall change in risk associated
with Alternative 1 because the proposed design for Alternative 1 incudes a shield wire, the potential
arcing distance is known, and most poles would be placed at sufficient distance to avoid arcing
damage to the pipeline. The existing transmission line does not have a shield wire, and although
other protective measures are in place, information provided by Olympic was insufficient to
determine potential arcing distances for the existing pipeline.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐44
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Total individual risk and total societal risk are not presented for the No Action Alternative due to the
lack of available data from Olympic and uncertain assumptions for the current pipeline related to
coating stress and arc distances, as described in Section 3.9.5. Instead of modeling existing conditions
to calculate existing risk, worst-case assumptions were used to ensure that project impacts relative to
the No Action Alternative were not understated.
For additional details about the analysis of risks under the No Action Alternative, see the Pipeline
Safety Technical Report (EDM Services, 2017).
No Action Alternative Impacts Conclusion
Based on the limited pipeline data available to the EIS team, it is not possible to calculate exact risks
along the existing corridor. Using low estimates of existing risk (to present a worst-case change in
risk associated with Alternative 1), the risk of external corrosion is expected to stay the same under
the No Action Alternative. Because no data were available to estimate the likelihood of damage as a
result of fault conditions on the Olympic Pipelines within the existing 115 kV corridor, the existing
pipelines were assumed to have the same risk as for Alternative 1. Even with these low estimates of
existing risk, the likelihood of a pipeline rupture and fire would remain low. Under the No Action
Alternative, PSE would continue to operate their existing 115 kV transmission lines as described in
Chapter 2. The arrangement and spacing of lines and voltage would stay the same and there would be
no change in risk. Therefore, under the No Action Alternative, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines
This section describes the potential pipeline safety risks under Alternative 1, focusing on how these
risks would change compared to the No Action Alternative.
As described above, the assessment estimated the likelihood of potential impacts from the operation
of the pipelines co-located with the proposed 230 kV transmission lines for the three ways the
proposed 230 kV transmission lines can interact with a pipeline to cause damage: (1) external
corrosion (related to AC density), (2) fault damage (related to coating stress), and (3) arcing damage
(related to arc distances). The potential risk and potential impacts were estimated for individuals
(individual risk) and groups of people (societal risk) for each of these conditions. In addition, this
section describes the design requirements for transmission lines related to extreme weather events
and seismic hazards. Because ongoing maintenance activities during operation of Alternative 1 are
expected to be the same as the No Action Alternative, no change in risk related to ongoing
maintenance activities is anticipated.
In the case of fault damage (related to coating stress), no increase in potential risk of damage was
estimated for the proposed 230 kV lines because PSE’s plans to use a shield wire on the new
transmission lines. For the other two cases examined, the risk assessment estimated that, without
consideration of potential mitigation measures, there could be an increase in potential risk of damage
to the pipeline. These include external corrosion (related to AC current density) and arcing damage
(related to arc distances). As described in Section 3.9.6.4, the risk assessment was limited by the lack
of available data on the existing (No Action) condition related to coating stress and arc distances. The
lack of available data for existing conditions required the risk assessment to assume certain
conditions in order to provide a worst-case analysis of Alternative 1. Using these assumptions likely
understates the existing risk (No Action), thereby overstating the actual difference in risk between the
No Action Alternative and Alternative 1.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐45
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
AC Interference Study
The AC Interference Study
(DNV GL, 2016) investigated
the possibly for electrical
interference effects and
recommended design
considerations to PSE in order
to minimize these effects.
Sensitivity studies were
conducted related to AC-
induced corrosion (AC current
density) and fault analysis
(coating stress voltage and arc
distance) that evaluated
varying pole configurations
and shield wire types to aid in
the design of the transmission
line layout.
External Corrosion. There are two areas along the corridor where the estimated AC current density
would exceed 20 amps per square meter under peak winter loads. The estimated AC current densities
at these locations range from 25 to 70 amps per square meter. This current density is higher than that
presented in Section 3.9.5.3 for the existing 115 kV corridor (No Action Alternative).
The incident frequencies presented above were developed using worst-case assumptions about length
of pipeline affected and the duration of peak winter voltages. These estimates do not reflect the
implementation of testing and monitoring once the lines are energized, or measures that may be taken
to mitigate potential AC current density levels based on the results of the monitoring (see Section
3.9.7, Mitigation Measures).
As described in Chapter 2, the plan for the Energize Eastside
project is to first operate one circuit at 230 kV and the other would
remain at 115 kV, then eventually operate both circuits at 230 kV.
The imbalance of having two different voltages can have an
impact on the overall AC interference on the adjacent pipelines
and was a factor in the external corrosion results for Alternative 1.
While the total magnitude of current for the 115 kV/230 kV
transmission lines is less than both circuits operating at 230 kV,
the electrical current imbalance between the two circuits can result
in overall higher levels of interference on nearby pipelines.
Fault Damage. PSE plans to use a shield wire on the new
transmission lines (see also Section 3.9.7, Mitigation Measures).
As a result, coating degradation is not anticipated along the
corridor (DNV GL, 2016). Given that no shield wire is currently
present under the No Action (115 kV) condition, Alternative 1
would likely improve conditions related to fault conditions
because the shield wire would reduce the risk of fault damage to
the pipeline (Fieltsch and Winget, 2014).
Arcing Damage. With a shield wire, the distance an arc can travel
from a line fault (arc distance) is estimated to range from 4 to 13 feet under Alternative 1. This would
pose a potential risk for pipeline damage at transmission pole locations where the electrical
grounding rod might be less than 13 feet from the pipeline. This risk is not posed along the entire
length of the corridor; the only affected segments of the pipeline would be those portions of the
pipeline located within the arc distance of the grounding rod (4 to 13 feet). Based on worst-case
estimates of average pole spacing and pipeline configuration at the grounding rods, EDM Services
estimated that 4 percent of the pipelines would be within 13 feet of a grounding rod (see Section
9.3.4 of the Pipeline Safety Technical Report [EDM Services, 2017]).
The results presented above in Section 3.9.5.3 do not reflect the implementation of measures to
mitigate potential arc damage to the pipeline. These measures include the installation of arc shielding
protection, such as buried zinc ribbons (see Section 3.9.7, Mitigation Measures).
Extreme Weather Events and Seismic Hazards. If the overhead transmission lines were damaged
during an extreme weather event or natural disaster, there could be risks to public safety if the poles
fall and damage the buried pipelines. Safety measures would be incorporated into the project design
to address the extreme weather and seismic conditions that occur in western Washington. The final
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐46
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
structural design would comply with NESC 2012 as adopted by the UTC, which also includes
seismic standards. PSE would incorporate NESC design cases, Rules 250B for combined ice with
wind, 250C for extreme wind, and 250D for extreme ice with wind into their design of the overhead
transmission lines. Construction of the overhead transmission lines would satisfy all NESC design
cases related to extreme wind and temperature conditions. Rule 250C considers wind velocities of 85
mph. For the transmission lines, NESC 2012 states that the structural requirements necessary for
wind/ice loadings are more stringent than seismic requirements and sufficient to resist anticipated
earthquake ground motions. In addition, according to ASCE Manual No. 74 (ASCE, 2013),
“transmission structures need not be designed for ground-induced vibrations caused by earthquake
motion because historically, transmission structures have performed well under earthquake events,
and transmission structure loadings caused by wind/ice combinations and broken wire forces exceed
earthquake loads.” Nonetheless, load comparisons would be performed between a seismic event and
extreme weather conditions to ensure that the appropriate structural design would be able to
withstand either of these conditions.
Alternative 1 Impacts Conclusion
Based on the results of the risk assessment, the probability of a pipeline release and fire occurring
and resulting in fatalities remains low under Alternative 1. However, the potential public safety
impacts could be significant if this unlikely event were to occur.
Under Alternative 1, the probability of a pipeline incident could be slightly higher in some locations
when compared with the No Action Alternative. In these areas, testing, monitoring, engineering
analysis, and implementation of mitigation measures would lower these risks. In areas where AC
current density could be a concern, testing and monitoring would be conducted and mitigation
measures (e.g., grounding mats) installed to reduce AC currents to acceptable levels. In areas where
the pipelines would be within 13 feet of transmission line pole grounds, additional engineering
analysis would be conducted and mitigation measures implemented to reduce fault risks (e.g., arc
shielding protection). See Section 3.9.7, Mitigation Measures for measures that would lower the
risks.
The individual and societal risks described above would be similar across all Alternative 1 segments
and options. However, the risk would be reduced in segments and options with fewer miles of the
transmission line co-located with the Olympic Pipelines. Bypass Option 2 has the lowest number of
co-located miles in the Bellevue Central Segment, and the Willow 1 Option has the lowest number of
co-located miles in the Bellevue South Segment. Table 3.9-5 lists the length of the Olympic Pipelines
(both the 20-inch and 16-inch diameter pipelines) co-located with the transmission lines in the
segment options.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐47
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Table 3.9-5. Miles of Transmission Line and Olympic Pipeline Co-location in Study Area
with Alternative 1, by Segment Option
Location/Segment
Miles of Co-location Highest and Lowest
Number of Co-Located
Miles 20-inch diameter 16-inch diameter
Bellevue Central Segment
Existing Corridor Option 2.9 2.9 Highest number of co-located
miles in segment
Bypass Option 1 0.91 0.91
Bypass Option 2 0.60 0.60 Lowest number of co-located
miles in segment
Bellevue South Segment
Oak 1 Option 3.2 3.3
Oak 2 Option 5.3 3.3 Highest number of co-located
miles in segment
Willow 1 Option 1.2 3.3 Lowest number of co-located
miles in segment
Willow 2 Option 2.1 3.3
As described above, the lack of available data for existing fault and arc distance conditions required
the risk assessment to use certain assumptions for the No Action Alternative condition that would
allow for a worst-case analysis of Alternative 1. Using these assumptions likely understates the
existing risk (No Action), thereby overstating the actual difference in risk between the No Action
Alternative and Alternative 1. Even with these assumptions, the likelihood of a pipeline rupture and
fire would remain low, and no substantial change in risk has been identified. As a result, the potential
risk is not considered significant. With implementation of the mitigation described in Section 3.9.7,
conditions related to potential for fault damage due to coating stress and arc distances would likely
improve under Alternative 1 over the existing operational baseline condition (No Action Alternative)
(DNV GL, 2016).
For additional details about the analysis of risks under Alternative 1, see the Pipeline Safety
Technical Report (EDM Services, 2017).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐48
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Methods for Assessing
Long-Term Impacts on
Resources
To determine long-term
impacts on resources in the
event of a pipeline spill or fire
caused by construction or
operation of the proposed
project, the EIS Consultant
Team considered the types of
impact and potential extent of
damage. The length (miles) of
pipeline co-located with the
proposed transmission lines
by segment and option was
considered in the assessment,
as well as the impact distance
identified in the Pipeline Safety
Technical Report for a fire.
3.9.6 Long-term Impacts on Resources
Implementation of the regulatory requirements identified in Section
3.9.1, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations, and the mitigation
measures described for pipeline safety in Sections 3.9.7 and 4.9.4,
will reduce the chances of a pipeline incident occurring. However,
some level of risk would remain, and it is possible that petroleum
products transported through the Olympic Pipelines could still enter
the environment, or a fire could occur, as a result of proximity to the
transmission line under the No Action Alternative or Alternative 1.
In addition to the public safety risks described above, natural
resources and other elements of the environment could be
significantly affected if an unintentional release or fire were to
occur. This section describes the potential impacts of a spill or a fire
on the natural and built environment in the unlikely event that a
pipeline release were to occur. It describes the types of impacts on
each element of the environment addressed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
The impacts of a spill depend on the magnitude of the spill (i.e.,
volume of material released and extent of area affected); the type of
material released; and the location (e.g., near a sensitive area). Because the Energize Eastside project
does not affect pipeline pressure and flow rates, or other operating parameters of the pipeline, the
potential characteristics of a spill or fire would be the same regardless if it occurred under the No
Action Alternative or Alternative 1.
The greatest potential for environmental harm would be if a release enters or directly occurs in a
water body, as spilled materials can spread more quickly and can be difficult to contain and remove.
The Olympic Pipelines carry diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline, which are very light or light oils. These
types of oils evaporate within a few days, with the light oils leaving a residue. Very light and light
oils can have localized and significant impacts; however, they tend not to persist long-term in the
environment, lasting up to a few weeks (Ecology, 2016; NOAA, 2016).
A pool fire (fire) could result from a spill, but not all spills would result in a fire. For a fire to occur,
an ignition source would be needed. The potential risk of a fire from a pipeline rupture is described
Section 3.9.5, Risks from Operation, and Section 4.9.1, Risks from Construction. Potential impacts
would depend on how and if the fire spreads, which would depend on vegetation, structures, and
other conditions at the site. The nature and extent of the environmental damage from a fire can be
quite varied. For example, the pool fire diagram in Figure 3.9-7 shows an area of approximately 1
acre that could have temperature high enough to cause fatalities. A spill of the same volume could
spread over a larger area due to topography, especially if the spill reached a water body. Although the
spill would not be as concentrated, the extent of damage could extend to several acres. If in a wooded
area and during dry season, a pool fire could spread even farther if not contained by firefighters.
Because of these variables, the impacts of a fire on resource areas are described here in general
terms.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐49
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Land Use and Housing
A release of material from the Olympic Pipelines could foul buildings, contaminate soil, and damage
vegetation. If residential buildings are fouled by the spill, structures may need to be demolished,
which could temporarily reduce available housing units. Planned future development consistent with
policies adopted by affected cities may not occur if contaminated properties are not promptly
remediated. Depending on the time it takes to remediate the soil and rebuild damaged buildings, there
may be a long-term displacement of businesses and residents.
Depending on the location, size, and extent, a fire could destroy or damage houses, commercial
buildings, other structures, and vegetation. This would reduce the amount of available housing until
structures are rebuilt, displace businesses, and potentially change neighborhood character.
Impacts on land use and housing associated with pipeline spills or fires would be highest if they
occurred in areas with high population or employment density, areas with unique land uses (such as
hospitals or schools), or areas planned for redevelopment or intensification of land uses.
Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment
A spill has the potential to negatively affect the aesthetic environment, in particular the natural
environment (e.g., vegetation). Spilled material can damage vegetation, negatively affecting the
visual quality of the area. See the Plants and Animals section below for further explanation. The
reduction in visual quality would depend on the type of material spilled, location, and size of the
release.
A fire from a pipeline release could substantially degrade the visual quality of surrounding landscape.
Visual effects of a fire can include areas with extensive burn damage to structures, facilities, and
vegetation. This type of physical damage would alter and degrade the visual quality of the affected
area until the landscape is restored. The extent of impact would depend on the size and location of
the fire. Areas of higher visual quality would be most susceptible to aesthetic impacts from spills or
fires, such as undeveloped wooded areas or areas with orderly urban form.
Water Resources
Materials from a spill can directly enter streams, wetlands, and lakes or could be washed into those
water bodies by stormwater. The spills could degrade water quality and contaminate sediments,
which can be toxic to aquatic plants and animals. Materials could also move downstream, spreading
quickly and contaminating a larger area than if a spill occurred on land. Spills also have the potential
to infiltrate and contaminate groundwater. In Renton, the drinking water supply comes from
groundwater, and aquifer contamination would require expensive cleanup or finding an alternate
water supply.
Depending on the location, size, and extent, a fire could destroy or damage vegetation in and adjacent
to wetlands and streams. This could expose soils and increase erosion of sediments, which could
negatively affect water quality. Damage to vegetation could change the function and extent of
wetlands. Reduced riparian vegetation could also increase water temperature in streams.
Additionally, byproducts from the fire, or chemicals used in firefighting or cleanup efforts could
contaminate water resources. Byproducts or chemicals also have the potential to enter the
groundwater and contaminate drinking water.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐50
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Impacts on water resources associated with pipeline spills or fires would be highest if they occurred
in areas with rivers or streams and associated riparian areas or aquifer recharge areas.
Plants and Animals
Vegetation can be damaged by direct physical and chemical interactions associated with a spill. The
nature of impacts depends on the duration of exposure, the type and quantity of the material spilled,
location of the release, the potential for ignition (described below), and the sensitivity of species. Full
restoration to original conditions can take many years. If a spill were to enter a watercourse, it could
damage aquatic vegetation and terrestrial vegetation along the shoreline downstream. If the fuel were
to persist in the environment, it can affect the long-term ability of vegetation to recover (Hoffman et
al., 2003).
A spill can affect terrestrial and aquatic animals by physical smothering or toxic effects. Animals that
contact spilled material could be physically coated by petroleum products, inhale vapors, or ingest oil
when foraging or grooming. Aquatic-oriented species (including fish, wading birds, waterfowl, frogs,
and salamanders) are more susceptible when oil enters a water body because the spill would spread
throughout the water body or downstream. Sensitive areas or species as identified in Section 3.4,
Plants and Animals, are particularly susceptible (Ecology, 2016).
Impacts to plants from a fire would depend on the vegetation species and communities exposed, as
well as the duration and temperature that plants are exposed to. Low-lying ground cover and shrubs
would recover much quicker than forested areas with mature trees. The longer the exposure and the
higher the temperature, the more likely injury or death of plants would occur. The loss of vegetation
can also provide an opportunity for invasive non-native species to become established and spread.
Also, trees that survive may be more susceptible to disease, fungus, or insects.
Animals can be injured or killed by a fire if they are close enough to the event. Animals that can will
move away from a fire; however, some animals with limited mobility, such as newly hatched birds,
may not be able to move, and others react to danger by hiding and would be more susceptible to
injury or death (USDA, 2000).
Impacts on plants and animals associated with pipeline spills or fires would be highest if they
occurred in forested areas with mature trees or aquatic and terrestrial habitats, or during a season
critical for the life cycle of a certain species (for example, spawning season for fish).
Greenhouse Gases
Activities that release GHGs contribute to the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, a driving
force in global climate change. After a spill, gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel would begin to evaporate,
releasing greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, N2O, and CH4. The resulting GHG impacts would depend
on the amount of GHGs released into the atmosphere.
A fire would also result in the release of GHGs, primarily from burning structures and trees. The
resulting GHG impacts would depend on the amount released and amount ignited. The highest
amount of GHGs released would occur if the fire damaged a forested area with mature trees.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐51
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Recreation Resources
If a spill were to occur near a recreation site, it could affect recreation opportunities, depending on
the scale of the spill. Small spills may have a temporary impact on access to a site during clean-up
efforts. Larger spills may directly harm or kill vegetation. The loss of or damage to vegetation would
negatively impact the recreation user experience. People may avoid a site or be prohibited from
entering a contaminated area. Recreation sites downstream of the pipeline could be affected if a large
spill were to enter a watercourse.
If a fire were to occur near a recreation site, it could substantially degrade the environment and affect
recreation opportunities. Impacts on recreational resources would include the destruction or physical
damage by the fire to the resource itself. The loss of or damage to vegetation would detract from the
aesthetic quality of a recreation site and negatively impact the recreation user experience, or preclude
its use altogether. A recreation site may be temporarily closed during cleanup efforts or if the fire
were to leave the area unsafe (e.g., damaged trees).
Impacts on recreation associated with pipeline spills or fires would be highest if they occurred in
parks or near recreational facilities that receive the highest number of visitors of the parks along the
corridor, or parks with mature vegetation that is part of a recreation user’s experience, or occur
during a park’s peak visiting season.
Historic and Cultural Resources
If material were released in an area where historic or cultural resources are located, these resources
could be impacted. Impacts from seepage may damage a resource’s integrity of design, setting,
materials, workmanship, and feeling, or its depositional context. Impacts to the depositional integrity
of a subsurface cultural resource would be a permanent loss, as these resources are non-renewable.
Incident response or cleanup activities such as excavation or other ground disturbance may impact
historic and cultural resources, but could be mitigated through a state-issued emergency excavation
permit. Damage to elements of vegetation or the natural environment that contribute to the historical
significance of a resource could negatively affect these resources.
If a fire were to occur near historic and cultural resources, it could destroy or damage historic
structures, buildings, or objects and change the historic character of a landscape. Although structures
can be rebuilt, destruction of a historic or cultural resource would be a permanent loss, as the original
resources are non-renewable. Damage to the surrounding environment and vegetation could impact a
resource’s integrity of setting, and may minimize the resource’s ability to convey its historic
significance. Soil disturbance from restoration efforts could also impact the integrity of subsurface
cultural resources. Impacts from these efforts may be mitigated through a state-issued emergency
excavation permit.
Impacts on historic and cultural resources associated with pipeline spills or fires would be highest if
they occurred in areas with a concentration of historic and cultural resources, such as in a historic
district.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐52
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Economics (Ecosystem Services)
If a spill or a fire were to damage a large number of trees, the ecosystem services associated with
those trees (stormwater regulation, pollutant removal, and carbon sequestration) would no longer be
available. Impacts on ecosystem services would be highest if a spill or fire occurred in a forested area
with mature trees.
Conclusion
As stated above, impacts on these sensitive resources discussed in Section 3.9.6 could be significant
if a pipeline incident were to occur. However, the likelihood of a pipeline rupture and release remains
low under Alternative 1, and implementation of regulatory requirements (Section 3.9.1) and
mitigation measures (Sections 3.9.7 and 4.9.4) would further reduce the probability of a pipeline
incident occurring.
3.9.7 Mitigation Measures
This section describes the mitigation measures that would be used during operation of the project and
recommends additional measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental health and safety
impacts related to pipeline safety. See Chapter 4, Section 4.9.4 for mitigation measures that would be
used during construction. A substantial set of federal, state, and local regulations and practices are in
place to minimize the potential for pipeline incidents that could occur as a result of electrical
inference from the Energize Eastside project. The design features and BMPs that PSE proposes to
use to avoid or minimize impacts during operation and those required by agency standards are
assumed to be part of the project and have been considered in assessing the environmental impacts to
environmental health and safety.
All mitigation measures would be determined during the permitting process, but may be applied prior
to construction, at project start-up, or during operation of the project. For instance, some mitigation
measures (such as integrating where applicable the results and recommendations of DNV GL’s AC
Interference Study [2016] to the design of pole locations, layout, and configuration) would be
incorporated into the project design. Other mitigation measures necessarily would need to be
identified and implemented after the project is energized or during peak winter load conditions in
order to ensure that mitigation measures are appropriate based on measured field conditions.
Mitigation may include the installation of additional protective measures such as grounding mats,
horizontal surface ribbon, and/or deep anode wells based on a detailed mitigation study. Olympic, as
pipeline operator, is responsible for operating and maintaining their pipelines in accordance with
federal standards. PSE, as project applicant, has responsibilities (some of which may be imposed by
jurisdictions with permit authority) to coordinate and cooperate with Olympic, but has limited
authority to influence specific mitigation measures undertaken by Olympic related to pipeline
operation or monitoring. This section first describes the regulatory requirements and responsibilities
of PSE for implementing mitigation measures and of Olympic for operating and maintaining their
pipelines in accordance with safety standards and applicable laws. Next, the section identifies
additional potential mitigation measures for ensuring that public safety concerns are addressed. As
part of ongoing coordination between PSE and Olympic, additional mitigation measures may be
identified during final design.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐53
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Regulatory Requirements
PSE Responsiblities and Requirements
PSE is responsible for the Energize Eastside project’s design, construction, and operational
parameters within the shared corridor with the Olympic Pipelines. For PSE, national and state
standards, codes, and regulations, and industry guidelines govern the design, installation, and
operation of transmission lines and associated equipment. The National Electrical Safety Code
(NESC) 2012, as adopted by the UTC, provides the safety guidelines that PSE follows. The NESC
contains the basic provisions necessary for worker and public safety under specific conditions,
including electrical grounding, protection from lightning strikes, extreme weather, and seismic
hazards. PSE would use these in developing final design. The final design of the project has not been
completed; therefore, the exact specifications and standards that would be incorporated into the
project have not been identified.
To address concerns about potential interaction between the Energize Eastside transmission lines and
Olympic Pipelines, PSE and Olympic have coordinated regarding the project since 2012, and both
have indicated they would continue their coordination through final design and construction. PSE
and Olympic meet regularly to discuss, identify, and mitigate potential threats to the integrity of the
pipelines. Over the course of these ongoing discussions, the project plans have evolved to minimize
the potential for impact. PSE plans to integrate, where applicable, the results and recommendations
of DNV GL’s AC Interference Study (2016) to the design of pole locations, layout, and configuration
in order to mitigate potential electrical interference-related impacts on the pipelines (Strauch, pers.
comm., 2017).
Olympic Responsiblities and Requirements
As the pipeline operator, Olympic is responsible for operating and maintaining their pipelines in
accordance with or to exceed PHMSA’s Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR Part 195 (and
Washington State UTC’s adopted and enhanced regulations contained in WAC, Title 480). The
regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent pipeline accidents
and failures. PHMSA specifies minimum design requirements and protection of the pipeline from
internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. In addition, 49 CFR 195 established the following
broad requirements that are imposed on Olympic as the pipeline operator:
49 CFR 195.577(a) requires, “For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a
program to identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such currents.”
49 CFR 195.401 (b) (1) requires, “Non Integrity Management Repairs, whenever an operator
discovers any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it
must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a
nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not
operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.”
Because Olympic, as the pipeline operator, is responsible for the safety of their pipeline in
compliance with federal safety requirements, measures to be used will be determined by Olympic in
coordination with PSE and based on their review of final design, site-specific conditions, and field
measurements. Certain mitigation measures, such as measures to reduce AC density, necessarily
must correspond to specific design and site conditions. Olympic has indicated they will identify
specific measures, or a suite of measures, following their detailed engineering analysis of the final
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐54
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
design and based on site-specific conditions and field measurements conducted at project start-up and
during peak loading scenarios.
Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on results and recommendations of DNV
GL’s AC Interference Study (2016), measures PSE has indicated they will use, and measures the EIS
Consultant Team has proposed to provide additional safety assurances. The applicable measures are
organized based on the stage at which they would be applied (i.e., before construction, at project
start-up, and during operation).
Prior to Construction
Continue to coordinate with Olympic and include safeguards in the project design to protect
nearby pipelines from interaction with the new transmission lines due to AC current density,
faults caused by lightning strikes, mechanical/equipment failure, or other causes.
Apply the results and recommendations of the AC Interference Study (DNV GL, 2016) to the
design of pole locations, layout, and configuration.
Optimize conductor geometry, where a true delta configuration provides the greatest level of
field cancellation.
During project design, field verify the distances between the pipelines and transmission line
poles grounding rods.
Perform an AC interference study incorporating the final powerline route, configuration, and
operating parameters.
Obtain and incorporate all of the pipeline parameters required for detailed modeling and
study (i.e., locations and details of above-grade pipeline appurtenances/stations, bonds,
anodes, mitigation, etc.). This should include a review of the annual test post cathodic
protection survey data.
Fully assess the safety and coating stress risks for phase-to-ground faults at powerline
structures along the entire area of collocation, including both inductive and resistive
coupling.
Fully assess the safety and AC corrosion risks under steady state operating conditions on the
powerline.
Design AC mitigation (as required) to ensure that all safety and integrity risks have been
fully mitigated along the collocated pipelines.
Design monitoring systems to monitor the AC corrosion risks along the pipelines.
Reassess the safe separation distance to minimize arcing risk based on NACE SP0177 and
considering the findings in CEA 239T817.
Ensure that the separation distance between the pipelines and the powerline structures
exceeds the safe distance required to avoid electrical arcing.
In areas where the pipeline is within 13 feet of transmission line pole grounding rods,
incorporate mitigation measures into the project design to prevent ground fault arcing to the
pipelines (see Section 3.9.5.5 for information on arcing distances). Recommended measures
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐55
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
to incorporate into the project design include installing arc shielding protection, consisting of
a single zinc ribbon extending a minimum of 25 feet past the transmission line pole
grounding rods in both directions. The zinc ribbon should be designed so that it is connected
to the pipeline through a single direct-current decoupler.
File a mitigation and monitoring report with the Partner Cities documenting all consultations
with Olympic and mitigation measures to address safety-related issues. The report should
include a plan that identifies the process for identifying mitigation measures following
project start-up, and proposed monitoring to ensure that mitigation related to operational
issues is followed.
At Project Start-up
Install and commission the AC mitigation and monitoring systems prior to energization of the
230 kV powerline.
Install Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) shield wire on the transmission line poles.
After energization, perform a site survey to ensure that all AC interference risks have been
fully mitigated under stead-state operation of the powerline.
Work with Olympic to evaluate and implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
electrical interference on the Olympic Pipelines to safe levels. After the system is energized,
Olympic has informed PSE that they will conduct an engineering/mitigation analysis based
on the field data collected to assess the necessity for the installation of AC grounding, or
similar systems along the pipelines. AC grounding systems are commonly installed in
connection with power transmission poles to dissipate any energy to ground.
