HomeMy WebLinkAboutenergize_eastside_final_eis_vol_1.mar1
Energize Eastside Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement
VOLUME 1
MARCH 2018
PREPARED FOR:
The Cities of Bellevue, Newcastle,
Redmond and Renton
PREPARED BY:
ESA
Contents
FINAL EIS PAGE I
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 Energize Eastside Project ........................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 Need for a SEPA EIS .................................................................................................................... 1‐3
1.3 Applicant’s Objectives for the Energize Eastside Project ........................................................... 1‐4
1.4 SEPA Review Process for the Project ......................................................................................... 1‐6
1.5 How this EIS was Developed ...................................................................................................... 1‐8
1.6 Partner City Review Process ....................................................................................................... 1‐8
1.7 Public Input ................................................................................................................................ 1‐9
1.8 Alternatives Evaluated in the Final EIS ....................................................................................... 1‐9
1.8.1 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 1‐10
1.8.2 PSE’s Proposed Alignment: New Substation and Overhead 230 kV Transmission Lines ................. 1‐10
1.9 Environmental Review and Next Steps in the Energize Eastside EIS Process .......................... 1‐10
1.10 Elements of the Environment not Analyzed in the Final EIS .................................................... 1‐11
1.11 Key Findings of the EIS (Summary by Element of the Environment) ....................................... 1‐13
2.1 Final EIS Project Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 2‐4
2.1.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 2‐4
2.1.2 PSE's Proposed Alignment: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines .................................... 2‐5
2.1.3 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 2‐35
2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Included ............................................................................... 2‐44
2.2.1 From the Phase 1 Draft EIS .............................................................................................................. 2‐44
2.2.2 From the Phase 2 Draft EIS .............................................................................................................. 2‐44
2.2.3 For the Final EIS ............................................................................................................................... 2‐44
2.3 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying the Project ............................................................... 2‐45
3.1 Phase 1 Draft EIS Errata Items .................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.2 Phase 2 Draft EIS Errata Items .................................................................................................. 3‐10
4.1 Land Use and Housing ............................................................................................................. 4.1‐1
4.1.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.1‐3
4.1.2 Land Use and Housing in the Study Area ........................................................................................ 4.1‐3
4.1.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 4.1‐3
4.1.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4.1‐4
4.1.5 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment .............................................................................. 4.1‐5
4.1.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.1‐22
4.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ......................................................................... 4.2‐1
4.2.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.2‐1
4.2.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment in the Study Area .................................................... 4.2‐2
4.2.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 4.2‐4
4.2.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4.2‐8
4.2.5 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment .............................................................................. 4.2‐8
4.2.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.2‐51
4.3 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4.3‐1
4.3.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.3‐3
FINAL EIS PAGE II
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2018
4.3.2 Existing Water Resources in the Study Area ................................................................................... 4.3‐3
4.3.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 4.3‐8
4.3.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4.3‐9
4.3.5 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment .............................................................................. 4.3‐9
4.3.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.3‐21
4.4 Plants and Animals .................................................................................................................. 4.4‐1
4.4.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.4‐3
4.4.2 Plants and Animals in the Study Area ............................................................................................. 4.4‐5
4.4.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 4.4‐8
4.4.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4.4‐9
4.4.5 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment .............................................................................. 4.4‐9
4.4.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.4‐23
4.5 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................... 4.5‐1
4.5.1 Greenhouse Gas Compounds Considered in this Analysis .............................................................. 4.5‐1
4.5.2 Carbon Sequestration ..................................................................................................................... 4.5‐2
4.5.3 Greenhouse Gases in the Study Area ............................................................................................. 4.5‐2
4.5.4 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.5‐3
4.5.5 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 4.5‐3
4.5.6 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4.5‐4
4.5.7 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment .............................................................................. 4.5‐4
4.5.8 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 4.5‐7
4.6 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 4.6‐1
4.6.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.6‐1
4.6.2 Recreation Resources in the Study Area ......................................................................................... 4.6‐1
4.6.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 4.6‐3
4.6.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4.6‐3
4.6.5 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment .............................................................................. 4.6‐3
4.6.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.6‐18
4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 4.7‐1
4.7.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.7‐1
4.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources in the Study Area ......................................................................... 4.7‐2
4.7.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 4.7‐4
4.7.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4.7‐5
4.7.5 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment .............................................................................. 4.7‐5
4.7.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.7‐17
4.8 Environmental Health ‐ Electric and Magnetic Fields ............................................................. 4.8‐1
4.8.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.8‐1
4.8.2 Magnetic Fields in the Study Area .................................................................................................. 4.8‐6
4.8.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................... 4.8‐6
4.8.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4.8‐7
4.8.5 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment .............................................................................. 4.8‐8
4.8.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.8‐17
4.9 Environmental Health – Pipeline safety .................................................................................. 4.9‐1
4.9.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ....................................................................................... 4.9‐2
4.9.2 Pipelines in the Study Area ............................................................................................................. 4.9‐3
4.9.3 Reported Causes of Unintentional Pipeline Damage ...................................................................... 4.9‐9
4.9.4 Major Risks to Public from Unintentional Pipeline Release .......................................................... 4.9‐14
4.9.5 Risks During Operation ................................................................................................................. 4.9‐17
4.9.6 Long‐term Impacts on Resources ................................................................................................. 4.9‐25
4.9.7 Impact Comparison by Segment ................................................................................................... 4.9‐30
4.9.8 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.9‐37
FINAL EIS PAGE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2018
4.10 Economics.............................................................................................................................. 4.10‐1
4.10.1 Tree Cover Along Transmission Line Corridor ............................................................................... 4.10‐2
4.10.2 Long‐term Impacts from Operation of the Project ....................................................................... 4.10‐3
4.10.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 4.10‐5
4.11 Earth Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4.11‐1
4.11.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations ..................................................................................... 4.11‐5
4.11.2 Seismic Hazards in the Study Area ................................................................................................ 4.11‐6
4.11.3 Long‐term (Operation) Impacts Considered ................................................................................. 4.11‐8
4.11.4 Long‐term Impacts: No Action Alternative ................................................................................... 4.11‐8
4.11.5 Long‐term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment ............................................................................ 4.11‐9
4.11.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................... 4.11‐13
5.1 Land Use and Housing ............................................................................................................. 5.1‐1
5.1.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 5.1‐1
5.1.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment ..................................................... 5.1‐1
5.1.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 5.1‐2
5.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ......................................................................... 5.2‐1
5.2.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 5.2‐1
5.2.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment ..................................................... 5.2‐1
5.3 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................... 5.3‐1
5.3.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 5.3‐1
5.3.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment ..................................................... 5.3‐1
5.3.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 5.3‐9
5.4 Plants and Animals .................................................................................................................. 5.4‐1
5.4.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 5.4‐1
5.4.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment ..................................................... 5.4‐2
5.4.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 5.4‐7
5.5 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................... 5.5‐1
5.5.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 5.5‐1
5.5.2 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment ..................................................... 5.5‐1
5.5.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 5.5‐2
5.6 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 5.6‐1
5.6.1 Short‐term (Construction) Impacts Considered .............................................................................. 5.6‐1
5.6.2 PSE’s Proposed Alignment: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines ................................. 5.6‐1
5.6.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 5.6‐8
5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 5.7‐1
5.7.1 PSE’s Proposed Alignment: New Substation and 230 kV Transmission Lines ................................. 5.7‐1
5.8 Environmental Health ‐ Electric and Magnetic Fields ............................................................. 5.8‐1
5.9 Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety .................................................................................. 5.9‐1
5.9.1 Risks During Construction ............................................................................................................... 5.9‐1
5.9.2 Risks During Construction: No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 5.9‐2
5.9.3 Risks During Construction: PSE’s Proposed Alignment ................................................................... 5.9‐2
5.9.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 5.9‐4
5.10 Economics.............................................................................................................................. 5.10‐1
5.11 Earth ...................................................................................................................................... 5.11‐1
FINAL EIS PAGE IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2018
6.1 SEPA and EIS Process .................................................................................................................. 6‐3
6.2 Project objectives ....................................................................................................................... 6‐3
6.3 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 6‐4
6.4 Land Use and Housing ................................................................................................................ 6‐4
6.5 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ............................................................................ 6‐5
6.6 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 6‐6
6.7 Plants and Animals ..................................................................................................................... 6‐8
6.8 Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................................... 6‐9
6.9 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 6‐10
6.10 Cultural and Historic Resources ............................................................................................... 6‐11
6.11 Environmental Health– Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) .................................................... 6‐12
6.12 Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety ................................................................................... 6‐12
6.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 6‐14
6.14 Economics................................................................................................................................. 6‐15
6.15 Earth ......................................................................................................................................... 6‐16
6.16 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 6‐17
6.17 Energy and Utilities .................................................................................................................. 6‐18
6.18 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 6‐19
7.1 Land Use and Housing ................................................................................................................ 7‐1
7.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ............................................................................ 7‐1
7.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 7‐1
7.4 Plants and Animals ..................................................................................................................... 7‐2
7.5 Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................................... 7‐2
7.6 Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 7‐2
7.7 Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................................. 7‐3
7.8 Environmental Health – Electric and Magnetic Fields ............................................................... 7‐3
7.9 Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety ..................................................................................... 7‐3
7.10 Economics................................................................................................................................... 7‐3
7.11 Earth Resources .......................................................................................................................... 7‐4
8.1 Land Use and Housing ................................................................................................................ 8‐1
8.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment ............................................................................ 8‐1
8.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 8‐2
8.4 Plants and Animals ..................................................................................................................... 8‐2
8.5 Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................................................... 8‐2
8.6 Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 8‐3
8.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 8‐3
8.8 Environmental Health – Electric and Magnetic Fields ............................................................... 8‐3
8.9 Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety ..................................................................................... 8‐3
8.10 Economics................................................................................................................................... 8‐4
8.11 Earth Resources .......................................................................................................................... 8‐4
FINAL EIS PAGE V
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2018
LIST OF APPENDICES (BOUND SEPARATELY AS VOLUME 2)
APPENDIX A: Construction and Access
APPENDIX B: Supplemental Information: Land Use
APPENDIX C: Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment Methodology
APPENDIX D: Critical Areas Regulations by City
APPENDIX E: Supplemental Information: Vegetation
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
APPENDIX J: Comments and Responses on the Phase 1 Draft EIS*
APPENDIX K: Comments and Responses on the Phase 2 Draft EIS*
APPENDIX L: Comparison of Data Sources
APPENDIX M: Mitigation Measures
* For printed copies of the Final EIS, Appendix J‐2 and Appendix K are bound separately as Volume 3 and
Volume 4, respectively
FINAL EIS PAGE VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2018
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1‐1. PSE 230 kV Transmission System in the Eastside .................................................................... 1‐2
Figure 1‐2. Phased EIS Process ................................................................................................................... 1‐7
Figure 1‐3. Permitting Required for the Energize Eastside Project by Partner Cities .............................. 1‐12
Figure 2‐1. PSE's Proposed Alignment: 230 kV Transmission Line Corridor Summary, by Segment
(Conceptual) ............................................................................................................................... 2‐6
Figure 2‐2. Conceptual Site Plan for the New Richards Creek Substation ................................................. 2‐8
Figure 2‐3. Existing Conditions at the New Richards Creek Substation ..................................................... 2‐9
Figure 2‐4. Construction Sequencing ....................................................................................................... 2‐38
Figure 2‐5. Transmission Line Pole and Wire Installation ........................................................................ 2‐42
Figure 4.1‐1. Study Area for Land Use and Housing ............................................................................... 4.1‐2
Figure 4.2‐1. Study Area for the Analysis of Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment ......................... 4.2‐3
Figure 4.2‐2. Locations of Key Viewpoints used in the Aesthetic Environment Analysis ....................... 4.2‐6
Figure 4.2‐3a. Existing Conditions for Cellular Equipment at 13630 SE Allen Road, Bellevue,
Looking Northeast ................................................................................................................. 4.2‐10
Figure 4.2‐4. KVP 1, Existing and Proposed Conditions of Richards Creek Substation from SE 30th
Street Looking East ................................................................................................................ 4.2‐14
Figure 4.2‐5. KVP 2, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Redmond Way Looking Northwest ....... 4.2‐17
Figure 4.2‐6. KVP 3, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13540 NE 54th Place Looking
Northeast .............................................................................................................................. 4.2‐20
Figure 4.2‐7. KVP 4, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13508 NE 29th Place Looking South ....... 4.2‐21
Figure 4.2‐8. KVP 5, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 2160 135th Place SE Looking
Southeast ............................................................................................................................... 4.2‐24
Figure 4.2‐9. KVP 6, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 703 130th Place SE (Kelsey Creek
Park) Looking Northeast ........................................................................................................ 4.2‐25
Figure 4.2‐10. KVP 7, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13606 Main Street Looking North ...... 4.2‐26
Figure 4.2‐11. KVP 8, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13636 Main Street Looking West ........ 4.2‐27
Figure 4.2‐12. Bellevue South Segment ‐ Aesthetic Impact Area and Scenic View Obstruction
Area in the Somerset Neighborhood .................................................................................... 4.2‐31
Figure 4.2‐13. KVP 9, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 4411 Somerset Drive SE Looking
Southeast ............................................................................................................................... 4.2‐32
Figure 4.2‐14. KVP 10, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13300 SE 44th Place, Looking East ..... 4.2‐33
Figure 4.2‐15. KVP 11, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 4730 Somerset Drive SE Looking
West ...................................................................................................................................... 4.2‐34
Figure 4.2‐16. Aesthetic Impact Area resulting from the Newcastle Segment Option 1 (No Code
Variance) ............................................................................................................................... 4.2‐36
