Loading...
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 prese