Install additional grounding based on the results of the detailed engineering/mitigation
analysis conducted by Olympic. Final mitigation measures and design would be based on
field data collected after the system is energized. Mitigation may include the installation of
additional protective measures such as grounding mats, horizontal surface ribbon, and/or
deep anode wells based on a detailed mitigation study.
During Operation
Operate both circuits at 230 kV to address the AC current load imbalance between the two
circuits (see Section 3.9.5.5 for information on AC current load imbalance). Although the
other proposed measures listed in this section are anticipated to fully address potential
external corrosion issues related to the current imbalance, this measure is recommended,
where feasible, to reduce or eliminate the potential for electrical interference with the
pipeline.
Inform Olympic when the electrical system is operating at, or near, winter peak loading so
that Olympic can conduct testing to ensure that AC current densities do not exceed 20 amps
per square meter in areas where AC current density has been predicted by the AC
Interference Study (DNV GL, 2016) to exceed 20 amps per square meter. PSE would inform
the Partner Cities upon completion of Olympic monitoring and/or mitigation.
Inform Olympic when loading scenarios are expected to be at their greatest to ensure that
Olympic conducts field monitoring and/or mitigation for AC potential greater than 15 volts
and AC current density greater than 20 amps per square meter throughout the project
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.9‐56
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
corridor. PSE would inform the Partner Cities upon completion of Olympic monitoring
and/or mitigation.
To detect any unexpected changes between the pipeline and transmission line, provide
information to Olympic as necessary for Olympic to record AC pipe-to-soil potentials and
DC pipe-to-soil potentials during their annual cathodic protection survey.
Notify Olympic when there are planned outages on the individual circuits, as the AC
induction effects on the pipelines may be magnified when only one circuit (of the double-
circuit transmission lines) is energized.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐1
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
The major revenue sources for the
Partner Cities were identified
based on budget information
provided by the City Clerk’s
offices. Assessed value of
property was compiled from
Comprehensive Annual Financial
Reports, City Budgets, State Audit
Reports.
The cost of undergrounding a
transmission line was based on
generic construction and
operation estimates provided by
PSE. Cost of financing was
estimated assuming that public
bonds would be issued to pay the
costs.
For the ecosystem services
analysis, trees within each
segment or option of the study
area were inventoried by The
Watershed Company between
March 2015 and July 2016 (The
Watershed Company, 2016b).
Data collected during the
inventory included the tree
species, trunk diameter at breast
height, tree height, and health
condition. These data were used
to model the current ecosystem
services value of the trees in each
segment/option using United
States Forest Service (USFS) i-
Tree Eco software (USFS, 2016), a
peer-reviewed software program
that provides urban and rural
forestry analysis and benefits
assessment tools.
Ecosystem services are the
benefits that the ecosystem
provides to humankind. In some
cases, these services can be
assigned an economic value.
3.10 ECONOMICS
This section provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts to economics.
The analysis addresses the following three topics:
1. Potential loss of property tax revenue, especially to the
smallest affected city (Newcastle), due to reduced
property values.
2. Potential cost to the community requesting the
placement of the 230 kV transmission lines
underground as mitigation.
3. Monetary value of lost ecosystem services due to
reduced tree cover.
Economic analysis is not a required element for a SEPA EIS;
however, SEPA provides discretion to agencies to include
economic information in an EIS that could be beneficial to
decision makers, such as information related to environmental
concerns that may not be readily available elsewhere. The
analyses of property tax effects on the City of Newcastle and
the value of lost ecosystem services due to reduced tree cover
were conducted in response to comments received during the
public comment periods for the Phase 1 Draft EIS and the
scoping period for the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The analysis of the
costs of under-grounding was developed because it was
recognized in Phase 1 that the cost of undergrounding the
entire line might be prohibitively high, but that
undergrounding might be viable as mitigation in some areas.
The analysis is intended to assist decision makers considering
whether to require undergrounding as a mitigation measure to
offset environmental impacts.
Study areas vary for these three topics. The Newcastle analysis
focuses on the city limits of Newcastle. The analysis of costs
of undergrounding does not focus on a specific geography
because it is not known where specifically this might be
applied as mitigation, or what area would be involved in
paying for mitigation. The City of Newcastle was selected for
the worst-case scenario because it has the smallest population
(and therefore fewest property taxpayers and/or rate payers) of
the Partner Cities. The assessment of ecosystem services
includes the study area used by The Watershed Company
(2016a) to survey existing trees in the existing and new
transmission line corridors.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐2
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
Property taxes are ad valorem
taxes, that is, taxes levied based
on the determined value of the
item being taxed.
The assessed value of
the property is used to compute
a tax annually levied on
the property owner by a
municipality or other government
entity.
The total assessed value of a
municipality is the sum of all
property values in that jurisdiction.
3.10.1 Major Revenue Sources for the City of Newcastle
The EIS Consultant Team performed an analysis of the revenue sources including property tax
revenues for the City of Bellevue, the largest of the Partner
Cities, as a part of the Phase 1 Draft EIS analysis. This
analysis was included because studies have shown that the
presence of a transmission line can adversely affect the
value of properties adjacent to the transmission line. The
land use and housing analysis in the Phase 1 Draft EIS
addresses this issue in greater detail.
In general, studies have found that the effects on property
values are highest for properties nearest the lines, and tend
to diminish over time after the project is constructed. A
study published in 2016 found similar results except that it
found the effects to vary over time (rather than steadily
diminishing) and to be more pronounced for some
facilities. The results over the entire 2001–2014 sample
period indicate both practically and statistically significant
effects from 138 kV and 69 kV lines but no negative effects
from 345 kV lines. In fact, a slight positive effect was noted for properties within 50 meters of 345
kV lines (Tatos et al., 2016). For the Energize Eastside project, which would replace 115 kV lines
with higher voltage 230 kV lines over the majority of the segments and options, including the
Newcastle Segment, the findings of this recent study generally reinforce the conclusion of the Phase
1 Draft EIS that a small, negative effect is expected from the presence of transmission lines, but does
not suggest that the replacement of lower voltage with higher voltage lines would result in a greater
negative effect than the existing lines have at present.
The analysis conducted for Phase 2 includes an analysis of revenue sources including property taxes
for the City of Newcastle, the smallest of the Partner Cities jurisdictions in both population and
property tax base (FCS Group, 2016). Table 3.10-1 shows the total assessed value (AV) of real estate
in each of the Partner Cities, along with the rate of taxation for City Government in each city (mil
rate). Among the Partner Cities, the City of Newcastle exhibits the greatest sensitivity to a shift in
assessed value and, therefore, is considered a representation of worst-case in terms of susceptibility
to economic impacts from changes in AV.
The City of Newcastle relies on various taxes to cover the cost of governing, including public safety,
community development, transportation projects and parks. The City of Newcastle’s taxes generated
$5.7 million in revenues in 2015, which equates to 75 percent of general fund revenues. These tax
revenues consist primarily of real and personal property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate
transfer fees, and state pass-through taxes.
Of the taxes mentioned above, property taxes make up the majority of Newcastle’s revenues.
Property taxes are a function of ad valorem real and personal property assessments in the City, and
current mil rates. A preliminary estimate of 2015 tax rates based on $1.93 billion in assessed real
estate values and a 1.98883 tax rate, results in $3.8 million in 2015 annual property tax revenues for
the City of Newcastle (see Table 3.10-2). This amount of tax revenue equates to 50.2 percent of the
City’s general fund revenues.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐3
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
Table 3.10-1. Existing Assessed Valuation (AV) Conditions
Jurisdiction 2015 AV
City Government Mil Rate
$ Per $1,000 AV (2015)
Bellevue $40,703,000,0001 0.98085
Kirkland $20,253,626,993 1.50229
Newcastle $1,933,663,273 1.98883
Redmond $15,887,420,578 1.48849
Renton $12,936,757,619 2.83283
1 Estimated value at the time of report. Certified Assessed Value for Bellevue in 2016 was $41,314,916,618,
approximately 1.5% higher than estimated.
Source: City 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, City Budgets, State Audit Reports; Compiled by FCS
Group (2016).
Table 3.10-2. Newcastle Property Tax Rates (2015)
Tax Recipient Mil Rate Annual Revenue (est.)
City of Newcastle 1.98883 $3,845,728
King County 1.34522 $2,601,203
School District 4.59301 $8,881,335
Library 0.50276 $972,169
EMS 0.30217 $584,295
Flood 0.13860 $268,006
State School Fund 2.28514 $4,418,691
Port of Seattle 0.18885 $365,172
Total Property Tax Rate 11.34458 $21,936,598
Source: King County Assessor; Compiled by FCS Group (2016).
3.10.2 Cost of Undergrounding a Transmission Line
PSE estimates that the cost differential between overhead transmission lines and undergrounding
transmission lines is between $16 and $25 million/mile (PSE, 2016). While the cost of the new
transmission line would be paid for by all of PSE’s customers, PSE has stated that its position is
that any cities and/or property owners requesting underground alignments would be required to
pay for undergrounding the lines. PSE’s position is based on their utility rate tariff rule, which
they have interpreted to require the parties requesting the undergrounding, or the “requesting
party,” to pay for the marginal or additional cost above what it would have cost for overhead
lines (PSE, 2016).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐4
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
3.10.3 Tree Cover Along Transmission Line Corridor
Individual trees as well as groups of trees provide ecological benefits and environmental values.
Trees improve air quality by absorbing CO2 and potentially harmful gases, such as sulfur dioxide
and carbon monoxide, from the air, and releasing oxygen. Trees also store carbon, reduce soil
erosion, remove pollutants, and provide food and habitat for birds and other wildlife. The amount
of carbon stored in a tree increases as it grows, as does the tree’s environmental value. Carbon is
stored in the leaves, stems, roots, and other parts of a tree when they absorb CO2 from the
atmosphere and use it to grow. Trees are important for carbon sequestration, because they live a
long time and can store their carbon for many years. Each year, an acre of trees absorbs the
amount of carbon produced by driving a car for 26,000 miles, and an individual urban tree
contains about four times more carbon than individual trees in forests. Some tree species hold
higher value than others based on the magnitude of the ecological functions performed; and
groups of trees have a higher ecological value than a series of isolated trees, because of the
environmental benefits indicated above (ACTrees, 2011).
To determine the ecosystem services provided by the trees currently in the study area, a
statistical model was run for trees surveyed along the existing and new corridors.
In total, approximately 9,400 trees were inventoried in the study area in 2015 and 2016 and used
in the i-Tree model (The Watershed Company, 2016b). The model identifies the current amount
of carbon stored in the trees (based on tree species, diameter of trunk at breast height, and tree
height), and the cost of replacing the tree with a similar tree (called the “structural value”). The
total fixed value of the “forest” (structural value + carbon storage value) within the study area is
nearly $19 million. This represents the ecosystem services provided by the “forest” at a fixed
point in time. Removing all of the study area trees would incur this one-time cost of $18.6
million. The model also identifies the amount of avoided runoff, pollution removal, and gross
carbon sequestration on an annual basis using the following methods (USFS, 2016; i-Tree,
2016):
Annual avoided surface runoff is calculated based on rainfall interception by vegetation,
specifically the difference between annual runoff with and without vegetation. The model
only accounts for the precipitation intercepted by leaves in this analysis. The value of
avoided runoff is based on estimated local values from the U.S. Forest Service
Community Tree Guide Series (as cited in i-Tree, 2016).
Pollution removal is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Air pollution removal estimates are
derived from calculated hourly tree-canopy resistances for ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen
dioxides based on a hybrid of big-leaf and multi-layer canopy deposition models. The air
pollution removal value is calculated based on local incidence of adverse health effects
and national median externality costs.
Annual carbon sequestration is estimated using the current tree condition and the average
diameter growth added to the existing tree diameter to predict the tree diameter and
amount of carbon that will be sequestered in the next year. The value is based on
estimated carbon values from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015) and the
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2015).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐5
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
Methods for Analyzing Long-term
Impacts
The EIS Consultant Team evaluated
impacts to property tax, cost of
undergrounding, and ecosystem
services. The City of Newcastle was
determined to be the most sensitive
to potential changes to property tax
revenues.
The total services value provided by the “forest” per year (gross carbon sequestration value +
avoided runoff value + pollution removal value) is $37,850. The total services value represents
ecosystem services calculated on an annual basis and would fluctuate over time, based on tree
health, tree mortality, and the planting of replacement trees.
The highest number of tree loss would occur in the Bellevue Central Segment, which includes three
route options. The fixed values and services value/year is also the highest for the Bellevue Central
Segment. The Bellevue Central Segment has 38 percent of all of the trees surveyed, but due to the
make-up of tree species, the route has nearly 50 percent of the carbon storage value and 44 percent of
the structural value. A summary of the current ecological value of the trees within each segment and
option is provided in Table 3.10-3.
3.10.4 Long-term Impacts from Operation of the Project
The methods for analyzing property tax impacts, the cost of undergrounding, and ecosystem services
are as follows:
Property Tax: The EIS Consultant Team evaluated the potential impact on the City of
Newcastle’s total revenue based on a hypothetical $10 million decrease in assessed values on
property tax rates and property tax revenues. This
hypothetical change in assessed value is not an estimate
of the actual reduction in value that Newcastle is
expected to experience, but is provided as a generic
degree of impact, as described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS
(see Section 15.6, How Could Operation of the Project
Affect Public Services?).
Cost of Undergrounding: The EIS Consultant Team
determined that the cost to a community for
undergrounding the 230 kV transmission lines could be
paid with a bond by the requesting party, and that the
bond could then be paid off by a group of payees over either a 20- or 40-year period. Two
scenarios were assumed for the bond’s interest rate: current rates typical of bonds issued by the
Partner Cities, and one that assumes a 2 percent increase over current rates. The 2 percent
increase was included to account for possible market fluctuations or other factors that could
affect the actual rates paid. The group of payees was assumed to include the following sizes: 100
payees, 10,000 payees, and 100,000 payees. The impact on the City of Newcastle’s total revenue
and the cost to a community for undergrounding the transmission line were based on a report
prepared by FCS Group, an economic firm that is part of the EIS Consultant Team.
Ecosystem Services: For this analysis, the following ecosystem services associated with tree
cover in the project corridor were assigned an economic value (as described below under
Ecosystem Services Methods): sequestration (storage) of carbon dioxide, the principal
atmospheric greenhouse gas; absorption of air pollutants; and reduction in stormwater runoff and
required infrastructure.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐6 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ECONOMICS Table 3.10-3. Current Ecological Value of Trees in Each Segment Segment Acres No. of Trees Carbon Storage Structural Value Total Fixed Value Gross Carbon Sequestration Avoided Runoff Pollution Removal Total Services Value/ Year Ton $ Ton/yr $/yr ft3/yr $/yr Ton/yr $/yr Richards Creek Substation 7.8 429 148 19,596 1,088,805 $1,108,401 4.0 522 10,607 709 0.08 531 $1,762 Redmond 45.3 776 142 18,780 1,587,880 $1,606,660 4.7 623 21,791 1,457 0.14 1,372 $3,452 Bellevue North 59.6 733 63 8,363 824,729 $833,092 2.7 355 10,386 695 0.07 654 $1,704 Bellevue Central (including all options) 94.3 3,759 1,010 134,336 8,440,413 $8,574,749 30.8 4,090 96,933 6,480 0.63 6,100 $16,670 Bellevue South (including all options) 159.1 3,287 582 77,308 5,722,189 $5,799,497 19.0 2,523 72,811 4,868 0.47 4,582 $11,973 Newcastle 48.7 370 28 3,727 308,160 $311,887 1.5 188 4,399 295 0.03 277 $760 Renton 110.8 499 68 8,949 709,364 $718,313 2.8 364 9,030 604 0.06 569 $1,537 Total 525.6 9,852 2,041 271,059 18,681,540 $18,952,599 65.5 8,665 225,957 15,108 1.48 14,085 $37,858
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐7
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
The magnitude of the operation-related economic impacts evaluated was classified as being either
less-than-significant or significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant – The hypothetical property tax revenue impacts would be considered less-
than-significant if the City of Newcastle could maintain their current level of service for police, fire,
and government services without additional revenue, or a minor change in the mil rate.
Significant – The hypothetical property tax revenue impacts would be considered significant if the
City of Newcastle would not be able to maintain their current level of service for police, fire, and
government services without a major change in the mil rate for all taxpayers or other additional
revenue.
No threshold of significance was set for the costs of undergrounding a portion of the transmission
line, or for the cost of ecosystem services. Undergrounding the transmission line is a proposed
mitigation measure that could be applied by decision makers anywhere along the corridor, and the
exact group of payees that might be selected is unknown. Decision makers would need to consider
the economic status of any payees selected to pay for this type of mitigation, recognizing that for
lower income households, even a relatively small monthly cost could be significant, while for higher
income households, the same cost would not be significant. With regard to ecosystem services, the
costs of such services are spread widely, including costs for energy, health care, and stormwater
management, and not all such costs are borne locally. Cumulative ecosystem service impacts from
this and other projects could be significant, but mitigation measures are available to offset or mitigate
such impacts.
Ecosystem Services Methods: To estimate the loss of ecological services from tree removal
proposed by the project, the i-Tree model was run a second time, but with the trees proposed for
removal deleted from the data set. The number of trees that could be removed along the corridor is
based on a tree database prepared by The Watershed Company for PSE for the Energize Eastside project
(The Watershed Company, 2016b). To present the information as one system of trees throughout the
entire corridor (existing and new), a total of 12 project scenario combinations were identified. All of
the project scenario combinations include Richards Creek substation and the same alignment for the
Redmond, Bellevue North, Newcastle, and Renton Segments. The Bellevue Central Segment has
three option alignments, and the Bellevue South Segment has four option alignments, yielding a total
of 12 project scenario combinations:
1. Existing Corridor Option + Willow 1 Option
2. Existing Corridor Option + Willow 2 Option
3. Existing Corridor Option + Oak 1 Option
4. Existing Corridor Option + Oak 2 Option
5. Bypass Option 1 + Willow 1 Option
6. Bypass Option 1 + Willow 2 Option
7. Bypass Option 1 + Oak 1 Option
8. Bypass Option 1 + Oak 2 Option
9. Bypass Option 2 + Willow 1 Option
10. Bypass Option 2 + Willow 2 Option
11. Bypass Option 2 + Oak 1 Option
12. Bypass Option 2 + Oak 2 Option
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐8
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
Potential Loss of Property Tax Revenue for the City of Newcastle
If Energize Eastside project construction results in a decrease in the amount of AV in the city,
the City would either collect less local property tax revenue or would need to make a
corresponding change to the city mil rate to maintain existing revenue levels. For this analysis, it
was assumed that, if the project did result in a decrease in AV, existing revenue levels would be
maintained and the mil rate would be increased.
As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Chapter 10), transmission lines have been shown to
adversely affect property values. The degree of effect varies widely, and in some cases the
effects diminish with time (Mullins et al., 2003). As a result, the amount of any shift in value due
to the project is difficult to predict. To understand the possible effect this could have on property
taxes, the EIS Consultant Team evaluated the effect of a $10 million shift in assessed value. The
choice of this level of change was selected for sensitivity analysis only, and does not represent
an estimate of the effects that are expected to occur in Newcastle or any other affected city. It is
an arbitrary round number that allows an understanding of how a shift of this magnitude might
affect taxes in a jurisdiction. As an example, in Newcastle, there are 86 adjacent single-family
residences along the existing corridor. For a cumulative decline of $10 million in AV affecting
these homes, property values would have to decline an average of approximately $116,000 per
residence.
To determine the potential impact a $10 million shift in AV would have on each city, the EIS
Consultant Team examined property tax incomes gained or lost in comparison with each of the
Partner Cities’ general fund. Of the five cities analyzed, Newcastle is the most sensitive to a
potential shift in assessed valuation, with a $10 million shift in AV representing 0.26 percent of
the general fund. The other four cities are fairly equal in their relative sensitivity to shifting AV
with the same shift representing between 0.01 percent and 0.03 percent of the general fund
budget.
The implications of shifting assessed valuation are complex and would not necessarily result in a
direct change in property tax incomes for a jurisdiction. Building the Energize Eastside overhead
transmission line could lead to at least three outcomes: (1) a decrease in AV due to reduced
property value, such as from the lines obstructing views, which could consequently result in an
increase in local mil rates; (2) an increase in AV if views are improved in some locations due to
higher lines, which could consequently result in an increase in local property tax revenues (or a
decrease in the mil rate); and (3) an increase in utility asset AV due to investment in
transmission and capacity, which may or may not result in an increase in local property tax
revenues. This analysis focuses on decreases in AV, while recognizing that other increases would
also occur.
Property taxes are levied by action of a city council, up to a statutory maximum rate and subject
to a 101 percent lid on property tax increases (not counting new construction, improvements to
property, state assessed utility value increases, and wind turbines, solar, biomass, and geothermal
facilities). By November 30 of each year, the amount of taxes to be levied by taxing districts are
certified by the county assessor who computes the levy rate necessary to raise that amount of
revenue required and calculates the levy mil rate necessary by dividing the total levy amount by
the assessed value of taxable property in the district1. The implications of a $10 million decrease
1 See “Property Tax Within Washington State” http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Finance/Revenues/The-Property-Tax-in-
Washington-State.aspx). Referendum 747, approved by voters limits property tax increases to 1% in taxing districts of less than
10,000 people, and the lesser of 1% or the rate of inflation, in other taxing districts. The voters of any taxing district, excluding
the state, may approve an increase of greater than 1% using a levy lid lift.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐9
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
in AV in each of the Partner Cities are displayed in Table 3.10-4. This table uses the 2014
median home value because it was the latest available from the U.S. Census.
Table 3.10-4. City Property Tax Implications if Assessed Value Decreases by $10 Million
Jurisdiction
2014 Median
Home Value
2015
City Mil
Rate
Annual Property
Tax Paid by Home
of Median Value
(city levy)
Resulting Mil
Rate if AV
Decreased by
$10 Million
Resulting
Increase in Tax
Bill for Median
Home
Bellevue $538,300 0.98085 $528 0.98109 $0.13
Kirkland $424,700 1.50229 $638 1.50303 $0.32
Newcastle $509,300 1.98883 $1,013 1.99917 $5.27
Redmond $462,200 1.48849 $688 1.48943 $0.43
Renton $282,400 2.83283 $800 2.83502 $0.62
Source: City 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, City Budgets, Sate Audit Reports, 2010‐2014 U.S. Census American
Community Survey; Compiled by FCS Group (2016).
A $10 million decrease in AV in Newcastle could result in a mil rate increase and corresponding tax
expenditure increase for the average (median) Newcastle homeowner of approximately $5.27
annually. For context, Newcastle has a median household income of approximately $110,000 (U.S.
Census, 2016), so this represents a very small fraction of median household income. If the City
Council did not want the mil rate to increase, the City would need to reduce its budget (for items
covered by property tax) by approximately $20,000. Based on this analysis, a project with a $10
million AV decrease is likely to have a less-than-significant impact on property tax revenues for the
City of Newcastle, and would not affect the ability of the City to provide services.
Other potential fiscal impacts of the Energize Eastside project on Newcastle that have not been
quantified could include changes in AV of the PSE utility line, real estate transfer tax revenues, and
other miscellaneous fees and development charges that would add to City tax collections.
Potential Cost to the Community for Undergrounding Transmission Line
The sensitivity analysis of the distribution of increased marginal costs illustrates the potential
financial costs for those customers that make up the “requesting party” for undergrounding 1 mile of
transmission line. The concept behind using the 1-mile increment is that it could be used to calculate
the approximate cost that would be applied for any given portion of the transmission line by
multiplying the costs shown in this analysis by the length of the proposed underground segment.
Because costs must be paid up front by a requesting party, it is assumed that a bond would be used to
pay the costs, and that the bond would then be paid off by a group of payees over a period of time.
PSE typically amortizes its costs for this type of capital improvements over a 40-year period, but a
requesting party might choose a shorter timeframe.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐10
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
The analysis looks at the lower end of the cost range and the higher end in order to show the potential
range of costs. The lower end of the cost range is for construction in an existing corridor, while the
higher range is more typical of costs for construction in a street right-of-way. Due to the presence of
the Olympic Pipeline, there could be construction constraints that would not allow for the
transmission line to be built in the existing corridor.
Table 3.10-5 summarizes the monthly customer costs associated with the per mile costs of
undergrounding; it includes the $16 million/mile scenario and a 20-year and 40-year amortization
schedule (bond term), along with a range in the number of payees, while Table 3.10-6 includes the
$25 million/mile scenario.
Table 3.10-5. Sensitivity Analysis: $16 million in “Undergrounding Costs” (Average
monthly cost per payee)
# of payees
20-Year Financing 40-Year Financing
“A” Rated
Bond*
“A” Rated Bond
(plus 2%)**
“A” Rated
Bond*
“A” Rated Bond
(plus 2%)**
100 payees $896 $1,073 $601 $810
1,000 payees $90 $107 $60 $81
10,000 payees $9 $11 $6 $8
100,000 payees $0.90 $1.07 $0.60 $0.81
* Assumes "A" rated municipal bond rates = 2.47% yield for 20‐year bond, and 2.95% for 40‐year bond; and 5% collection
charge.
** Assumes "A" rated municipal bond rates (see above) plus 2% (200 basis points); and 5% collection charge.
Source: analysis by FCS GROUP using trade weighted curve bond yields as of 8/30/2016; costs are in 2016 dollars.
Table 3.10-6. Sensitivity Analysis: $25 million in “Undergrounding Costs” (Average
monthly cost per payee)
# of payees
20-Year Financing 40-Year Financing
“A” Rated
Bond*
“A” Rated Bond
(plus 2%)**
“A” Rated
Bond*
“A” Rated Bond
(plus 2%)**
100 payees $1,399 $1,677 $939 $1,266
1,000 payees $140 $168 $94 $127
10,000 payees $14 $17 $9 $13
100,000 payees $1.40 $1.68 $0.94 $1.27
* assumes "A" rated municipal bond rates = 2.47% yield for 20‐year bond, and 2.95% for 40‐year bond; and 5% collection
charge.
** assumes "A" rated municipal bond rates (see above) plus 2% (200 basis points); and 5% collection charge.
Source: analysis by FCS GROUP using trade weighted curve bond yields as of 8/30/2016; costs are in 2016 dollars.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐11
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
This analysis of the costs of undergrounding is not intended to indicate what would or would not be a
significant impact, as there is no policy basis or context to make that assessment. As is clear from the
analysis, the burden on a very small number of payees would be considerable, while the cost for a
single mile when shared among 100,000 payees could be on the order of $20 per year or less.
Tree Cover Along Transmission Line Corridor
Alternative 1 would require tree removal along the existing corridor and new corridor. The loss of
tree cover means the natural environment of the study area would be less able to reduce air
pollutants, reduce stormwater runoff, and sequester carbon dioxide. The loss of tree cover varies by
scenario and is presented in Table 3.10-7. Bypass Option 1 would result in the largest losses in
ecosystem services.
The project corridor would lose 140–800 tons of carbon stored in trees, and a loss of 13–30
tons of carbon sequestered per year (depending on the scenario).
The project corridor would lose its ability to remove less than 1 ton of air pollutants annually,
valued at $4,000 to $7,500 per year (depending on the scenario).
Without tree canopy to reduce stormwater runoff volume, the municipalities within the study
area must manage an additional 55,000–117,000 cubic feet of stormwater per year, valued at
$3,900–$7,800 (depending on the scenario).
The City of Bellevue conducted an ecosystem services analysis city-wide based on 2007 tree canopy
information (American Forests, 2008). In 2007, the City of Bellevue had an overall tree canopy of 36
percent. The ecosystem services provided by Bellevue’s tree canopy in 2007 is summarized below to
provide context by which to measure the scale of the impact to ecosystem services under
Alternative 1:
Bellevue’s tree canopy stored 332,000 tons of carbon in trees, and sequestered 2,582 tons of
carbon per year.
Bellevue’s tree canopy removed 344 tons of pollutants annually at a value of $1.55 million
per year.
Bellevue’s tree canopy provided 62 million cubic feet in stormwater detention services per
year, valued at $123 million.