Figure 4.2‐17. KVP 12, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 8446 128th Avenue SE Looking
Northeast (Option 1) ............................................................................................................. 4.2‐38
Figure 4.2‐18. KVP 13, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Lake Boren Park Looking
Southwest (Option 1) ............................................................................................................ 4.2‐39
FINAL EIS PAGE VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2018
Figure 4.2‐19. KVP 12, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 8446 128th Avenue SE
Looking Northeast (Option 2) ................................................................................................ 4.2‐42
Figure 4.2‐20. KVP 13, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Lake Boren Park
Looking Southwest (Option 2) ............................................................................................... 4.2‐43
Figure 4.2‐21. KVP 14, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 1026 Monroe Avenue NE
Looking North ........................................................................................................................ 4.2‐48
Figure 4.2‐22. KVP 15, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Glennwood Court SE
Looking North ........................................................................................................................ 4.2‐49
Figure 4.2‐23. Existing Views from the Cedar River Trail ...................................................................... 4.2‐50
Figure 4.2‐24. Example of a Painted 115 kV Transmission Line Pole in Bellevue
(near the intersection of NE 24th Street and Bel‐Red Road) ................................................. 4.2‐55
Figure 4.3‐1. Water Resources in the Study Area ................................................................................... 4.3‐2
Figure 4.4‐1. Study Area and Land Cover for Plants and Animals .......................................................... 4.4‐2
Figure 4.4‐2. Vegetation Management Zones for 115 kV Transmission Lines ....................................... 4.4‐4
Figure 4.4‐3. Vegetation Management Zone for 230 kV Transmission Lines ......................................... 4.4‐5
Figure 4.4‐4. Total Trees Surveyed ......................................................................................................... 4.4‐6
Figure 4.4‐5. Total Trees and Significant Trees Subject to Removal, by Segment ................................ 4.4‐10
Figure 4.4‐6. Percentage of Surveyed Trees Subject to Removal, by Segment .................................... 4.4‐11
Figure 4.4‐7. Total Trees and Significant Trees per Acre, Subject to Removal, by Segment ................ 4.4‐12
Figure 4.4‐8. Trees in Critical Habitats and Buffers, Subject to Removal, by Segment ........................ 4.4‐13
Figure 4.5‐1. Sources of GHG Emissions in Washington State ................................................................ 4.5‐3
Figure 4.5‐2. Estimated GHG Sequestration Losses in Project Segments ............................................... 4.5‐5
Figure 4.6‐1. Recreation Sites in the Study Area .................................................................................... 4.6‐2
Figure 4.7‐1. Study Area for Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................. 4.7‐3
Figure 4.8‐1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.8‐2
Figure 4.9‐1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the
Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 4.9‐4
Figure 4.9‐2. Number of Reported Pipeline Incidents by Cause, 2010–2015 ....................................... 4.9‐10
Figure 4.9‐3. Average Volume (Barrels) Per Incident by Cause, 2010–2015 ........................................ 4.9‐11
Figure 4.9‐4. Cathodic Protection System Components ....................................................................... 4.9‐13
Figure 4.9‐5. Shield Wire ....................................................................................................................... 4.9‐14
Figure 4.9‐6. Typical Pool Fire and Heat Flux Areas Diagram ............................................................... 4.9‐16
Figure 4.11‐1. Seismic Hazards in the Earth Resources Study Area ...................................................... 4.11‐2
Figure 6‐1. Comment by Type .................................................................................................................... 6‐1
Figure 6‐2. Comment by Type .................................................................................................................... 6‐2
Figure 8‐1. Areas with Significant Impacts to the Aesthetic Environment ................................................ 8‐1
FINAL EIS PAGE VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2018
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2‐1. Summary of Proposed Typical Pole Types .............................................................................. 2‐15
Table 2‐2. Summary of Proposed Atypical Pole Types ............................................................................. 2‐16
Table 4.2‐1. Key Viewpoints Selected for the Visual Quality Analysis in the Final EIS ........................... 4.2‐4
Table 4.2‐2. Potential Placement of Cellular Equipment on Project Facilities ....................................... 4.2‐9
Table 4.2‐3. Considerations for Selecting Pole Finishing ...................................................................... 4.2‐54
Table 4.3‐1. Streams in the Study Area ................................................................................................... 4.3‐4
Table 4.3‐2. Wetlands in the Study Area ................................................................................................ 4.3‐6
Table 4.8‐1. Exposure Guidelines and Levels from the ICNIRP, ACGIH, and IEEE ................................... 4.8‐5
Table 4.8‐2. Calculated Magnetic Fields along the Existing Transmission Line Corridor based on
2027–2028 Loading ................................................................................................................. 4.8‐8
Table 4.9‐1. Miles of Transmission Line and Olympic Pipelines Co‐location in Study Area with
PSE’s Proposed Alignment, by Segment ................................................................................ 4.9‐25
Table 4.10‐1. Current Ecological Value of Trees in the Entire Alignment and in Each Segment .......... 4.10‐4
Table 4.10‐2. Loss of Ecological Value .................................................................................................. 4.10‐6
Table 5.3‐1. Short‐term Impacts to Water Resources in the Study Area by Segment ........................... 5.3‐4
Table 5.4‐1. Impacts to Plants and Animals by Segment and Option ..................................................... 5.4‐4
Table 5.6‐1. Short‐term Impacts to Recreation Sites in the Study Area by Segment ............................. 5.6‐2
Fact Sheet
FINAL EIS PAGE I
FACT SHEET MARCH 2018
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 16
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 new 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, referred to in this Final
EIS as “PSE’s Proposed 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 Energize Eastside EIS is a Phased EIS (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-
11-060(5)). The Phase 1 Draft EIS (released in January 2016) broadly evaluated at a programmatic
level the general impacts and implications associated with feasible and reasonable options available
to address PSE’s identified objectives for the project. The Phase 2 Draft EIS (released in May 2017)
was a project-level evaluation, describing impacts at a project-specific level for a group of potential
route segments and options. The project-level Phase 2 Draft EIS incorporated the Phase 1 Draft EIS
by reference. Based on the results of the Phase 2 Draft EIS analysis, PSE has refined the proposed
route of the transmission lines and associated project components, as evaluated in greater detail in
this Final EIS. Although the City of Kirkland is a Partner City, the project-level analysis does not
include Kirkland because PSE’s Proposed Alignment for Energize Eastside does not pass within
Kirkland city limits.
FINAL EIS PAGE II
FACT SHEET MARCH 2018
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. As
appropriate, conductor replacement on existing lines would occur. New 230 kV overhead transmission
lines and a new substation would not be constructed.
PSE’s Proposed Alignment: 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 16 miles of new 230 kV overhead transmission lines
between the Sammamish and Talbot Hill substations. This would occur entirely
within PSE’s existing transmission line corridor connecting these two
substations.
CONSTRUCTION TIMING FOR THE PROJECT
PSE intends to start construction on the new substation and the south portion of the transmission line
by the summer of 2018, if possible. This timeframe is based on a projected capacity deficiency that
could affect system reliability by that date. After the south portion is completed, construction on the
north portion would begin during PSE’s next available construction work window, which is
anticipated to be spring of 2019.
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 Department
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
FINAL EIS PAGE III
FACT SHEET MARCH 2018
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
Steve Osguthorpe
Community Development Director
(425) 649-4444
steveo@newcastlewa.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
Approvals and permits that may be required for the project are listed below by jurisdictional level.
Federal
Section /404 permit—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Endangered Species Act consultation—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Fisheries and 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
Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination—Washington State Department of
Ecology
Hydraulic Project Approval—Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Utility Rate Approval —Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
FINAL EIS PAGE IV
FACT SHEET MARCH 2018
Local City or County
Local City or
County
City of
Redmond
City of
Bellevue
City of
Newcastle
City of
Renton
King
County
Shoreline Exemption
Zoning Conditional
Use Permit
Critical Areas Permit
Building and Related
Permits
Clearing and Grading
Permit
Right-of-Way Permit
AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS
This Final EIS was prepared under the direction of the City of Bellevue as the Lead Agency, in
consultation with the Co-Lead Agencies (i.e., Partner Cities).
Research and analyses 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, ecosystem services, and earth resources; response to public
comments; 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.
Asher Sheppard Consulting – Literature review of the health effects of EMF.
DATE OF ISSUE
March 1, 2018
FINAL EIS PAGE V
FACT SHEET MARCH 2018
AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL EIS
Copies of the Final EIS and/or Notices of Availability have been distributed to agencies, tribal
governments, and organizations on the Distribution List in Chapter 10.
The Final 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
2810 NE 10th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Renton Library
100 Mill Ave S
Renton, WA 98057
Lake Hills Library
15590 Lake Hills Blvd
Bellevue, WA 98007
Kirkland Library
308 Kirkland Avenue
Kirkland, WA 98033
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
City of Kirkland Planning Services
City Hall
123 5th Ave
Kirkland, WA 98033
Printed copies are available to purchase for the cost of reproduction of $275 for Volume 1 (Final
EIS) and Volume 2 (technical appendices), and a CD of Volumes 3 and 4 (response to comments) by
contacting the project email at info@EnergizeEastsideEIS.org or by calling Environmental Science
Associates at (206) 789-9658. Printed copies of Volumes 3 and 4 are available for additional cost
upon request. Copies of the EIS on a thumb drive may also be obtained (available at no charge) at all
four of the city offices listed directly above.
FINAL EIS PAGE VI
FACT SHEET MARCH 2018
AVAILABILITY OF BACKGROUND MATERIALS
The Final EIS includes appendices with information that is important to help understand the EIS
analysis and response to public comments on the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 Draft EIS. Other
background materials developed specifically for this project and used by the consultants are available
on the project website at www.EnergizeEastsideEIS.org, including interactive maps that display pole
and tree locations, critical areas and critical area buffers, parks, and trails.
Introduction & Summary
1
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
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 Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Final EIS) builds upon the previous Phase 1 Draft EIS
and Phase 2 Draft EIS, released in January 2016 and May 2017,
respectively. The Final EIS assesses PSE’s project-level Proposed
Alignment, as described in Section 1.5 and Chapter 2. The Phase 1
Draft EIS assessed a range of impacts and implications associated
with broad alternatives for addressing PSE’s objectives, in a non-
project or programmatic EIS. The project-level Phase 2 Draft EIS
incorporated the Phase 1 Draft EIS by reference and presented a project-level assessment of several
segment and route options for a new substation, overhead transmission lines, and associated
components at a preliminary design level. Based on the results of the Phase 2 Draft EIS analysis, PSE
has refined the proposed route of the transmission lines and associated project components, as
evaluated in greater detail in this Final EIS.
This chapter provides an overview of the project and a summary of the findings of the Final 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 11).
Some of the information presented in this Final EIS repeats information that was included in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS, although focused on PSE’s Proposed Alignment, which differs from PSE’s
preferred alignment from the Phase 2 Draft EIS (referred to as the Willow 2 route). PSE’s Proposed
Alignment also differs in some details from the other segment routes in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. This
repetition of information is intentional, with the goal of presenting a comprehensive Final EIS
document that includes the information about PSE’s Proposed Alignment needed by decision-makers
to support permitting decisions. In particular, the Final EIS includes a full analysis of potential
impacts associated with the construction and operation of PSE's Proposed Alignment. Supplemental
material that supports the analysis is included as appendix material, or cross-referenced, with the
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Draft EIS documents incorporated by reference.
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 16 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.
The Eastside, as referred to in
this EIS, is an area of King
County between Lake
Washington and Lake
Sammamish, roughly extending
from Redmond in the north to
Renton in the south.
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐2
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014.
Figure 1-1. PSE 230 kV Transmission System in the Eastside
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐3
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
This deficiency is expected as a result of anticipated population
and employment growth on the Eastside. PSE expects this
deficiency within the next few years to negatively affect their
ability to meet federal requirements for protecting the regional
electrical grid while also supplying continuous power to its
Eastside customers.
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, 2017a). 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 230 kV system is proposed because that is the next highest voltage level (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 Final EIS evaluates the proposed 230 kV improvements as part of PSE’s proposal (i.e., PSE’s
Proposed Alignment), as described in more detail in Chapter 2.
1.2 NEED FOR A SEPA EIS
Discussions between the Partner Cities in 2014 (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 Final EIS and provided input
on its preparation. The City of Kirkland has not been involved in
the review of this Final EIS because PSE’s project is not located
within Kirkland city limits.
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.
Transmission lines are
designed to move large
amounts of power. In western
North America, transmission
level power is provided at 230
kV and higher. The next lower
voltage level in the regional grid
is 115 kV, which is considered
a sub-transmission voltage
level.
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐4
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
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. The Phase 2 Draft EIS (released in May 2017) was a project-level
evaluation, describing impacts at a site-specific and project-specific level for a group of segments
and options that would meet PSE’s objectives, at a conceptual design level. This Final EIS focuses
on a single route alignment (PSE’s Proposed Alignment), informed by the results of the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 analyses. This approach is consistent with the requirements for Phased Review outlined in
WAC 197-11-060 (5)(c). The Partner Cities have not identified a preferred alternative, nor have they
made a final decision on any portion of the project.
This project-level EIS began at an early stage of design development for the project. PSE’s project
design has been refined since publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, including route preference and
design details, such as pole types, locations, voltage configuration, and associated project
components. 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). Information about the project is approximate and subject to change and refinement as the
design is developed, but is accurate enough to determine the impacts expected from the project.
Where there is uncertainty about potential impacts, the Final EIS uses conservatively high impact
assumptions to ensure that any potential significant impacts are addressed.
1.3 APPLICANT’S OBJECTIVES 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. Based on PSE’s needs
analysis, PSE established broad objectives for the project 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.
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 1.8 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS) 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐5
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
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 Final 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 substation and transmission line. The EIS process 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 system resilience than was required in
the past. Heightened concerns about resilience 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).
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 within the Eastside 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,
2017a). 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
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.
2 PSE annually updates projected electrical demand systemwide; however, it does not develop annual estimates for
the Eastside only.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐6
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
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 federal 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.
Either condition would 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, if
there were a period of above average temperatures, 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, if there were a
period of below average temperatures, 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
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
electrical load and feed the area (Stantec, 2015).
1.4 SEPA REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PROJECT
The Energize Eastside EIS is a Phased EIS (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Figure 1-2 illustrates the overall
process for preparing the two phases of the Draft EIS, followed by this Final EIS.
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
the Phase 2 Draft EIS, and in the Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐7
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
Figure 1-2. Phased EIS Process
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, along with comments received during the Phase 2 scoping period, were used to inform the
selection of alternatives carried forward into the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which included 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 included project-level alternatives based on
more defined geographic locations, and a more detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts.
This Final EIS includes responses to comments on both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Draft EIS
documents (see Chapter 6, Appendix J, and Appendix K). Given the programmatic nature of the
Phase 1 Draft EIS, responses to comments during Phase 1 were prepared in a comment-response
narrative summary. Because the Phase 2 Draft EIS focused on a specific project proposed by PSE,
responses to Phase 2 comments are presented for each individual comment received. Comments that
resulted in corrections or other modifications to information presented in the Phase 1 and Phase 2
Draft EIS documents are included in Chapter 3, Errata.
The Final EIS evaluates PSE’s Proposed Alignment, which combines and refines elements of the
alternatives evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. PSE’s Proposed Alignment is the alignment PSE has
begun submitting permits for. The Phase 2 Draft EIS analyzed options for routing the transmission
lines along various corridors other than PSE’s existing 115 kV corridor. These options are not PSE’s
preferred alignment, but they may still be considered by the jurisdictions in their permitting
decisions, since the Partner Cities have not made a decision on a preferred alternative.
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐8
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
Together, the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Phase 2 Draft EIS, and Final EIS are intended to provide a
comprehensive analysis of the project and alternatives. The Final EIS supplements the analysis in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS and Phase 1 Draft EIS as part of a phased EIS process per WAC 197-11-060(5).
Commenting was invited for each of the Draft EIS stages and at each of the scoping stages. All
phases of the EIS will be used by the Partner Cities to support any permit decisions required.
1.5 HOW THIS EIS WAS DEVELOPED
As with the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 Draft EIS, this Final 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 Final EIS:
1. Following the Phase 2 Draft EIS comment period (which ended July 6, 2017), comments on
the Phase 2 Draft EIS were received and compiled. Responses to comments on both the
Phase 1 Draft EIS (in a narrative summary) and the Phase 2 Draft EIS (individually) were
prepared, as described above.
2. PSE identified its Proposed Alignment, described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. This
alignment uses the existing transmission line corridor described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, but
differs in some design details. The Final EIS addresses the specific impacts that are expected
from PSE's Proposed Alignment.
3. The City of Bellevue and the other Partner Cities reviewed drafts of the EIS chapters
prepared by the EIS Consultant Team and provided comments for EIS Consultant Team
response. PSE reviewed Chapter 2, Section 2.1 only and provided appropriate clarifying
revisions to the description of PSE’s Proposed Alignment. The City of Bellevue, as SEPA
Lead Agency, performed final review of the Final EIS prior to publication.