The total ecosystem services lost as a result of Alternative 1, when compared to Bellevue alone
would constitute less than 0.2 percent of the services provided by urban tree cover, which is not
considered to be a large amount.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐12 CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017 ECONOMICS Table 3.10-7. Loss of Ecological Value by Scenario Scenario # of Trees Removed Loss of Carbon Storage Loss of Structural Value ($) Total Loss of Fixed Value ($) Loss of Gross Carbon SequestrationLoss of Avoided Runoff Loss of Pollution Removal Total Loss of Services Value/ Year ($) Ton $ Ton/yr $/yr ft/yr $/yr Ton/yr $/yr Ex. Corridor – Willow 1 4,016 540 71,391 5,539,226 5,610,617 20.4 2,668 76,3905,109 0.5 4,90412,681 Ex. Corridor – Willow 2 4,626 666 88,130 6,803,428 6,891,558 24.6 3,219 93,1276,228 0.615,98915,436 Ex. Corridor – Oak 1 4,021 633 83,709 6,153,578 6,237,287 22.4 2,936 84,1245,626 0.555,36413,926 Ex. Corridor – Oak 2 4,588 696 92,182 6,922,824 7,015,006 25 3,277 96,4276,448 0.636,21615,941 Bypass 1 – Willow 1 5,203 1,037 137,4629,338,116 9,475,578 33.9 4,463 115,2647,708 0.777,03519,206 Bypass 1 – Willow 2 5,813 1,162 154,20210,602,517 10,756,719 38.1 5,014 131,9258,821 0.878,13821,973 Bypass 1 – Oak 1 5,208 1,129 149,7809,952,467 10,102,247 35.9 4,731 123,0648,229 0.827,49420,454 Bypass 1 – Oak 2 5,775 1,193 158,25410,721,713 10,879,967 38.5 5,072 135,1949,040 0.898,36222,474 Bypass 2 – Willow 1 4,656 916 121,3878,462,290 8,583,677 29.8 3,919 103,6796,933 0.696,38217,234 Bypass 2 - Willow 2 5,266 1,042 138,1279,726,691 9,864,818 34 4,470 120,3568,049 0.797,48520,004 Bypass 2 – Oak 1 4,661 1,008 133,7059,076,641 9,210,346 31.9 4,188 111,4337,453 0.746,83918,480 Bypass 2 – Oak 2 5,228 1,072 142,1799,845,887 9,988,066 34.4 4,529 123,6348,268 0.817,70820,505
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 3.10‐13
CHAPTER 3 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
3.10.5 Summary
For the scenarios evaluated, impacts to property taxes associated with reduced property values is
expected to be a less-than-significant impact.
The cost of undergrounding, using a worst-case scenario, could be a significant impact if a relatively
small number of property owners/payees share the cost. The cost would likely be less than significant
if a large number of property owners share the cost.
Ecosystem Services are not expected to be significantly impacted by the project, even for the option
that results in the highest number of trees being removed.
3.10.6 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation for economic impacts from a project is not required under SEPA; however, potential
impacts to City revenues due to decreased assessed value for property could be mitigated by an
adjustment to the mil rate for all taxpayers or a reduction in expenditures to match the reduced
revenues.
4
Short-term (Construction) Impacts
and Potential Mitigation
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.1‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
LAND USE AND HOUSING
CHAPTER 4. SHORT-TERM (CONSTRUCTION)
IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION
This chapter describes short-term (construction) impacts that could result from construction of
Alternative 1. Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur; therefore, the No
Action Alternative is not evaluated below. For the purposes of this Phase 2 Draft EIS, impacts
associated with routine maintenance of the existing transmission lines (e.g., occasional replacement
or repair of poles, wires, and related equipment) are assessed as part of Chapter 3, Long-Term
(Operation) Impacts and Potential Mitigation.
4.1 LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The magnitude of project-related impacts to land use and housing is classified as being less-than-
significant, or significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant – Construction activities are disruptive (e.g., noise and dust are
generated) but not to the extent that current use of the property is altered and is for a duration
that would not infringe on the use or access of the parcel or housing structures thereupon.
Significant – Construction activities are disruptive and/or continue for an interval long
enough to infringe on the current use of the parcels in the study area by causing a nuisance
(e.g., noise, dust, etc.) that changes the use of the land or by impeding access to the parcels or
housing structures thereupon.
4.1.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation
and 230 kV Transmission Lines)
Construction of the project would entail the installation of poles and stringing of conductor wires.
According to PSE, pole installation requires 3–7 days each (within a 2-month work window), no
significant excavation is required, access to adjacent land uses would be maintained, and installation
would not create significant noise. Any nuisance caused by the construction activities of Alternative
1 would be less-than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.2‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
SCENIC VIEWS AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC
ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The Phase 1 Draft EIS described the types of project-related construction impacts that could affect
the visual environment of the study area. Common construction-related impacts include clearing and
grading or general construction activities (e.g., the presence of construction workers, vehicles, or
equipment). Impacts would likely result from the creation of short-term, construction access roads;
temporary vegetation clearing to facilitate construction; or the increased presence of construction
vehicles, equipment, materials, and personnel, as well as the potential for increased light and glare
associated with construction site lighting.
Project-related impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment are classified as being less-
than-significant or significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant:
Aesthetic environment - The degree of contrast created by construction activities (e.g.,
temporary access roads, temporary vegetation clearing, construction equipment, light and
glare) would not be more intense in scale and duration than typical construction activities
associated with linear projects, or viewer sensitivity would be low.
Scenic views - The area with impacted scenic views would not include a substantial
number of sensitive viewers; the degree of additional obstruction of views compared to
existing conditions would be minimal; or the degree of scenic view blockage would be of
short duration (1-3 years).
Significant:
Aesthetic environment - The degree of contrast created by construction activities (e.g.,
temporary access roads, temporary vegetation clearing, construction equipment, light and
glare) would be substantially more intense in scale and duration than typical construction
activities associated with linear projects, and viewer sensitivity would be high.
Scenic views - The area with scenic views impacted includes a substantial number of
sensitive viewers, defined as residential viewers, viewers from parks and trails, or
viewers from outdoor recreation facilities; the degree of additional obstruction of views
compared to existing conditions would be substantial; and the degree of scenic view
blockage would be of long duration (more than 3 years).
4.2.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation
and 230 kV Transmission Lines)
During the Phase 1 Draft EIS evaluation, the EIS Consultant Team determined that construction
impacts to the aesthetic environment and scenic views, due to their temporary nature, would be less-
than-significant. Areas cleared for temporary construction activities (including construction access
roads) would be replanted post construction; the presence of construction vehicles, equipment,
materials, and personnel would end; and increased light and glare would terminate after construction.
No further evaluation of construction (short-term) impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic
environment was conducted for this Phase 2 Draft EIS.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Methods for Analyzing
Short-term Impacts
The EIS Team used the same
mapping methods used for
long-term (operation) impacts
to determine the short-term
(construction) impacts.
Impacts were also assessed
based on project construction
methods, the scale of
construction activities, and
proximity of these activities to
water resources. The impact
analysis considered the extent
of vegetation clearing,
construction grading, and
other project actions.
4.3 WATER RESOURCES
4.3.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The project has the potential to cause minor impacts to water resources, in particular water quality,
due to construction site runoff, dewatering discharge, accidental spills, temporary vegetation
clearing, and operation of heavy equipment. The scale and proximity of construction activities to
water resources determined the intensity of potential impacts. The analysis considered the cumulative
impacts and potential mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate project impacts to water
resources. For this analysis, the magnitude of project-related impacts is classified as being less-than-
significant, or significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant –Impacts to water resources would
be considered less-than-significant if project activities
would cause temporary or minor permanent alterations to
or disturbance of water resources; impacts can be fully
mitigated, according to permit requirements; or impacts
are largely avoided by the implementation of BMPs.
Significant – Impacts would be considered significant if
project activities would cause the permanent or net loss of
wetland or buffer acreage or impairment of functions that
cannot be fully mitigated; would be in noncompliance
with applicable water quality standards; or would cause
groundwater contamination that cannot be avoided by
construction BMPs.
4.3.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts:
Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines)
Richards Creek Substation
Construction of the Richard Creek substation facilities would require clearing and grading of
approximately 2 acres. Clearing would expose bare soils and stormwater runoff from these areas
could cause increased sedimentation and turbidity to Wetland BC and streams near the site if erosion
from cleared areas is not controlled. Compliance with applicable permits and implementation of
BMPs would control surface water runoff and erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
The Richards Creek substation would not be in a wetland or require wetland fill, but portions of the
substation, including the access road, would be in the Wetland BC buffer. Any impacts to the buffer
would be mitigated in compliance with City of Bellevue requirements (Bellevue City Code 20.25H).
See Section 3.3.5.2 for more discussion of wetland buffer impacts. The access road would cross
Stream C, and constructing the road crossing could increase erosion and sedimentation to the stream.
Compliance with City of Bellevue performance standards (LUC 20.25H.100) and implementation of
BMPs would minimize impacts.
To avoid the wetland, the site would be excavated into the slope on the east side. This would require
approximately 26,500 cubic yards of cut and 8,000 cubic yards of fill. A soldier pile retaining wall
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐2
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
would be installed. Excavation could encounter shallow groundwater and require dewatering as
described in Section 4.3.2.2. Pump tests would be determined prior to construction to determine
potential drawdown and appropriate mitigation. Most of the other substation facilities would be
placed on concrete pads, requiring limited excavation. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater are
anticipated.
The large area of clearing could reduce shading of the wetland, its buffer, and the stream segments
located off-site. These water resources are already in degraded condition, and the clearing would
cause little additional impact. Replanting of areas following construction and buffer enhancement
would be required and make these impacts temporary and less-than-significant.
Table 4.3-1 describes construction impacts to water resources in the study area by segment. Because
the impacts are similar for all segments, the table refers to Section 4.3.2.2.
Short-term (Construction) Impacts Common to All Segments
Construction impacts to water resources would primarily be associated with installing transmission
poles, access roads, and staging areas. Construction of the new transmission line and poles would
have similar impacts for all segments and could potentially cause temporary water quality impacts to
nearby water bodies. Impacts would be temporary and minor with the implementation of BMPs and
temporary and therefore less-than-significant.
Installation of the transmission poles would require excavation for pole foundations. Excavations
would be 4 to 8 feet in diameter and could extend 25 to 50 feet deep. Poles in the existing corridor
would be replaced in approximately the same location as existing poles, minimizing the amount of
additional clearing and disturbance required. Existing poles would be removed and disposed of at an
approved landfill. Some of the options are along a new corridor, and installing the transmission line
would require disturbance of more streams, wetlands, and buffers than in the existing corridor. PSE
would utilize existing roads for access and existing developed areas for staging to the extent possible,
but it is likely that some new roads and staging areas would be required.
The preliminary design indicates that some of the poles would be in wetlands or buffers, although
PSE would try to avoid this whenever feasible. Where unavoidable, installing poles in wetlands
could require fill or disturbance of the wetland, which could potentially cause a loss of wetland
acreage and/or function. Impacts to the acreage and function of wetlands and buffers are described as
long-term impacts in Section 3.3.3.
Construction would require clearing of trees and vegetation within the clear zone (in the managed
right-of-way), which could negatively affect the function of wetlands and buffers and reduce stream
riparian vegetation. Clearing would also expose bare soil and potentially increase erosion and
sedimentation during construction. Implementation of BMPs and sediment and erosion control plans
would reduce potential impacts. Disturbed areas would be replanted and stabilized following
construction to prevent future erosion. (See Section 3.4 regarding replacement vegetation.)
Therefore, these impacts would be temporary and less-than-significant.
Installation of poles in wetlands or buffers would require the clearing of vegetation and excavation,
which would disturb soils and could cause minor, temporary increases of erosion and sedimentation.
Construction vehicles could compact soils and damage wetlands or buffers. PSE would implement
BMPs and provide mitigation in compliance with applicable critical areas regulations, including
mitigation requirements described in Appendix D. Specialized equipment, such as tracked vehicles,
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐3
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
would be used to minimize the extent of wetland disturbance. Implementation of BMPs and
compliance with these requirements would result in less-than-significant impacts to wetlands and
buffers.
No poles would be placed in stream beds, but the transmission line would cross streams in several
locations, as described in Table 4.3-1. These crossings would consist of overhead transmission wires,
which would not impact the stream directly. Restringing the wires would not require construction
equipment or activities in the stream, so no impacts would occur. Construction would not require
diversion or dewatering of any streams. For these reasons, impacts to streams would be less-than-
significant.
The presence of construction vehicles and equipment in the vicinity of streams and wetlands could
result in accidental spills of fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, and other chemicals. These fluids could reach
wetlands, streams, or groundwater if spills are not controlled. Construction contractors would be
required to develop spill prevention plans prior to issuance of the clearing and grading permit, that
would be implemented to minimize impacts, so these impacts would be less-than-significant.
Construction for pole installation would also require excavation up to 50 feet, which could encounter
shallow groundwater. This could require dewatering to remove groundwater that seeps into
excavation areas. The uncontrolled release of dewatering water could contaminate surface waters.
Use of sediment tanks to settle soil particles and potentially filter or treat water pumped from the
excavations would prevent contamination. Because the area of excavation for each pole would be
limited to approximately 8 feet in diameter, any dewatering would be minimal and impacts would be
less-than-significant.
Excavation also has the potential to change or interfere with the flow patterns of shallow
groundwater, and dewatering could cause drawdown of groundwater levels. However, the limited
extent of the excavations would not impact groundwater flows or levels. Pump tests would be
conducted prior to construction to determine the potential for drawdown and settlement, and
appropriate mitigation measures would be developed to minimize impacts.
PSE will establish staging sites to store equipment and materials. Generally, PSE will use already
developed areas for staging, minimizing the need to clear new areas, but some new areas will likely
be required. Clearing of these areas could increase erosion and sedimentation to adjacent water
resources, but implementation of BMPs would minimize impacts. New staging areas would be
restored following construction, so impacts would be temporary and less-than-significant.
Short-term (Construction) Impacts by Segment
Table 4.3-1 summarizes the short-term (construction) impacts for the Richards Creek substation and
transmission line segments and options.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐4
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Table 4.3-1. Impacts to Water Resources in the Study Area by Segment
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Richards Creek Substation
Sedimentation and turbidity Increased sedimentation and turbidity could occur in
the wetlands and stream reaches near the site if
erosion from cleared areas is not controlled.
Implementation of BMPs and compliance with City of
Bellevue stormwater and clearing and grading
regulations (LUC 24.06 and LUC 23.76) would
minimize potential impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to wetlands and
streams
No construction would occur in Wetland BC, but
would occur within its wetland buffer. Construction in
the buffer could increase erosion and sedimentation
in Wetland BC. Construction of the access road
crossing of Stream C could increase erosion and
sedimentation to the stream. Compliance with City of
Bellevue performance standards (LUC 20.25H.100)
and implementation of BMPs would minimize
impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Contamination from accidental
spills or leaks
Oil, fuel, and other chemicals could inadvertently spill
or leak from construction equipment and contaminate
surface and groundwater. Implementation of spill
prevention plans would minimize impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Contamination from dewatering Excavation to install most substation facilities would
be shallow and would not encounter groundwater.
Installation of poles could encounter groundwater and
require dewatering. No contamination from
dewatering is anticipated because the dewatering
would be minimal.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to groundwater flow or
water levels
Excavation to construct the substation would be
shallow and would not impact groundwater flows or
levels. Installation of poles could encounter
groundwater, but the limited extent of excavation
would not impact groundwater flows or levels.
Less-than-
Significant
Reduced groundwater infiltration Heavy construction equipment could compact soils
and reduce the rate of surface water infiltration and
groundwater recharge. Limiting the area of
construction impact would minimize compaction.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐5
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Redmond Segment
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Replacement poles would be located in
approximately the same location as they are
currently. Approximately four poles would be located
in wetlands and approximately seven poles would be
located in buffers. Impacts from installing new poles
and removing old poles from stream and wetland
buffers would be less-than-significant.
Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream crossings The transmission line would cross one stream and the
buffers of two others. Stringing the wires across the
stream would not cause impacts because no
construction activities would occur in the stream.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue North Segment
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
No transmission poles would be located in streams,
wetlands, or buffers, so no impacts would occur.
No Impact
Number of stream crossings The transmission line would cross three streams in
the existing corridor. No new clearing would be
required. Stringing the wires across the streams
would not cause impacts because no construction
activities would occur in the streams.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐6
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
No transmission poles would be located in streams,
wetlands, or buffers, so no impacts would occur.
None
Number of stream crossings The transmission line would cross three streams in
this option in the existing corridor. No new clearing
would be required. Stringing the wires across the
streams would not cause impacts because no
construction activities would occur in the streams.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Two poles would be in wetlands and three in stream
buffers in this option. Impacts from installing new
poles and removing old poles from stream and
wetland buffers would be less-than-significant.
Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream crossings The corridor would cross nine streams. Stringing the
wires across the streams would not cause impacts
because no construction activities would occur in the
streams. The new stream crossings would be cleared,
potentially impacting streams. Impacts would be less-
than significant because mitigation would minimize
impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐7
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Six poles are proposed in wetlands and three in
stream buffers, some in the new corridor. Impacts
from installing new poles and removing old poles
from stream and wetland buffers would be less-than-
significant.
Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream crossings The corridor would cross six streams. Stringing the
wires across the streams would not cause impacts
because no construction activities would occur in the
streams. The new stream crossings would be cleared,
potentially impacting streams. Impacts would be less-
than-significant because mitigation would minimize
impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
No transmission poles would be in streams, wetlands,
or buffers, so no impacts would occur.
No Impacts
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐8
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Number of stream crossings The corridor would cross 12 streams. The route
parallels Coal Creek and would likely require
crossings and buffer clearing. Stringing the wires
across the streams would not cause impacts because
no construction activities would occur in the streams.
The new stream crossings would be cleared,
potentially impacting streams. Impacts would be less-
than significant because mitigation would minimize
impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Impacts would be the same as Oak 1. Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream crossings The corridor would cross 15 streams. The route
parallels Coal Creek and would likely require
crossings and buffer clearing. Stringing the wires
across the streams would not cause impacts because
no construction activities would occur in the streams.
The new stream crossings would be cleared,
potentially impacting streams. Impacts would be less-
than-significant because mitigation would minimize
impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐9
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Two poles are proposed in wetlands (these would
replace two existing poles) and one is proposed in a
stream buffer. Three poles are proposed in buffers
compared to seven existing. Impacts from installing
new poles and removing old poles from stream and
wetland buffers would be less-than-significant.
Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream crossings The corridor would cross seven streams, which is the
same as existing conditions. No new clearing would
be required. Restringing the wires across the stream
would not cause impacts because no construction
activities would occur in the stream. No new impacts
would occur from stream crossings.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Impacts would be the same as Willow 1. Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream crossings The corridor would cross nine streams, which is the
same as existing conditions. No new clearing would
be required. Stringing the wires across the streams
would not cause impacts because no construction
activities would occur in the streams.
Less-than-
Significant
Newcastle Segment
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
No poles are proposed in wetlands, streams, or
buffers, so no impacts would occur.
None
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐10
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Number of stream crossings The corridor would cross two streams, which is the
same as existing conditions. No new clearing would
be required. Stringing the wires across the streams
would not cause impacts because no construction
activities would occur in the streams.
Less-than-
Significant
Renton Segment
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from accidental
spills and leaks
Contamination from dewatering
Impacts to groundwater flows or
water levels
Reduced groundwater infiltration
See Section 4.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to groundwater Portions of the segment are within Zone 2 of Renton’s
Wellhead Protection Area. Compliance with the city’s
construction standards would minimize impacts to
groundwater.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
One pole is proposed in a wetland buffer. Impacts
from installing a pole in a wetland buffer would be
less-than-significant.
No Impacts
Number of stream crossings The corridor would cross four streams, which is the
same as existing conditions. No new clearing would
be required. Stringing the wires across the streams
would not cause impacts because no construction
activities would occur in the streams. No poles would
be placed in the shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar
River.
Less-than-
Significant
4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
The following construction-specific mitigation measures would be required or could be imposed to
reduce construction impacts to water resources. Construction-specific mitigation measures were
identified based on a review of regulations and standard construction BMPs, both of which would be
required. Therefore, no potential mitigation measures are proposed to reduce construction-related
impacts to water resources. However, some of the required and potential mitigation measures
discussed in Section 3.3.6, such as compliance with critical areas ordinances, also have the potential
to mitigate construction-related impacts.
Regulatory Requirements
All of the segments and options would need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local permit
requirements for stormwater, streams, wetlands, and critical areas, and Shorelines of the State.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐11
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Compliance with these requirements would mitigate the potential for short-term adverse impacts to
water resources. Mitigation measures required to comply with such regulations are not appealable.
Prior to Construction
Apply for all necessary permits (BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified in
the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to
implement).
During Construction
Comply with code provisions for the protection of water resources from clearing and grading
activities.
Comply with all necessary permits:
o National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for construction
(issued by Ecology),
o Hydraulic Project Approval (issued by WDFW), and
o Construction Stormwater General Permit.
Implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Temporary Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan to mitigate potential increased sedimentation and turbidity from stormwater
runoff. These plans will include BMPs to ensure that sediment originating from disturbed
soils would be retained, with the limits of disturbance such as the following:
o Temporary covering of exposed soils and stockpiled materials.
o Silt fencing, catch basin filters, interceptor swales, or hay bales.
o Temporary sedimentation ponds or sediment traps.
o Installation of a rock construction entrance and street sweeping.
Implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan to minimize the potential
for spills or leaks of hazardous materials. BMPs in the Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures Plan would include the following:
o Operating procedures to prevent spills.
o Control measures such as secondary containment to prevent spills from entering nearby
surface waters.
o Countermeasures to contain, clean up, and mitigate the effects of a spill.
o Construction vehicle storage and maintenance and fueling of construction equipment will
be located away from streams and wetlands.
Comply with a dewatering plan to monitor groundwater withdrawal during excavations and
to avoid groundwater contamination. This would likely include collecting dewatering water
from excavations and treating it before discharge to surface water or stormwater systems.
Comply with construction standards applicable to Wellhead Protection Zone 4 (RZC
21.64.050D.4.b) in the City of Redmond.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.3‐12
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
WATER RESOURCES
Comply with construction standards applicable to Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2 (RMC 4-
4-030.C8) in the City of Renton. These standards include requirements for the following:
o Secondary containment for hazardous materials.
o Securing hazardous materials.
o Removal of leaking vehicles and equipment.
o Cleanup equipment and supplies.
Monitor soils from construction-related excavation/grading for contamination; if
contaminated soils are encountered, mitigate in accordance with federal, state, and local
regulations.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Methods for Analyzing
Short-term Impacts
The EIS Consultant Team
used the same methods as for
long-term (operation) impacts
to determine the short-term
(construction) impacts to
plants and animals in the
study area. Impacts were
assessed based on the type
and scale of construction
activities and potential habitat
modifications, and the likely
presence of protected fish and
wildlife species.
4.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
The potential effects of short-term (project construction) activities on plant and animal
resources in the study area were assessed on the basis of project construction methods,
the scale of the construction activities, and the quality and proximity of typical species and habitat
resources. The analysis considered the scale of the various project segments and options in
determining potential impacts to species or their habitats, including noise disturbance, the
disturbance or short-term alteration of available habitat, and construction area stormwater runoff.
Impacts were assessed based on the number and type of power transmission facilities installed,
amount of ground disturbance during construction, the presence of natural or critical areas, and the
proximity of construction areas to known or potential species habitats. These include known or
potential nesting, migration, and rearing habitats within the study area.
4.4.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The project is expected to cause temporary (short-term)
modifications of available fish and wildlife habitat, as well as
potential direct impacts to fish and wildlife species. The scale and
proximity of construction activities to these resources determined
the intensity of potential impacts. The analysis considered the
cumulative impacts and potential mitigation measures to minimize
or eliminate project impacts to plant and animal resources. For this
analysis, the magnitude of short-term impacts is classified as being
less-than-significant or significant, as follows:
Less-than-Significant–Impacts to fish and wildlife would
be considered less-than-significant if project activities
would cause temporary, or minor permanent, alterations or
disturbances to study area habitats, including impacts that
could be minimized but not fully mitigated; occur in
developed areas with minimal or poor quality habitat; or
when impacts are mitigated through compliance with tree
protection or critical areas ordinances. This would include
limited interference with the breeding, feeding, or movement of resident or migratory fish,
bird, amphibian, or mammal species. This would also include activities that could cause
harassment, injury, or death to common species, whose populations would not be
substantially altered by such impacts.
Significant–Impacts are considered significant where construction activities would cause the
following: injury, death, or harassment of federal and state listed endangered or threatened
species, or bald eagle and peregrine falcon (state sensitive and federal species of concern); a
reduction of habitat quality or quantity that can substantially affect the critical survival
activities (breeding, rearing, and foraging) of listed species; substantial interference with the
breeding, feeding, or movement of native resident or migratory fish, bird, amphibian, or
mammal species; or noncompliance with tree protection ordinances or critical areas
ordinances.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐2
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts: Alternative 1 (New Substation
and 230 kV Transmission Lines)
Short-term (Construction) Impacts Common to All Components
A range of potential direct and indirect impacts to plants and animals could occur during
construction, including the following: noise disturbance, habitat alteration or loss (vegetation
clearing), degradation of aquatic habitat, and introduction of invasive plant species.
Disturbance from Construction Noise and Human Activity
Increased construction noise and human activity could cause some animal species to temporarily
relocate to surrounding habitats, or in some instances to be displaced. This would be a significant
adverse impact if listed species are harassed, lost, or permanently displaced. However, the
construction activities would not cause excessive noise disturbances, and protected wildlife species
are not known to occupy habitat within the study area. In addition, complying with environmental
permit requirements would minimize the potential for impacts, such as avoiding construction during
sensitive periods (i.e., nesting and breeding seasons). In addition, construction BMPs would be
implemented for Alternative 1 to eliminate or substantially reduce such impacts.
Most of the construction activities would occur in discrete locations (i.e., individual pole locations)
dispersed along the existing corridor and new corridor. The work areas would typically be limited to
the immediate area around the pole locations, where vegetation could be removed to allow a safe
working space for equipment, vehicles, and materials. The amount of ground disturbance would be
limited. Disturbing these small isolated areas would require wildlife to move only short distances to
avoid direct effects, and limit indirect effects to surrounding habitat. The pole locations would also
be chosen to minimize the disturbance of sensitive or critical areas, by typically allowing placement
within approximately 25 feet of the existing poles.
Loss of Habitat
Construction activities that disturb the vegetation and soil would result in the short-term loss or
alteration of habitat for ground-oriented species, thereby decreasing the value of the habitat for
wildlife. The primary factor resulting in habitat loss would be the amount of area needed to install the
poles and wires along the corridor. The construction activities typically consist of excavating a hole
using a vactor truck or auger, to minimize ground disturbance. The poles would either be placed
directly in the hole and backfilled, or reinforced-steel anchor bolt cages would be installed and filled
with concrete to secure the pole. After the poles are erected, either the existing wires would be
transferred to the new poles, or new power lines would be strung between the poles. Stringing new
wires would require additional staging areas to pull the wires and achieve the correct wire tension.
Although no additional vegetation clearing is typically required, some minor grading or ground
disturbance would sometimes be necessary, depending on site conditions. Overall, the amount of
ground-disturbing activities associated with installing the poles and stringing the new conductors
would be limited, and disturbed areas would be replanted to the extent practicable. As a result, these
activities would have less-than-significant impacts to fish and wildlife habitat.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐3
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Sedimentation of Aquatic Habitats
Construction activities adjacent to streams or within wetlands have the potential to increase
sedimentation of aquatic habitats, due to runoff from disturbed areas. While most segments and
options avoid critical areas and their buffers, there are a few instances where pole placements could
result in potential impacts. Such impacts would be significant if protected fish or other aquatic
species are present. However, complying with state and local stormwater permit BMPs, including
installing temporary erosion control measures prior to ground-disturbing activities, would minimize
or eliminate potential impacts. In addition, the limited amount of disturbed area, and the flexibility of
locating poles, would minimize the potential for turbid runoff from reaching sensitive habitats. As a
result, expected impacts would be less-than-significant.
Contamination of Aquatic Habitats
Construction activities adjacent to critical areas or their buffers have the potential to result in
accidental spills of oils, fuels, solvents, and other chemicals from construction equipment. If not
controlled, such spills could enter nearby surface waters and adversely affect aquatic species.
However, such impacts would be minimized or eliminated by fulfilling permit requirements and
implementing Spill Prevention and Control Plans. As a result, expected impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Invasive Plant Control
PSE would replant disturbed areas after construction to reduce the space and opportunity for invasive
species to become established. PSE would also continue to selectively use herbicides for vegetation
management, in accordance existing permits and associated BMPs. Therefore, less-than-significant
impacts are expected.
Short-term (Construction) Impacts by Component and Segment
While the extent and duration of construction activities would vary among segments and options, the
types of construction impacts would be similar for each. The primary difference between segments
and options would be the number of construction sites (pole locations) within the segment or option,
ranging from 11 to 104 poles per segment/option, and the availability and condition of access routes.
For example, access along the Bellevue Central Bypass Options would generally be from existing
roadways, and result in little or no access-related impacts, while access to the north portion of the
Redmond Segment could require access through a vegetated greenbelt with wetland habitat features.
Along most of the existing corridor, the new poles would be placed in the same general area as the
existing poles, using existing access routes, also limiting potential impacts. The analysis of potential
construction impacts considered both existing access routes as well as proposed temporary access
routes for the project.
In addition to access-related impacts, project construction activities have the potential for direct and
indirect impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitat. The installation of new poles would disturb or
replace small areas of existing habitat, although these impacts would generally be offset by the
removal of a similar, or slightly greater, number of existing poles. As described above, the potential
short-term impacts of construction activities on fish, wildlife, and plant species are expected to be
limited due to the low-impact construction methods needed to install the poles and string the
conductors.
Impacts by segment (and the Richards Creek substation) are summarized in Table 4.4-1.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐4
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Table 4.4-1. Impacts to Plants and Animals by Segment and Option
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Richards Creek Substation
Noise disturbance from
ground-clearing activities
Increased noise levels could disturb or displace
species on or near the site. Noise-generating
activities would occur for a relatively short period of
time (several weeks). Other construction noise would
likely be similar to background levels in surrounding
areas, and protected species are not known to
occupy habitat in the vicinity.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) Much of the existing site is already disturbed, and
used as a pole-storage area. As a result, potential
impacts of construction access and construction
staging during installation of the substation would be
limited.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species With the potential exception of lamprey, no
protected aquatic species are expected to occur in
the small streams adjacent to the substation site.
Direct impacts to aquatic habitat would be avoided,
and compliance with appropriate construction BMPs
would minimize the potential to affect aquatic
species.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Discriminating use of growth regulators and
herbicides for vegetation management will be used
in accordance with existing permits and associated
BMPs.
Less-than-
Significant
Redmond Segment
Noise disturbance from
ground-clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts Common to
All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 35 poles (12 less than existing) would
be installed, potentially including up to 11 in
wetlands and wetland buffers. Impacts to available
habitat from installing new poles would be less-than-
significant because the segment is in the existing
corridor and timber mats would be used to access
the pole locations to minimize ground disturbance.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐5
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Impacts to aquatic species With the potential exception of lamprey, no
protected aquatic species are expected to occur in
the small streams in this segment. Direct impacts to
aquatic habitat would be avoided, and compliance
with appropriate construction BMPs would minimize
the potential to affect aquatic habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control As with the Richards Creek substation site, this
would include discriminating use of growth
regulators and herbicides in accordance with
existing management plans and permits.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue North Segment
Noise disturbance from
ground-clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts Common to
All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Loss of habitat (temporary) An estimated 21 poles (17 less than existing) would
be installed, but no poles would be located in
wetlands. Impacts from installing new poles on
available habitat would be less-than-significant
because the segment is in the existing corridor with
available access to minimize ground disturbance.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Several protected fish species could occur in Valley
Creek in this segment. However, no poles would be
located in the stream or buffers, and available
access to the pole sites would minimize or eliminate
potential short-term impacts to aquatic habitat or
species.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond Segment. Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option
Noise disturbance from
ground-clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts Common to
All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 11 transmission poles (14 less than
existing) would be installed. Available access to
these and other pole sites would minimize potential
ground disturbance impacts to available habitats.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐6
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Impacts to aquatic species Several protected fish species occur in the streams
in this option. However, no poles would be located
in streams or buffers, and available access to the
pole sites would minimize or eliminate potential
short-term impacts to aquatic habitat or species.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond Segment. Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
Noise disturbance from
ground-clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts Common
to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 52 new poles would be installed for
this option, potentially including some in wetland
buffer habitats, but access to most poles along
corridor would be from existing roadways. Although
critical area buffer impacts are currently unknown,
because delineation surveys have not been
completed, installing new poles would be less-
than-significant because mitigation would minimize
short-term impacts to available habitats.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species This option crosses nine streams, including several
that support protected fish species. However,
impacts to aquatic species would be less-than-
significant with the implementation of construction
BMPs, and access to most pole locations would be
from existing roadways.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts Common
to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 64 new poles would be installed for
this option, potentially including some in wetland
or buffer habitat; however, access to these sites
would be from existing roadways, thereby
minimizing potential short-term effects to available
habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐7
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Impacts to aquatic species Six streams are located in this option area,
including several that support protected species,
and new poles would likely be installed adjacent to
these streams. As a result, new stream crossings
and buffer clearing could be required. However,
access to these sites would be from existing
roadways, thereby minimizing potential short-term
effects to available habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 86 poles would be installed for this
option (20 more than existing), potentially
including up to 4 additional poles in wetland
habitat, adjacent to a small stream, or within
wetland and/or stream buffers. Access to these
sites would be from existing roadways, thereby
minimizing potential short-term effects to
available habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Twelve streams occur along this segment. The
segment parallels Coal Creek and may require
stream crossings and buffer clearing. Impacts
would be less-than-significant because access to
construction sites would be from existing
roadways, and mitigation measures would
minimize impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) Impacts would be the same as the Oak 1 Option. Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Impacts would be the same as the Oak 1 Option. Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐8
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 40 poles (26 less than existing)
would be installed for this option, potentially
including up to 6 poles in wetlands or wetland
and stream buffers. Impacts from installing new
poles would be less-than-significant because the
option is in the existing corridor, and mitigation
would minimize short-term impacts to available
habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Seven streams are located in this option,
including Coal Creek, which supports several
protected fish species. However, no new impacts
would occur near these streams.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 76 poles (55 less than existing)
would be installed for this option, potentially
including up to 6 poles in wetlands or wetland
and stream buffers. Impacts from installing new
poles would be less-than-significant because a
portion of this option is in the existing corridor,
and mitigation would minimize short-term
impacts to available habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Impacts would be similar to those for Oak 1 and
Willow 1. No new impacts would occur near
these streams.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐9
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Newcastle Segment
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 24 poles (same as existing) would
be installed for this segment, and no poles are
proposed in wetland habitat or buffers. Impacts
from installing new poles would be less-than
significant because the segment is in the
existing corridor and mitigation would minimize
short-term impacts to available habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species May Creek occurs in this segment, and supports
several protected fish species, the same as
existing conditions. No new impacts would
occur at these stream crossings.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
Renton Segment
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 4.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) An estimated 45 poles (24 less than existing)
would be installed in this segment. Potentially
one pole is proposed in a wetland buffer.
Impacts from installing new poles would be less-
than-significant because the segment is in the
existing corridor, and mitigation would minimize
short-term impacts to available habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Five streams occur in this segment, including
Honey Creek and the Cedar River, which
support several protected fish species. No new
impacts would occur at these stream crossings.
No poles would be placed in the shoreline
jurisdiction of the Cedar River.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.4‐10
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
As described above for long-term impacts (Section 3.4.6), PSE would provide mitigation for
potential long-term impacts to fish, wildlife, and plant resources caused by construction, using on-
and off-site habitat enhancements, which would be developed in coordination with local, state, and
federal agencies. In addition, to mitigate for short-term impacts discussed in this chapter, the
following mitigation measures would be used during construction to reduce construction-related
impacts:
Regulatory Requirements
The following measures are required to comply with regulations and are not appealable.
During Construction
Minimize impacts to critical areas and buffers, including Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Areas, to the extent practicable.
Mitigate impacts to critical areas to the levels established by the appropriate jurisdictions and
environmental permit requirements.
Replant and stabilize disturbed construction and staging areas with native trees, shrubs, and
grasses.
Implementation of temporary erosion control measures.
Utilize a Spill Prevention and Control Plan.
Potential Mitigation
During Construction
PSE would continue to implement an ecologically based, integrated weed management
program to control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds at these disturbed areas by
planting native plants.
Flag the limits of construction, trees to be retained, and critical habitat areas and associated
buffers to be avoided.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.5‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
Methods for Analyzing
Short-term Impacts
Short-term construction
emissions of GHGs were
qualitatively assessed with a
construction phase duration of
2 years as the criteria for
requiring BMPs as mitigation.
4.5 GREENHOUSE GASES
4.5.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The following specifically defines project-level short-term
(construction) impacts to GHGs:
Less-than-Significant – The project would result in construction-
related GHG emissions over a limited period not exceeding 2
years.
Significant – The project would result in construction-related
GHG emissions over an extensive construction period exceeding 2
years and not implementing BMPs.
4.5.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts:
Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines)
Construction truck trips, off-road equipment, and worker trips would generate GHG emissions.
Construction equipment would include specialized oversize trucks and trailers, backhoes or
excavators, concrete trucks, and cranes or other specialty equipment to place transformers. Most of
this equipment would operate on diesel fuel, which has an emission factor of 10.15 kilograms of CO2
per gallon.
As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Alternative 1 would have a relatively short construction
period (approximately 12 to 18 months). Installing transformers would be performed concurrently
with the transmission line and poles. Consequently, although Alternative 1 would involve a relatively
large amount of construction equipment, its relatively short duration would result in temporary
construction GHG emissions.
The Phase 1 Draft EIS addressed the potential for lifecycle emissions from manufacturing and
transport of material resources required for Alternative 1. The primary material resources would be
concrete for pier and transformer foundations, steel or laminated wood poles for towers, and
conductors. Of these materials, concrete is likely the most GHG-intensive to produce. Production of
1 cubic meter of concrete generates approximately 101 kilograms (222 pounds) of CO2 (Kjellsen et
al., 2005), which accounts for cement production, aggregate production, water, and transport. The
exact number of foundations is not known at this time because PSE is still evaluating which poles
can be directly embedded, avoiding the need for concrete foundations. A conservative estimate
assuming of approximately 18 miles of transmission lines and a typical spacing between poles of 600
feet, suggests that approximately 180 pole foundations would need to be installed. Assuming caisson
foundations 35 feet deep and 6 feet in diameter, each foundation would require approximately 6
cubic meters of concrete, yielding a minimum GHG estimate for all towers of 109 metric tons of
CO2.
Project-related GHG emissions from construction would be temporary, would not represent a
continuing burden on the statewide inventory, and would likely be below state reporting thresholds;
in addition, in practice, the reporting threshold applies to emissions from a facility and not to
temporary construction activities. Consequently, construction-related GHG emissions would be less-
than-significant.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.5‐2
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
GREENHOUSE GASES
4.5.3 Mitigation Measures
Short-term (construction) GHG impacts would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation measures
are required. However, the following BMPs could be implemented to reduce construction-related
GHG contributions.
Potential Mitigation Measures
During Construction
Use renewable diesel for diesel-powered construction equipment. The fuel can achieve a 40–
80 percent reduction in GHG emissions compared to fossil diesel and is a recommended
component of GHG reduction efforts in other jurisdictions such as the Drive Clean Seattle
program (Seattle OSE, 2012).
Use non-petroleum lubricants for construction equipment.
Replant disturbed construction and staging areas with native trees, shrubs, and grasses.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Methods for Studying Short-
term Impacts
The EIS Consultant Team
used the same mapping
methods used for long-term
(operation) impacts to
determine the short-term
(construction) impacts. They
then considered the type and
scale of construction
activities, the time of year of
construction (e.g., during peak
summer use), duration of
construction, number of users
affected, and type and
number of recreation sites
affected.
4.6 RECREATION
4.6.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
Potential short-term impacts to recreation include the loss of use of a recreation site during
construction activities. The following specifically defines short-term impacts to recreation.
Less-than-Significant – Impacts would be less-than-significant if a recreation site were not usable
for a short duration or if construction activities are noticeable (e.g., decreased visual enjoyment) and
cause irritation to users but do not preclude recreation use (e.g., if a trail is closed for 3 to 7 days over
a 2-month period while a pole is replaced and the lines are
restrung). Impacts would also be less-than-significant if a
recreation site were unusable or access completely blocked outside
of peak use or in a recreation site or area of a recreation site that is
not frequently used (e.g., if construction site access blocks a trail
that is located in a park for a 2-month period while all poles in that
park are replaced and the lines are restrung). Construction on
school property would be less-than-significant if it occurred when
school is not in session (e.g., weekends, summertime).
Significant – Impacts are considered significant if a recreation site
were unusable or access is completely blocked during peak use for
an extended period of time (e.g., a park is inaccessible during the
summer months and many users are affected). Construction
through easements on school property during the school year
would be significant if sports and play fields are not available to
the students (e.g., a soccer field is inaccessible during a
tournament).
4.6.2 Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines
New Richards Creek Substation
Short-term impacts to recreation from the construction of the substation would be less-than-
significant. Students at the Chestnut Hill Academy may hear construction noise in outside play areas
or sports fields, but this is not expected to disrupt their activities.
Impacts Common to All Segments and Options
Activities within a recreation site in the vicinity of construction may be limited for the duration of
active construction (see Section 2.1.3, Construction, for details). For example, where a pole site is
located within a park, the portion of the park nearby could be inaccessible for 3 to 7 days while work
is being done. If poles and access routes are not located in areas used by recreationists, recreation
would not likely be affected. Where a trail is located along PSE’s existing corridor and access to a
number of poles would be along the corridor, the trail could be temporarily closed or rerouted during
active work (i.e., while workers are on-site) until all poles are replaced. For example, if a trail is used
to access four pole sites, that trail could be affected for up to 20 days within a 2-month period. The
trail could remain open provided it was safe, but users would see construction activities and vehicles
on the trail, which may affect user enjoyment. Bicycle and pedestrian use of roads or sidewalks may
be restricted while poles are replaced or constructed along roads. In between active work (i.e.,
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐2
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
between work stages, including evenings and weekends), areas may have indications of construction
(e.g., disturbed soil or a small area cordoned off), but access would be maintained. PSE would work
to maintain access to recreation sites while providing a safe working area for crews and the public.
Recreation users may relocate to nearby parks during construction, making those parks busier than
usual.
Trees and vegetation may be removed within the clear zones within or adjacent to recreation sites to
facilitate project construction and access. Grasses, shrubs, and saplings would be disturbed or cleared
in areas subject to ground-disturbing activities. Temporary vegetation cleared to facilitate
construction will be restored, but areas may be fenced off to allow vegetation to reestablish. Impacts
to recreation from permeant changes to vegetation are described in Section 3.6, Recreation.
Construction vehicles may utilize parking spaces or adjacent street parking during active
construction. In addition, it is possible that recreation sites or facilities may be used for temporary
construction staging. PSE would work with the appropriate cities to identify suitable locations for
staging that would result in minimal impacts to recreation. Such suitable locations may include
overflow parking areas or parts of the site that are underutilized.
After poles are replaced, the site (including any staging areas) would be restored and available for
recreation. Recreation users would be inconvenienced by construction activities; however, impacts
would be short in duration at each recreation site and less-than-significant.
Short-term (construction) impacts at specific recreation sites are summarized by segment in Table
4.6-1. As shown, there would be no impacts or less-than-significant impacts at all recreation sites in
the study area.
Table 4.6-1. Impacts to Recreation Sites in the Study Area by Segment
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Richards Creek Substation
Chestnut Hill Academy Students may hear some construction noise
from outside play areas or sports fields;
however, there would be no change to
recreation during construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Redmond Segment
Willows Crest Park The parcel adjacent to Willows Crest Park would be
used to access 11 pole sites on the easement.
There would no construction in the park, but users
would be disturbed by vehicles driving past the
park intermittently for up to 2 months.
Less-than-
Significant
Willows Creek Neighborhood
Park
Construction would not be visible from the park,
and there would be no disturbance to the park
itself.
No Impact
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐3
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Trails (unnamed on corridor,
between the Sammamish
substation and where the
corridor turns south)
The trail would be temporarily closed while adjacent
poles are replaced. Vegetation may be temporarily
cleared to facilitate construction. Five new poles
are proposed in the vicinity of the trail. This trail
may be closed until all poles are replaced, or users
may avoid the area. Given the number of poles,
work in this area would likely be continuous for
approximately 1 month. As this is not a high use
area, impacts would be limited.
Less-than-
Significant
Unnamed Trails (on the north-
south portion of the corridor)
Trails along the north-south portion of the
Redmond Segment may be temporarily closed
while adjacent poles are replaced. How long a trail
would be affected would depend on proximity to
roads and if the trail is needed to access other
poles. Vegetation may also be cleared to facilitate
construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Rose Hill Middle School Access to playfields would be restricted during
active construction while poles and wires are
replaced. Two H-frames (four poles) would be
removed and replaced with one pole on the school
property. Work would take 6 to 14 days. Vegetation
clearing during construction would be limited
because the area is already cleared. The existing
115 kV lines and monopoles on the east side of the
property would remain.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue North Segment
Bridle Crest Trail No poles are located on this trail. The trail would be
intermittently closed (less than 1 week at a time)
while poles on the adjacent parcel are replaced.
Work would take 3 to 7 days.
Less-than-
Significant
Unnamed Trail along NE 52nd
Ln right-of-way and SR 520
Trail
No poles are located on either of these trails. These
trails may be temporarily closed for 1 day during
restringing of lines across the trails. Restringing of
lines across SR 520 would likely take place at night.
Less-than-
Significant
Viewpoint Park The portion of the park within the existing corridor,
including the trail, may be closed while the poles
(one set of poles within the park) and wires are
replaced. Vegetation clearing during construction
would be limited because the area is already
cleared. Work would take 3 to 7 days.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐4
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Bellevue Central Segment
Existing Corridor Option
Unnamed Trail (on corridor at
Bel-Red Rd and NE Spring
Blvd)
There would be no changes to this section of trail
and therefore no associated construction.
No Impact
Highland-Glendale Property No poles are in this park, and it would not be used
to access other poles. Wires would be restrung
over the park, but ground disturbance is unlikely
and the area is already cleared. The park may be
closed for up to 1 day during restringing of lines.
Less-than-
Significant
Glendale Country Club
(private)
There are seven pairs of poles along the east edge
of the golf course that would need to be replaced,
which would result in disturbance at each pole site.
Access for construction is not limited; thus; work in
one area would not likely restrict access
somewhere else. Users of the clubhouse and golf
course would see construction activities, including
temporary vegetation clearing, and holes or trails
under the lines may be closed during active
construction. Construction on the club property
would be completed in less than 2 months.
Less-than-
Significant
Unnamed Trails along the
Existing Corridor (between SE
10th St and SE 20th St) and SE
3rd Trail
Portions of trails would be closed during active
construction while the poles and wires are
replaced, and vegetation cleared. PSE would drive
along the easement to access poles farther from
the road, and trail users would need to be aware of
construction traffic on the trail and possible
restrictions. Between SE 10th St and SE 20th St,
there are six pole sites, five of which PSE would
access from the south, and the trail could be
affected for up to 25 days within 2 months in
addition to site preparation.
Less-than-
Significant
Kelsey Creek Park In Kelsey Creek Park, trails in PSE’s easement
would be closed during active construction while
the poles and wires are replaced, and vegetation
cleared. PSE would need to drive along the
easement to access poles farther from the road,
and trail users would need to be aware of
construction traffic on the trail and possible
restrictions. Between SE 1th St and the Lake Hills
Connector, there are four pole sites, which PSE
would access from the north, and the trail could be
affected for up to 20 days within 2 months in
addition to site preparation.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐5
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Skyridge Park One pole site is located on the east edge of the
park. Park users would see construction activities,
such as vegetation clearing. As the pole is near the
entrance to the park, access to the park may be
closed for 3 to 7 days within 2 months.
Less-than-
Significant
Richards Valley Greenway This portion of the greenway may be temporarily
closed for 1 day during restringing of lines across
the greenway.
Less-than-
Significant
Bel-Red Mini Park, McDowell
House, Wilburton Hill Park
and Bellevue Botanical
Gardens, ERC, West Kelsey
Open Space, Woodridge
Open Space, Richards Creek
Open Space, Bannerwood
Ballfield Park, and Richards
Valley Open Space
The Existing Corridor Option is not near these
parks.
No Impact
Bypass Option 1
Bel-Red Mini Park There would be no construction work in or
immediately adjacent to Bel-Red Mini Park.
No Impact
McDowell House There would be no construction work in or
immediately adjacent to the McDowell House.
No Impact
Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) The ERC is not yet developed for recreation;
however, some individuals may use the ERC
informally. Access would be limited until all seven
poles are installed between SE 1st and the Lake
Hills Connector. Temporary vegetation clearing to
facilitate construction may also occur. Construction
on the ERC would be completed in less than 2
months.
Less-than-
Significant
Wilburton Hill Park and
Bellevue Botanical Gardens
There would be two new poles on the north side of
the Lake Hills Connector adjacent to Wilburton Hill
Park. Access to the trailhead at the intersection of
SE 7th Pl and the Lake Hills Connector would be
affected during construction activities (including
temporary vegetation clearing), which could take up
to 14 days.
Less-than-
Significant
West Kelsey Open Space There would be no construction work in or adjacent
to West Kelsey Open Space.
No Impact
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐6
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Kelsey Creek Park There would be six new poles on the north side of
the Lake Hills Connector adjacent to Kelsey Creek
Park. There are no trail access points, and park
users would not be able to see construction from
within the park. Access for pedestrians and
bicyclists adjacent to the park would likely be
limited during construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Woodridge Open Space There would be no construction work in or adjacent
to Woodridge Open Space.
No Impact
Richards Creek Open Space There would be one new pole on the south side of
the Lake Hills Connector adjacent to Richards
Creek Open Space. There are no trail access
points, and park users would not be able to see
construction from within the park. Access for
pedestrians and bicyclists adjacent to the park
would likely be limited during construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Bannerwood Ballfield Park There would be one new pole on the south side of
the Lake Hills Connector adjacent to Bannerwood
Ballfield Park. There are no trail access points, and
park users would not be able to see construction
from within the park. Access for pedestrians and
bicyclists adjacent to the park would likely be
limited during construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Unnamed Trails along the
Existing Corridor between SE
10th St and SE 20th St
Impacts would be the same as for the Existing
Corridor Option, except there would be five pole
sites, all of which PSE would access from the
south; the trail could be affected for up to 25 non-
consecutive days within 2 months in addition to site
preparation.
Less-than-
Significant
Richards Valley Greenway Temporary lane and sidewalk closures during
construction along Lake Hills Connector are likely
and would inconvenience users of the proposed
greenway. Work along this section of road could
take up to 2 months. Additionally, the greenway
may be temporarily closed for 1 day during
restringing of lines along the existing corridor.
Less-than-
Significant
Skyridge Park Same impacts as the Existing Corridor Option. Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐7
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Unnamed Trail (on Corridor at
Bel-Red Rd and NE Spring
Blvd), SE 3rd Trail, Highland-
Glendale Property, Glendale
Country Club (private), and
Richards Valley Open Space
Bypass Option 1 would not be near these sites. No Impact
Bypass Option 2
Unnamed Trail (on Corridor at
Bel-Red Rd and NE Spring
Blvd)
There are no pole sites located near the trail;
however, access to the trail may be restricted for
up to 1 day while the wires are restrung.
Less-than-
Significant
Bel-Red Mini Park Same impact as Bypass Option 1. No Impact
Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) Same impact as Bypass Option 1. Less-than-
Significant
McDowell House Same impact as Bypass Option 1. No Impact
Wilburton Hill Park and
Bellevue Botanical Gardens
Same impact as Bypass Option 1. Less-than-
Significant
West Kelsey Open Space There would be no construction work in or adjacent
to West Kelsey Open Space. Same impact as
Bypass Option 1.
No Impact
Kelsey Creek Park There would be four new poles on the north side of
the Lake Hills Connector adjacent to Kelsey Creek
Park. There are no trail access points, and park
users would not be able to see construction from
within the park. Access for pedestrians and
bicyclists adjacent to the park would likely be
limited during construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Woodridge Open Space There would be three new poles on the west side of
Richards Rd adjacent to the Woodridge Open
Space. One pole would be located at the trailhead
for the Woodridge Trail. Vegetation may also be
cleared to facilitate construction. Trail access would
be blocked while the pole is installed and wires are
strung. Access for pedestrians and bicyclists
adjacent to the park would likely be limited during
construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Richards Creek Open Space There would be no construction work in or adjacent
to Richards Creek Open Space.
No Impact
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐8
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Richards Valley Open Space Bypass Option 2 would pass the south end of
Richards Valley Open Space; however, there would
be no construction in the park and there are no
access points near the proposed route. Users of
the open space would not be affected.
No Impact
Richards Valley Greenway Temporary lane and sidewalk closures during
construction along Lake Hills Connector and
Richards Rd are likely and would inconvenience
users of the proposed greenway. Road work along
Lake Hills Connector could take up to 2 months
plus, and work along the greenway portion of
Richards Rd could take an additional 5 weeks.
Less-than-
Significant
Highland-Glendale Property,
Glendale Country Club
(private), SE 3rd Trail,
Unnamed Trails along the
Corridor (between SE 10th St
and SE 20th St), Bannerwood
Ballfield Park, and Skyridge
Park
Bypass Option 2 would not be near these sites. No Impact
Bellevue South Segment
Oak 1 Option
Mountains to Sound
Greenway I-90 Trail
No poles are located on the trail. Although unlikely,
it is possible that trails may be temporarily closed
for up to 1 day during restringing of lines across the
trail.
Less-than-
Significant
Newport High School One pole site would be located at the intersection
of Factoria Blvd SE and Coal Creek Parkway SE on
the same side of the road as the ballfield.
Construction would not disturb recreation activities
but may be visible from the field.
Less-than-
Significant
Forest Drive Open Space The open space is adjacent to the corridor but
would not be affected during construction.
No Impact
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐9
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Coal Creek Natural Area North of Coal Creek, park users would not be
affected because the new corridor is on the
opposite side of the road from the natural area.
Temporary lane closures during active construction
along Coal Creek Parkway are likely and may
inconvenience people driving to Coal Creek Natural
Area. The Lower Coal Creek Trailhead near Forest
Dr SE, the trailheads near the parking lot north of
Coal Creek, and the parking lot itself should not be
affected by construction. Where the corridor
crosses through the natural area, access would be
limited while the poles at three sites are replaced,
as access for construction vehicles would be along
the corridor and trail. Vegetation may also be
temporarily cleared to facilitate construction.
Construction through the natural area could take up
to 3 weeks. (Impacts would be the same for the Oak
1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
significant
Newport Hills Mini Park Access to the park would be limited during active
construction, which would take 3 to 7 days.
Vegetation disturbance would be minimal as
existing vegetation is primarily lawn grass. (Impacts
would be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1,
and Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Waterline Trail (between SE
60th St and Newcastle Way)
Access to the trail would be limited during active
construction. Vegetation disturbance would be
minimal as existing vegetation is primarily lawn
grass. There are 2 pole sites north of SE 63rd St and
3 to the south, access may be limited to segments
of trail up to 2 and 3 weeks, respectively. (Impacts
would be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1,
and Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Tyee Middle School,
Somerset North Slope Open
Space, Forest Hill
Neighborhood Park Open
Space, and Somerset
Recreation Club
The Oak 1 Option is not near these sites. No Impact
Oak 2 and Willow 2 Options
Mountains to Sound
Greenway I-90 Trail
No poles are located on the trail. Although unlikely,
it is possible that the trail may be temporarily
closed for up to 1 day during restringing of lines
across the trail.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐10
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Tyee Middle School Access to playfields would be restricted during
active construction while poles are replaced.
Vegetation disturbance would be minimal as
existing vegetation is primarily lawn grass.
Construction on school property would take 6 to 14
days. (Impacts would be the same for the Oak 2,
Willow 1, and Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Somerset North Slope Open
Space
This open space is not open to the public. No Impact
Newport High School In addition to impacts described for the Oak 1
Option, Oak 2 would also have five poles along the
east side of 124th Ave SE. Construction would be
visible from the sports fields but would not affect
recreation opportunities and uses. For the Willow 2
Option, impacts would be the same as the Oak 1
Option.
Less-than-
Significant
Somerset Recreation Club PSE would access the poles from Somerset Pl SE.
Construction would be visible and access to the
area near the poles may be limited. Vegetation may
also be temporarily cleared to facilitate
construction. Although unlikely, it is possible that
the club may be temporarily closed for up to 1 day
during restringing of lines. PSE would work with the
club to avoid disturbance to recreation activities.
(Impacts would be the same for the Oak 2, Willow 1,
and Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Forest Hill Neighborhood
Park & Open Space
The portion of the park within the existing corridor
would have limited access during active
construction. Users of the greenspace to the east
of the corridor would see construction activities,
but access would not be limited. (Impacts would be
the same for the Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2
Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Forest Drive Open Space The north end of the open space would be used to
access the pole site on the easement, and
vegetation may be temporarily cleared. Use of the
access road as a trail would be limited during active
construction, approximately 3 to 7 days. (Impacts
would be the same for the Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Coal Creek Natural Area See the Oak 1 Option description. (Impacts would
be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2
Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐11
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Newport Hills Mini Park Access to the park would be limited during active
construction, which would take 3 to 7 days.
Vegetation disturbance would be minimal; existing
vegetation is primarily lawn grass. (Impacts would
be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Waterline Trail (SE 60th St to
Newcastle Way)
Access to the trail would be limited during active
construction. Vegetation disturbance would be
minimal as existing vegetation is primarily lawn
grass. There are two pole sites north of SE 63rd St
and three to the south; access may be limited to
portions of the trail for up to 2 and 3 weeks,
respectively. (Impacts would be the same for the
Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Willow 1 Option
Mountains to Sound
Greenway I-90 Trail
No poles are located on the trail. Although unlikely,
it is possible that the trail may be temporarily
closed for up to 1 day during restringing of wires
across the trail.