Project background materials are available on the Energize Eastside EIS Project website, via the
Library tab (www.EnergizeEastsideEIS.org/library.html).
1.6 PARTNER CITY REVIEW PROCESS
The Partner Cities were engaged through the preparation of the EIS. During the scoping process for
each phase, the Partner Cities were presented with options for alternatives to be considered. In
examining alternatives, the EIS Consultant Team, including technical subconsultants, met with the
Partner Cities and responded to questions about technical feasibility, likely impacts, and other
concerns. In some instances, this involved additional research and inquiry by both the EIS Consultant
Team and the Partner Cities into specific potential alternatives. The Partner Cities reached
unanimous agreement on the alternatives to be included in each Draft EIS, as well as the Final EIS.
During preparation of the EIS documents, the EIS Consultant Team worked closely with the Lead
Agency, the City of Bellevue, to develop the outline, methodology, and content of the EIS. While
initial and final review was delegated to the City of Bellevue, preliminary drafts of all sections of the
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐9
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
EIS were provided to assigned City staff for each City, with sufficient time to review and provide
comments. The EIS Consultant Team discussed the comments and concerns with the Partner Cities in
meetings, and Partner Cities provided their comments in writing. The EIS Consultant Team
responded to each comment by making the changes requested or providing an explanation in the
limited instances where the requested change could not be made. When requested, Partner Cities
were provided with second or third drafts of revisions to ensure that their concerns had been
adequately addressed. The final products (Phase 1 Draft EIS, Phase 2 Draft EIS, and Final EIS)
reflect the input and consensus of all of the Partner Cities.
1.7 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 from both Phase 1 and
Phase 2 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 for
the Phase 2 Draft EIS are summarized in the Phase 2 Draft EIS Scoping Comment Summary Reports
(Parts 1 and 2) (City of Bellevue, 2016a, 2016b). Scoping and public comment from both Phase 1
and Phase 2 informed the analysis as presented in the Final EIS. Public comments on the Phase 2
Draft EIS also led to additional analysis and clarification in the Final EIS.
1.8 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN THE FINAL EIS
Chapter 2 describes in detail the alternatives included in the Final EIS. The EIS evaluates a No
Action Alternative and one action alternative (PSE’s Proposed Alignment), summarized below.
The action alternative evaluated in the Final EIS (PSE’s Proposed Alignment) is a refined route
based on the results of the analysis of the action alternative segments and options as presented in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS. In particular, the Phase 2 Draft EIS included analysis of several options in central
and south Bellevue, some of which departed from PSE’s existing 115 kV corridor. Based on the
results of that analysis and subsequent comments received, PSE has refined its proposed route, and
PSE’s Proposed Alignment as evaluated within this Final EIS is entirely within PSE’s existing
115kV corridor. Two options are evaluated for the Newcastle Segment for this Final EIS. The No
Code Variance Option (Option 1) is similar to what was evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The
Code Variance Option (Option 2) is PSE’s preferred option in this segment because the poles can be
shorter and can be set farther away from homes. More information is provided in Chapter 2, Project
Alternatives.
Under either alternative, it is assumed that PSE would continue to achieve 100 percent of the
company’s conservation goals as outlined in its 2017 Integrated Resource Plan (PSE, 2017d), 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐10
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
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 PSE’s Proposed Alignment: New Substation and Overhead 230 kV
Transmission Lines
PSE’s proposed project (PSE’s Proposed Alignment) includes two main components:
1. New 230 kV overhead transmission lines, connecting the Sammamish substation in
Redmond and the Talbot Hill substation in Renton, a distance of approximately 16 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 lines would increase electrical
capacity and improve reliability of the electrical grid for Eastside communities. PSE has proposed an
alignment for the transmission line, described in Section 2.2.2. PSE proposes to use its existing
115 kV corridor, replacing the existing poles and conductors with new poles and conductors.
The segments analyzed in the EIS are broken down by jurisdiction. The Redmond, Newcastle, and
Renton Segments each consists of one alignment that extends through that jurisdiction. Although the
Final EIS presents two options for the Newcastle Segment, both of these options follow the same
alignment (the options differ by pole type and placement). Bellevue is divided into three segments,
because the Phase 2 Draft EIS included several route options within those areas. As Lead Agency,
the City of Bellevue decided to retain the three-segment organization of the analysis within Bellevue
for the Final EIS, to facilitate comparison of the options presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS with
PSE's Proposed Alignment in the Final EIS. PSE’s Proposed Alignment, as evaluated in this Final
EIS, is entirely within PSE’s existing 115 kV corridor.
1.9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND NEXT STEPS IN THE
ENERGIZE EASTSIDE EIS PROCESS
The City of Bellevue and other Partner Cities published the Phase 1 Draft EIS on January 28, 2016.
For Phase 1, a 45-day comment period was open until March 14, 2016 and included five public
hearings (from February 23 through March 1, 2016). The City of Bellevue and other Partner Cities
published the Phase 2 Draft EIS on May 8, 2017. For Phase 2, a 60-day comment period (initially a
45-day period but extended by request) was open until July 6, 2017 and included three public
hearings (from May 23 through June 3, 2017). Based on the analysis in the Phase 1 Draft EIS and
Phase 2 Draft EIS, public comments, and technical analysis by PSE engineers and consulting
engineers, PSE refined its proposal as PSE’s Proposed Alignment, the alignment evaluated in this
Final EIS. The Partner City communities and other permitting agencies will use the Final EIS in
making permit decisions regarding the project.
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐11
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
Following publication of the Final EIS, PSE will need to obtain land use and construction permits
from each of the five jurisdictions where the Energize Eastside project is proposed to be built:
Redmond, Bellevue, Newcastle, Redmond, and unincorporated King County. Applications for local
permits have already been submitted for the first phase of the project, including Renton, Newcastle,
and the southern portion of the project in Bellevue.
Each of the five jurisdictions has its own land use permitting process. The permits required for the
Partner Cities are shown in Figure 1-3.
PSE would also require other permits, including land use and construction permits from King
County. For any construction in a wetland, PSE would also need a Section 404 permit issued by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Other entities such as the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (WUTC), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would not be involved in
local construction permitting. They would, however, be involved in setting utility rates and
regulating PSE’s system to ensure it is operating safely and in accord with regional and federal
requirements. For additional detail on required permits, see the Fact Sheet.
If approved, the final design and permitting process for the first phase of the project is expected to be
completed by summer 2018, with construction beginning soon after. (Phasing is described in further
detail in Chapter 2.) Project completion would be late 2019 or early 2020 at the earliest.
1.10 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT NOT ANALYZED IN
THE FINAL 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 either the Phase 2 Draft EIS or this Final EIS.
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. Several comments were received
during the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 Draft EIS regarding the ability of local emergency service
providers to respond to a fire or other release on the Olympic Pipeline system. For additional
discussion of this issue, please see “Key Theme” (Issue) SVC-1 in the response to comments on the
Phase 1 Draft EIS in Chapter 6 and Appendix J of this Final EIS.
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) could 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 system are addressed in this Final EIS under
Environmental Health - Pipeline Safety.
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018 Note: This chart has been updated. See the project website. Figure 1-3. Permitting Required for the Energize Eastside Project by Partner Cities
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐13
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
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 or the Final EIS. Transportation
impacts resulting from construction of PSE’s Proposed Alignment would be below the level of
significance and addressed through regulatory requirements as part of the right-of-way use permit. If
undergrounding were required as mitigation, regulatory requirements for right-of-way use could
ensure that significant impacts are avoided.
Energy and Natural Resources – The project would 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 PSE’s Proposed Alignment. The project would
consume other natural resources, but such consumption is not considered a significant impact.
Noise – As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, there would be no significant and unavoidable
adverse noise impacts associated with any of the project alternatives, either during construction or
operation. Several comments were received during the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 Draft EIS
regarding potential noise impacts. For additional discussion of this issue, please see Topic Noise (and
associated “NOI” Key Themes) in the response to comments summary in Appendix J-1, as well as
Chapter 6, of this Final EIS.
Each of these elements was analyzed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Comments from Phase 1 that address
these topics are included and responded to in this Final EIS (see Chapter 6 and Appendix J).
1.11 KEY FINDINGS OF THE 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 4 and Chapter 5 of this Final 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 4 and Chapter 5.
Impacts are generally categorized as less-than-significant, or significant. Less-than significant does
not imply the impacts would be negligible or insignificant, but rather that the impact does not meet
the definition of a significant impact under SEPA, as determined by the lead agency. SEPA also
provides substantive authority to mitigate moderate and minor impacts to the environment. Each
subsection of Chapters 4 and 5 defines “significant” and “less-than-significant” 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.
For each element of the environment evaluated, the EIS identifies mitigation measures. Mitigation
measures are implemented to reduce 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, Mitigation).
FINAL EIS PAGE 1‐14
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY MARCH 2018
Mitigation measures must be related to a specific adverse impact clearly identified in an
environmental document (WAC 197-11-744) on the proposal, and must be reasonable and capable of
being accomplished [WAC 197-11-660(1)(b) and (c)]. They can be mandated through regulations,
suggested by the applicant, or recommended in an environmental document, such as this EIS.
Mitigation measures may be required if existing regulations are not sufficient to provide adequate
mitigation for an impact. Mitigation beyond compliance with existing regulations can be required,
even if the impacts are not considered significant, provided the mitigation is based on a SEPA policy
adopted by the decision making agency.
Mitigation measures 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 measures applied
during construction address short-term, construction-related impacts.
In the Final EIS, possible mitigation measures for PSE’s Proposed Alignment are listed and
described in Chapters 4 and 5 at the end of each element of the environment. Application of these
measures and/or additional measures will be determined during the permit process. In addition, the
Final EIS includes a new appendix (Appendix M) that compiles and summarizes potential mitigation
measures presented in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Phase 2 Draft EIS, and the Final EIS.
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-15
Land Use & Housing
OPERATIONAL 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 crossing of Cedar River Shoreline, operation must
be considered maintenance or repair.
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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
» There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to
land use and housing. Land Use
Existing Land Use: The most common existing land uses in the study area are residential
(49 percent), vacant land (17 percent), and institutional (9 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
(70 percent).
Future Land Use: Comprehensive Plans for the Partner Cities identify future land use designations
to protect existing single-family neighborhoods, provide opportunities for infill 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.
Housing
There are about 663 single-family and 2,205 multi-family residences in the study area, with the highest
density areas in the Bellevue Central Segment.
Typical multi-family residential development in Bellevue Typical single-family residential development
Renton Technical College, Renton
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Land Use & Housing
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-17
Scenic Views & Aesthetic Environment
Coal Creek Natural Area in Bellevue Cedar River Trail in Renton
View of Lake Washington from Somerset neighborhood
Aesthetic Environment
Natural 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, Kelsey, May, and
Honey 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., west of Lakeside
substation) 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), 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 Views
The Olympics, the Cascades, Mount Rainier, Cougar Mountain, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and
the downtown Bellevue and downtown Seattle skylines.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONAL 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.
» 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.
» The Newcastle Segment (both options) and the
Bellevue South Segment are expected to have
significant impacts 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 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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
» There would be no significant adverse impacts to scenic
views.
» Significant aesthetic impacts from the Bellevue South
Segment could be avoided by selecting a different
option that has shorter poles.
» Significant aesthetic impacts from the Newcastle
Segment could be reduced if the Variance Option is
selected; however, significant impacts would not be
avoided.
» All significant impacts could be avoided if the lines were
placed underground.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Scenic Views & Aesthetic Environment
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-19
Water Resources
May Creek, Newcastle Cedar River, Renton
Kelsey Creek Park wetland mitigation
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. Kelsey Creek in Bellevue and Cedar River in Renton are Shorelines of the State and regulated under
each jurisdiction’s Shoreline Master Program.
Wetlands
Numerous wetlands are located along the transmission line corridor. The majority are small Category II or
III wetlands (using Ecology’s wetland rating system), but a major wetland complex is located at the north
end of the transmission line in connection with Willows Creek in Redmond.
Groundwater
Depths 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.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONAL 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,
excavation, and limited in-water work, 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
» Comply with Partner Cities’ critical areas regulations for
wetland and buffer impacts.
» Comply with state and federal wetland and water quality
regulations.
» Comply with Renton’s Shoreline Master Program for the
Cedar River.
» Comply with Partner Cities’ stormwater regulations.
» Implement BMPs to reduce construction impacts.
» Develop and implement 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.
» Comply with Redmond’s and Renton’s Wellhead
Protection Zone construction standards to minimize
impacts to drinking water sources.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
» No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur
because there would be no long-term impacts.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Water Resources
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-21
Plants & Animals
Great blue heron Cedar River Valley
Kelsey Creek tributary, Bellevue
Vegetation cover types include herbaceous, scrub-shrub, forest, agricultural, and woody and herbaceous
wetland vegetation. Upland and aquatic fish and wildlife species are present, frequently associated with
stream, wetland, and critical habitats. Trees are present throughout the study area, including significant
trees (defined as healthy evergreen or deciduous trees, typically 6 inches in diameter or greater, measured
4 feet above existing grade).
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
» Minor disturbance or loss of habitat through routine
vegetation and facility maintenance activities.
» Loss of wildlife habitat due to tree removal, trimming,
and other 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 loss
or degradation 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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
» No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would
occur because there would be no significant long-term
impacts.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Plants & Animals
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-23
Greenhouse Gases
Existing 115 kV transmission line in Redmond Lakeside substation, Bellevue
Traffic on I-90 heading west
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 is a driving force in
global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary among regulatory authorities and the scientific
community. In general, however, climate change is the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural
fluctuations 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.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONAL 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 utility 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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
» None identified – greenhouse gases for the project
would not create an increase that would be above the
state reporting thresholds.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Greenhouse Gases
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-25
Recreation
Coal Creek Trail, Bellevue May Creek Natural Area, Newcastle
Kelsey Creek Park, Bellevue
Recreation Study Area: PSE’s existing corridor, and road corridors and parcels adjacent to PSE’s
Proposed Alignment.
Recreation Sites: Parks, natural areas, open spaces, trails, and playfields, as well as amenities such
as community centers, playground equipment, and school playfields and private recreation clubs (such
as golf clubs). The study area contains approximately 18 recreation sites plus many miles of trails.
This encompasses approximately 475 acres in recreation sites owned and operated primarily by local
governments, and includes four 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.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
» 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. Impacts although less-
than-significant to recreation sites from PSE’s Proposed
Alignment 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.
» 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.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
» None.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Recreation
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-27
Historic & Cultural Resources
Twin Valley Dairy Barn
115 kV wooden H-frame Newcastle Cemetery
Historic & Cultural Resources
Study Area
Archaeological evidence indicates human activity in the Pacific 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 Resources
There are five significant 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, 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.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONAL 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 completed. 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. PSE has conducted the historic property
inventory, and will submit to DAHP for review.
PSE is currently conducting phased belowground
archaeological survey.
» 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.
Significant 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.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-29
Environmental Health
City of Bellevue, proposed transmission lines North Bellevue City of Bellevue, existing transmission lines Tyee Middle School
City of Renton, proposed transmission lines
Time
Viewing Direction
Date
Address
1:44 PM
Northeast
3/30/2016
13630 SE Allen Rd, Bellevue
Photo simulations are for discussion purposes only and may change pending public, regulatory and utility review
Existing Conditions
4/13/2016
Conceptual Project
KOP SOUTH 24
SEGMENT 2Pole Heights: Existing Conditions ~60 feet
Pole Heights: Conceptual Project ~95 feet
Magnetic Fields in Study Area
Power-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 field levels
that would be associated with the No Action Alternative and PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
Methods and Approach to Identifying Calculated Magnetic Field Levels
Power Engineers calculated potential magnetic fields at 35 representative locations along the transmission
line corridor for the winter 2027/2028 and summer 2028 peak periods. Calculated magnetic field levels
were computed as a function of distance away from the centerline of the existing transmission line corridor.
The maximum magnetic field 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 (defined as 250 feet
from the centerline of the corridor).
EMF Exposure Guidelines
Reference 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 field 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.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONAL 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 lines would
result in a decrease of magnetic field levels for all
segments and options.
» 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
reference guidelines. Therefore, under PSE’s Proposed
Alignment, 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
the existing corridor; therefore, there would be no
cumulative effect.
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 reference
guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Mitigation Measures
» No adverse impacts from magnetic fields are expected;
therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
Significant 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.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Environmental Health
Electric & Magnetic Fields (EMF)
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY PAGE 1-31
Environmental Health
City of Newcastle, co-location with existing transmission lines
Pipelines in Study Area
The Olympic Pipeline system is located within the study area (defined 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 Energize Eastside project could increase the risk of damage to the Olympic Pipeline system. 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 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, or 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 firm 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
specific consequence will occur within a specified time period. The severity of the impact depends on the nature
and quantity of the substance released, as well as the proximity to people.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
OPERATIONAL 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 Pipeline system 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 PSE’s Proposed
Alignment.
Mitigation Measures
» To minimize the potential for electrical interference, PSE
would initially operate both lines at 230 kV (rather than
230 kV/115 kV), minimize points of transmission line and
pipeline divergence along the corridor, use a delta conductor
configuration, and locate pole grounds away from the
pipelines.
» To reduce the potential for external corrosion, PSE could
model the final design for instances where additional
protection is needed. The pipeline operator is responsible for
field monitoring, testing, and providing additional mitigation
(such as grounding mats) in accordance with federal
requirements.
» 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 Sections 4.9.7 and 5.9.4.
Significant 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.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Pipeline warning sign in the existing corridor
Environmental Health Pipeline Safety
MARCH 2018
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Although economic analysis is not a required element under SEPA, the Phase 2 Draft EIS evaluated three topics related to
economics: (1) potential loss of property tax revenue; (2) cost to the local community of undergrounding a portion of the
new transmission lines; and (3) the value of ecosystem services lost due to reduced tree cover along the project corridor.
Results of the analysis of the first two topics have not changed since publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS and are not
presented in the Final EIS. Analysis of economics in the Final EIS focuses on the loss of ecosystem services associated
with PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
PAGE 1-33
Trees in the study area provide ecological benefits and
environmental values
Erosion hazard
Stormwater inlet
The Phase 1 Draft EIS included an analysis of potential risks and impacts related to earth resources, including seismic
activity, soils and geology, and associated geotechnical hazards. The Phase 1 analysis concluded that impacts under all
alternatives would be less-than-significant, and earth resources were therefore not analyzed further in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS. Based on comments received on the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the Partner Cities and the EIS Consultant Team decided
that additional discussion of the risk of seismic activity at the project level should be provided in the Final EIS, especially
regarding areas of seismic and liquefaction risk. The Final EIS analysis focuses on segment-specific locations of the Seattle
Fault zone, other seismic hazard areas, and landslide hazard areas.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
SUMMARY OF IMPACTSOPERATIONAL IMPACTS
» Under PSE’s Proposed Alignment, the project corridor
would lose 410 tons of carbon stored in trees, and a
loss of 13.3 tons of carbon sequestered per year.
» The project corridor would lose its ability to remove 0.43
ton of air pollutants annually, valued at $3,967 per year.
» Without tree canopy to reduce stormwater runoff
volume, the municipalities within the study area must
manage an additional 65,216 cubic feet of stormwater
per year, valued at $4,358 per year.
» The total ecosystem services lost as a result of PSE’s
Proposed Alignment would constitute less than 0.2
percent of the services provided by urban tree cover,
which is not considered to be a large amount. Based on
this comparison, ecosystem services are not expected
to be significantly impacted by the project.
OPERATIONAL AND CONSTRUCTION
IMPACTS
» The Energize Eastside project would cross the same
seismic and other geologic hazard areas as crossed
by the existing transmission lines (i.e., No Action
Alternative) and would be subject to the probability of
future seismic activity. Seismic activity will likely occur
during the life of the proposed transmission lines,
and could result in ground rupture, liquefaction, and
landslides.
» The short-term construction activities would not likely
be subject to seismic hazards.
Mitigation Measures
» 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, mitigated by paying into an in-lieu fee
program.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
» PSE’s Proposed Alignment would require tree removal
along the existing corridor; however, the value of total
ecosystem services lost as a result of tree removal
would be minimal.
Mitigation Measures
» Have a Washington State-licensed geotechnical
engineer conduct geotechnical hazard evaluations for all
proposed elements.
» Monitor the project for changes in conditions such
as cracking foundations, slumping slopes, or loss of
vegetation cover.
» Comply with relevant state and local codes, including
National Electric Safety Code (NESC) standards and
local critical areas codes.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
» With the implementation of the mitigation measures,
regulatory compliance, and proper geotechnical design,
impacts would be less-than-significant.
Economics Earth
Project Alternatives
2
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
This chapter describes the alternatives considered in the EIS. The Phase 1 Draft EIS considered a No
Action Alternative and three primary action alternatives, with several sub-options within those. The
Phase 2 Draft EIS carried forward Alternative 1 from the Phase 1 Draft EIS for project-level EIS
review, as well as the No Action Alternative. The Phase 2 Draft EIS action alternatives include a new
substation and several alternatives for overhead 230 kV lines to supply the new substation.
The Final EIS adds to and refines the alternatives under consideration. PSE’s Proposed Alignment,
which was developed by PSE based on the project alternatives evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS,
includes adjustments to pole locations and types. PSE's Proposed Alignment also includes two design
options within the Newcastle Segment. PSE selected its preferred alignment because it would attain
the objectives defined in Chapter 1 (see Section 1.3) and would reduce some of the potential impacts
associated with an overhead transmission line. PSE's Proposed Alignment described and evaluated in
this Final EIS is not a new alignment, but rather a refinement of the designs evaluated in the Phase 2
Draft EIS.
The full range of alternatives under consideration therefore includes the following:
No Action Alternative
Alternative 1 (Components, Segments, and Options)
o Richards Creek Substation and Improvements to Other Substations*
o Redmond Segment*
o Bellevue North Segment*
o Bellevue Central Segment, Existing Corridor Option*
o Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 1
o Bellevue Central Segment, Bypass Option 2
o Bellevue South Segment, Oak 1 Option
o Bellevue South Segment, Oak 2 Option
o Bellevue South Segment, Willow 1 Option*
o Bellevue South Segment, Willow 2 Option
o Newcastle Segment, Option 1- No Code Variance
o Newcastle Segment, Option 2- Code Variance*
o Renton Segment*
*Included in PSE’s Proposed Alignment for analysis in the Final EIS.
CHAPTER 2. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐2
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
While the Final EIS focuses on PSE’s Proposed Alignment and does not repeat information about
other alignment options evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the alternatives evaluated in the Phase 2
Draft EIS may still be considered by the Partner
Cities in the permit review process. The Partner
Cities have not identified a preferred alternative.
This chapter also identifies alternatives considered
but not evaluated in the EIS. The Phase 1 Draft EIS
described several programmatic-level alternatives
that were considered and not carried forward and the
reasons they were not. The Phase 2 Draft EIS
describes alternatives that were not carried forward,
either from the Phase 1 Draft EIS or from the
scoping process, because they did not meet PSE’s
project objectives (see Section 2.2 of the Phase 2
Draft EIS). In this Final EIS, Section 2.2
summarizes the reasons that alternatives were not
carried forward in the Draft EISs, and also describes
alternatives considered after publication of the Phase
2 Draft EIS but were not carried forward.
As required by SEPA (Washington Administrative
Code [WAC] 197-11-440), benefits and
disadvantages of delaying PSE’s project are also
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 programmatic 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
a broad range of available technologies. Based on
their analysis of their system and the findings of the
Phase 1 Draft EIS, PSE determined that a wire-based
solution was the only feasible and reasonable project
alternative to meet their project objectives. The
evaluation conducted during Phase 1 was also used
by the Partner Cities to narrow the range of
alternatives for consideration in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS.
Project Terminology
The Final EIS uses the following terms:
PSE’s Proposed Alignment – PSE’s Proposed
Alignment is composed of six transmission line
segments: Redmond, North Bellevue, Central
Bellevue, South Bellevue, Newcastle, and Renton.
PSE's Proposed Alignment also includes the
Richards Creek substation.
Segment – Segments are components of PSE’s
Proposed Alignment and include identified portions
of the transmission line route, generally divided by
city boundaries, except there are three segments for
Bellevue. The Final EIS evaluates six distinct
segments.
Option – Options are alternative pole configurations
identified by PSE for specific segments, designed to
address public comments or jurisdictional
considerations. In addition to the options described
in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, for the Final EIS analysis,
two options have been identified for the Newcastle
Segment: one that would not require a code variance
(Option 1), and another that would require a code
variance (Option 2).
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 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. PSE’s Proposed Alignment
would be located entirely within its existing
easement. The typical easement width for existing
corridor is 100 feet.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐3
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Informed by the Phase 1 analysis, the Phase 2 Draft EIS was project-specific and focused on PSE’s
then-preferred alignment of the new 230 kV transmission lines (with the available design details at
the time of that analysis) and alternative alignment routes also called options. This Final EIS focuses
on PSE’s Proposed Alignment and includes updated design and route details, which differ in some
aspects from the preferred alignment as presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. PSE also provided more
specific information about pole types, heights, and locations for its Proposed Alignment, as well as
additional information about construction timing that was not available for the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
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 or Final EIS documents; the
reader is referred to the Phase 1 Draft EIS for additional information on those topics, and cross-
references are included in the Final EIS for convenience of readers.
The Final 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 but is still based on
design details that may be further refined during the permitting stages. Information on context is
included as needed to provide a complete analysis for the project-level Final EIS, with more detailed
supporting information incorporated by reference to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Draft EIS documents
and appendices. If information on existing resources in the study area (i.e., the affected environment)
or regulatory context has not changed since publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the information is
not repeated in the Final EIS; rather, a cross-reference is provided, and this information is
incorporated by reference. For all resources, however, the Final EIS includes a full analysis of the
potential impacts of PSE's Proposed Alignment, generally by segment and option, even if the impact
analysis has not changed since the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
To keep the information in Chapter 2 concise,
some project details that relate to a specific
element of the environment are presented in
Chapter 4, Long-term (Operation) Impacts and
Potential Mitigation, or Chapter 5, 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 4.4 and 5.4,
Plants and Animals. Similarly, information on
pipeline safety, both during construction and
operation, is presented in Sections 4.9 and 5.9,
Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety. Chapter
2 focuses on the key components of PSE’s
Proposed Alignment at an appropriate level of
detail to support the analysis presented in
Chapters 4 and 5.
Project Area and Study Area
This Final 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 4 subsection, and often
shown on a map for clarity. In addition, the study
area as referred to in the Final EIS focuses on
PSE’s Proposed Alignment, which is entirely in the
existing corridor (and differs from the Phase 2
study area in some cases).
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐4
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
2.1 FINAL EIS PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
This Final EIS evaluates PSE’s proposed Energize Eastside project (PSE’s Proposed Alignment), 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 Alignment 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 transmission grid reliability for Eastside communities. PSE has proposed a route
alignment for the transmission lines, as 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, and should be considered along with
the other alternatives evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
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., PSE's Proposed Alignment or any other alternative) can be evaluated and compared.
For the Final EIS, the No Action Alternative is defined as those actions PSE would undertake to
maintain and operate the existing transmission system 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, with some exceptions. Specifically, PSE indicates it would be necessary to
operate with additional Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) including load shedding plans as described
in Section 1.3. These additional plans are not necessary at present but will become necessary as the
electrical load continues to grow. Operation of the existing system includes maintenance programs to
reduce the likelihood of equipment failure (including pole replacement), 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 supply 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐5
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
2.1.2 PSE's Proposed Alignment: New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines
PSE's Proposed Alignment includes a new substation (Richards Creek) and approximately 16 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 Alternative 1 in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, and Option A under Alternative 1 in the Phase 1
Draft EIS. For the Final EIS, the proposed 230 kV transmission line corridor is divided into six main
segments (with one of the segments containing two pole configuration options) to aid in the analysis
and organize material for the decision-makers. To assist Bellevue and the other Partner Cities in
evaluating the project 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 previous route options that were studied in Phase 2, the route within Bellevue is
separated into three segments (Bellevue North, Bellevue Central, and Bellevue South).
In the Bellevue Central and Bellevue South Segments, the Phase 2 Draft EIS analyzed options for
routing the transmission lines along various corridors other than PSE’s existing 115 kV corridor.
These options are not PSE’s preferred alignment, but they may still be considered by the jurisdictions
in their permitting decisions.
In fall 2017, PSE submitted two permit applications, one to the City of Bellevue (extending from the
Lakeside substation area to the southern city limit) and one to the City of Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and
2017c, respectively). Information in the two permit applications is generally at a finer scale than the
design information available for analysis in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, including additional data on
critical areas and project components, such as pole types and locations. Analysis in the Final EIS for
PSE’s Proposed Alignment reflects the refined design details presented in these permit applications
where applicable. PSE continues to refine the project design to reduce potential impacts and address
the technical requirements of the project as it prepares other permit applications. The Final EIS
includes a new appendix (Appendix I) that compares the information used in the Phase 2 Draft EIS to
what was used in the Final EIS.
Figure 2-1 lists the segments and options that comprise PSE's Proposed Alignment as presented in
the Final EIS. To be viable, PSE's Proposed Alignment requires continuous transmission lines across
all six segments. The segments are color-coded for reference throughout this Final EIS.
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 lines are presented separately, in Section 2.1.3,
Construction. This section describes the major components (substation equipment, pole design,
vegetation management, etc.) of the alternatives. Potential significant environmental impacts and
mitigation are identified in Chapter 4 (Long-term [Operation] Impacts and Potential Mitigation) and
Chapter 5 (Short-term [Construction] Impacts and Potential Mitigation).
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐6
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; Open Street Map 2016.
Figure 2-1. PSE's Proposed Alignment: 230 kV Transmission Line Corridor Summary, by
Segment (Conceptual)
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐7
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
2.1.2.1 New Richards Creek Substation and Improvements to Other Substations
PSE proposes to construct a new substation as part of the Energize Eastside project. The new
Richards Creek substation would be immediately south of the existing Lakeside substation (see
Figure 2-2) on parcels 102405-9083 and 102405-9130 in the City of Bellevue (see Figure 2-3). 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 2-2) and associated electrical equipment such as circuit breakers, switches, 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.