Less-than-
Significant
Tyee Middle School Access to the playfields would be restricted during
active construction while poles are replaced.
Vegetation disturbance would be minimal as
existing vegetation is primarily lawn grass.
Construction on school property would take 6 to 14
days. (Impacts would be the same for the Oak 2,
Willow 1, and Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Somerset North Slope Open
Space
This open space is not open to the public. No Impact
Somerset Recreation Club PSE would access the poles from Somerset Pl SE.
Construction would be visible, and access to the
area near the poles may be limited. Although
unlikely, it is possible that the club may be
temporarily closed for up to 1 day during restringing
of wires. PSE would work with the club to avoid
disturbance to recreation activities. (Impacts would
be the same for the Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2
Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐12
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Forest Hill Neighborhood
Park & Open Space
The portion of the park within the existing corridor
would have limited access during active
construction. Users of the greenspace to the east
of the corridor would see construction activities,
but access would not be limited. (Impacts would be
the same for the Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2
Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Forest Drive Open Space The north end of the open space would be used to
access the pole site on the easement. Use of the
access road as a trail would be limited during active
construction, approximately 3 to 7 days. (Impacts
would be the same for the Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Coal Creek Natural Area The Willow 1 Option does not follow Coal Creek
Parkway but follows the existing easement south of
Forest Dr SE, as do the other options. The Lower
Coal Creek Trailhead near Forest Dr SE, the
trailheads near the parking lot north of Coal Creek,
and the parking lot itself are not expected to be
affected by construction. Where the corridor
crosses through the natural area, access would be
limited while the poles at three poles sites are
replaced, as access for construction vehicles would
be along the corridor and trail. Construction
through the natural area could take up to 3 weeks.
Less-than-
Significant
Newport Hills Mini Park Access to the park would be limited during active
construction, which would take 3 to 7 days.
Vegetation disturbance would be minimal; existing
vegetation is primarily lawn grass. (Impacts would
be the same for the Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and
Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Waterline Trail (SE 60th St to
Newcastle Way)
Access to the trail would be limited during active
construction. Vegetation disturbance would be
minimal as existing vegetation is primarily lawn
grass. There are two pole sites north of SE 63rd St
and three to the south; access may be limited to
portions of the trail up to 2 and 3 weeks,
respectively. (Impacts would be the same for the
Oak 1, Oak 2, Willow 1, and Willow 2 Options.)
Less-than-
Significant
Newport High School and
ERC
The Willow 1 Option is not near these sites. No Impact
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐13
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Newcastle Segment
Waterline Trail, China Creek
(proposed) Cross Town Trail,
and Olympus Trail
Trail access would be limited in the vicinity of each
pole site. Because there are many road crossings,
work at one pole site would unlikely affect access
to an adjacent pole site. Vegetation may be
temporarily cleared to facilitate construction. There
are six pairs of poles along the corridor between
the Cross Town Trail and SE May Creek Park Dr
where the Olympus Trail is located. Each set of
poles would take 3 to 7 days to be replaced within
a 2-month period.
Less-than-
Significant
May Creek Natural Area There are two pole sites within the natural area;
however, they are not near areas used for
recreation, and recreation would not be affected.
Access to the May Creek Trail where it crosses the
corridor may be restricted while the wires are
strung. Vegetation may be temporarily cleared to
facilitate construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Lake Boren Park There would be no construction work in or adjacent
to Lake Boren Park.
No Impact
Renton Segment
Sierra Heights Park Access to the portion of the park along the existing
corridor would be restricted during active
construction. The trail is not located on the corridor,
and access to the trail would not be affected.
Less-than-
Significant
Sierra Heights Elementary
School
The easement crosses the northwest corner of the
school. The school sports fields are separated from
the easement by a forested area. Construction
activities are unlikely to be visible from the sports
fields and would not affect recreation opportunities
and uses.
No Impact
May Creek Greenway There would be no construction work in or adjacent
to the May Creek Greenway.
No Impact
Honey Creek Open Space There is one pole site within the park, on the south
side of Honey Creek. Access to the Honey Creek
Trail, which crosses the corridor, may be closed
during active construction. Vegetation may be
temporarily cleared to facilitate construction.
Less-than-
Significant
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.6‐14
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Cedar River Greenway
System: Riverview Park,
Cedar River Natural Zone,
Cedar River Trail
During active construction, access would be limited
in the portion of the system within the existing
corridor. The Cedar River Trail, south of the Cedar
River, crosses the existing corridor near a pole site,
and the trail may be closed while poles are
replaced at that site. Vegetation may also be
temporarily cleared to facilitate construction.
Riverview Park and the Cedar River Trail are in the
valley bottom would not be affected by
construction activities.
Less-than-
Significant
4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
Required and potential mitigation measures described in Section 3.6.5 have the potential to mitigate
construction-related impacts. However, the following construction-specific mitigation measures
would also be required or could be imposed to reduce construction impacts to recreational resources.
Construction-specific mitigation measures were identified based on discussion with the Partner
Cities. Mitigation measures specified during the permitting process, such as use of construction
BMPs, would be required, whereas measures suggested by the City of Bellevue or based on
comprehensive plan policies would be at the discretion of the applicant to adopt or the local
jurisdictions to impose as a condition of project approval.
Regulatory Requirements
The following measure is required to comply with regulations and is not appealable.
During Construction
Use BMPs to minimize noise, dust, and other disturbances to visitors to recreation sites
during construction, as well as in areas used for informal recreation (e.g., along roads).
Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
Coordinate with potentially affected park districts/departments.
Provide alternative access points to recreation sites and trail detours.
Avoid construction during months in which recreation sites are busier when possible.
Avoid vegetation clearing for construction activities where possible.
Avoid replacing poles at Rose Hill Middle School and Tyee Middle School while school is in
session.
Notify local jurisdictions, schools, or private owners, 60 days in advance of work within
recreation sites.
Notify the public of any temporary closure of trails or recreations sites 2 weeks in advance.
Provide signage along trails or park entrances at least 1 week prior to closures.
Post Construction
Restore recreation sites or trails after construction.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.7‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.1 Alternative 1: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines
Archaeological Resources (belowground)
Construction impacts to archaeological resources would be an irreversible and permanent impact as
these resources are non-renewable, and any impact to the depositional integrity (i.e., context) of a
protected archaeological resource would be significant. Therefore, analysis of impacts to protected
archaeological resources is addressed as a permanent impact in Section 3.7.
Historic Resources (aboveground)
Construction impacts to historic resources would be temporary and could reduce a resource’s historic
register eligibility or reduce the ability of the resource to convey its historic significance. These
impacts could be reversible or irreversible. Reversible impacts would be less-than-significant.
Irreversible impacts would be permanent. As such, these impacts are addressed in Section 3.7.
Permanent impacts could occur during construction if increased vibration levels result in structural
damage to a significant historic resource. The necessary level of vibration to result in structural
damage would be above the standard threshold limits defined in the Federal Transit Administration’s
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006). The project does not propose work that would
result in this level of vibration. Permanent impacts could result from the placement of a new pole
within the viewshed of a significant historic resource, demolition of a significant historic resource, or
irreversible alterations to contributing resources within a historic district. It is probable that these
impacts could be mitigated and therefore are not considered significant.
Less-than-Significant–Less-than-significant construction impacts are defined in this analysis as
those that are temporary, reversible, and that do not impact the significant historic resource’s historic
register eligibility or ability to convey its historic significance. Less-than-significant impacts could
temporarily alter a resource’s integrity of setting, feeling, or place, but it is probable that these
impacts could be mitigated through BMPs that would reduce levels of dust, vibration, and noise.
Significant–Significant construction impacts are defined in this analysis as those that are irreversible
and permanent. Because these would result in permanent impacts, analysis is addressed in Section
3.7.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.8‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS
4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - ELECTRIC AND
MAGNETIC FIELDS
Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are described in more detail in Chapter 8 of the Phase 1 Draft
EIS. As described in that document, although small motors in construction equipment generate some
level of magnetic fields, these fields are very small and would be indistinguishable from background
levels for the public outside of the construction site. Workers within the construction site would
experience magnetic fields from this equipment as they would from working on any similar
construction site (these fields would be at lower levels than those investigated as potentially causing
health impacts). Therefore, any increase in magnetic fields during construction would be minor and
are not described in further detail in this chapter.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Methods for Assessing
Risks During Construction
The Pipeline Safety Technical
Report (EDM Services, 2017)
estimated the increase in
existing pipeline safety risk
that would be present during
construction. The analysis
considers the following
activities: excavation and
surcharge loading. The report
estimated the likelihood of
unintentional pipeline releases
or fires from these
construction activities and
identified actions that can
mitigate the potential impacts
and risks.
4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH –
PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.1 Risks During Construction
During construction, the Olympic Pipelines would be exposed to an
increased risk of damage by construction activities (e.g., outside
force/excavation), which includes both excavation activities and
potential for pipelines to be overstressed by surcharge loading from
construction equipment. This section addresses the potential pipeline
safety risks associated with construction within the project corridor.
Risks during construction were assessed by EDM Services using the
same risk assessment methodology described in Section 3.9.5.1 (and
described further in Appendix I) to assess the temporary increase in
potential risks of pipeline damage and pool or flash fires associated
with project construction activities.
Significance Thresholds
As described in Chapter 3, thresholds for significance were
established based on Partner Cities workshop discussions. For this
analysis, project-related risks associated with construction are
classified as being significant or less-than-significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant
With implementation of mandatory safety standards, including Olympic general construction
procedures, there would be no substantial increase in risk of pipeline release or fire during
construction that could result in public safety impacts or damage to property and
environmental resources.
Significant
Even with the implementation of mandatory safety standards, including Olympic general
construction procedures, there would be a substantial increase in risk of pipeline release or
fire during construction that could result in public safety impacts or damage to property and
environmental resources.
Risk Assessment Results
The results of the risk assessment developed by EDM Services (as described in Section 3.9.5.1,
Methodology) are presented in this section beginning with the incident frequency for the main
category of construction-related pipeline damage (i.e., outside force/excavation). This frequency was
used to develop the final risk assessment results, which follow.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐2
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Mile Years
A means of predicting the number of
incidents for a given length of line,
over a given period of time. For
example, if one considered an
incident rate of 1.0 incident per
1,000 mile years, one would expect
one incident per year on a 1,000-
mile pipeline.
Figure 4.9-1 summarizes the results of the risk assessment for
outside force/excavation pipeline caused releases during
construction of Alternative 1. The potential frequency of
incidents (or estimated number of incidents per 1,000 mile years)
was developed for individuals (individual risk) and groups of
people (societal risk) and compared to the national incident
frequencies for this same category. The change in the anticipated
frequency of incidents risk is presented on the right side of the
figure. Because there would be no construction activity for the
No Action Alternative, no incident frequency is presented.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 4.9-1. Change in Incident Frequency
In consideration of the separate individual risk and societal risk incident frequencies developed for
outside force/excavation, Figure 4.9-2 presents the anticipated additional frequency of incidents that
could be present during construction of Alternative 1. For this, Alternative 1 is compared to the
existing operational baseline (No Action Alternative) results presented in Section 3.9.5.3 to identify
the change in anticipated frequency that would be present during construction.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 4.9-2. Change in Incident Frequency During Construction (Combined)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐3
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
What is meant by the “increase in
risk”?
Risk is characterized as a 1 in x
chance of a specified event
occurring. The “increase in risk” is
the chance that the specified event
(e.g., an individual fatality from an
unintentional release from the
pipeline) would occur that would not
have occurred if the project had not
been built. In this case, there is an
estimated 1 in 58 million chance that
an individual fatality would occur
during construction that would not
have occurred if the project was not
built.
Using the additional construction incident frequency results
above, the individual risk and societal risk results for Alternative
1 are presented below.
The annual individual risk of fatality during construction of the
230 kV lines within the corridor is 1 in 4.6 million (Figure 4.9-3).
In other words, it is estimated that there could be a 1 in 4.6
million likelihood that an individual at a specific location would
be fatally injured over a 1-year construction period. These results
are below the common threshold of 1 in 1.0 million used by Santa
Barbara County, the California Department of Education, and
other jurisdictions in determining unacceptable and acceptable
risk. Based on the results of the risk assessment, the individual
risk (during construction) for the proposed 230 kV lines would
incrementally increase over that posed by the existing 115 kV
lines (No Action). This increase in risk is slight, approximately 1
in 58 million. In other words, the assessment estimates that there
would be an approximately 8 percent increase in individual risk
during operation of Alternative 1. Because the risk level is
already very low, this 8 percent increase is not considered substantial.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 4.9-3. Alternative 1 Individual Risk (of fatality) Results
To put individual annual risk results in context, Figure 4.9-4 illustrates the annual risks for a
relatively common type of incident (vehicle fatality) and a relatively uncommon type of incident
(being struck or being killed by lightning).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐4
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Source: Insurance Information Institute, 2013; National Weather Service, 2017.
Figure 4.9-4. Annual Risk of Other Incidents, for Comparison
The assessment also considered the broader societal risk, or risk to groups of people, which takes into
account the number of individuals who may be present near the project corridor at any given time
and the duration of their presence. See Section 3.9.5.1 for additional information on societal risk.
Societal risk takes into account multiple release scenarios. The societal risk results are presented
below in Figure 4.9-5 for the maximum and minimum fatalities under the possible release scenarios,
which are further described in Pipeline Safety Technical Report (Appendix I).
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 4.9-5. Alternative 1 Societal Risk Results
During construction, there is a one in 2 million probability of an event resulting in 17 fatalities
occurring in any 1-year time period, and a one in 60,000 probability of a single-fatality event
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐5
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Surcharge Loading
The presence of equipment
and other loads on the soil
surface (surcharge loads) can
place stress on the underlying
substructures, including
pipelines. These stresses can
over-stress the pipe, causing
damage.
occurring in any 1-year period. These results are above the thresholds for negligible impacts, and
below the thresholds for intolerable impacts, that are used by Santa Barbara County and the
California Department of Education for school siting purposes.
Based on the results of the assessment, the increased societal risk during construction of the proposed
230 kV lines over that posed by the existing 115 kV lines (No Action) is 1 in 428 million (for a
scenario resulting in 17 fatalities), and 1 in 12.6 million (for a scenario resulting in one fatality). In
other words, the assessment estimates that there would be a less than a 0.5 percent increase in
societal risk during construction of Alternative 1.
4.9.2 Risks During Construction: No Action Alternative
No risk assessment was conducted for existing risks during construction since there would be no
construction activity under the No Action Alternative. Any change in risks related to ongoing pole
replacement activities (an operational activity) is expected to be minimal. Therefore, the construction
risks for the No Action Alternative would be the same as the operational risks for the No Action
Alternative. See Section 3.9.5.4.
4.9.3 Risks During Construction: Alternative 1 (New Substation and 230
kV Transmission Lines)
This section summarizes the potential pipeline safety risks during
construction. During construction, the possibility of pipeline
damage could occur from excavation activities and/or surcharge
loading from construction equipment. The consequences of those
impacts on resources, in the unlikely event an incident occurs, are
provided in Section 3.9.6. The Pipeline Safety Technical Report was
used as resource in this evaluation. See Appendix I for additional
detailed information included in this analysis. In the EIS, the
pipeline owner and operator are collectively referred to simply as
Olympic.
If a pipeline is encountered during excavation, the pipeline could be damaged and could result in an
immediate or subsequent release that could place the public and/or workers at risk. PSE or the
construction contractor would be required under state law to notify Olympic at least 48 hours prior to
the start of any work to comply with the state’s “one-call” locater service law. After Olympic is
notified, PSE or the construction contractor would mark the ground where the facilities exist. As
company practice, if a project is within 100 feet of the pipeline, Olympic’s Damage Prevention Team
will meet the construction crew on-site at the beginning of the project and weekly thereafter. If
excavation has the potential to be within 10 feet of the pipeline, the Damage Prevention Team would
be on-site at all times to monitor excavation. These procedures are designed to ensure that excavation
would not damage any underground utilities and to decrease potential safety hazards (see Section
4.9.4, Mitigation). Therefore, unintentional damage to the pipelines from project-related construction
would be unlikely.
Vibrations from operation of equipment to excavate for their poles could also be a potential
construction impact. PSE would work with Olympic to confirm that potential vibration associated
with proposed excavation methods for pole installation that include the use of vacuum trucks and
auger drills would avoid damaging the pipelines.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐6
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
The presence of equipment and other loads on the soil surface (surcharge loads) can place stress on
the underlying substructures, including pipelines. These stresses can over-stress the pipe, causing
damage. During construction, surcharge loads would be imposed over the existing Olympic Pipelines
from heavy equipment, crane matts, and other loads that could be placed on the ground above the
pipelines. PSE would coordinate with Olympic during project design to identify site-specific
surcharge load requirements and needed mitigation measures to reduce or distribute the loads (see
Section 4.9.4, Mitigation). Therefore, pipeline damage caused by surcharge loads would be unlikely.
As described in Section 3.9.3.3, “outside force/excavation” caused 20 percent of the refined
petroleum product releases (nationally) from January 2010 through December 2015. In many cases,
damage from outside/force excavation occurs because a contractor or other third party fails to notify
the utility locator service, or the utility improperly locates the buried pipeline. With PSE’s awareness
of the pipelines within the corridor, Washington State’s Damage Prevention Law and “one-call”
locator service, and Olympic’s procedures to prevent third party damage described in Section 4.9.4,
the increased risk posed to the pipelines during construction of the Energize Eastside project is
relatively low.
Despite procedures in place to prevent third party damage, the estimates for individual and societal
risk incident frequencies were developed using worst-case assumptions about the potential increase
in risk during construction. The assessment assumed that the potential for third party damage during
construction would increase by 50 percent (EDM Services, 2017), a conservatively high assumption.
Because the probability of damage to the pipelines during construction is so low to begin with, even
with these assumptions, the results indicate that there would still be a very small increase in total risk.
With the implementation of measures to mitigate potential excavation and surcharge loading risks
described in Section 4.9.4, these risks would likely be even lower.
Alternative 1 Impacts Conclusions
Based on the results of the risk assessment, there could be an increased risk of a pipeline release and
fire during construction when compared with the No Action Alternative (see Section 4.9.1.2). Based
on the results, and in consideration of project safeguards, the probability of a pipeline release and fire
remains low under Alternative 1. However, the potential environmental health and safety impacts are
significant if this unlikely event were to occur.
The individual and societal risks described above would be similar across all Alternative 1 segments
and options. There would be reduced risk in segments and options where fewer miles of the
transmission line are co-located with the Olympic Pipelines. These include Bypass Options 1 and 2,
and the Willow 1 and Willow 2 Options. See Table 3.9-5 for the length of the Olympic Pipelines
(both the 20-inch and 16-inch diameter pipelines) co-located with the PSE transmission lines in the
segments and options.
With the implementation of additional measures to mitigate potential excavation and surcharge
loading risks, the construction risks could be even lower (see Section 4.9.4, Mitigation Measures).
Even with worst-case assumptions related to the increased risk during construction, the likelihood of
a pipeline release and fire would remain low, and no substantial change in risk compared to the
existing condition (No Action Alternative) has been identified. As a result, the potential risk is not
considered significant.
For additional details about the analysis of construction risks under Alternative 1, see the Pipeline
Safety Technical Report (Appendix I).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐7
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
PSE/Olympic Coordination
PSE is responsible for the
Energize Eastside project’s
design, construction, and
operational parameters within
the shared corridor with
Olympic. Olympic and PSE
have worked together in the
corridor for 40 years, and
communicate regularly to
coordinate activities related to
standard pole replacement
and other maintenance work.
As part of the project
development process for the
Energize Eastside project,
PSE has, and will continue to
coordinate with Olympic on
specific topics/actions,
including construction.
4.9.4 Mitigation Measures
The following construction-specific mitigation measures would be required or could be imposed to
reduce the potential for environmental health and safety impacts related to pipeline safety.
Construction-specific mitigation measures were identified based on a review of regulations,
construction BMPs, and construction requirements for work in the corridor, all of which would be
required. Additional mitigation measures are proposed to further reduce the potential for
construction-related environmental health and safety impacts related to pipeline safety. Some of the
required and potential mitigation measures listed in Section 3.9.7 (such as integrating the results and
recommendations of the AC Interference Study [DNV GL, 2016] where applicable to the design of
pole locations and layout) also have the potential to mitigate construction-related impacts.
As the pipeline operator, Olympic is responsible for operating and maintaining their pipelines in
accordance with or to exceed PHMSA’s Minimum Federal Safety
Standards in 49 CFR 195. The regulations are intended to ensure
adequate protection for the public and to prevent pipeline accidents
and failures. As a result of potential hazards and in compliance with
these federal requirements, Olympic has a general list of requirements
as part of BP Pipelines (North America) General Construction
Requirements for all work proposed near the pipeline (see Appendix
I). These requirements have been shared with PSE.
As part of ongoing coordination between PSE and Olympic,
additional mitigation measures may be identified during final design.
Appendix I includes a “frequently asked questions” sheet,
summarizing steps that PSE and Olympic will take during
construction for corridor safety.
Regulatory Requirements
PSE construction activities within all the segments and options would
need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local damage
prevention laws, regulations, and requirements, and Olympic’s
general construction requirements for work near their pipelines,
including the following measures:
Develop construction and access plans in coordination with Olympic’s Damage Prevention
Team and mutually agreed upon by both parties. These plans will outline the specific actions
that PSE will take to protect the pipeline from vehicle and equipment surcharge loads,
excavation, and other activities in consideration of Olympic’s general construction
requirements and in consultation with Olympic on the Energize Eastside project design
specifically. The following general measures, at a minimum, would be included in the
construction and access plans:
o Notify “one-call” 811 utility locater service at least 48 hours prior to PSE or PSE
designated contractors conducting excavation work (Olympic’s line marking
personnel would then mark the location of the pipeline near the construction areas.
These procedures are designed to ensure that excavation would not damage any
underground utilities and to decrease potential safety hazards.)
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐8
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Pipeline Location
To identify appropriate
measures to mitigate potential
surcharge load impacts on the
existing pipelines to safe
limits, Olympic would locate
the existing pipeline using a
variety of methods, which may
include electronic pipe
locators, probing, and soft
digging methods. Once the
pipeline is located and
identified, Olympic would
perform pipe stress
calculations for equipment
crossings and surface loads,
in coordination with PSE.
o Field verify the distance between the pipeline and transmission line pole grounds.
o Add the pipeline location and depth to project plans and drawings and submit to
Olympic for evaluation.
o Arrange for Olympic representatives to be on-site to monitor construction activities
near the pipeline.
o Install temporary fencing or other markers around the pipeline area.
o Provide all necessary information for Olympic to perform pipe stress calculations for
equipment crossings and surface loads (surcharge loads). Based on pipe stress
calculations, and in coordination with Olympic, provide additional cover that may
include installing timber mats, steel plating, or temporary air bridging; utilize a
combination of these; or avoid crossing in certain identified areas in order to avoid
impacts on Olympic pipelines. Ensure that mitigation to
address potential surcharge load impacts is implemented
in accordance with applicable requirements and
recommended practices, including the following:
49 CFR 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquid
by Pipeline.
American Petroleum Institute Recommended
Practice 1102, Steel Pipelines Crossing Railroads
and Highways.
American Lifelines Alliance, Guidelines for the
Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
o Comply with additional measures related to minimizing
surcharge loads included in Olympic’s general
construction requirements (Appendix I).
As part of Olympic’s general construction requirements for all
work proposed near the pipeline (see Appendix I), comply with
all other applicable requirements, including the following
requirements:
o No excavation or construction activity will be permitted in the vicinity of a pipeline
until all appropriate communications have been made with Olympic’s field operations
and their Right-of-Way Department. A formal engineering assessment (conducted by
Olympic) may be required.
o No excavation or backfilling within the pipeline right-of-way will be permitted for
any reason without a representative of Olympic on-site giving permission.
o In some instances, excavation and other construction activities around certain
pipelines can be conducted safely only when the pipeline operating pressure has been
reduced. PSE must inform their designated contractors that excavation that exposes or
significantly reduces the cover over a pipeline may have to be delayed until the
reduced operating pressures are achieved.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.9‐9
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
o For a project within 100 feet of the pipeline, Olympic’s Damage Prevention Team
will meet the construction crew on-site at the beginning of the project and weekly
thereafter. If excavation has the potential to be within 10 feet of the pipeline, the
Damage Prevention Team would be on-site at all times to monitor excavation.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on recommendations of EDM Services
(2017) and measures the EIS Consultant Team has proposed to provide additional safety assurances.
Continue to coordinate with Olympic and include safeguards in the project construction and
access plans to protect nearby pipelines from excavation activities and surcharge loads.
Coordinate with Olympic to ensure that line marking personnel mark the entire length of any
pipeline within 50 feet of any excavation or ground disturbance below original grade, and not
only the location of angle points (points of intersection).
Utilize soft dig methods (e.g., hand excavation, vacuum excavation, etc.) whenever the
pipeline(s) are within 25 feet of any proposed excavation or ground disturbance below
original grade.
Coordinate with Olympic to ensure that an Olympic employee, trained in the observation of
excavations and pipeline locating, is on-site at all times during excavation and other ground-
disturbing activities that occur within 100 feet of the pipelines where the pipelines are co-
located with the proposed transmission lines.
Arrange for a special monitor (third party monitor) on-site at all times during excavation and
other ground-disturbing activities that occur within 100 feet of the pipelines where the
pipelines are co-located with the proposed transmission lines.
Develop an adjacent use protection plan near sensitive land uses to identify appropriately
sized construction zones to protect the general public, construction timing limits, and other
mitigation measures that would effectively limit the exposure of the general public to
potential pipeline incidents.
Prior to construction of the Energize Eastside project, file a mitigation and monitoring report
with the Partner Cities documenting all consultations with Olympic and mitigation measures
to address safety-related issues. The report should include a monitoring plan that identifies
how mitigation measures will be monitored to ensure that mitigation related to construction
activities is followed.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 4.10‐1
CHAPTER 4 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MAY 2017
ECONOMICS
4.10 ECONOMICS
The economic aspects of the project that are evaluated in this Phase 2 Draft EIS do not
relate to construction impacts; no further detail is provided in this chapter.
5
Cumulative Impacts
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 5‐1
CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MAY 2017
CHAPTER 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
“Cumulative impact” is not defined in the SEPA rules, but it is defined under federal rules
implementing NEPA. “Cumulative impact” is defined in the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulations as the “impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR Part 1508).
This chapter considers the effects of the project when considered with other proposed actions or
projects within the potentially affected area.
Washington courts have limited the requirement for cumulative impact analysis under SEPA, stating
that an analysis of the cumulative impacts of a proposed project is not required under SEPA unless:
(1) there is some evidence that the project will facilitate future action that will result in additional
impacts, or (2) the project is dependent on subsequent proposed development. A project's cumulative
impacts that are merely speculative need not be considered (Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn.
App. 711(2002) – Cumulative impacts).
5.1 LAND USE AND HOUSING
In general, as population and employment growth occurs, there is an increased likelihood that land
uses will change, although consistency with comprehensive plans and subarea plans helps to decrease
the potential for adverse impacts. The Energize Eastside project is proposed in response to expected
growth, because electrical reliability is needed to support that growth. The Energize Eastside project
is not expected to affect the scale of future development, but it could affect the timing of future
development, depending on the schedule of implementation. The availability of reliable electricity is
not expected to represent a cumulative impact to land use. It will not incrementally increase or alter
proposed land uses because it is being undertaken to supply land uses that have been identified in
adopted land use plans.
5.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
In general, as development occurs, there is an increased likelihood that scenic views and the aesthetic
environment will be adversely impacted. Development can result in large buildings or structures that
block or obscure views, and the trend of urbanization and densification results in changing views and
vistas. The Energize Eastside project will contribute to that trend, by providing electricity to supply
projected development. The incremental visual impact from the project will add to the increasingly
urbanized visual environment within the study area. Because development is expected to conform to
each community’s plans, policies, and regulations regarding aesthetics, these cumulative impacts are
not expected to be significant.
5.3 WATER RESOURCES
No long-term impacts to water resources would occur as a result of Alternative 1, and the project is
not expected to contribute to indirect or direct impacts resulting from other projects; therefore, no
cumulative impacts to water resources would occur.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 5‐2
CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MAY 2017
5.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Urbanization has resulted in an overall loss and degradation of available fish and wildlife habitat
throughout the study area, although current regulations have slowed the trend of habitat loss to a
degree, and in the case of fish passage in particular, future projects are likely to improve habitat. The
project would contribute to the trend toward degradation directly by removing trees and altering
available habitat conditions, and indirectly by continuing to supply energy to support a growing,
developing region. Mitigation would help to reduce cumulative impacts, but it would not
immediately replace all habitat lost. Replacing large significant trees with smaller planting-sized
trees would not fully replace the habitat functions provided by the existing conditions. In accord with
regulations, over time the loss of function would be replaced through replacement trees and habitat
restoration, reducing the net impact of development. Other large projects, such as Sound Transit’s
East Link project, overlap with the proposed Energize Eastside project. The East Link project will
impact plants and animals by continuing to contribute to the trend of reducing habitat (forested areas)
in Bellevue, Redmond, and King County (Sound Transit, 2011).