Lakeside Substation (looking east)
230 kV Transformer
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 2-3).
The existing driveway and 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 2-2). 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, and include replacing the existing culverts under the driveway adjacent
to SE 30th Street. The existing unimproved, degraded road between the proposed Richards Creek
substation site and existing Lakeside substation would not be removed as part of construction;
however, it could be removed to facilitate critical areas mitigation.
In addition to the construction of the new Richards Creek substation, some construction would be
needed for the planned upgrades to the Sammamish, Rose Hill, Lakeside, and Talbot Hill substations.
In general, all upgrades to the existing substations are expected to occur within the existing footprint
of these facilities. Work would include connecting the substation equipment to the new 230 kV
transmission lines, including potential pole replacement and related grading and excavation. Specific
upgrades to other substations that are not described here could require additional review under SEPA,
as determined by the respective jurisdictions.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐8
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Figure 2-2. Conceptual Site Plan for the New Richards Creek Substation
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐9
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Gravel Surface Looking north to the Lakeside substation
View to SE 30th Street access Vegetated hillslope of the east boundary
Figure 2-3. Existing Conditions at the New Richards Creek Substation
The yard surfacing inside the substation fence and for a perimeter 5 feet outside the fence would
consist of well-drained insulating yard rock (3/4-inch crushed quarry rock), with interior driveways
in the substation consisting of gravel surfacing (crushed surfacing top course). The retaining wall on
the east side of the substation would be an approximately 25-foot-tall soldier- pile wall. The fence
would be a 7-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire on top.
Under the Bellevue Land Use Code (LUC), Electrical Utility Facilities require 15 feet of Type 1
Landscaping on all sides (LUC 20.20.520(F)(2)(a). In addition to retaining natural vegetation where
feasible, additional landscaping would be installed along all substation boundaries.
The western boundary is made up of critical areas that would also be enhanced as part of the culvert
replacement mitigation. PSE is planning to replace and upgrade the culverts carrying a small,
perennial stream beneath the access road to the Richards Creek substation site. Two aging and
undersized culverts (two side-by-side, 18-inch corrugated metal pipe culverts) are inadequate to carry
the combined flow and sediment loading along the stream. The proposed project includes a new
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐10
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
culvert crossing, and restoring and enhancing affected adjoining habitat areas. These include affected
wetlands and the realigned and enhanced stream sections extending upstream and downstream of the
crossing. Construction associated with the culvert replacement and stream realignment would
temporarily disturb the stream, wetlands, and their associated buffers, but would result in net habitat
benefits following project implementation. The culvert replacement and stream realignment would
increase streamflow conveyance capacity, improve sediment transport, facilitate sediment removal
from the system, replace undersized culverts, reduce flooding that now occurs on the adjoining
property to the west, improve fish passage, and improve in-stream and riparian habitat conditions.
Natural resources on the site, including streams, wetlands, vegetation, and slopes, are described in
Section 4.3, Water Resources, and Section 4.4, 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 Sammamish, Rose Hill, Lakeside, and Talbot Hill
substations. Substation locations are shown on Figures 1-1 and 2-1. In general, all upgrades to the
existing substations are expected to 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 the EIS. Under PSE’s Proposed Alignment, no upgrades would be needed at the Somerset
substation.
At the Sammamish substation, PSE would add new 230 kV line bays. Additional equipment
improvements (e.g., replacement switchgear, breakers, etc.) would also occur.
At the Rose Hill substation, in order to operate both lines of the Energize Eastside project at
230 kV, PSE would rebuild the existing substation from a 115 kV to 12.5 kV substation to a
230 kV to 12.5 kV substation. This would entail installing a new transformer and other
ancillary equipment. This work would take place within the existing fenced PSE property.
At the Lakeside substation, PSE would install new lines to interconnect with the existing
115 kV system that serves the Eastside.
At the Talbot Hill substation, PSE would add new circuit breakers, control equipment, and
wires.
At all substations, additional work may include installing conduits, cable trenches,
grounding, security upgrades and/or drainage improvements. (As at all active substations,
periodic equipment replacement and related work are also expected during operations.)
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐11
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
2.1.2.2 Overview of the New 230 kV Transmission Lines
The proposed project (PSE's Proposed
Alignment) is to construct and operate two
230 kV transmission line circuits, from the
Sammamish substation in Redmond to the
proposed Richards Creek substation in
Bellevue, and from Richards Creek
substation to the Talbot Hill substation in
Renton, a distance of approximately 16
miles. PSE's Proposed Alignment follows
an existing 115 kV transmission line
corridor from the Sammamish substation to
Talbot Hill substation, which is referred to
in this Final EIS as the “existing corridor.”
PSE’s Proposed Alignment is entirely in
the existing corridor, with no new corridor
needed and no segments routed along
existing roadways (as was the case for
some of the options described in the Phase
2 Draft EIS). Although the Newcastle
Segment in the Final EIS includes two
options, these are not route options –
rather, they differ in terms of pole type and
width placement within the right-of-way of
the existing corridor and in relation to
easements for the Olympic Pipeline
system.
The project would replace two existing 115 kV transmission lines in the existing corridor with two
230 kV transmission lines on new poles. The current plan for the Energize Eastside project is to
operate both circuits at 230 kV. PSE proposes to power both transmission lines in the corridor at 230
kV instead of having one at 230 kV and one at high-capacity 115 kV (as was described in the Phase 2
Draft EIS). This would serve as mitigation to reduce electric and magnetic fields (EMF) caused by
the transmission lines, and would result in lower risk of pipeline corrosion and alternating current
(AC) interference (as described in more detail in Sections 4.8 and 4.9, respectively). Note that this
design differs from the earlier plan as described and analyzed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which
involved initially constructing a 230 kV line and a high-capacity 115 kV line (designed to be
operable at 230 kV in the future).
The majority (approximately 95 percent) of the existing 115 kV transmission 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.
The existing 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 single-circuit and double-circuit steel monopoles,
Transmission Line Terminology
Transmission Line – A system of structures,
wires, insulators, and associated hardware that
carries 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 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, and each pole would
support three wires. A double-circuit line carries
wires for two circuits, and each pole would support
six wires.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐12
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
although some wood poles would remain, particularly near substations. The new poles would be
taller in most cases than the existing H-frame structures. Along the corridor, the typical height of the
existing single-circuit H-frame structures is 60 feet (ranging from 39 to 115 feet); the typical height
of the proposed poles ranges from 50 to 99 feet, depending on type (ranging up 135 feet). 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 up or down along the line to avoid sensitive
resources, such as wetlands, streams, or unstable slopes. In general, PSE's Proposed Alignment
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 generally higher
than at present. More details on pole designs, including illustrations and photographs, are presented
below.
The existing 115 kV transmission line corridor contains two of several transmission lines in the
developed and growing Eastside 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, such
as in south Redmond and near substations, however, the line is co-located with other transmission
and distribution line poles and structures. The lines also cross and/or run parallel to other
transmission line corridors in several locations, including a 230 kV line owned and operated by
Seattle City Light (SCL), supported on steel lattice towers, that crosses PSE's Proposed Alignment in
Renton.
PSE’s 115 kV lines and SCL’s 230 kV line at 10120 126th Avenue SE, Renton
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐13
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
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 (Tables 2-1 and 2-2), including the
following:
One double-circuit steel monopole
Two single-circuit steel monopoles
Different pole types, pole heights, and span
lengths would be used to respond to
topographic conditions and other landscape
features, as well as to mitigate potential
visual impacts within specific areas. Along
most of PSE's Proposed Alignment, the new
poles would be double-circuit steel
monopoles with a typical height of 95 to 99
feet, although they could be taller in some
locations (e.g., crossing major highways,
ravines, or other transmission lines). The
tallest poles would be near the Richards
Creek substation and would be approximately
135 feet tall in order to cross over other
transmission lines. Paired single-circuit
monopoles (typically ranging in height from
50 to 96 feet) would be used in select
locations in all of the segments, but
particularly in the Redmond, Bellevue South,
Newcastle, and Renton Segments. Pole type and placement are also influenced by right-of-way
width, code requirements, and other site-specific factors, such as where PSE shares its right-of-way
with the Olympic Pipeline system (operated by BP Pipelines-North America [BP]).
PSE’s Proposed Alignment would have slightly different conductor supports than shown in the Phase
2 Draft EIS. The proposed supports are shown in Table 2-1, and have a slightly narrower profile than
those shown in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. These narrower supports mean that the managed right-of-way
can be slightly narrower, which would reduce the extent of tree removal and trimming necessary to
maintain safe clearance from the lines (as described in more detail in Section 4.4, Plants and
Animals). This design also reduces the amount of pole hardware required.
To meet National Electric Safety Code (NESC), 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.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐14
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Specific pole locations would be determined based on site engineering but would generally be 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 lines,
typically 575 to 700 feet. Spacing can range from 125 to 1,550 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, streams, and on unstable slopes to
the greatest extent feasible.
The diameter of the poles depends on height, as well as loading, and would be greatest at the base.
Typical (tangent) poles would be 2.5 to 6 feet at the base (not including the foundation). Tangent
poles are poles that are in a straight line with other poles. Dead-end poles and angle poles (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 to reduce the impact and/or
magnitude of ground faults (such as from lightning or system faults). The shield wire would include a
fiber-optic cable inside (optical ground wire, or OPGW), which is used solely by PSE and the BPA
for transmission system communications purposes. Shield wires are shown in the visual simulations
in the Phase 2 Draft EIS as well as in this Final EIS and can be seen at top of each pole.
In addition to the height and diameter of the poles, the diameter of the conductor (i.e., wire) would
also increase. The wire on the existing 115 kV transmission lines is currently 1.063 inches in
diameter; the wire diameter of the proposed new wires would be 1.545 inches to accommodate the
increased load on the higher voltage 230 kV lines.
The main characteristics of the various pole types are summarized and illustrated in Table 2-1 and
Table 2-2 (showing typical and atypical pole types, respectively). A pole that is used throughout a
segment is considered a “typical” pole. Poles that are used infrequently for special situations are
referred to as “atypical.” Atypical poles include terminus poles at substations, corner poles, and poles
used to cross major roads, for example. PSE’s Proposed Alignment would include poles that could
have various finishes, including galvanized (light gray), self-weathering (reddish brown), or painted
(powder coat). Finishes could be specified by location to better blend with the background or sky,
and are listed and described as a potential mitigation measure for long-term scenic view and aesthetic
impacts in Section 4.2.6, Mitigation Measures.”
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐15
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Table 2-1. Summary of Proposed Typical Pole Types
One Double-Circuit
Monopole
Two Single-Circuit
Monopoles
Two Single-Circuit
Monopoles
Line
Configuration1
Six wires total, three on each
side of the pole
Three wires stacked vertically
on each pole
Three wires stacked in a delta
configuration (shown below)
Typical Height2 95 feet 93 feet 83 feet
Pole
Replacement
Replaces four existing poles
(two H-frame structures) with
one pole in most areas
Replaces four existing poles
(two H-frame structures) with
two poles in some areas
Replaces four existing poles
(two H-frame structures) with
two poles in some areas
Segments
(and options)
using this pole
type
Redmond, Bellevue North,
Bellevue Central, Bellevue
South, and Renton Segments.
Generally placed in the center
of the corridor.
Newcastle (Option 1). Placed
on the outer edge of the right-
of-way on each side of the
Olympic Pipeline system.
Redmond, Bellevue South,
Newcastle (Option 2), and
Renton Segments. Placed on
the outer edge of the right-of-
way on each side of the
Olympic Pipeline system.
Diameter (at
base)
Typically 4.5–6 feet Typically 3.5–5.5 feet Typically 2.5–5.5 feet
Diagram
[C-1 pole]
[C-2 poles]
[C-16 poles]
Simulation
1 An additional shield wire would be installed on top of the new poles for fault and lightning protection. For more information, see Section
2.1.2.2.
2 Typical heights presented here are for all segments across the 16‐mile line. Typical pole heights vary depending on the segment and can be
taller than the typical heights presented for the whole project. Site‐specific pole heights are used for some areas of the analysis where
individual pole configurations are described.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐16
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Atypical Pole Types
One Double-Circuit
Monopole
Two Single-Circuit
Monopoles
Two Single-Circuit
Monopoles
Line
Configuration1
Six wires total, three on each
side of the pole
Three wires stacked vertically
on each pole
Three wires arrayed
horizontally on each pole
Typical Height2 99 feet 98 feet 50 feet
Pole
Replacement
Replaces four existing poles
(two H-frame structures) with
one pole in most areas
Replaces four existing poles
(two H-frame structures) with
two poles in some areas
Replaces four existing poles
(two H-frame structures) with
two poles in some areas
Segments
using this pole
type
Proposed for use in the
Redmond, Bellevue North,
Bellevue Central, Bellevue
South, and Renton
Segments.
Proposed for use in the
Redmond, Bellevue North,
Bellevue Central, Bellevue
South, Newcastle, and
Renton Segments.
Proposed for use in the
Renton Segment.
Typical
location
In areas where a C-1 pole
would not work best because
of topography, curvature of
the transmission line, or a
roadway crossing. Generally
placed in the center of the
corridor.
At substations, freeway
crossings, and changes in
direction. Generally used on
either side of the Olympic
Pipeline system when the
pipeline is the center of the
corridor.
At the SCL transmission line
crossing.
Diameter for
typical poles
(at base)
Typically 4.5–6 feet Typically 3.5–6.5 feet Typically 3–5 feet
Diagram
[C-1B pole]
[C-18 poles]
[C-17 poles]
1 An additional shield wire would be installed on top of the new poles for fault and lightning protection (see Section 2.1.2.2.)
2 Typical heights presented here are for all segments across the 16‐mile line. Typical pole heights vary depending on the segment and can be
taller than the typical heights presented for the whole project. Site‐specific pole heights are used for some areas of the analysis where
individual pole configurations are described.
Note: Simulations of C‐1B and C‐18 pole configurations are provided in Appendix C.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐17
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
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
throughout the entire Energize Eastside project
area, except in the central portion of the Renton
Segment. 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 inches and one 20
inches in diameter. In the Energize Eastside project
area, the pipelines are generally co-located with
PSE’s transmission line within all of the segments,
although in the Renton Segment it only co-located
in the north portion of the segment (although it
crosses the corridor in the southern portion of the
segment). The transmission line corridor predates
the pipeline by approximately three decades. In most of the segments, the pipeline system is 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). Typically, the proposed poles would
be located at least 13 feet from the Olympic Pipeline
system where it is co-located with the transmission
lines to reduce the need for additional arc shielding
protection.
Due to the level of public concern expressed during
scoping for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 regarding the
potential risk of a leak, fire, or explosion that could
occur as a result of constructing or operating the
transmission lines in the same corridor as the Olympic
Pipeline system, 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 4.9
and 5.9, Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety.
Sign marking location of the Olympic Pipeline system 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)
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐18
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Telecommunications Equipment and Other Underbuild Components
Along portions of the transmission lines, telecommunications (telecom) 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’ attachments to transmission facilities are 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. In general,
telecom equipment that is on an existing pole could be relocated to a new pole in the same general
location, but existing attachments to poles cannot remain with just telecom equipment on it once the
electric distribution lines have been removed.