5.5 GREENHOUSE GASES
All GHG emissions contribute to cumulative climate change impacts. The analysis of the effects of
GHG emissions is essentially a cumulative effects analysis that is subsumed within the general
analysis and discussion of climate change impacts. Therefore, direct and indirect effects analysis for
GHG emissions will adequately address the cumulative impacts for climate change from the project,
and a separate cumulative effects analysis for GHG emissions is not needed (CEQ, 2016).
5.6 RECREATION
In general, there is pressure on recreation areas from development and increased use. The significant
impacts to recreation sites from Alternative 1 could contribute to the degradation of existing
recreation resources and limit the ability for municipalities to provide additional recreation
opportunities, unless mitigation is provided. The most likely future action that could alter or affect
recreation sites within the Energize Eastside study area is Sound Transit’s East Link project, which
could be constructed during the same general time frame. The East Link project will impact some
parks in Bellevue, Redmond, and King County (Sound Transit, 2011). In combination with the East
Link project and other projects planned in the study area, the Energize Eastside project could
potentially cause cumulative impacts to recreation if the same recreation sites are affected or if the
construction periods overlap. The Energize Eastside project may avoid direct impacts to recreation
sites by siting facilities outside of designated parks or recreation areas. Construction of the East Link
project is anticipated to occur between 2015 and 2021. Construction for the Energize Eastside project
may occur during this same period; however, construction could be planned to avoid working in the
same areas concurrently. Construction activity throughout the region could result in potential impacts
to parks and other recreation sites. Coordination with potentially affected Cities will reduce potential
impacts through facility siting, and would comply with applicable permitting requirements to
mitigate impacts. With appropriate mitigation, the cumulative construction and operation effects of
the project and other planned projects are not expected to change long-term trends related to the use
of recreation facilities in the study area.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 5‐3
CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MAY 2017
5.7 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
The project has the potential for cumulative impacts by supporting development and redevelopment
within the Eastside area. Development has the potential for ground disturbance, which could impact
additional belowground archaeological resources, if present. For historic resources, development
could involve demolition or alterations to the setting of existing historic resources, if present. It is
probable that potential impacts to historic and cultural resources would be mitigated through
appropriate preservation planning and, at the time of development, through consultation with DAHP,
affected Tribes, and local governments, as applicable to the type of impacted resource.
5.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH– ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC
FIELDS
The project would reduce magnetic fields along existing transmission line corridor; therefore, there
would be no cumulative effect. In new corridors associated with the Bypass Options, and Oak 1, Oak
2, and Willow 2 Options, the project would add a new source of magnetic fields to existing sources,
such as other overhead electrical lines, but no adverse cumulative effects are expected because
existing sources combined with magnetic fields associated with the project are expected to be well
below industry guidelines.
5.9 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
No significant adverse impacts to environmental health related to pipeline safety are likely from the
Energize Eastside project. The likelihood a pipeline incident would remain low in the shared
corridor, and no substantial increase in risk compared to existing conditions has been identified. With
implementation of mitigation measures, these risks would be even lower. Other activities by other
parties (e.g., ground-disturbing activities), unrelated to the Energize Eastside project, may occur in
the corridor on occasion. While these activities remain a source of potential pipeline safety risk in the
corridor, the project would not contribute to adverse impacts resulting from these other activities;
therefore, no cumulative impacts to environmental health from pipeline safety would occur.
5.10 ECONOMICS
The economic impacts of the project have not been fully evaluated in this EIS. To the extent that the
project supports growth and development as described under Land Use and Housing, property values
are likely to rise, offsetting any potential adverse impacts to assessed value used for property tax
assessment. The effects to ecosystem services would be cumulative with other development that
removes trees. If mitigation is provided per codes and regulations, over time the loss of services
would be replaced through replacement trees, reducing the net impact of development. Temporal
losses could also be offset with additional mitigation.
6
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 6‐1
CHAPTER 6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MAY 2017
CHAPTER 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
6.1 LAND USE AND HOUSING
Construction of the project would not require significant excavation, inhibit access to adjacent land
uses, or create significant noise; therefore, any nuisance caused by the construction activities of
Alternative 1 would be less-than-significant. Long-term impacts would also be less-than-significant
for Alternative 1 because all of the segments and options and the proposed substation are land uses
anticipated in city and subarea plans, and the project would not adversely affect existing or future
land use patterns. Therefore, the project would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts
to land use and housing.
The No Action Alternative would not be consistent with city comprehensive plan policies, as
discussed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. The No Action Alternative could lead to unavoidable significant
adverse land use impacts in the long term if unreliable power supply were to outweigh the regional
factors amenable to growth and development, leading to development inconsistent with regional
growth plans and targets.
6.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
The project could have significant adverse impacts to the aesthetic environment as a result of the
Bypass Options 1 and 2, the Willow 1 Option, and the Newcastle Segment. There would be no
significant adverse impacts to scenic views (Figure 6-1).
Figure 6-1. Areas with Significant Impacts to the Aesthetic Environment
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 6‐2
CHAPTER 6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MAY 2017
Significant aesthetic impacts associated with Bypass Options 1 and 2 would occur where the project
would be inconsistent with subarea plan policies: (1) along roadways in the Bel-Red Subarea, where
street trees would need to be removed and could not be replanted; (2) where transmission line
infrastructure would be introduced in key views identified in subarea plans; and (3) where the
transmission line would be placed along Richards Road and would require substantial vegetation
removal.
Impacts along roadways in the Bel-Red Subarea and along Richards Road could be reduced through
mitigation. For instance, if PSE were to place the poles closer to the roadway and cantilever the wires
so that minimal vegetation removal would be required and street trees could be planted and
maintained, impacts would be less-than-significant. Both of the Bypass Options would result in
adverse aesthetic impacts to three key views: NE 5th Street, NE 8th Street, and the Lake Hills
Connector. Impacts to these view corridors could only be mitigated if the line were placed
underground. Significant impacts to the aesthetic environment could also be avoided by selecting the
Existing Corridor Option for the Bellevue Central Segment.
Significant aesthetic impacts associated with the Willow 1 Option would occur where it traverses the
Somerset neighborhood. The Somerset neighborhood has neighborhood covenants that restrict
building and vegetation height to protect views (i.e., the View Guideline for Somerset). These
neighborhood covenants result in increased viewer awareness of the impact. The increased pole
height under Willow 1 would contrast substantially with this unique neighborhood of low buildings
and vegetation. Impacts could be avoided by selecting a different option for this segment or if the
Somerset portion were placed underground.
Significant aesthetic impacts associated with the Newcastle Segment would occur where the project
would be inconsistent with the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan, which protects the scale and
character of existing neighborhoods through policies that call for transmission lines to be sited and
designed to minimize visual impacts to adjacent land uses. North of the May Creek ravine, impacts
of the Newcastle Segment on the aesthetic environment would be significant because the new
transmission line would change the neighborhood character. It would introduce a taller transmission
line that would be closer to residential streets and homes and would be less concealed by vegetation.
In addition, its location on the ridge would make it a defining feature that contrasts strongly with the
existing built environment. This inconsistency with the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan could be
mitigated if: (1) a different pole configuration were selected that placed poles more centrally within
the transmission corridor and had shorter pole heights, or (2) the transmission line were placed
underground.
6.3 WATER RESOURCES
Impacts from construction of Alternative 1 would be temporary and minor with the implementation
of BMPs, and all long-term impacts would be minor and could be fully mitigated through compliance
with applicable regulations and implementation of BMPs. Therefore, there would be no significant
unavoidable impacts to water resources.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 6‐3
CHAPTER 6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MAY 2017
6.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Although the overall magnitude of impacts would vary by segment and option, Alternative 1 would
not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts to plants and animals. The primary impacts are
related to the number of trees, including significant trees, that would be removed. Protected species
are not known to occupy the habitat within the study area, and the overall urbanized settings
throughout the study area are unlikely to provide suitable habitat for these species in the future.
Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are expected, within any of the segments or
options.
6.5 GREENHOUSE GASES
Construction-related GHG emissions would be less-than-significant because they would be
temporary, would not represent a continuing burden on the statewide inventory, and would likely be
below state reporting thresholds. Although Alternative 1 would result in long-term increases in
fugitive SF6 emissions (from gas-insulated circuit breakers at substations) and CO2e sequestration
losses due to tree removal, the emissions would be substantially below the State of Washington GHG
reporting threshold. Therefore, there would be no significant unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas
emissions.
6.6 RECREATION
For Bypass Options 1 and 2, and the Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options of Alternative 1, PSE may
need to acquire easements within the following parks, which would result in a significant
unavoidable impact:
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1: Wilburton Hill Park and Bellevue Botanical
Gardens, Kelsey Creek Park, Eastside Rail Corridor, Richards Creek Open Space, and
Bannerwood Ballfield Park.
Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2: Wilburton Hill Park and Bellevue Botanical
Gardens, Kelsey Creek Park, Eastside Rail Corridor, Richards Creek Open Space, and
Woodridge Open Space.
Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1, Oak 2, and Willow 2 Options: Coal Creek Natural Area
These potentially significant impacts would be avoided if easements were not granted and poles were
moved to the right-of-way, or if an alternate route such as the Existing Corridor Option is utilized.
6.7 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential operational impacts to belowground protected archaeological resources or aboveground
significant historic resources could be mitigated during the construction phase. Thus, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts to belowground archaeological resources or aboveground historic
resources are anticipated. Mitigation measures for historic and cultural resources would be developed
through consultation between PSE and DAHP, with involvement from KCHPP, affected Tribes, and
municipal governments as applicable. PSE will consult with DAHP to request an eligibility
determination for the Eastside Transmission System; if determined eligible, PSE will consult with
DAHP regarding potential mitigation measures.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 6‐4
CHAPTER 6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MAY 2017
6.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC
FIELDS
No adverse impacts are likely from power-frequency EMF at the levels of public exposure from the
Energize Eastside project. It follows that no unavoidable significant impacts under SEPA would
occur.
6.9 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
A pipeline release or fire resulting from construction or operation of the Energize Eastside project
would result in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The specific impacts would
depend on the location and the nature of the incident. Section 3.9.1 explains the legal requirements to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to a pipeline incident. Even with worst-case assumptions related to
the increased risk during operation and construction, the likelihood of a pipeline release and fire
would remain low, and no substantial increase in risk compared to the existing conditions was
identified. It is likely that with the implementation of additional measures included in Sections 3.9.7
and 4.9.4, any increase in risks within the corridor can be fully mitigated. As a result, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified.
6.10 ECONOMICS
The economic aspects of the project that are evaluated in this Phase 2 Draft EIS do not relate to
construction impacts. Long-term impacts to economics are expected to be less-than-significant.
The change in assessed property value would be relatively small compared to the total assessed value
in any of the communities potentially affected, including the smallest community, the City of
Newcastle. The City of Newcastle could maintain adequate public services without additional
revenue, or if necessary, could maintain current funding levels through a minor change in the mil
rate.
Undergrounding a portion of the transmission line could result in significant economic impacts if the
burden of paying for undergrounding is shared over a small number of property owners, or a minor
impact if shared by a large enough number. The EIS does not determine whether or how much of the
transmission line should go underground, or assess how many people should share the costs.
Alternative 1 would require tree removal along the existing corridor and new corridor; however, the
value of total ecosystem services lost as a result of tree removal would be minimal.
7
Errata
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 7‐1
CHAPTER 7 ERRATA MAY 2017
CHAPTER 7. ERRATA
This chapter addresses errors and corrections to the text of the Phase 1 Draft EIS and is organized by
Draft EIS chapter, section, and page number.
1) Chapter 1 – Introduction and Summary:
a) Page 1-2, Paragraph 2, Lines 11-12: The reference to Figure 1-1 incorrectly states that there
is no 230 kV transmission line that reaches the center of the Eastside area. The reference
should read that there is no 230 kV transmission line that provides the necessary capacity to
the center of the Eastside area.
b) Page 1-3, Figure 1-1: The legend should read “Customers potentially affected by rotating
outages” rather than “Customers affected by rotation outages.”
c) Page 1-31, Affected Environment, Paragraph 2: PSE has stated that HPFF would not be
used in underground lines. Therefore, the following text: “Hazardous materials are likely in
electrical infrastructure (e.g., oil-containing transformers, High Pressure Fluid-Filled (HPFF)
power lines used in some underground lines)” has been replaced with “Hazardous materials
are likely in electrical infrastructure (e.g., oil-containing transformers).”
d) Page 1-32, Mitigation Measures, Bullet One: PSE has stated that their transformers would
not use SF6. Therefore, the following text: “use vegetable-based oil for transformers rather
than petroleum based oil or SF6,” has been replaced with “use vegetable-based oil for
transformers rather than petroleum-based oil.”
e) Page 1-54, Table 1-3: Impacts for Recreation under Alternative 2 were incorrect and should
have been stated as “Negligible to Minor” to reflect the findings of the recreation chapter.
2) Chapter 2 – Description of Project and Alternatives:
a) Page 2-40, Paragraph 2: To provide clarity, when using the term "storing," the text should
refer to the MWh rating (225.6), rather than the power rating of 121 MW.
b) Page 2-41: The heading numbering scheme for the Peak Generation Plant Component and
Construction subsections is incorrect. The headings have been changed from “2.3.3.1 Peak
Generation Plant Component” and “2.3.3.3 Construction” to “2.3.3.5 Peak Generation Plant
Component” and “2.3.3.6 Construction,” respectively.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 7‐2
CHAPTER 7 ERRATA MAY 2017
3) Chapter 3 – Earth:
a) Page 3-16, Paragraph 2, Lines 3-4: Water and sewer pipelines may also need to be
provided. Text has been changed from “Depending on location, this could include replacing
major gas mains to increase natural gas supply capacity” to “Depending on location, this
could include replacing major gas mains (to increase natural gas supply capacity) and
providing water and sewer pipelines.”
b) Page 3-17, Paragraph 5, Lines 5-7: PSE would only need to integrate information and
recommendations prepared by a geotechnical engineer. Text has been changed from “For the
substation expansions under Alternatives 1 and 3, prior to the issuance of grading permits,
PSE would be required to retain a Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer to design the
project facilities to withstand probable seismically induced ground shaking at each location”
to “For the substation expansions under Alternatives 1 and 3, prior to the issuance of grading
permits, PSE would be required to retain a system designer that would integrate information
and recommendations prepared by a geotechnical engineer to ensure that appropriate design
considerations are made.”
c) Page 3-17, Paragraph 5, Lines 8-12: Text has been revised to increase clarity. Text has
been changed from “All grading and construction would adhere to the specifications,
procedures, and site conditions contained in the final design plans, which would be fully
compliant with the seismic recommendations of the Washington State Building Code and any
local building code amendments. The required measures would encompass site preparation
and foundation specifications.” To “All grading and construction would adhere to the
specifications, procedures, and site conditions contained in the final design plans, which
would be fully compliant with the seismic requirements of the Washington State Building
Code and any local building code amendments. The required measures would encompass site
preparation and foundation specifications.”
4) Chapter 6 – Plants and Animals:
a) Page 6-11, Figure 6-6: Corrected naming convention by renaming it Figure 6-7.
b) Page 6-14, Paragraph 4, Lines 1–2: The figure reference needed to be updated per change
4a. In addition, PSE’s Vegetation Management Program removes mature trees equal or
greater than 25 feet, not 15 feet. Text has been changed from “PSE’s Vegetation
Management Program would continue under the No Action Alternative (Figure 6-6). This
program includes removal of mature trees greater than 15 feet tall that are located within the
transmission right-of-way, (typically including the area directly under the wires (the wire
zone), and 10 feet from the outer transmission wires (border zones)” to “PSE’s Vegetation
Management Program would continue under the No Action Alternative (Figure 6-7). This
program includes the removal of mature trees equal to or greater than 25 feet in height that
are located within the transmission right-of-way, typically including the area directly under
the wires (the wire zone), and 10 feet from the outer transmission wires (border zones).”
c) Page 6-15, Figure 6-6: To increase clarity, Figure 6-6 has been moved (now Figure 6-7 per
change 4a) “PSE Vegetation Management Program Zones” to Section 6.6.3.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 7‐3
CHAPTER 7 ERRATA MAY 2017
5) Chapter 8 – Environmental Health and Safety:
a) Use of SF6 (throughout Chapter 8): PSE does not use SF6 (a gas sometimes used for
insulation of electrical equipment) in transformers. However, SF6 is used in high-voltage
circuit breakers, which are designed to protect an electrical circuit from damage caused by
overcurrent/ overload or short circuit. Due to environmental and cost concerns over
insulating oil spills, most new breakers use SF6 gas. SF6 gas absorbs free electrons, forms a
negative ion, and quenches the arc between the fixed and moving contact of the circuit
breaker. Special equipment is used when charging equipment with SF6 gas to prevent release
to the atmosphere.
b) Page 8-9, Sidebar: SF6 is not a highly toxic gas. Deleted the following text: “SF6 is a highly
toxic gas.”
c) Page 8-11, Paragraph 2, Line 1: Incorrect reference was used. Changed reference from
“Section 8.1.1” to “Section 8.3.1”
d) Page 8-35, Paragraph 5, Line 3: According to PSE, NESC does not direct how to shield
lines with lightning protection. Deleted “according to NESC guidelines.”
e) Page 8-40, Paragraph 3, Lines 6-8: The codes PSE designs to include IBC, ASCE, and
ACI. The public utility commission is not involved in establishing code requirements. Text
has been changed from “In addition, the state public utility commission has adopted seismic
standards that utilities must follow, with structural requirements for poles that would be
sufficient to resist anticipated earthquake ground motions.” To “In addition, PSE would meet
the structural requirements set by the IBC, ASCE, and ACI.”
6) Chapter 9 – Noise:
a) Use of “maintenance yards”: Throughout the chapter, the term “maintenance yards” should
be “utility yards.” Utility yards is the more commonly used term.
b) Page 9-8, Paragraph 2, Lines 1-2; Page 9‐15, Paragraph 2, Lines 1‐2; Page 9‐17, Paragraph
2, Lines 4‐5; and Page 9‐17, Paragraph 4, Line 1: According to WAC 173-60-040(2)(b),
electrical substations are subject to the state noise limits between the hours of 10:00 PM and
7:00 AM; however, they are not subject to the 10 dBA reduction. Text has been changed
from “Electrical substations are exempt from the maximum permissible noise levels
established in Chapter 173-60 of the Washington Administrative Code” to “Although
electrical substations are subject to the noise state noise limits between the hours of 10:00
PM and 7:00 AM, they are not subject to the 10 dBA reduction (WAC 173-60-040(2)(b)).”
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 7‐4
CHAPTER 7 ERRATA MAY 2017
7) Chapter 10 – Land Use:
a) Page 10-24, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-2: PSE owns the land that would be used for the Lakeside
substation expansion. Changed text from “If the Lakeside site were chosen, PSE would need
to purchase and develop land adjacent to the existing substation” to “If the Lakeside site were
chosen, PSE would need to develop land adjacent to the existing substation.”
b) Page 10-26, Paragraph 1, Table 10–2: Newcastle Use Restriction information was
incorrect. It has been changed to say “utility facilities allowed in” rather than “utility yards
not allowed in.”
c) Page 10-27, Paragraph 3, Lines 1–3: It is unknown whether or not introducing a 230 kV
line would be considered a new hazardous use if lower voltage transmission lines already
exist. The following sentences have been deleted: “This option would have some of the same
zoning consistency issues as Option A (Table 10-2) including potential for co-location with a
high consequence land use, since it also crosses the OPL Company (OPLC) pipeline in places
and is parallel to it in other locations.”
d) Page 10-27, Paragraph 6, Lines 2–3: It is unknown whether or not introducing a 230 kV
line would be considered a new hazardous use if lower voltage transmission lines already
exist. The following sentence has been deleted: “An underground transmission line would
have the same potential constraints as Option A’s overhead line regarding co-location with
OPLC’s pipeline.”
8) Chapter 11 – Views and Visual Resources:
a) Page 11-20, Paragraph 3, Lines 2-5: The following information has been updated with
locally specific information provided by PSE. The text has been changed from: “The 12.5 kV
lines distribute electricity directly to consumers. These lines are commonly constructed of
wood poles up to approximately 60 feet tall; the shorter poles make the lines less visible from
a distance (Antunes et al., 2006).” To “The 12.5 kV lines distribute electricity directly to
consumers. These lines are commonly constructed of wood poles up to approximately 34 to
40 feet tall; the shorter poles make the lines less visible from a distance (PSE, 2016).”
b) Page 11-20, Paragraph 4, Lines 1-3: The following information has been updated with
locally specific information provided by PSE. The text has been changed from: “Typically,
115 kV lines are suspended on single wood poles and are generally 70 to 90 feet above
ground (Corbin, 2007). “ to “Typically, 115 kV lines are suspended on single wood poles and
are generally 60 to 80 feet above ground (PSE, 2016).”
c) Page 11-21, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-2: New information from PSE suggested that the
following clarifying text should be added: “However, depending on the function of the
conductor, configuration, and number of circuits, such poles could be less than 70 feet tall
(PSE, 2016).”
d) Page 11-21, Paragraph 4, Line 2: The Westminster substation was a proposed substation.
The following text has been deleted: “the Westminster substation and…”
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 7‐5
CHAPTER 7 ERRATA MAY 2017
e) Page 11-34, Paragraph 4, Lines 4-6: The following information has been updated with
locally specific information provided by PSE. The text has been changed from: “Depending
on topography the pole height may vary, with the tallest height being approximately 135 feet
if a highway is crossed (Corbin, 2007)” to “Depending on topography, the pole height may
vary, with the tallest height being approximately 130 feet if a highway is crossed (PSE,
2016).”
f) Page 11-37, Paragraph 4, Line 4: SCL has two 230kv lines in its existing corridor. Text
changed from “The SCL corridor already contains a 230 kV transmission line,” to “The SCL
corridor already contains two 230 kV transmission lines,”
9) Chapter 12– Recreation:
a) Page 12-2, Table 12-1. Parks and Recreation Plans for Study Area Communities: Redmond’s
Transportation Master Plan, which includes pedestrian and bicycle system plans (2013), was
not originally included in Table 12-1.
10) Chapter 15– Public Services:
a) Page 15-13, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-2: Water and sewer pipelines may also need to be
extended to the peak generation plants. Text has been changed from: “Construction of peak
generation plants would require construction similar to a substation, but would likely also
require replacing or extending major gas mains for natural gas supply” to “Construction of
peak generation plants would require construction similar to a substation, but would likely
also require replacing or extending major gas mains for natural gas supply, and potentially
extending water and sewer pipelines to the peaking facilities.”
11) Chapter 16 – Utilities:
a) Page 16-16, Paragraph 5, Line 1: Error in text states that two substations may be needed.
Changed text from “two new substations may be needed” to “two new transformers may be
needed.”
b) Page 16-17, Paragraph 1, Lines 4-5: Reference to the Bothell-SnoKing double-circuit 230
kV line should be to the Maple Valley-SnoKing double-circuit 230 kV line.
c) Page 16-20, Paragraph 4, Lines 1-2: The text incorrectly implies that the Westminster and
Vernell substations are existing facilities. Text has been changed from: “The expansion of the
Lakeside substation or the Westminster or Vernell substation sites would require construction
of underground foundations to support the new transformer” to “The expansion of the
Lakeside substation or the development of the Westminster or Vernell substation sites would
require the construction of underground foundations to support the new transformer.”
12) Appendix B – Potential Construction Equipment:
a) Table B-1: Crane added as a piece of equipment being considered for Alternative 1 (Options
A and B) and Alternative 3 for the removal of existing wooden poles.
8
References
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐1
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
CHAPTER 8. REFERENCES
Chapters 1 and 2
AEPOhio. 2014. Encroachments on Transmission Rights of Way. Published by AEPOhio, a division
of American Electric Power. Undated. Available at:
https://www.aepohio.com/global/utilities/lib/docs/info/facts/aepohio-encroachment-
ontransrow.pdf.
City of Bellevue, 2016a. Phase 1 Draft EIS Comment Record Report (Parts 1 and 2). Prepared for
the City of Bellevue by ESA, Seattle, WA. March 25, 2016.
City of Bellevue, 2016b. Scoping Comment Summary Report, Part 1 (April 14 – May 31, 2016
Scoping Period). Energize Eastside Project, Phase 2. Prepared for the City of Bellevue by
ESA Consultant Team, Seattle, WA. June 30, 2016.
City of Bellevue, 2016c. Scoping Comment Summary Report, Part 2 (June 30 – August 1, 2016
Scoping Period). Energize Eastside Project, Phase 2. Prepared for the City of Bellevue by
ESA, Seattle, WA. August 30, 2016.
City of Bellevue, 2016d. Phase 2 Draft EIS, Scope of Analysis. Energize Eastside Project. Prepared
for the City of Bellevue by ESA, Seattle, WA. December 21, 2016.
Gentile, T.J., D.J. Morrow, Z.A. Gill Sanford, C.O. Jaeger, and J.V. Nedrud. 2014. Puget Sound
Energy and Quanta Technology. Eastside Transmission Solutions Report, King County Area.
October 2013. Updated February 2014.
Gentile, T.J., D.J. Morrow, E.M. Ewry, and C.O. Jaeger. 2015. Puget Sound Energy and Quanta
Technology. Supplemental Eastside Needs Assessment Report, Transmission System, King
County. April 2015.
Nexant. 2015. Puget Sound Energy Energize Eastside Outage Cost Study. Prepared for Puget Sound
Energy. October 30, 2015.
Olympic (Olympic Pipe Line Company). 2016. Olympic Pipe Line Company / BP Pipelines NA Inc.,
General Construction & Right Of Way Requirements. Revision date: 03/11/2016. 3 pages.
Olympic (Olympic Pipe Line Company). 2017. Olympic Pipe Line Operations Fact Sheet. Olympic
Pipe Line Company. Downloaded from
http://www.workingwaterfrontportland.org/profiles/olympic_pipeline.pdf on April 24, 2017.
Power Engineers. 2014. Eastside 230 kV Project – Underground Feasibility Study. Prepared for PSE.
March 2014.
Power Engineers. 2015. Eastside 230 kV Project, Lake Washington Submarine Cable Alternative
Feasibility Study – Final, Power Engineers. June 8, 2015.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐2
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
Power Engineers, Inc. 2016. Photo Simulations for the Energize Eastside Transmission Line Project.
Prepared March 2016 through December 2016. Meridian, ID.
Power Engineers, Inc. 2017. Photo Simulations for the Energize Eastside Transmission Line Project.
Prepared January and February 2017. Meridian, ID.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2015. Puget Sound Energy 2015 Integrated Resource Plan. Available at
http://pse.com/aboutpse/EnergySupply/Pages/Resource-Planning.aspx. Accessed August 11,
2015.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016. PSE’s Power Lines. Puget Sound Energy. Available at
https://pse.com/aboutpse/PseNewsroom/MediaKit/109_Power_Lines.pdf. Accessed
January 20, 2017.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2017. Email from Brad Strauch, PSE, to Heidi Bedwell, City of
Bellevue, regarding CAPS with Load Shedding – Timing. February 1, 2017.
SCL (Seattle City Light). 2014. Letter to Nicholas Matz, Senior Planner, City of Bellevue Planning
and Community Development Department from Uzma Siddiqi, System Planning Engineer of
Seattle City Light. June 2, 2014.
Stantec. 2015. Energize Eastside Project Memorandum from Keith DeClerck to Mark Johnson, dated
July 31, 2015. Available at http://www.energizeeastsideeis.org/library.html.
Strategen. 2015. Eastside System Energy Storage Alternatives Screening Study, March 2015.
Strauch, Bradley. 2015. Personal communication. Email from Bradley Strauch, Senior Land
Planner/Environmental Scientist (Puget Sound Energy) to Mark S. Johnson (ESA). October 30,
2015 at 12:57 PM with attachment.
Wells, B. 2016. Letter from Bill Wells, Water Transmission and Distribution Manager of Seattle
Public Utilities (SPU), to Tim McHarg, Community Development Director, City of Newcastle.
July 27, 2016.
Land Use and Housing
City of Bellevue. 1993. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive Plan. Volume 2: Subarea
Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project List. Includes BelRed Subarea Plan, Bridle
Trails Subarea Plan, Crossroads Subarea Plan, Eastgate Subarea Plan, Factoria Subarea Plan,
Newport Hills Subarea Plan, Wilburton/NE 8th St Subarea Plan, Adopted December 6, 1993,
Updated August 2015.
City of Bellevue. 2008a. City of Bellevue: Somerset. 2008. Available:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/somerset-area.htm.