In the Energize Eastside project area, cellular equipment is co-located along the existing corridor in
eight locations:
Overlake (13460 NE 40th Street, Bellevue)
Kelsey Creek (13601 SE 10th Street, Bellevue)
Tyee Middle School (3858 136th Avenue SE, Bellevue)
Somerset substation (5200 Coal Creek Parkway SE, Bellevue)
Somerset Recreation Center (4445 136th Place SE, Bellevue)
Newport Hills (12843 SE 60th Street, Bellevue)
Newcastle Way (12833 Newcastle Way, Newcastle)
4th Street (old Cemetery Road) (3205 NE 4th Street, Renton)
PSE would allow cellular equipment on poles proposed to be replaced by the Energize Eastside
project to be relocated to new structures if requested by individual carriers. As of the writing of the
Final EIS, telecom equipment at all locations except at Newport Hills is expected to be relocated to
the new poles; the Newport Hills equipment would be decommissioned. If cellular equipment is
relocated to the new 230 kV poles, PSE will work with the telecom companies to reinstall the
equipment onto the new poles, per local jurisdiction regulations and Chapter 80.54 RCW.
If distribution lines are present with communication underbuild, the opportunity of placing
communications equipment underground would be discussed with the various providers. Parallel
distribution underbuild would not be used on the 230 kV poles.
Additional information on the co-located telecom equipment and distribution lines is included in
Sections 4.2, Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐19
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Vegetation Management and Maintenance
PSE's Proposed Alignment includes both
initial vegetation clearing to accommodate the
more restrictive standards associated with the
230 kV transmission lines, 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 (as now occurs
on the existing corridor). 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 and site-
specific features.) Additional details on vegetation management are presented in Sections 4.4 and 5.4,
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. 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-2. In general, PSE will maintain existing access routes; however, new access routes that are
developed for the Energize Eastside project are expected to be removed following construction and
the area restored to its previous condition.
2.1.2.3 Transmission Line Segments
The following sections describe each of the segments and options of PSE's Proposed Alignment,
from north (Redmond) to south (Renton), including sample visual simulations of the proposed
transmission poles. (Additional simulations for the segments are found in Section 4.2, Scenic Views
and Aesthetic Environment.) Throughout the EIS analysis, the Richards Creek substation site (as
described in Section 2.1.2.1) is addressed separately from the transmission line segments. These
sections provide a conceptual explanation of the typical pole designs used along portions of the
segment. In many cases, different pole types are proposed in site-specific locations, some of which
are not shown at this scale. Generally, the segment sheets that follow show where double-circuit vs.
single-circuit (paired) poles are located. For most elements of the environment, site-specific pole
configuration information did not need to be considered, beyond pole location and number of poles,
because that level of detail would not change the findings of the analysis. However, for the visual and
recreation analysis, atypical pole configurations are called out as necessary to inform the visual and
recreation analyses, which describe pole configurations in greater detail. More detail is also available
on the website as a Google Earth KMZ file, or in Appendix A-2, which both show the pole types
used in specific locations. In particular, the Google Earth KMZ file enables the user to zoom in to
specific pole locations at a finer scale possible than a printed document or PDF file to view the data
used for this analysis.
Managed Right-of-Way
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
Section 4.4, Plants and Animals.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐20
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
For the Newcastle Segment, two options are analyzed in this Final EIS. The No Code Variance
Option (Option 1) is similar to what was evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The Code Variance
Option (Option 2) is PSE’s preferred option in this segment, because the poles can be shorter and can
be set farther away from homes. (More details on the Code Variance Option for the Newcastle
Segment are provided in the Land Use analysis; see Section 4.1.5.8.)
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PAGE 2-21
MARCH 2018
Redmond Redmond
Bellevue
Newcastle
Renton
Redmond Segment
NE70th
P
lace
NE 95th St
RedmondWay
O l d
R
edm
ondRd WillowsR
d
NE
132ndAveNEWil
l
ow
s
R
d
NE 80th St
NE 75th St
NE 60th StBridle Crest Trail
Sammamish
Rose Hill
Snyders
Corner
Park
Bellevue
Golf Course
Grass Lawn
Community Park
Willows Creek
Neighborhood
Park
Bridle Trails
State Park
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\14xxxx\D140548_EastsidePSETransmisisonCoor\MXD\FEIS\SegmentSheets\Main.mxd
0 0.2
Miles
Viewpoints
Segment Terminus
Two Single-Circuit Lines
Double-Circuit Transmission Line
Existing Corridor
Substation
Parks and Natural Areas
Unincorporated King County
QUICK FACTS
Jurisdiction: Redmond
Segment Length: 2 miles
Easement / Property Acquisition
• Entirely in PSE’s existing 100-foot corridor; no new
easements or property acquisition needed.
Olympic Pipeline Info
• Co-located in existing corridor; pipelines buried on
either side (east or west) of corridor.
• Poles would be placed in the center of the corridor.
DESCRIPTION
Start: Sammamish Substation
End: Redmond-Bellevue Boundary
From Redmond Way looking north (existing conditions)Simulation of proposed project (Power Engineers, 2017)
PROPOSED POLES & LOCATIONS
1 Single-Circuit Steel Pairs
• Approximately 13 wooden H-frames replaced with 6
single-circuit pairs.
• Height:
–91' (typical); (existing: 61')
–118' (maximum); (existing: 79')
2 Double-Circuit Steel Monopole
• Approximately 30 wooden H-frames replaced
with approximately 15 double-circuit, 230 kV steel
monopoles.
• Height:
–102' (typical); (existing: 61')
–109' (maximum); (existing: 79')
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
230 kV 230 kV
230 kV
102'
typical
height
230 kV 230 kV 230 kV 230 kV
1
22
1
Single-Circuit
Steel Pairs
Double-Circuit
Steel Monopole
91'
typical
height
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PAGE 2-23
MARCH 2018
From NE 54th Pl looking north (existing conditions)
Bellevue North
Redmond
Bellevue
Newcastle
Renton
Simulation of proposed project (Power Engineers, 2017)
NE 20th St
NE 40th St
134thAve NE130thAveNE140thAveNENE 24th St
NE 20th St Northup Way
NE 54th Pl
NE 60th StBridle Crest Trail
Viewpoint
Park
Cherry
Crest Park
Bellevue
Golf
Course
Bridle Trails
State Park
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\14xxxx\D140548_EastsidePSETransmisisonCoor\MXD\FEIS\SegmentSheets\Main.mxd
0 0.3
Miles
Viewpoints
Segment Terminus
Two Single-Circuit Lines
Double-Circuit Transmission Line
Existing Corridor
Substation
Parks and Natural Areas
Unincorporated King County
Bellevue North Segment
PROPOSED POLES & LOCATIONS
• Approximately 38 wooden H-frames replaced
with approximately 17 double-circuit, 230 kV steel
monopoles.
• Height:
–93' (typical); (existing: 54')
–100' (maximum); (existing: 70')
QUICK FACTS
Jurisdiction: Bellevue
Segment Length: 2.2 miles
Easement / Property Acquisition
• Entirely in PSE’s existing 100-foot corridor; no new
easements or property acquisition needed.
Olympic Pipeline Info
• Co-located in existing corridor; pipelines buried on
either side (east or west) of corridor.
• Poles would be placed in the center of the corridor.
DESCRIPTION
Start: Redmond-Bellevue Boundary
End: Northup Way/NE 20th St
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
230 kV 230 kV
230 kV
93'
typical
height
Double-Circuit
Steel Monopole
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PAGE 2-25
MARCH 2018
From SE 5th Street looking north (existing conditions)Simulation of proposed project (Power Engineers, 2017)
Bellevue Central
Redmond
Bellevue
Newcastle
Renton
SE
2
0
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
SE2
2
n
d
Pl
a
c
e
139th Place SENE 20th St
SE 26th St
Richards RdSE 7th Place
139thAveSESE 22nd St145th
P
lace
SE
SE 16th St
Main St
LakeH ills B l v d
118thAveSENE 8th St
LakeHills
C
o
n
nector
Bel-Red R
d
120thAveNE123rdAveSE148thAveSERichards RdSE 30th St120th Ave NEBel-Red
Rd
NE 20th St
SE 12th St
N E 1st St 132nd Ave NE124th Ave NENorthup Way
136th Ave SERichards Creek
Lakeside
Wilburton
Hill Community
Park
Kelsey
Creek
Park
Lake
Hills
Greenbelt
Robinswood
Community
Park
Glendale
Country Club
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\14xxxx\D140548_EastsidePSETransmisisonCoor\MXD\FEIS\SegmentSheets\Main.mxd
0 0.4
Miles
Viewpoints
Segment Terminus
Two Single-Circuit Lines
Double-Circuit Transmission Line
Existing Corridor
Substation
Parks and Natural Areas
Unincorporated King County
Bellevue Central Segment
PROPOSED POLES & LOCATIONS
• Approximately 49 wooden H-frames replaced
with approximately 24 double-circuit, 230 kV steel
monopoles.
• Height:
–96' (typical); (existing: 56')
–113' (maximum); (existing: 79')
–Substation poles may be taller
QUICK FACTS
Jurisdiction: Bellevue; East Bellevue Community Council
also has jurisdiction between NE 8th St and SE 12th St for
some permitting decisions.
Segment Length: 3 miles
Easement / Property Acquisition
• Entirely in PSE’s existing 100-foot corridor; no new
easements or property acquisition needed.
Olympic Pipeline Info
• Co-located in existing corridor; pipelines buried on
either side (east or west) of corridor.
• Poles would be placed in the center of the corridor.
DESCRIPTION
Start: Northup Way/NE 20th St
End: Richards Creek Substation (New)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
230 kV
96'
typical
height
230 kV 230 kV230 kV 230 kV
Double-Circuit
Steel Monopole
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PAGE 2-27
MARCH 2018
Bellevue South
Redmond
Bellevue
Newcastle
Renton 142ndAveSEHighlan d D rive
SE 55thSt 152ndAveSESE 38th St
SE 26th St
SE 56th St Richards Rd139thAveSESE 6 3 r d St
SE Eastgate Way
F
o
r
e
st
Drive
S
E
N ewc astle GolfClubRd118thAveSECoalCreek Parkway
SEFactoria Blvd SE119thAveSE150thAveSECoalCree k Rd151stAveSELakeWashingtonBlvdSES E Allen Rd
Some
rset B lv d SE
SE 60
t
h
S
t
SE 30th St
SE
3
8
t
h
S
t
124th Ave SES E N ewportW ay
137th Ave SENewcastle Way 134th Pl SERichards Creek
Somerset
Lakeside
Newcastle
Beach
Park
Eastgate Park
Mercer
Slough
Nature Park
Coal
Creek
Park
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\14xxxx\D140548_EastsidePSETransmisisonCoor\MXD\FEIS\SegmentSheets\Main.mxd
0 0.4
Miles
Viewpoints
Segment Terminus
Two Single-Circuit Lines
Double-Circuit Transmission Line
Existing Corridor
Substation
Parks and Natural Areas
Unincorporated King County
Bellevue South Segment
PROPOSED POLES & LOCATIONS
1. Double-Circuit Steel Monopole
• Location: Existing corridor north of SE Newport Way
and between Somerset Substation and SE 60th St.
• Approximately 22 wooden H-frames replaced
with approximately 16 double-circuit 230 kV steel
monopoles.
• Typical height = 92'; (existing: 60')
• Maximum height = 109'; (existing: 90')
2. Single-Circuit Steel Pairs
• Location: Existing corridor south of SE 60th St. and
between SE Newport Way and Somerset substation.
• Approximately 26 wooden H-frames replaced with
approximately 26 pairs of single-circuit 230 kV steel
monopoles.
• Typical height = 80'; (existing: 60')
• Maximum height = 91'; (existing: 90')
QUICK FACTS
Jurisdiction: Bellevue
Segment Length: 3.3 miles
Easement / Property Acquisition
• Entirely in PSE’s existing 100-foot corridor; no new
easements or property acquisition needed.
Olympic Pipeline Info
• 16" pipeline uses existing corridor (often in the center);
poles would be placed on either side.
• 20" pipeline uses existing corridor south of Somerset.
DESCRIPTION
Start: Richards Creek Substation (New)
End: Bellevue-Newcastle Boundary
From 134th Pl SE looking west (existing conditions)Simulation of proposed project (Power Engineers, 2017)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
230 kV 230 kV
230 kV
92'
typical
height
230 kV 230 kV
80'
typical
height
1
2
2
1
Single-Circuit
Steel Pairs
Double-Circuit
Steel Monopole
230 kV 230 kV
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PAGE 2-29
MARCH 2018
From SE 80th Way looking southeast (existing conditions) Simulation of proposed project (Power Engineers, 2017)
Newcastle
Redmond
Bellevue
Newcastle
Renton
SE
7
9
t
h
D r i v e
S
E
8
0
t
h
W
a
y
SE
M
a
y
C
r
e
e
k
P
a
r
k
D
r
SE 95th Way
N e w c a s t l e W a
y
Newcastle W
a
y
May Creek
Park
Hazelwood
Park
Donegal
Park
Lake
Boren
Park
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\14xxxx\D140548_EastsidePSETransmisisonCoor\MXD\FEIS\SegmentSheets\Main.mxd
0 0.2
Miles
Viewpoints
Segment Terminus
Two Single-Circuit Lines
Double-Circuit Transmission Line
Existing Corridor
Substation
Parks and Natural Areas
Unincorporated King County
Newcastle Segment
PROPOSED POLES & LOCATIONS
• Approximately 24 wooden H-frames
(50 poles) replaced with approximately 12 pairs
of single-circuit, 230 kV steel monopoles that are
located near the outer edges of the right-of-way.
• Height:
–95' (typical); (existing: 55')
–109' (maximum); (existing: 75')
QUICK FACTS
Jurisdiction: Newcastle
Segment Length: 1.5 miles
Easement / Property Acquisition
• Entirely in PSE’s existing 100-foot corridor; no new
easements or property acquisition needed.
Olympic Pipeline Info
• Co-located in existing corridor; pipelines buried in the
center of corridor.
• Poles would be placed with one on either side of the
pipelines.
NO CODE VARIANCE
DESCRIPTION
Start: Bellevue-Newcastle Boundary
End: Newcastle-Renton Boundary
230 kV 230 kV
95'
typical
height
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
230 kV 230 kV
Single-Circuit
Steel Pairs
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PAGE 2-31
MARCH 2018
From SE 80th Way looking southeast (existing conditions) Simulation of proposed project (Power Engineers, 2017)SE
7
9
t
h
D r i v e
S
E
8
0
t
h
W
a
y
SE
M
a
y
C
r
e
e
k
P
a
r
k
D
r
SE 95th Way
N e w c a s t l e W a
y
Newcastle W
a
y
May Creek
Park
Hazelwood
Park
Donegal
Park
Lake
Boren
Park
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\14xxxx\D140548_EastsidePSETransmisisonCoor\MXD\FEIS\SegmentSheets\Main.mxd
0 0.2
Miles
Viewpoints
Segment Terminus
Two Single-Circuit Lines
Double-Circuit Transmission Line
Existing Corridor
Substation
Parks and Natural Areas
Unincorporated King County
Newcastle Segment
PROPOSED POLES & LOCATIONS
• Approximately 24 wooden H-frames
(50 poles) replaced with approximately 12 pairs
of single-circuit, 230 kV steel monopoles that are
located near the center of the right-of-way.
• Height:
–81' (typical); (existing: 55')
–92' (maximum); (existing: 75')
QUICK FACTS
Jurisdiction: Newcastle
Segment Length: 1.5 miles
Easement / Property Acquisition
• Entirely in PSE’s existing 100-foot corridor; no new
easements or property acquisition needed.
Olympic Pipeline Info
• Co-located in existing corridor; pipelines buried in the
center of corridor.
• Poles would be placed with one on either side of the
pipelines.
Newcastle
Redmond
Bellevue
Newcastle
Renton
CODE VARIANCE
(PSE'S PREFERRED OPTION)
DESCRIPTION
Start: Bellevue-Newcastle Boundary
End: Newcastle-Renton Boundary
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
230 kV 230 kV
81'
typical
height
230 kV 230 kV
Single-Circuit
Steel Pairs
FINAL EIS
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PAGE 2-33
MARCH 2018
From Monroe Ave NE looking north (existing conditions)Simulation of proposed project (Power Engineers, 2017)
Renton
Redmond
Bellevue
Newcastle
Renton
Jefferson Ave NEMainAveSSunsetBlvdNMillAveSN 1 0th P la c e
EdmondsAveSEWilliamsStNSECedarR
i
dgeDr
i
veS G rad yW aySE 2nd Place
Airport Way S
NE 27th St
Houser Way
N
N 30th St
WellsAveSS 3rd St
N 3rd St
N E S u ns e tB l v d
LoganAveNGardenAveNN E 3 r d StNEP a rk DriveMonroeAveNEM a pleValleyHwy
BensonRdSEdmondsAveNENE 4th St UnionAveNESunset Blvd NEParkAveNWilliamsAveSDuvallAveNENE 12th St
SE 95th Way
Sierra
Heights
Park
Renton
Technical
College
Sierra Heights
Elementary School
Talbot Hill
Liberty
Park
Riverview Park
May
Creek Park
Kiwanis
Park
Honey
Creek
Open Space
Cedar River
Park - Renton
Maplewood
Golf Course
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\14xxxx\D140548_EastsidePSETransmisisonCoor\MXD\FEIS\SegmentSheets\Main.mxd
0 0.5
Miles
Crosses Seattle City Light Corridor
Viewpoints
Segment Terminus
Two Single-Circuit Lines
Double-Circuit Transmission Line
Existing Corridor
Substation
Parks and Natural Areas
Unincorporated King County
Renton Segment
PROPOSED POLES & LOCATIONS
1. Single-Circuit Steel Pairs
• Location: Existing corridor north of Honey Creek Open
Space.
• Approximately 22 wooden H-frames replaced with
approximately 11 pairs of single-circuit 230 kV steel
monopoles.
• Typical height = 50-84'; (existing: 55')
• Maximum height = 50-94'; (existing: 93')
2. Double-Circuit Steel Monopole
• Location: Existing corridor south of Honey Creek Open
Space.
• Approximately 48 wooden H-frames replaced
with approximately 27 double-circuit 230 kV steel
monopoles.
• Typical height = 94'; (existing: 55')
• Maximum height = 118'; (existing: 93')
• Two poles required at Talbot Hill substation for dead-
end structures.
QUICK FACTS
Jurisdiction: Renton
Segment Length: 4 miles
Easement / Property Acquisition
• Entirely in PSE’s existing 100-foot corridor; no new
easements or property acquisition needed.
Olympic Pipeline Info
• Co-located in northern portion of existing corridor;
pipelines buried in the center of corridor.
• Poles would be placed with one on either side of the
pipelines.
DESCRIPTION
Start: Newcastle-Renton Boundary
End: Talbot Hill Substation
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
230 kV
94'
typical
height
1
2
2
1
Double-Circuit
Steel Monopole
230 kV 230 kV
230 kV 230 kV
230 kV 230 kV
230 kV 230 kV
Single-Circuit Steel Pairs
1
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐35
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
2.1.3 Construction
Construction activities associated with the Energize Eastside project are summarized below, both for
the No Action Alternative and for PSE's Proposed Alignment. The description of project construction
is organized by its two main components (the Richards Creek substation and the 230 kV transmission
lines), because these differ in associated activities. Construction of the 230 kV transmission lines
would involve similar activities regardless of segment or option; therefore, that discussion is not
presented or organized by segment. In addition, the project as analyzed in this Final EIS is still in
design development. Although more information is presented in the Final EIS relative to the design
details analyzed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, PSE continues to refine the project design; therefore, the
Final EIS continues to consider a range of options and to evaluate the worst-case consequences of
that range of options. 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 5.
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 system, especially
in the context of construction, is included in the Final EIS. Construction-related information
associated with the pipeline system is noted in general here, but the full analysis is presented in
Chapter 5, Section 5.9 (Environmental Health – Pipeline Safety).
More details on the construction methods, equipment used, and sequencing for the Energize Eastside
project is included in Appendix A-1.
2.1.3.1 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.
2.1.3.2 PSE's Proposed Alignment
Substation and transmission line construction would occur simultaneously. The substation would not
be operational until at least one of the new 230 kV transmission lines was completed, connecting the
substation to the regional transmission grid.
New Richards Creek Substation and Improvements to Other Substations
Construction of a new substation would require clearing and grading to create a level area for the
new transformer and supporting equipment. This would require installation of an approximately 25-
foot high soldier-pile retaining wall on the east. The preliminary grading quantities provided by PSE
are an estimated 27,480 cubic yards of excavation and 8,000 cubic yards of fill. Approximately 3,550
truck trips would be associated with excavation. Most excavated material would be removed, but
some could be used to backfill and restore grades.
The drainage control system would require trenching, placement of pipes, and connection to the City
storm drainage system. The culvert replacement on the access road would be constructed in
accordance with aquatic permit requirements, including limits on the timing for construction,
protection of water quality, and other measures to protect stream and wetland habitat.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐36
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Access to the substation site is via SE 30th Street. The existing driveway and access road would be
reconfigured. The access road would be paved and be approximately 20 feet wide, and approximately
24 feet wide at corners. The access road would include 2-foot shoulders on each side of the
pavement. Asphalt paving equipment would be used to construct the access road to the substation.
The substation yard would be paved with crushed rock. Concrete foundations would be poured to
support the transformer and supporting equipment (circuit breakers, electrical buswork, control
house, and connections to the new transmission lines), designed in accordance with regulatory
requirements and industry standards. All disturbed areas that are not paved would be planted to
control erosion and meet landscaping requirements.
Construction equipment would include, among other things:
Specialized oversize trucks and trailers
Backhoes or excavators
Pile driver
Concrete trucks
Cranes or other specialty equipment to place transformers
Delivery of the transformer and poles to the site would require oversize trucks. 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-1. Construction of the substation
could take up to 18 months to complete all aspects, including landscaping and final site restoration.
However, the substation could be energized before all site improvements were completed.
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 a PSE-owned facility
or a temporary storage area.
Night construction work would not be needed for the new substation, with the possible exception of
delivery of oversize equipment, such as a transformer. For example, the transformer might be
delivered to the site at night because of highway restrictions for oversize loads. Extended
construction hours may be necessary to meet system operational windows or permit conditions. Road
closures are not expected to be 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 electrical assembly work would primarily be smaller vehicles, such as personal
vehicles and work trucks. The actual number of vehicles used depends on the contractor’s approach
to construction and what is necessary to meet contractual schedule obligations. The control house is a
pre-fabricated structure that would be delivered to the site on a trailer and then set on the foundation
with a crane. 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.
PSE will prepare the area for foundations to support the new control house, transformer, and
associated electrical equipment in accordance with regulatory requirements and industry standards.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐37
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Construction noise would be generated by the installation of appurtenant utilities, such as, natural
gas, water, and sewer pipelines, as well as transmission lines (if necessary).
As described in Section 2.1.2.1, in addition to the construction of the new Richards Creek substation,
some construction would be needed for the planned upgrades to the Sammamish, Rose Hill,
Lakeside, and Talbot Hill substations.
Construction of the 230 kV Transmission Lines
The new transmission lines would be constructed within PSE’s existing 115 kV transmission line
corridor. Most of the corridor 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 rights-of-way and along the existing corridor would be similar in
nature. Common elements of anticipated construction activities are summarized below.
Coordination with Olympic Pipe Line Company. For portions of the corridor, construction of the
new 230 kV transmission lines poses potential risks of interaction with or disruption to the Olympic
Pipeline system, necessitating particular attention to these risks. Extensive coordination with the
Olympic Pipe Line Company (Olympic) would be required during project design and construction to
avoid disruption to the pipelines. For details about construction considerations associated with the
presence of the pipelines, see Chapter 5, Section 5.9 (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 typically take
approximately 12 to 18 months (over two construction phases) and would be constructed
concurrently with construction of the Richards Creek substation. Under certain conditions,
construction can be accelerated or slowed down depending on the number of crews working at the
same time. The project is expected to be built in phases, with the south end (from the Talbot Hill
substation to the proposed Richards Creek substation) being the first phase, followed by the north
phase as soon as design, permitting, and energization of the south phase would allow. The project
needs to be built in two construction phases to keep the Lakeside substation energized, thereby
keeping the transmission system on-line to serve customers. During the construction of the south
phase, the Lakeside substation will be served from the north and likewise, once the south phase is
complete, it will be used to serve the Eastside while the north half is constructed.
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 by
mid-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. PSE estimates that the
south phase of the transmission line would take approximately 9 months, as would construction of
the substation, not including final site restoration. PSE estimates that the north phase would take an
additional 9 months, as would final site restoration at the substation. However, additional
construction crews may be used to reduce the construction window. Based on this, project
completion would be late 2019 at the earliest.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐38
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
The installation schedule for poles depends on whether a given pole is placed on a foundation or is a
directly embedded pole. Poles on foundations take longer. 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 over 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 14 days within a period of approximately 2 months. For 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 2-4.
Figure 2-4. 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.
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
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐39
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Clearing and Grading. Trees and vegetation would be removed within the right-of-way following
PSE’s vegetation management requirements 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 (incorporating property owner input where feasible),
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 4.4 and 5.4, 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 locations to
minimize impacts to sensitive resources, such as wetlands. The appropriate best management
practices (BMPs) will be used to minimize impacts on sensitive resource.
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 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 BMPs will be
used to control stormwater run-off. Access roads will be restored to their previous condition or to
NESC vegetation specifications when within the managed right-of-way. Maps showing preliminary
access road locations are provided in Appendix A-2. These maps reflect probable access routes
identified by PSE prior to individual property owner consultation that was ongoing during the
preparation of this Final 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 controls 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 would be 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 or, when safe, an auger to
excavate the hole, which typically results in less surface area disturbance than other equipment (such
as a backhoe or drill). PSE has completed site-specific engineering and has determined that
approximately 60 percent of the poles would be directly embedded.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐40
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
For some poles, drilled pier foundations would be necessary, 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. The hole is filled with concrete and allowed to
cure (harden) for several days. Once the foundation concrete has cured properly, poles are set and
anchored to the foundations. For the remaining 40 percent of pole locations, concrete pole
foundations would need to be installed. The actual number of each pole type will be determined
during final design. PSE is refining the transmission line design to reduce ground disturbance,
including the number of poles that require engineered foundations. Engineered foundations are
typically required at angle and dead-end poles, so they cannot be eliminated.
Steel poles would typically 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 above; once the base is installed, the subsequent sections are added. Typically, no welding
is required, as the ends of the segmented poles are tapered, designed to overlap using slip joints or
connected with flange joints.
PSE does not generally anticipate the need for homeowners to vacate their homes during pole
installation. However, in locations where site access by vehicles is difficult, PSE has suggested that
cranes or helicopters could be used to lift poles sections over a building, in order to reduce impacts
from creating temporary access. In such cases, residents would likely be asked to vacate the premises
for a couple of hours to ensure their safety. This type of construction is not proposed in any specific
location by PSE at this time, but is listed and described as a potential mitigation measure for
construction phase land use impacts in Section 5.1.3, Mitigation Measures.
Temporary Stringing/Pulling Sites. To replace the transmission conductor, stringing and tensioning
equipment will be staged near new steel poles at an estimated eight to ten locations along the
corridor. The disturbance area associated with the stringing sites will avoid sensitive resources (such
as wetlands, streams, and unstable slopes) to the extent feasible. Each stringing site will be
approximately 7,500 square feet in area (e.g., 87 feet by 87 feet). Pulling sites would typically be 2 to
Vacuum truck in the existing corridor in Newcastle excavating a hole for
installation of a replacement transmission pole.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐41
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
3 miles apart along the right-of-way, with specific sites determined close to the time the stringing
activity takes place. Similar to work areas for pole construction, the shape of the stringing site will
depend on the presence of adjacent critical areas, existing land conditions, and area needed for
equipment staging based on the angle needed to string the conductor. Stringing sites are expected to
largely overlap other work areas (e.g., for pole replacement, access, and vegetation management) and
are not expected to require additional tree removal. Any additional impacts resulting from stringing
sites will be temporary in nature; temporary impact areas will be re-vegetated and left to return their
natural state or enhanced following construction. It may be more efficient and less disruptive to
adjacent property owners in some locations to use a helicopter for stringing. This is identified as a
mitigation measure in Section 5.1.3, Mitigation Measures, as well as in Appendix M.
Transmission Line (Wire) Installation. Once the poles are set in place and stringing sites
established, the transmission line conductor (wire) is installed (Figure 2-5). The wire-stringing
operation requires equipment at each end of the section being strung, with the establishment of the
temporary pulling or tensioning sites. Wires are pulled between these pulling sites through pulleys
affixed to each pole structure. 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, the NESC has established minimum wire clearances (i.e., the wire height above the
ground). PSE has designed 230 kV transmission lines for the Energize Eastside wires to be 28 feet or
more from the ground under maximum sag conditions, which meets or exceeds NESC’s minimum
conductor wire height. Additional clearance would be provided over roadway and highway crossings.
Removal of Existing Poles: After installation of the new poles and transmission lines, including
wire installation and energization, the existing poles and wires would be removed. After energization
and successful testing of the new fiber optic communications lines, the old poles and lines would be
removed within a few days to a few months. For poles with cellular equipment, transfer from the old
pole to the new one would occur within approximately 90 days, and would have to occur before the
affected poles could be removed. 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.
Interstate 90 (I-90) and State Route 520 (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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐42
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Worker rebuilding a transmission line
Workers connecting a transmission line to insulators
Stringing a transmission line Installing a steel monopole with pulleys attached
Figure 2-5. Transmission Line Pole and Wire Installation
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐43
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
Staging Areas. Staging areas and a construction field office would be required along the project
corridor during construction. Specific staging sites would be determined by PSE and its contractor
after final design has been approved. 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 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 (as described in Section 5.6.2). 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 restore staging areas if
any ground disturbance had occurred.
Other Activities. Installation of the 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
2.2.1 From the Phase 1 Draft EIS
The Phase 1 Draft EIS considered a range of programmatic alternatives, some of which were not
included in the analysis. The following alternatives were considered but not included in the Phase 1
Draft EIS:
Use Existing BPA High Power Transmission Line.
Upgrade/Adjust the Existing Electrical System.
Larger Generation Facilities.