City of Bellevue. 2008b. City of Bellevue: West Lake Hills. 2008. Available:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/west-lake-hills-area.htm.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐3
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
City of Bellevue. 2008c. City of Bellevue: Woodridge. 2008. Available:
http://www.bellevuewa.gov/woodridge-area.htm.
City of Bellevue. 2013. City of Bellevue Draft Shoreline Master Program. January 2013. Available:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/draft-smp-update.htm.
City of Bellevue. 2015. City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element. August 2015.
Available: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/pdf/PCD/03_Land_Use_FINAL_20150727.pdf.
City of Bellevue. 2016a. Bellevue City Code. 2016. Available:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Bellevue/.
City of Bellevue. 2016b. Wilburton Planning information. Received via email from H. Bedwell, City
of Bellevue, December 22, 2016.
City of Newcastle. 2000. Community Business Center/Lake Boren Corridor Master Plan. Adopted
April 27, 2000.
City of Newcastle. 2016a. City of Newcastle: 2035 Newcastle Comprehensive Plan. Adopted March
2016.
City of Newcastle. 2016b. Newcastle Municipal Code. July 2016. Available:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Newcastle/.
City of Redmond. 2003a. City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan: Grass Lawn Neighborhood
Policies. 2003. Available:
https://www.redmond.gov/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=10476.
City of Redmond. 2003b. City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan: Willows/Rose Hill Neighborhood
Policies. 2003. Available:
https://www.redmond.gov/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=67802.
City of Redmond. 2011. Redmond 2030: City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan. 2011. Adopted
December 6, 2011. Available: http://user-6418068785.cld.bz/Redmond-20305#1.
City of Redmond. 2016. Redmond Municipal Code (RMC). June 2016. Available:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Redmond/.
City of Renton. 2009. Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. Adopted November 23, 2009.
Available: http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/091123-SunsetCIG-
FinalReport-Adopted-lowres.pdf.
City of Renton. 2014. City of Renton: Designated Neighborhoods Map. 2014. Available:
https://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Government/FIT/GIS/PDF_Files/Designated%20Neighb
orhoods.pdf.
City of Renton. 2016. Renton Municipal Code, 2016. August 2016. Available:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐4
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
FCS Group. 2016. Economic Considerations, Supplemental Analysis – Energize Eastside Phase 2
Draft EIS. Draft, September 15, 2016.
King County Assessor. 2016. King County iMap. Available:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/imap.aspx. Accessed: July 22, 2016.
Liberty Ridge. 2016. Liberty Ridge. 2016. Available: http://www.rentonlibertyridge.com/.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2015. Puget Sound Energy 2015 Integrated Resource Plan. Available:
http://pse.com/aboutpse/EnergySupply/Pages/Resource-Planning.aspx. Accessed August 11,
2015.
Shadow Hawk. Date Unknown. City of Renton: Shadow Hawk. Date Unknown. Available:
http://rentonwa.gov/blank_popup.aspx?id=5412.
Strauch, B. 2016. Email (with attachment) from Bradley Strauch, Sr. Land Planner/Environmental
Scientist, PSE, to Claire Hoffman and Reema Shakra, ESA, regarding information and data
for the Energize Eastside Project. August 16, 2016.
Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment
City of Bellevue. 2011. The BelRed Corridor Plan. Appendix B: The BelRed Corridor Plan
Streetscape Character, Guidelines, and Standards. August 2011. Zimmer Gunsul Frasca
Architects LLP.
City of Bellevue. 2013. City of Bellevue Draft Shoreline Master Program. January 2013. Available:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/draft-smp-update.htm.
City of Bellevue. 2015a. Bellevue Municipal Code (BMC). Current through July 6, 2015.
City of Bellevue. 2015b. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive Plan. Volume 1: General
Elements. Originally adopted December 6, 1993, and includes major Comprehensive Plan
Updates of August 2015 (Ordinance 6251).
City of Bellevue. 2015c. BelRed Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive Plan.
Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project List. Originally adopted
December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates through August 2015
(Ordinance 6251).
City of Bellevue. 2015d. Bridle Trials Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive
Plan. Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project List. Originally
adopted December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates through August
2015 (Ordinance 6251).
City of Bellevue. 2015e. Eastgate Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive Plan.
Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project List. Originally adopted
December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates through August 2015
(Ordinance 6251).
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐5
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
City of Bellevue. 2015f. Factoria Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive Plan.
Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project List. Originally adopted
December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates through August 2015
(Ordinance 6251).
City of Bellevue. 2015g. Newport Hills Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive
Plan. Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project List. Originally
adopted December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates through August
2015 (Ordinance 6251).
City of Bellevue. 2015h. Richards Valley Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington
Comprehensive Plan. Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project
List. Originally adopted December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates
through August 2015 (Ordinance 6251).
City of Bellevue. 2015i. Southeast Bellevue Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington
Comprehensive Plan. Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project
List. Originally adopted December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates
through August 2015 (Ordinance 6251).
City of Bellevue. 2015j. Wilburton/NE 8th St. Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington
Comprehensive Plan. Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project
List. Originally adopted December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates
through August 2015 (Ordinance 6251).
City of Bellevue. 2016. Kelsey Creek Park. Rentals and Reservations. Accessed on 8/29/16.
Available: http://www.bellevuewa.gov/kelsey_creek_park.htm?print=true.
City of Newcastle. 2000. Community Business Center/Lake Boren Corridor Master Plan. Adopted
April 27, 2000.
City of Newcastle. 2015. Newcastle Municipal Code (NMC). Current through May 5, 2015.
City of Newcastle. 2016. City of Newcastle: 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Adopted March 2016.
City of Redmond. 2015a. Redmond 2030: City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan. Adopted
December 6, 2011. Amended October 2015.
City of Redmond. 2015b. Redmond Zoning Code (RZC). Current through June 16, 2015.
City of Renton. 2011. City of Renton, Washington Ordinance No. 5633: Shoreline Master Program
Regulations.
City of Renton. 2015a. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Updated July 2015.
City of Renton. 2015b. Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Current through May 18, 2015.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2015. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of
Highway Projects.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐6
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2016. Mountains to Sound Greenway – I-90. National
Scenic Byway. Washington. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/byways/2228.
Accessed: 8/29/16.
Google. 2016. Google Earth Street View on Huguenin Ave. at US 52 in Charleston, South Carolina
looking northeast.
Google. 2016. Google Earth Street View at 277 Glennwood Ct SE in Renton, Washington looking
northwest. Huguenin Ave. at US 52 in Charleston, South Carolina looking northeast.
King County. 2016. Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail Final Master Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement. July 2016. Available: http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/parks-
recreation/parks/capital-improvements/erc.aspx. Accessed: August 10, 2016.
Power Engineers. 2016a. Energize Eastside Photo Simulation Methodology. Memorandum from
Jason Pfaff, Department Manager, to Puget Sound Energy. June 10, 2016.
Power Engineers. 2016b. Visual simulations of the Energize Eastside project. Prepared for PSE,
Bellevue, WA; prepared by Power Engineers, Kent, WA; provided to ESA, Seattle, WA.
Various dates, April through November 2016.
Somerset Community. 2016. View Guidelines for Somerset. December 21, 2016. Available at:
https://www.somerset98006.org/uploads/4/7/5/8/47585659/view_guidelines_12-21-
16_tc__final.pdf.
The Watershed Company. 2016. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project. Includes the following
separate reports: City of Bellevue Tree Inventory Report; King County Tree Inventory
Report; City of Newcastle Tree Inventory Report; City of Redmond Tree Inventory Report;
City of Renton Tree Inventory Report; Richards Creek Parcel Tree Inventory Report;
Segment O Tree Inventory Report; Segment P Tree Inventory Report; and Bypass Routes 1
and 2 Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA.
Prepared by The Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. Total Population, 2010–2014 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates. Available: http:
factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_5YR_B
01003&prodType=table. Accessed: Aug. 16, 2016.
Vissering, Jean, Mark Sinclair, and Anne Margolis. 2011. State Clean Energy Program Guide: A
Visual Impact Assessment Process for Wind Energy Projects. Clean Energy States Alliance.
May 2011.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐7
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
Water Resources
City of Bellevue. 2016a. Storm and Surface Water System Plan. Available:
http://www.bellevuewa.gov/storm-surface-water-plan.htm. Accessed: October 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2016b. Water System Supply Plan. June 2016.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2014. 2012 Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington, as amended December 2014. Ecology Publication Number 14-10-
055.
Geoengineers. 2016. Geotechnical Engineers Services for the Energize Eastside Project, Redmond to
Renton, Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy. June to August 2016.
Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. August 2004.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
(Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. October 2014.
King County. 2016. Map of Groundwater Management Areas in King County. Available:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/water-and-land/groundwater/maps-
reports/maps.aspx. Accessed: August 26, 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016. City of Bellevue Critical Areas Delineation Report. Prepared for
Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project. May 2016.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. SalmonScape. Available:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/. Accessed: August 2016.
Plants and Animals
City of Bellevue. 2016a. Storm and Surface Water System Plan. Available:
http://www.bellevuewa.gov/storm-surface-water-plan.htm. Accessed: October 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2016b. Storm and Surface Water, Drainage Basins webpage. Available:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/drainage-basins.htm. Accessed: August 2016.
Dwyer, J.F., R.E. Harness, and K. Donohue. 2013. Predictive Model of Avian Electrocution Risk on
Overhead Power Lines. Conservation Biology 28(1):159-168.
King County. 2016. Watersheds and Rivers, Streams Data webpage. Available:
http://green2.kingcounty.gov/streamsdata/Default.aspx. Accessed: August, 2016.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2014. Puget Sound Energy – Vegetation Management. Available:
http://pse.com/safety/Tree-Trimming/Pages/Tree-Maintenance.aspx. Accessed: September
13, 2016.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2015. Puget Sound Energy 2015 Integrated Resource Plan. Available at
http://pse.com/aboutpse/EnergySupply/Pages/Resource-Planning.aspx. Accessed August 11,
2015.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐8
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016a. Puget Sound Energy Noxious Weed Management Program.
Available: http://pse.com/aboutpse/Environment/Pages/Wildlife-Habitat.aspx. Accessed:
September 29, 2016.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016b. Puget Sound Energy Avian Protection Program. Available:
http://www.pse.com/aboutpse/Environment/Pages/Bird-Protection.aspx. Accessed:
September 13, 2016.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016c. Puget Sound Energy – Energy Landscaping. Available:
http://pse.com/safety/Tree-Trimming/Pages/Tree-Maintenance.aspx. Accessed: September
13, 2016.
SCL (Seattle City Light). 2014. Avian Protection Plan: Seattle City Light, Version 1. Environmental
Affairs and Real Estate Division, Seattle, Washington. Available:
http://www.seattle.gov/light/enviro/avian/. Accessed: August 31, 2016.
Strauch, B. 2016. Email from Bradley Strauch, Sr. Land Planner/Environmental Scientist, PSE, to
Claire Hoffman and Reema Shakra, ESA, regarding information and data for the Energize
Eastside Project. August 16, 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2009. Bellevue Urban Wildlife Habitat, Literature Review. Report
prepared for the City of Bellevue Development Services Department, Bellevue, Washington.
The Watershed Company. 2016a. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project. Includes the following
separate reports: City of Bellevue Tree Inventory Report; King County Tree Inventory
Report; City of Newcastle Tree Inventory Report; City of Redmond Tree Inventory Report;
City of Renton Tree Inventory Report; Richards Creek Parcel Tree Inventory Report;
Segment O Tree Inventory Report; Segment P Tree Inventory Report; and Bypass Routes 1
and 2 Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA.
Prepared by The Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016b. Critical Areas Delineation and Analysis: Energize Eastside Project.
Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue Critical Areas Delineation Report;
King County Critical Areas Delineation Report; City of Newcastle Critical Areas Delineation
Report; City of Redmond Critical Areas Delineation Report; and City of Renton Critical
Areas Delineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by The
Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset Labeled as twc_ee_veg_impact_results_20160914.
September 14, 2016.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016a. Priority Habitat and Species
Database. Available: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. Accessed: August 2016.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016b. SalmonScape Database. Available:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html. Accessed: August 2016.
WDNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2016. Washington Natural Heritage
Program database. Available: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/gis/wnhpgis.html.
Accessed: October 2016.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐9
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
Greenhouse Gases
Adelsman, H. 2014. Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2010 – 2011.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Published December 2014. Publication No. 14-02-
024.
Blackman, J., M. Averyt, and Z. Taylor. 2006. SF6 Leak Rates from High Voltage Circuit Breakers -
U.S. EPA Investigates Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/leakrates_circuitbreakers.pdf.
Accessed: September 14, 2016.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers). 2013. Association. California Emissions
Estimator Model, Appendix A, page 48, 2013. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/
Accessed: September 22, 2016.
Cary, S.M. 2013. High Voltage Circuit Breaker Standards – Comparative Guide. White Paper
WP012001EN. Eaton, Cleveland, OH (www.eaton.com).
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and
Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effect of Climate Change
in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews. August 2016, Available:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance.
Accessed: September 22, 2016.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2016. Rule-Making Order CR103P. September
2016. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/WAC173442/X1510.pdf. Accessed:
September 22, 2016.
IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science
Basis, Working Group 1 Contribution to the 5th Assessment Report.
i-Tree. 2016. Tools for Assessing and Managing Forests & Community Trees. Available:
http://www.itreetools.org/. Accessed: November 2016.
King County. 2015. Strategic Climate Action Plan. June 2015.
Kjellsen, K.O., M. Guimaraes, and A. Nilsson. 2005. CO2 Uptake During the Concrete Lifecycle:
The CO2 Balance of Concrete in a Lifecycle Perspective.
Seattle OSE (Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment). 2012. Drive Clean Seattle FAQ’s,
Available: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/DCS_FAQ_Final.pdf.
Accessed September 20, 2016.
Stephenson, N.L. et al. 2014. Rate of Tree Carbon Accumulation Increases Continuously with Tree
Size. Nature 507: 90-93. March 6, 2014.
The Watershed Company. 2016. Tree Inventory Excel Database titled Willow, Oak, Richards,
Bypass_EIS Segments w VIA Result. Dated September 9, 2016.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐10
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2011. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, Los
Angeles’ Urban Forest. March 2011.
Recreation
Bellevue School District. 2016a. Tyee Middle School. Available: https://www.bsd405.org/tyee/.
Accessed July 8, 2016.
Bellevue School District. 2016b. Newport Hills High School. Available: http://www.bsd405.org/nhs/.
Accessed July 8, 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2015. Comprehensive Plan. Available:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/comprehensive_plan.htm. Accessed August 19, 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2016a. Bellevue Parks & Open Space System Plan. City Council Approved Draft.
Available: https://www.bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Parks/parks-open-space-plan_draft_5-2-16.pdf.
Accessed July 6, 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2016b. Find Bellevue Parks and Facilities. Available:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/parks_intro.htm. Accessed July 7, 2016.
City of Newcastle. 2016a. 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Available:
http://www.ci.newcastle.wa.us/community_development/Plans/Newcastle%202015%20Com
prehensive%20Plan%20FINAL%20DRAFT%202016-07-29.pdf. Accessed September 1,
2016.
City of Newcastle. 2016b. Parks and Trails. Available:
http://www.ci.newcastle.wa.us/parks/parks_trails.htm. Accessed July 6, 2016.
City of Redmond. 2013. Transportation Master Plan. Available:
http://www.redmond.gov/PlansProjects/Transportation/TransportationMasterPlan. Accessed
September 1, 2016.
City of Redmond. 2015. 2030 City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan. Amended May 30, 2015.
City of Redmond. 2016. Parks & Trails. Available: http://www.redmond.gov/ParksRecreation/Parks.
Accessed August 8, 2016.
City of Renton. 2016. Master Park Directory. Available:
http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=2328. Accessed July 6, 2016.
Glendale Country Club. 2016. Glendale Country Club. Available: http://www.glendalecc.com/.
Accessed July 6, 2016.
Google Earth. 2016. City of Renton school facility data. N47o30’59.04”, W122o09”54”. Accessed
August 2016.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐11
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
King County. 2016a. Eastside Rail Corridor Regional Trail Final Master Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement. Available: http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/parks-
recreation/parks/capital-improvements/erc.aspx. Accessed August 10, 2016.
King County. 2016b. King County Parks List. Available: http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/ParkFinder/.
Accessed July 14, 2016.
Lake Washington School District. 2016. Rose Hill Middle School. Available:
http://www.lwsd.org/school/rhms/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed July 5, 2016.
Peterson, Lorrie. 2016. Personal communication. Meeting between Lorrie Peterson, Parks Property
Manager (City of Bellevue) and Claire Hoffman (ESA). July 19, 2016.
Somerset Recreation Club. 2016. Somerset Recreation Club. Available: http://www.somersetrec.org/.
Accessed July 6. 2106.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Allen, Jason, and Elizabeth O’Brien. 2007. Northern Pacific Railway Lake Washington Beltline
Historic Property Inventory Record, DAHP Property #88798. On file, Washington State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Beckner, Chrisanne, and Jennifer Gilpin. 2015. DRAFT–Cultural Resources Evaluation for
Sammamish-Lakeside-Talbot Hill Transmission Lines #1 and #2: Proposed Puget Sound
Energy Energize Eastside Project, King County, Washington. Submitted to Puget Sound
Energy by Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. On file, ESA Offices, Seattle,
WA.
Bevan, Bruce W. 1991. The Search for Graves. Geophysics 56(9):1310–1319.
Buck, Sabrina C. 2003. Searching for Graves Using Geophysical Technology: Field Tests with
Ground-Penetrating Radar, Magnetometry, and Electrical Resistivity. Journal of Forensic
Science 48(1):1–7.
City of Bellevue. 2006. Somerset webpage. Available: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/somerset-
area.htm. Accessed: September 7, 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2015. City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan. Updated August 2015.
City of Newcastle. 2016. City of Newcastle 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Adopted March 2016.
City of Redmond. 2015. 2030 City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan. Amended October 2015.
City of Renton. 2015. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Updated July 2015.
City of Renton. 2016. Centennial Markers – History Lives Here. Available:
http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=1380. Accessed: August 2, 2016.
Conyers, Lawrence B. 2006. Ground-Penetrating Radar Techniques to Discover and Map Historic
Graves. Historic Archaeology 40(3):64-73.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐12
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
DAHP (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2010. Statewide
Predictive Model. Last updated 2010. Available: http://www.dahp.wa.gov/. Accessed: July
22, 2016.
DAHP (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2016. Washington
Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD)
[restricted access database]. Last updated 2016. Accessed: July 22, 2016.
Davis, J. Les, J. Alan Heginbottom, A. Peter Annan, S. Rod Daniels, B. Peter Berdal, Tom Bergan,
Kirsty E. Duncan, Peter K. Lewin, John S. Oxford, Noel Roberts, John J. Skehel, and Charles
R. Smith. 2000. Ground-Penetrating Radar Surveys to Locate 1918 Spanish Flu Victims in
Permafrost. Journal of Forensic Science 45(1):68–76.
Dellert, Jenny, Jennifer Gilpin, and Zach Windler. 2016a. DRAFT–Fallback 1 and 2 Routes
Alternatives Analysis for Cultural Resources: Proposed Puget Sound Energy Energize
Eastside Project, King County, Washington. Submitted to Puget Sound Energy by Historical
Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. On file, ESA Offices, Seattle, WA.
Dellert, Jenny, Jennifer Gilpin, Michele Punke, Chrisanne Beckner, Alexander Stevenson, Jordan
Pickrell, Gabe Frazier, Lynn Compas, and Carl Williams. 2016b. REVISED DRAFT–
Alternatives Analysis for Cultural Resources: Proposed Puget Sound Energy Energize
Eastside Project, King County, Washington. Submitted to Puget Sound Energy by Historical
Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. On file, ESA Offices, Seattle, WA.
Eastside Heritage Center. 2016. Bellevue Historic Sites. Available:
http://www.eastsideheritagecenter.org/tours/bellevue_tour.html. Accessed: July 20, 2016.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.p
df. Accessed: July 20, 2016.
Gilpin, Jennifer, Michele Punke, Chrisanne Beckner, Alexander Stevenson, Gabe Frazier, and Lynn
Compas. 2014. DRAFT–Alternatives Analysis for Cultural Resources: Proposed Puget
Sound Energy Energize Eastside Project, King County, Washington. Submitted to Puget
Sound Energy by Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. On file, ESA Offices,
Seattle, WA.
KCHPP (King County Historic Preservation Program). 2015. King County and City Landmarks List.
Technical Paper No. 6. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/programs-and-
services/historic-preservation/landmarks. Last updated December 29, 2015. Accessed: July
22, 2016.
King County. 2014. King County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted 2012. Amended 2013 and 2014.
King County Assessor. 2016. King County iMap. Available:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/gis/Maps/imap.aspx. Accessed: July 22, 2016.
Kopperl, Robert E. 2009. Bear Creek Site, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form.
On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia,
WA.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐13
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
Kramer, George. 2012. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Pacific Northwest Transmission
System National Register Multiple Property Nomination Form. Prepared by Kramer &
Company, Ashland, OR for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.
MacIntosh, H. 1999. Newcastle Cemetery, 45KI141, Historic Property Inventory Record. On file,
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Neurath, Peter. 1980. Newcastle Cemetery National Register of Historic Places Inventory-
Nomination Form. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Nobes, David C. 1999. Geophysical Surveys of Burial Sites: A Case Study of the Oaro Urupa.
Geophysics 64(2):357–367.
NPS (National Park Service). 1997. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
National Register Bulletin No. 15, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service
Cultural Resources. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2016. Web Soil Survey. Available:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: August 24,
2016.
Robertson, Donald B. 1995. Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History: Oregon, Washington, vol.
III. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, ID.
Sundberg, Charlie. 2010a. Newcastle Cemetery, 45KI141, Historic Property Inventory Record. On
file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Sundberg, Charlie. 2010b. Greenwood Memorial Park, 45KI887, Historic Property Inventory
Record. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Olympia, WA.
Sundberg, Charlie. 2010c. Mt. Olivet Cemetery, 45KI888, Historic Property Inventory Record. On
file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Sundberg, Charlie. 2011. Survey Report: Survey of Cemeteries and Burial Places in King County,
WA. Prepared by King County Historic Preservation Program for Washington State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Tobin, Caroline C., and Lee F. Pendergrass. 1993. Bellevue Historic and Cultural Resources Survey.
Prepared for City of Bellevue. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA.
Troost, Kathy G., and Derek B. Booth. 2008. Geology of Seattle and the Seattle Area, Washington.
Reviews in Engineering Geology XX:1-35.
WHBR (Washington Heritage Barn Register). 2010. Kelsey Creek Farm/Twin Valley Dairy,
45KI970. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Olympia, WA.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐14
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
Environmental Health - Electric and Magnetic Fields
ACGIH (American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists). 2009. Threshold Limit Values
for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati,
ACGIH.
City of Bellevue. 2015. City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan. Updated August 2015.
City of Redmond. 2011. Redmond 2030: City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan. 2011. Adopted
December 6, 2011. Available: http://user-6418068785.cld.bz/Redmond-20305#1.
DNV GL. 2016. A Detailed Approach to Assess AC Interference Levels Between the Energize
Eastside Transmission Line Project and the Existing Olympic Pipelines, OLP16 & OPL20.
Memo to: Puget Sound Energy. September 9, 2016.
Enertech Consultants. 2017a. Technical Review Memorandum Regarding the Power Engineers 230
kV Eastside Line Project, EMF Calculations and Report – Revision 1. January 13, 2017.
Enertech Consultants. 2017b. Technical Review Memorandum Regarding the Power Engineers 230
kV Eastside Line Project, EMF Calculations and Report - Revision 2. March 23, 2017.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2005. EPRI AC Transmission Line Reference Book—200
kV and Above, Third Edition, 1011974, page 7-25. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA.
ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection). 2010. Guidelines for
Limiting Exposure to Time-varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Healthy
Phys 99(6): 818-836. Available at: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/LFgdl.pdf.
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). 2002. IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with
Respect to Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, 0 – 3 kHz. IEEE Std C95.6-2002.
Available at: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-
Documents/Final-EIR-Files/references/rtcref/ch9.0/RTCrefappx/2014-12-19_IEEE2002.pdf.
Kothapalli, Sunitha. 2017. Personal communication. Email communication between Reema Shakra
of ESA, Sunitha Kothapalli, Consulting Engineer, Electric Transmission Planning of Puget
Sound Energy, and Brad Strauch, Energize Eastside Project Manager of Puget Sound Energy,
March 29, 2017.
Power Engineers. 2017. 230 kV Energize Eastside Project, EMF Calculations and Report – Revision
2. Power Engineers. March 7, 2017.
Severson R.K., R.G. Stevens, W.T. Kaune, D.B. Thomas, L. Heuser S. Davis, and L.E. Sever. 1988.
Acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and residential exposure to power frequency magnetic
fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128(1):10-20. Available at:
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-
Files/references/rtcref/ch9.0/RTCrefappx/2014-12-19_Severson1988.pdf.
Silva, J.M., N. Hummon, D. Rutter, and C. Hooper. 1988. Power frequency magnetic fields in the
home. Piscataway (NJ): Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 88 WM 101-8.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐15
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
WHO (World Health Organization). 2002. Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic
Fields. Radiation and Environmental Health Department of Protection of the Human
Environment World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. Available:
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/en/EMF_Risk_Chpt3.pdf.
Zaffanella, L. 1993. Survey of residential magnetic field sources. Volume 1: Goals, results and
conclusions (Final Report). Palo Alto, CA: EPRI. TR-102759-V1.
Environmental Health - Pipeline Safety
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2013. ASCE Manual No. 74: Guidelines for Electrical
Transmission Line Structural Loading.
CDE (California Department of Education). 2007. Guidance Protocol for School Site Pipeline Risk
Analysis. February 2007.
City of Bellevue. 2013. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Available at
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/fire_emergency_response.htm. Access on March 27, 2017.
City of Newcastle. 2008. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Available at
http://www.ci.newcastle.wa.us/emergency_preparedness.htm. Accessed on March 27, 2017.
City of Redmond. 2015. 2015 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Update. Available at
http://www.redmond.gov/PublicSafety/DisasterPreparedness/plans/comprehensive/.
Accessed on March 27, 2017.
City of Renton. 2012. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Available at
http://rentonwa.gov/emergencies/default.aspx?id=2084. Accessed on March 27, 2017.
CRS (Congressional Research Service). 2010. DOT’s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background
and Key Issues for Congress. May 20, 2016. Accessed: December 14, 2016. Available:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44201.pdf.
DNV GL. 2015. Criteria for Pipelines Co-Existing with Electric Power Lines. Final Report No.
2015-04. Prepared for the INGAA Foundation. Prepared by S. Finneran. October.
DNV GL. 2016. A Detailed Approach to Assess AC Interference Levels Between the Energize
Eastside Transmission Line Project and the Existing Olympic Pipelines, OLP16 & OPL20.
Memo to: Puget Sound Energy. September 9, 2016.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2016. Focus on Environmental Harm from Oil
Spills. Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program. Pamphlet prepared by
Ecology. Publication Number: 10-08-001 (Rev. 02/16). Available:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1008001.pdf. February 2016.
EDM Services. 2017. Pipeline Safety Technical Report (Technical Report, Pipeline Safety and Risk
of Upset). Prepared for Environmental Science Associates, Seattle, WA. Prepared by EDM
Services, Inc., Simi Valley, WA. April 2017.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐16
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
Fieltsch, W., and B. Winget. 2014. Mitigation of Arcing Risks to Pipelines Due to Phase-to-Ground
Faults at Adjacent Transmission Powerline Structures. Paper No. 4389 from Corrosion 2014
Conference. NACE International, Houston, TX.
Hoffman D., B.A. Rattner, G.A. Burton Jr., and J Cairns Jr. (eds.). 2003. Handbook of
Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers. Washington, DC.
Insurance Information Institute. 2013. Website ‘Mortality Risks’. Available at:
http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/mortality-risk. Accessed 2/8/17.
National Weather Service. 2017. How Dangerous is Lightning – Odds of Becoming a Lightning
Victim (based on averages of 2006-2015). Available at:
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml. Accessed 3/4/2017.
Newton, Vernon C., Jr. 1965. Natural Gas and Petroleum Products Pipelines in the Northwest. The
ORE BIN. Volume 27, No. 8. August 1965.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2016. Oil Types. Developed by NOAA,
Office of Response and Restoration. Available: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-
chemical-spills/oil-spills/oil-types.html. Revised September 19, 2016.
Olympic (Olympic Pipeline Company). 2016. Letter to Rich Crispo, Mayor of City of Newcastle (via
Email) from Marc Horn, President of Olympic Pipe Line Company. July 19, 2016.
Olympic (Olympic Pipe Line Company). 2017. Olympic Pipe Line Operations Fact Sheet. Olympic
Pipe Line Company. Downloaded from
http://www.workingwaterfrontportland.org/profiles/olympic_pipeline.pdf on April 24, 2017.
PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration). 2016a. Pipeline Miles and
Facilities 2010+ - Portal Data. Accessed October 14, 2016. Available at:
https://hip.phmsa.dot.gov/analyticsSOAP/saw.dll?Portalpages.
PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration). 2016b. Pipeline Incident 20
Year Trends. Accessed October 12, 2016. Available at:
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats/pipelineincidenttrends.
Rathbun, A. 2016. Personal communication. Email communication between Anne Minihan of ESA
and Alan Rathbun, Pipeline Safety Program, Washington UTC, August 24, 2016.
Regional Response Team 10 and Northwest Area Committee. 2016. Northwest Area Contingency
Plan. Available: http://www.rrt10nwac.com/nwacp/. January 1, 2016. Accessed: September
13, 2016.
Stone, Joseph. 2016. Personal communication. SR/WA Right of Way Agent, BP Pipelines (North
America) Operating Agent for Olympic Pipe Line Company. Email regarding Energize
Eastside Information request. August 8, 2016.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐17
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
Strauch, Bradley. 2017. Personal communication. Email from Bradley Strauch, Senior Land
Planner/Environmental Scientist (Puget Sound Energy) to Reema Shakra (ESA) and Mark
Johnson (ESA). Subject = PSE Corridor Responsibilities. March 16, 2016 at 5:05 PM with
attachments.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems. Effects of Fire on
Fauna. USDA Forest Service, rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report
RMRS-GTR-42 Volume 1. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_1.pdf.
January 2000.
UTC (Utilities and Transportation Commission). 2017. Olympic Pipe Line Inspection Reports.
Available online at
https://www.utc.wa.gov/regulatedIndustries/transportation/pipeline/Pages/InspectionReports-
OlympicPipeline.aspx.
West, Kim. 2016. Personal communication. Email from Kim West, Project Engineer (Olympic Pipe
Line Company) to Karmen Martin (ESA). August 5, 2016 at 4:32 PM with attachment.
Economics
American Forests. 2008. Urban Ecosystem Analysis, City of Bellevue, WA. Calculating the Value of
Nature. Available:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Urban+Ecosystem+Analysis%2C+City+of+Bellevu
e%2C+WA.+Calculating+teh+Value+of+Nature. Accessed: September 2016.
ACTrees (Alliance for Community Trees). 2011. Benefits of Trees and Urban Forests: A Research
List. Available: http://www.actrees.org/files/Research/benefits_of_trees.pdf. Accessed:
September 2016.
FCS Group. 2016. Economic Considerations, Supplemental Analysis – Energize Eastside Phase 2
Draft EIS. Draft, September 15, 2016.
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2015. Technical Support Document:
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866. Available:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf. As
cited in iTree, 2016.
iTree. 2016. iTree Ecosystem Analysis, Eastside Energize. Urban Forest Effects and Values. October
2016.
MRCS (Municipal Research and Services Center). 2016. Property Tax in Washington State.
Available: http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Finance/Revenues/The-Property-Tax-in-
Washington-State.aspx. Accessed: September 2016.
Mullins, P., et al. 2003. Transmission Lines and Property Values: State of the Science. Prepared for
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.(EPRI). Technical Report 1005546. November 2003.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐18
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016. Can PSE put the lines underground? EIS website for the Energize
Eastside project. Available: http://www.energizeeastside.com/Contents/Item/Display/146.
Accessed: September 2016.
Tatos, T., M. Glick, and T.A. Lunt. 2016. Property Value Impacts from Transmission Lines,
Subtransmission Lines, and Substations. The Appraisal Journal. Available:
https://www.appraisalinstitute.org/assets/1/7/TAJ_Preview_Front_Page.pdf. Accessed:
November 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016a. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project. Includes the following
separate reports: City of Bellevue Tree Inventory Report; King County Tree Inventory
Report; City of Newcastle Tree Inventory Report; City of Redmond Tree Inventory Report;
City of Renton Tree Inventory Report; Richards Creek Parcel Tree Inventory Report;
Segment O Tree Inventory Report; Segment P Tree Inventory Report; and Bypass Routes 1
and 2 Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA.
Prepared by The Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016b. Tree Inventory Excel Database titled Willow, Oak, Richards,
Bypass_EIS Segments w VIA Result. Dated September 9, 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Quick Facts website data for Newcastle, Washington. Available:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/INC110214/5348645,53. Accessed: September
2016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. The social cost of carbon. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html. As cited in iTree,
2016.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2016. i-Tree. Public domain software suite developed by the USDA
Forest Service. Available: https://www.itreetools.org/. Accessed: September 2016.
Cumulative Impacts
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and
Agencies on Consideration of Greenhous Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change
in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews. Memorandum from Christina Goldfuss,
CEQ. August 1, 2016. Available:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance.
Sound Transit. 2011. East Link Project Final EIS July 2011. Available at
http://www.soundtransit.org/Projects-and-Plans/East-Link-Extension/East-Link-Extension-
document-archive/East-Link-Documents/East-Link-document-collections/East-Link-Final-
EIS-document-collection. Accessed September 24, 2015.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐19
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Sources (for Maps and
Analyses)
City of Bellevue. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA,
by the City of Bellevue.
City of Issaquah. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA,
by the City of Issaquah.
City of Kirkland. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA,
by the City of Kirkland.
City of Newcastle. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle,
WA, by the City of Newcastle.
City of Redmond. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle,
WA, by the City of Redmond.
City of Renton. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA,
by the City of Renton.
City of Sammamish. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle,
WA, by the City of Sammamish.
DAHP (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2015. WISAARD
(Washington Information System for Architectural & Archaeological Records Data) on-line
database. Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaardp3/.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2014. National Hydrology Dataset (NHD)
watercourse layer. Available:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/inlandWaters/NHD/NHDmajor.htm.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2016. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL).
Available: https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/NFHLWMS. Accessed November
2016.
HRA (Historical Research Associates). 2016. GIS data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by HRA, Seattle, WA, regarding parcel construction dates.
King County. 2015. King County GIS Data Portal. Available:
http://www5.kingcounty.gov/gisdataportal/.
NAIP (National Agriculture Imagery Program). 2015. NAIP Imagery website. Available:
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/aerial-photography/imagery-programs/naip-
imagery/.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. C-CAP Land Cover Atlas
website. Office for Costal Management, Digitalcoast. Available:
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/lca.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 8‐20
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES MAY 2017
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2015. GIS, CAD, and static map data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by PSE, Bellevue, WA.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016. GIS, CAD, and static map data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by PSE, Bellevue, WA.
SCL (Seattle City Light). 2015. GIS, CAD, and static map data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by SCL, Seattle, WA.
UTC (Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission). 2015. Pipeline Maps on UTC’s
Pipeline Safety Map Viewer. Available:
https://www.utc.wa.gov/regulatedIndustries/transportation/pipeline/Pages/pipelineMaps.aspx.
9
Distribution List
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 9‐1
CHAPTER 9 DISTRIBUTION LIST MAY 2017
DISTRIBUTION LIST
The following parties have received the Draft EIS by electronic link, compact disc, or printed copy:
Federal Agencies
Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
Postal Service
Tribal Governments
Duwamish Tribe
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Snoqualmie Nation
Stillaguamish Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Tulalip Tribes
Regional
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Puget Sound Regional Council
Sound Transit
Washington State
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Agriculture
Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation
Department of Commerce
Department of Community Development
Department of Corrections
Department of Ecology SEPA Unit
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Health
Regional Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Social and Health Services
Department of Transportation
Parks & Recreation Commission
Recreation Conservation Office
Local
City of Bellevue Fire Department
City of Bothell
City of Issaquah
City of Kenmore
City of Kent
City of Renton Fire Department
City of Sammamish
City of Tukwila
City of Woodinville
East Bellevue Community Council
Houghton Community Council
King County Boundary Review Board
King County Department of Permitting &
Environmental Review
King County Department of Transportation
King County Executive Office
King County Historic Preservation Program
King County Metro Transit
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 9‐2
CHAPTER 9 DISTRIBUTION LIST MAY 2017
King County Department of Natural
Resources & Parks
King County Parks Department
King County Wastewater Treatment Division
King County Water and Land Resources
Division
King Eastside Community Services Office
Seattle and King County Public Health
Seattle City Light
Seattle Public Utilities
Libraries
Bellevue Library
Fairwood Library
Lake Hills Library
Newcastle Library
Newport Way Library
Redmond Library
Renton Highlands Library
Renton Library
Seattle Public Library
University of Washington, College of
Architecture & Urban Planning Library
Other
Bellevue Chamber of Commerce
Bellevue Downtown Association
Bellevue School District #405
Cascade Water Alliance
CenturyLink
Coal Creek Utility District
Comcast
Eastgate Public Health Center
Eastside Audubon Society
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
Evergreen Health
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Lake Washington School District #414
Meydenbauer Bay Neighbors Association
Northshore Utility District
Olympic Pipe Line Company
Puget Sound Energy
Puget Sound Partnership
Renton Chamber of Commerce
West Bellevue Community Club
Woodinville Water District
10
Acronyms and Glossary
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐1
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
CHAPTER 10. ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC alternating current
ACGIH American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AV assessed value
BCC Bellevue City Code
BMPs Best Management Practices
BP BP Pipelines-North America
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
Btu British thermal unit
C&PSRR Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad
CAG Community Advisory Group
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CENSE Coalition of Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalent
COA Certificate of Appropriateness
DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
DC direct current
EBCC East Bellevue Community Council
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ELF extremely low-frequency
EMF electric and magnetic fields
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐2
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERC Eastside Rail Corridor
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
F-N frequency-number
FTA Federal Transit Administration
G gauss
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographic information system
HB House Bill
HVAC high voltage alternating current
Hz hertz
I-405 Interstate 405
I-90 Interstate 90
ICES International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety
ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
INGAA Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
K4C King County-Cities Climate Collaboration
KC Landmarks King County and Local Landmarks List
KCHPP King County Historic Preservation Program
kV kilovolt
KVP Key Viewpoint
LUC City of Bellevue Land Use Code
mG milligauss
MW Megawatt
N2O nitrous oxide
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐3
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
NESC National Electric Safety Code
NH4 methane
NMC City of Newcastle Code
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
Olympic Olympic Pipe Line Company
OPGW optical ground wire
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
PSE Puget Sound Energy
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RMC City of Renton Municipal Code
RZC City of Redmond Zoning Code
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
SCL Seattle City Light
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SMP Shoreline Master Program
SPU Seattle Public Utilities
SR 520 State Route 520
UK-HSE Health and Safety Executive of the United Kingdom
USC United States Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UTC Utilities and Transportation Commission
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐4
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
WHBR Washington Heritage Barn Register
WHR Washington Heritage Register
WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐5
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
GLOSSARY
Term Description
AC Current Density A measure of electrical interference adjacent to the pipeline.
Aesthetic Environment The physical influences of human perception of the world.
Alternating Current (AC) An electric current that periodically reverses direction. Alternating
current is the form in which electric power is delivered to businesses
and residences.
Ancillary Providing necessary support to the primary activities or operation of
an organization, institution, industry, or system.
Arc Distances The distance a fault current can travel to or through the ground, such
as between a power pole and a buried pipeline.
Arcing An electric current that is brief and strong between two points of
contact, usually associated with a short circuit or current interruption.
Auger A tool with a large helical bit for boring holes in the ground.
Auxiliary Rubber Tire Vehicle A vehicle with spare rubber tires.
Backfill To refill an excavated hole with the material dug out of it.
Backhoe A mechanical excavator that draws toward itself a bucket attached to
a hinged boom.
Best Management Practices
(BMPs)
Measures developed on a project-specific basis to minimize potential
construction-related impacts. BMPs vary depending on the activities
involved.
Block Load The expected increase in energy demand from a specific customer or
group of customers.
Bucket Truck A truck equipped with an extendable, hydraulic boom carrying a
large bucket for raising workers to elevated, inaccessible areas.
Bulk Power System A system for bulk transfer of electrical energy, from generating power
plants to electrical substations located near demand centers. This is
distinct from the local wiring between high-voltage substations and
customers, which is typically referred to as electric power
distribution.
Carbon Sink A natural environment that absorbs more carbon dioxide than it
releases.
Cathodic Protection System Cathodic protection systems prevent corrosion from occurring on the
exterior of pipelines by substituting a new source of electrons,
commonly referred to as an anode. The anode is designed as the
sacrificial material installed to purposely corrode and protect the
pipeline. There are two basic types of anodes: the galvanic type and
the impressed current type.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐6
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA)
The entitlement required to alter an individual landmark and any
property within a landmark district.
Clear Zone Area where vegetation has been removed to construct a new facility,
create an access road, or meet design criteria for operation of
transmission lines.
Climate Change The changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations
and human activities that alter the composition of the global
atmosphere.
Coating Stress Pipelines typically have an exterior coating to protect from corrosion.
The susceptibility of this coating to breakdown is based on the type
and thickness of the coating and the voltage the pipeline is subject
to.
Coating Stress Voltage During fault conditions, damage to a pipeline’s coating can occur if
the voltage between the pipeline and surrounding soil becomes
excessive (see coating stress).
Collisions When birds fly directly into conductors, resulting in injury or mortality
from impact.
Concrete Pump Truck A machine used for transferring liquid concrete via a pumping
motion.
Conductor An object or type of material that allows the flow of electrical
current in one or more directions. A transmission line is an electrical
conductor. Conductivity, in general, is the capacity to transmit
electricity.
Contrast The extent to which a viewer can distinguish between an object and
its background.
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) List of corrective actions that are to be made manually by local
electrical system dispatchers to control local electrical problems.
Critical Areas Areas identified by counties and local municipalities as needing to be
protected. Critical areas include: geologic hazard areas, frequently
flooded areas, wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas (FWHCAs), and critical aquifer recharge areas.
Cultural Resource Collective evidence of the past activities and accomplishments of
people. Buildings, objects, features, locations, and structures with
scientific, historic, and cultural value are all examples of cultural
resources.
Danger Tree Trees at risk of falling and likely to come in contact with nearby wires.
Dead-End Tower Structure used where the line ends, turns with a high angle, or at
major crossings (such as highways or rivers). Dead-end towers must
be stronger than other poles because they are under tension from
just one side. Often they have additional guy wires, are larger in
diameter, and/or have larger footings than other poles.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐7
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Determined Eligible for Listing A property that has been determined by the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) or local preservation office to meet
required criteria for inclusion on a historic register.
Distribution System The final stage in the delivery of electric power; it carries electricity
from the transmission system to individual consumers.
Duct Bank An assembly of conduits installed underground between buildings,
structures, or devices to allow installation of power and
communication cables. They may either be directly buried in earth, or
encased in concrete (sometimes with reinforcing rebar).
Eastside An area of King County, Washington, roughly defined as extending
from Renton in the south to Redmond in the north, and between Lake
Washington and Lake Sammamish.
Ecosystems Services The benefits that the ecosystem provides to humankind.
Electric and Magnetic Fields
(EMF)
Invisible areas of energy often referred to as radiation that are
associated with the use of electrical power and various forms of
natural and man-made lighting. Also referred to as electromagnetic
fields.
Electrical Interference Any electrical disturbance on a metallic structure (e.g., pipeline) as a
result of a stray current.
Electrocutions When birds directly contact energized and grounded conductors or
equipment.
Electromagnetic Of or relating to the interrelation of electric currents or fields and
magnetic fields.
Endangered Species A species of animal or plant that is seriously at risk of extinction.
These species are listed by state or federal agencies to implement
protection measures.
Ethnographic The scientific description of the customs of individual people and
cultures.
Excavator Large machine for removing soil from the ground, especially on a
building site.
External Corrosion Occurs when the metal of the pipeline reacts with the environment,
causing pipeline to corrode (or rust) on the outside of the pipe.
Exurban A region or area outside a city or its suburbs and that often is
inhabited primarily by affluent families.
Facility Response Plan (FRP) A plan prepared by certain facilities that store and use oil to
demonstrate the facility's preparedness to respond to a worst-case
oil discharge.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐8
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Fault Conditions Fault conditions, usually initiated by lightning, result in the transfer of
electrical power indirectly from one or more AC powerline conductors
(i.e., wire) via the metallic transmission line pole to the ground, or
directly to the ground as a result of an overhead conductor falling to
the ground.
Fault Currents Faults (or fault currents) are any abnormal current flow from the
standard intended operating conditions. These faults are typically
caused by lightning, insulator failure, mechanical failure, and
transformer failure.
Fixed Value The structural value + the carbon storage value.
Flash Fire Can occur when a vapor cloud is formed, with some portion of the
vapor cloud within the combustible range, and the ignition is delayed.
Foreground The part of a view that is nearest to the observer.
Fossil Fuels Buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed
from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude
oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure
in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.
Frequency The number of cycles that occur in 1 second, measured in hertz (Hz).
Generator Machine for converting mechanical energy into electricity.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions
Any of the atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse
effect by absorbing infrared radiation produced by solar warming of
the Earth's surface. They include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2), and water vapor.
Hazardous Material Any substance or material that could adversely affect the safety of
the public, handlers, or carriers during transportation.
Hazardous Waste Waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the
environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or
sludges. They can be discarded commercial products, like cleaning
fluids or pesticides, or the byproducts of manufacturing processes.
Heat Flux Humans in the vicinity of a fire receive heat from the fire in the form
of thermal radiation. Radiant heat flux decreases with increasing
distance from a fire.
High Consequence Area
(HCA)
A location that is specifically defined in pipeline safety regulations as
an area where pipeline releases could have greater consequences to
health and safety or the environment. Regulations require a pipeline
operator to take additional steps to ensure the integrity of a pipeline
for which a release could affect an HCA.
High Voltage Usually considered any voltage 69 kilovolts or higher.
Historic Archaeological
Resources
Material remains of human life or activities that are at least 100 years
of age, of archeological interest, and determined eligible for listing on
the NRHP.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐9
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Historic Register-listed
Resources
Resources within the study area that is included as a listed resource
on a register of importance.
Historic Resource A prehistoric or historic archaeological site, as well as historic sites,
buildings, structures, objects, districts, and landscapes.
Incident As used in pipeline safety regulations, an incident is an event
occurring on a natural gas pipeline for which the operator must make
a report to the Office of Pipeline Safety. Events of similar magnitude
affecting hazardous liquid pipelines are considered accidents.
Individual Risk The frequency that an individual may be expected to sustain a given
level of harm from the realization of exposure to specific hazards, at a
specific location. The individual risk results can be expressed as
likelihood (e.g., fatalities per year).
In-Line Inspection The inspection of a steel pipeline using an electronic instrument or
tool that travels along the interior of the pipeline.
Insulator (electrical) A material whose internal electric charges do not flow freely, and
therefore make it nearly impossible to conduct an electric current
under the influence of an electric field. Insulators are used in
electrical equipment to support and separate electrical conductors
without allowing current through themselves. They are often used to
attach electric power distribution or transmission lines to utility poles
and transmission towers. They support the weight of the suspended
wires without allowing the current to flow through the tower to
ground.
Integrated Resource Plan
(IRP)
A plan prepared by PSE and updated every 2 years, describing how
forecasted annual peak and energy demand will be met into the
future. The IRP process considers a full range of power sector
investments to meet new demand for electricity, not only in new
generation sources, but also in transmission, distribution, and
demand-side measures such as energy efficiency on an equal basis.
Integrity A term used to describe the condition of a pipeline. Pipeline integrity
ensures that the pipeline can safely carry out its function under the
conditions for which it was designed.
Integrity Management
Program
A documented set of policies, processes, and procedures that an
operator implements to ensure the integrity of a pipeline. Federal
pipeline safety regulations specify what an operator's integrity
management program must include.
Internal Corrosion Metal loss due to corrosion on the internal surfaces of a pipeline.
Lead Agency The agency responsible for all procedural aspects of SEPA
compliance. Typically it is the agency proposing the project, but lead
agency status may be transferred to another agency through an
agency agreement.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐10
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Lifecycle Emissions Emissions associated with the creation and existence of a project,
including emissions from the manufacture, transportation of the
component materials, and from the manufacture of the machines
required to produce the component materials.
Line Truck (electrical) A truck used to transport personnel, tools, and material for electric
supply line work.
Load Shedding Cutting off the electric current on certain lines when the demand for
electricity exceeds the power supply capability of the network. A last-
resort measure used by an electric utility company to avoid a total
blackout of the power system.
Magnetic Field Magnetic effect of electric currents and magnetic materials.
Material Failure Defects in the pipeline as a result of the pipe manufacturing process,
stress on the pipeline handling during transport, or weld failures.
Mile Years A means of predicting the number of pipeline incidents for a given
length of line, over a given period of time. For example, if one
considered an incident rate of 1.0 incidents per 1,000 miles years,
one would expect one incident per year on a 1,000 mile pipeline.
Nameplate Capacity The number registered with authorities for classifying the power
output of a power station usually expressed in megawatts (MW).
National Electric Safety Code The safety guidelines that PSE follows during the installation,
operation, and maintenance of transmission lines and associated
equipment. The NESC contains the basic provisions considered
necessary for worker and public safety under specific conditions,
including electrical grounding and protection from lightning strikes.
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
A program authorized by the Clean Water Act to control water
pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States.
Olympic Pipelines Two steel pipeline systems, 16 inches and 20 inches in diameter, that
transport gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel (petroleum products) from
Blaine, Washington to Portland, Oregon. The pipelines are buried
approximately 3 to 4 feet below the ground surface.
Overlapping Impressed
Current Systems
Systems that consist of an array of metallic anodes buried in the
ground along the pipeline with a connection to a source of direct
current (DC) electric current to help drive the protective
electrochemical reaction.
Pool Fire Occurs when flammable liquid pools on the ground and comes in
contact with an outside ignition source.
Power Grid A system of synchronized power providers and consumers
connected by transmission and distribution lines and operated by
one or more control centers.
Power Line Faults Faults (or fault currents) are any abnormal current flow from the
standard intended operating conditions.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐11
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Precontact Cultural
Resources
Dating prior to the point of contact between European-American
peoples (including explorers, fur traders, and military personnel) with
Native American peoples. In Seattle, the Precontact period is
considered to have ended with the arrival of the Denny Party in 1851.
Probabilistic Pipeline Risk
Assessment
A type of risk assessment used to estimate event frequencies or
probabilities, for a specified time period, associated with specific,
measurable consequences.
Probability A measure of the likelihood that an event will occur within some unit
of time.
Problem Nests When nest material on utility towers touches energized equipment,
potentially conducting electricity when wet and igniting, resulting in
outages and hazards to the nesting birds.
Programmatic EIS An environmental impact statement (EIS) that addresses in general
terms the environmental effects of long-term, multi-step programs.
Puller A device for separating two components that are secured by press
fitting them.
Recommended Eligible for
Listing Historic or cultural resource that is recommended eligible for listing.
Right-of-Way (electric) A corridor of land on which electric lines may be located. The
transmission owner may own the land in fee, own an easement, or
have certain franchise, prescription, or license rights to construct and
maintain lines.
Risk A measure of the likelihood that an adverse event could occur, and
the magnitude of the expected consequences should it occur.
SCADA In the pipeline industry, SCADA systems are used to collect data
from pipeline sensors in real time and display these data to humans
(controllers) who monitor the data from remote sites. Controllers, in
turn, can use the SCADA system to input commands that remotely
operate pipeline control equipment, such as valves and pumps.
Scenic Views Views of visual resources that are considered special attributes of the
study area and region.
Scoping An initial step in the SEPA and NEPA environmental review process,
where agencies, tribes, and the public learn about the proposed
project and provide comments on the content that should be covered
in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Often, comments on
the scope describe potential environmental impacts or suggest
alternatives that should be evaluated.
Sequestration Long-term storage of carbon dioxide or other forms of carbon.
Settlement Increase in vertical strain on the soil causes the soil to compact.
Significant Historic Resources A resource that is either register-listed, recommended eligible for
listing, or determined eligible for listing.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐12
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Significant Tree Trees that are specifically defined and protected for their unique
ecological and aesthetic value.
Societal Risk The annual probability that a specified number of people will be
affected by a given pipeline release event.
Spill Prevention and Control
(SPCC) Plan
A plan to prevent the discharge of oil or other substances into water
bodies.
Stepped Down To reduce or decrease voltage.
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
A plan describing best management practices (BMPs) to control and
treat stormwater.
Study Area Communities Bellevue, Newcastle, Redmond, Renton.
Substation Facility with equipment that switches, changes, or regulates electric
voltage.
Supervisory Control And Data
Acquisition System (SCADA)
A pipeline control system, usually computerized, designed to gather
information such as pipeline pressures and flow rates from remote
locations and regularly transmit this information to a central control
facility where the data can be monitored and analyzed. Through this
same system, the central control facility can often issue commands
to the remote sites for actions such as opening and closing valves
and starting and stopping pumps.
Surcharge Loading The presence of equipment and other loads on the soil surface.
Tangent Poles Poles that are in a straight line with other poles.
Telecommunication Line A pipe, cable, or an arrangement of lines of wire or other conductors,
by which telephone or other kinds of communications are transmitted
and received.
Tensioner A device that applies a force to create or maintain tension. The force
may be applied parallel to, or perpendicular to, the tension it creates.
Third Party Damage Damage to pipelines that can occur during excavation, digging, or
other activities by persons not affiliated with the pipeline operator or
their contractors.
Threatened Species Any species (including animals, plants, fungi, etc.) that are vulnerable
to endangerment in the near future.
Trackhoe A hydraulic excavator that is used in construction to dig holes or
trenches for infrastructure.
Traditional Cultural Property A property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) based on its associations with the cultural
practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social
institutions of a living community.
Transformed The byproduct of a process through which energy is changed from
one form to another. Oftentimes, this refers to the change in voltage
of an electrical current.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐13
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Transformer A device used to change the voltage of an alternating current in one
circuit to a different voltage in a second circuit, or to partially isolate
two circuits from each other. Transformers consist of two or more
coils of conducting material, such as wire, wrapped around a core
(often made of iron). The magnetic field produced by an alternating
current in one coil induces a similar current in the other coils. If there
are fewer turns on the coil that carries the source of the power than
there are on a second coil, the second coil will provide the same
power but at a higher voltage. This is called a step-up transformer. If
there are fewer turns on the second coil than on the source coil, the
outgoing power will have a lower voltage. This is called a step-down
transformer.
Transmission The bulk transfer of electrical energy from generating power plants to
electrical substations located near demand centers.
Transmission Lines A system of structures, wires, insulators, and associated hardware
that carry electric energy from one point to another in an electric
power system. Lines are operated at relatively high voltages varying
from 69 kV up to 765 kV, and are capable of transmitting large
quantities of electricity over long distances.
Trench To dig a long cut or trench into the ground.
Turbidity A measure of water clarity indicating how much materials suspended
in the water reduce the passage of light through the water.
Suspended materials could include soil particles, algae, plankton,
microbes, or other substances.
Turbine A machine that generates rotary mechanical power from the energy
produced by a stream of fluid (such as water, steam, or hot gas).
Underbuild To place transmission and distribution lines on the same poles.
Unevaluated Historic
Resource
Meets the minimum age threshold for listing but has not been
evaluated for its historic significance.
Utility Locates The process of identifying and labeling underground utility lines.
Excavating without knowing the location of underground utilities can
result in damage, which can lead to service disruptions.
Vapor Cloud Explosion (VCE) Occurs when there is a sudden release of flammable vapor, it mixes
with air, and then is ignited by an outside source.
Vault An underground room providing access to subterranean public utility
equipment, such as switchgear for electrical equipment. Utility vaults
are commonly constructed of reinforced concrete boxes, poured
concrete, or brick. They are placed at regular intervals along an
underground transmission or distribution line to allow access to the
line for installation and maintenance of the line.
Viewer Awareness Considers viewers’ attention and focus and whether affected views
are protected by policy, regulation, or custom.
PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS PAGE 10‐14
CHAPTER 10 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MAY 2017
Term Description
Viewer Exposure Considers the viewers proximity, extent, and duration of views.
Viewpoints Locations from which visual resources can be viewed. Typically
associated with residential properties or publicly accessible
recreation areas, such as parks, trails, and open spaces.
Views The observation of a visual resource from a particular location, such
as a private residence or a public park.
Visual Character The aggregate of the visible attributes of a scene or object, including
natural (topography, water bodies, vegetation) and built (building
height and form, types of infrastructure) features.
Visual Resources Natural and constructed features of a landscape that are viewed by
the public and contribute to the overall visual quality and character of
an area. Such features often include distinctive landforms, water
bodies, vegetation, or components of the built environment that
provide a sense of place, such as city skylines.
Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA)
Requires state and local governments to manage Washington’s
growth by identifying and protecting critical areas and natural
resource lands, designating urban growth areas, preparing
comprehensive plans, and implementing those plans through capital
investments and development regulations.
Wellhead Protection Area A surface and subsurface land area regulated to prevent
contamination of a well or well-field supplying a public water system.
This program, established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 330f-300j), is implemented through state governments.