Submerged 230 kV Transmission Line in Lake Sammamish.
Other Approaches such as phasing, combining partial solutions, changing a transmission line
from AC to direct current (DC), limiting the flow of power from sources outside of the
Eastside, and limiting the scope of potential to Bellevue only.
The reasons each of these suggestions were not included in the EIS analysis are described in Section
2.4 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐44
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
2.2.2 From the Phase 2 Draft EIS
The Phase 2 Draft EIS considered a range of project-level alternatives, some of which were not
included in the analysis. The following alternatives were considered but not included in the Phase 2
Draft EIS:
Seattle City Light Transmission Line
Underground Transmission Line
Underwater Transmission Line in Lake Washington
New 115 kV Transmission Line
Seattle Public Utilities Water Line Corridor
Other Routes and Options
Alternative 2 and “Alternative 2B”
The reasons each of these suggested alternatives were not included in the EIS analysis are described
in Section 2.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
2.2.3 For the Final EIS
During the comment periods on the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 Draft EIS, comments were
submitted that debate the reasons given for the elimination of some of the alternatives listed above.
The responses to comments in Chapter 6, Appendix J, and Appendix K of this Final EIS address
these comments. These are not further discussed in this chapter. For the Final EIS, one additional
alternative for the Newcastle Segment was considered and not included: undergrounding a portion of
the transmission line in Newcastle, as described below.
2.2.3.1 Underground a Portion of the Transmission Line in Newcastle
Undergrounding a portion of the transmission line was listed as a potential mitigation measure in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS. After publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the Partner Cities considered whether
there should be an alternative in any of the segments that would travel underground. In Newcastle
specifically, there were potential significant impacts on the aesthetic environment, but no feasible
alternate routes had been identified, so the possibility of an underground alternative was discussed.
The Phase 1 Draft EIS describes the problems with placing the transmission line underground
generally within the existing corridor, due to the presence of the Olympic Pipeline system. In
Newcastle, the Olympic Pipeline system occupies the center of the corridor, making it impossible to
place an underground transmission line where it would not interfere with the pipelines. For these
reasons, an underground option would need to use City road right-of-way. Selecting a feasible route
for an underground segment involves a number of technical steps, such as determining where
connections can be made to the overhead portion, and examining potential utility conflicts. PSE
indicated that, under its tariff, any such design request must be paid for by the requesting party. PSE
also indicated that the time it would take to design and install an underground segment could delay
the project several years. Lacking a design, it is not possible to prepare a project-level analysis. The
delay involved in developing a design could also have an adverse effect on the reliability of the
electrical transmission system on the Eastside. After careful consideration, this alternative was not
carried forward for analysis in the Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 2‐45
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES MARCH 2018
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 and the Final 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 its estimates
of load projection. Under the No Action Alternative, the Final EIS assumes that PSE would continue
to achieve 100 percent of the company’s conservation goals as outlined in its 2017 Integrated
Resource Plan (PSE, 2017d), 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. For example, if the project were delayed, PSE could explore the
possibility of using battery technology to address the near-term problem. Impacts associated with
battery technology are described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Aside from the concerns about reliability
of this relatively new technology, impacts were not considered significant.
The disadvantages of delaying the project are that the risks of power outages (described in Chapter 1
of the Phase 1 Draft EIS) 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 its
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 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,
which would place the Partner Cities at an economic disadvantage to other jurisdictions in the region.
A declining reliability of the electrical power supply on the Eastside would be inconsistent with local
planning policies.
Errata
3
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐1
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
CHAPTER 3. ERRATA
This chapter identifies errors and corrections to the text of the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 Draft
EIS. Potential errors in the Draft EIS documents were identified based on comments received during
both Phase 1 and Phase 2, as well as through additional analysis that occurred throughout preparation
of the EIS documents. Information in this chapter is focused on factual errors in the two Draft EIS
documents and is organized by phase, chapter or section, and page number. The Phase 1 Draft EIS is
a programmatic document, and therefore the need for more specific information was not considered
to be an error unless it changed the significance findings. In general, comments received that
provided clarification regarding particular issues or topics did not necessitate Errata entries; rather,
such information was incorporated as appropriate into the new analysis in the Final EIS, and/or
acknowledged in the response to comments (see Chapter 6, Appendix J, and Appendix K of this
Final EIS).
3.1 PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS ERRATA ITEMS
Page Location Change
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Summary
Page 1-2 Paragraph 2,
Lines 11–12
The reference to Figure 1-1 incorrectly states that there is no
230 kV transmission line that reaches the center of the
Eastside area. The reference should read that there is no 230
kV transmission line that provides the necessary capacity to
the center of the Eastside area.
Page 1-3 Figure 1-1 The legend should read “Customers potentially affected by
rotating outages” rather than “Customers affected by rotation
outages.”
Page 1-5 Paragraph 1,
Line 7
Incorrect reference to Appendix A. The information referred to
is in the Stantec memo Energize Eastside Project
Memorandum from Keith DeClerck to Mark Johnson, dated
July 31, 2015, and is not in any appendix. This memo is
available on the EIS project website.
Page 1-6 Paragraph 4,
Lines 6–7
The text incorrectly states that “once equipment is in an
overload condition the options are to let it fail or take it out of
service.” NERC requires that utilities prevent overloads of bulk
transmission elements such as lines and transformers.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐2
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Page 1-31 Paragraph 2 PSE has stated that HPFF would not be used in underground
lines. Therefore, the following text: “Hazardous materials are
likely in electrical infrastructure (e.g., oil-containing
transformers, High Pressure Fluid-Filled (HPFF) power lines
used in some underground lines)” should have stated
“Hazardous materials are likely in electrical infrastructure (e.g.,
oil-containing transformers).”
Page 1-32 Bullet One PSE has stated that their transformers would not use SF6.
Therefore, the following text: “use vegetable-based oil for
transformers rather than petroleum based oil or SF6,” should
have said “use vegetable-based oil for gas-insulated circuit
breakers rather than petroleum-based oil or SF6.”
Page 1-50 Table 1-2 This summary table incorrectly states that there would be
“Minor to Moderate” construction impacts to Historic and
Cultural Resources under the No Action Alternative. Table 1-2
should have said there would be “Negligible” impacts to reflect
the findings of the Historic and Cultural chapter.
Page 1-51 Table 1-2 Construction impacts to historic and cultural resources for the
Energy Storage and Peak Power Generation components
should have been classified as "Minor to Significant" as both
of these components have the potential for minor impacts to
historic properties and significant impacts to archaeological
resources, if present.
Page 1-54 Table 1-3 Impacts to Recreation under most Alternative 2 components
were incorrect and should have been stated as “Minor to
Moderate” to reflect the findings of the recreation chapter.
Impacts for peak power generation for Alternative 2 should
have been “Minor to Significant.”
Chapter 2 – Description of Project and Alternatives
Page 2-40 Paragraph 2 When using the term "storing," the text should have referred to
the MWh rating (225.6), rather than the power rating of 121
MW.
Page 2-41 Headings The heading numbering scheme for the Peak Generation Plant
Component and Construction subsections is incorrect. The
headings should have been numbered as “2.3.3.1 Peak
Generation Plant Component” and “2.3.3.3 Construction” to
“2.3.3.5 Peak Generation Plant Component” and “2.3.3.6
Construction,” respectively.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐3
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Chapter 3 – Earth
Page 3-2 Paragraphs 2–4 It should have been noted that Washington State Building
Code exempts electrical transmission equipment and
structures in a utility right-of-way from its requirements.
Section 4.11 of the Final EIS provides an expanded discussion
of applicable standards (see Section 4.11.1).
Page 3-11 Paragraph 1 “Section 3.3.3.1, Other Hazards,” should have been called
“Section 3.3.3.5, Other Hazards.”
Page 3-11 Paragraph 1 Renton should have been included in the following sentence:
“Other hazards could include coal mining areas and tunnels
such as those present in southern Bellevue and Newcastle.”
Although there are no active coal mines in Renton, there are
four mapped abandoned coal mines, and smaller unmapped
mines may also exist. Historical coal mining areas in Renton
are primarily in the vicinity of South Puget Drive, Renton Hill,
south of Cedar River Park, and east of Benson Drive (City of
Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan, April 2010).
Page 3-16 Paragraph 2,
Lines 3–4
This section should have stated that water and sewer pipelines
may also need to be provided. The statement “Depending on
location, this could include replacing major gas mains to
increase natural gas supply capacity” should have been
“Depending on location, this could include replacing major gas
mains (to increase natural gas supply capacity) and providing
water and sewer pipelines.”
Page 3-17 Paragraph 5,
Lines 5–7
The text incorrectly states that “PSE would be required to
retain a Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer to design
the project facilities to withstand probable seismically induced
ground shaking at each location.” PSE would be required to
retain a system designer that would integrate information and
recommendations prepared by a geotechnical engineer to
ensure that appropriate design considerations are made. The
geotechnical engineer would provide the foundation design of
the project facilities.
Page 3-17 Paragraph 5,
Lines 8–12
The text incorrectly referred to seismic requirements of the
Washington State Building Code and any local building code
amendments as “recommendations.”
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐4
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Page 3-17 Paragraph 5 Section 3.7.1.3, Seismic Hazards, does not discuss the fact
that the existing 115 kV transmission line and Olympic Pipeline
system cross the Seattle Fault Zone. A major earthquake of the
magnitude expected on the Seattle Fault could cause pipeline
rupture in certain areas on the Eastside (Earthquake
Engineering Institute and Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division, 2005). This is evaluated
further in Section 4.11.3 of the Final EIS.
Page 3-22 Paragraph 2 The following mitigation measures should have been listed:
Use appropriate stormwater management (detention)
facilities to reduce stream flow velocities and flooding.
Conduct additional seismic engineering.
Chapter 4 – GHG
Page 4-12 Paragraph 4,
Lines 1 and 2
The text incorrectly states that: “Using an existing 115 kV
corridor for Alternative 1, Option A could require up to an
additional 50 feet of lateral clearing along the length of the
alignment.” The text should have said: “Using an existing 115
kV corridor for Alternative 1, Option A could require up to a
120 to 150 foot wide corridor (approximately 30 to 40 feet
wider than a 115 kV line).”
Chapter 5 – Water
Page 5-3 Table 5-1 WAC 173-201A should have been included under “State
Regulatory Program or Policies.” It includes the rules for how
to implement RCW 90.48.
Chapter 6 – Plants and Animals
Page 6-10 Paragraph 1,
Line 4
The text should have included amphibians as a class of animal
that utilizes aquatic systems in the Eastside.
Page 6-11 Paragraph 2 The text should have included amphibians and reptiles as
classes of animals that utilized forest habitat in the Eastside.
Page 6-12 Paragraph 3 The following species of local importance should have been
noted under the “City of Bellevue’s Land Use Code
20.25H.150” bullet: Western big-eared bat, Keen's myotis,
long-legged myotis, and long-eared myotis.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐5
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Page 6-14 Paragraph 4,
Lines 1–2
Figure 6-6 (now Figure 6-7) should not have been referenced
when referring to PSE’s Vegetation Management Program for
the No Action Alternative. In addition, PSE’s Vegetation
Management Program removes mature trees equal or greater
than 25 feet, not 15 feet. The statement: “PSE’s Vegetation
Management Program would continue under the No Action
Alternative (Figure 6-6). This program includes removal of
mature trees greater than 15 feet tall that are located within the
transmission right-of-way (typically including the area directly
under the wires (the wire zone), and 10 feet from the outer
transmission wires (border zones)” should have stated: “PSE’s
Vegetation Management Program would continue under the
No Action Alternative. This program includes the removal of
mature trees equal to or greater than 25 feet in height that are
located within the transmission right-of-way, typically including
the area directly under the wires (the wire zone), and 10 feet
from the outer transmission wires (border zones).”
Page 6-15 Figure 6-6 Figure 6-6 “PSE Vegetation Management Program Zones”
should have been numbered as Figure 6-7 and should have
been located in Section 6.6.3. In addition, Figure 6-6 as cited
on page 6-16 should have been cited as Figure 6-7.
Page 6-17 Paragraphs 4 and
5
Approximately 9 miles of additional 230 kV line would need to
be reconductored north of the Sammamish substation as part
of Alternative 1, Option B (SCL Corridor), which could include
clearing associated with construction access. This was not
evaluated in the Phase 1 Draft EIS.
Chapter 8 – Environmental Health and Safety
Chapter 8 Use of SF6
(throughout
Chapter 8)
It was incorrectly assumed that PSE uses SF6 (a gas
sometimes used for insulation of electrical equipment) in
transformers. SF6 is used by PSE in high-voltage circuit
breakers, which are designed to protect an electrical circuit
from damage caused by overcurrent/overload or short circuit.
Page 8-9 Sidebar The text incorrectly states that SF6 is a highly toxic gas.
However, it is a contributor to GHG emissions and is further
evaluated in that respect in the Phase 2 and Final EIS
documents.
Page 8-11 Paragraph 2,
Line 1
from the text incorrectly references “Section 8.1.1.” “Section
8.3.1” should have been referenced.
Page 8-35 Paragraph 5,
Line 3
The text incorrectly states that NESC guidelines direct PSE
how to shield lines with lightning protection.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐6
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Page 8-40 Paragraph 3,
Lines 6–8
The text incorrectly states that: “state public utility commission
has adopted seismic standards that utilities must follow, with
structural requirements for poles that would be sufficient to
resist anticipated earthquake ground motions.” PSE would
meet the structural requirements set by the IBC, ASCE, and
ACI.
Chapter 9 – Noise
Chapter 9 Use of
“maintenance
yards” (throughout
Chapter 9)
Throughout the chapter, the term “maintenance yards” should
be “utility yards.” Utility yards is the more commonly used
term.
Page 9-8+ Paragraph 2, Lines
1-2; Page 9-15,
Paragraph 2, Lines
1–2; Page 9-17,
Paragraph 2, Lines
4–5; and Page 9-17,
Paragraph 4, Line 1
The text incorrectly states that: “electrical substations are
exempt from the maximum permissible noise levels
established in Chapter 173-60 of the Washington
Administrative Code.” According to WAC 173-60-040(2)(b),
electrical substations are subject to the state noise limits
between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM; however, they
are not subject to the 10 dBA reduction.
Page 9-16 Paragraph 5,
heading
Heading “9.6.4.1 Peak Generation Plant Component” should
have been “9.6.4.5 Peak Generation Plant Component.”
Page 9-16 Paragraph 5,
Lines 7–10
The text incorrectly says that: “…local noise levels could be
elevated, especially during nighttime hours, and represent a
moderate noise impact.” The text should have said that under
such conditions the peak generation plant component could
result in a significant noise impact.
Chapter 10 – Land Use
Page 10-5 Figure 10-2 Figure incorrectly labels most of the park lands and open
space (including Lake Sammamish State Park, Squak
Mountain State Park and Natural Area, and Cougar Mountain
Regional Wildland Park, among others) as planned
“institutional lands.”
Page 10-13 Figure 10-5 Figure mislabels the Issaquah Highlands, the area surrounding
the Lake Tradition substation, and the parklands on Cougar
and Squak as vacant land.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐7
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Page 10-20 Paragraph 4 The text states that “PSE confirms that due to safety
regulations, transmission lines would never be placed directly
over homes (Strauch, telephone conversation).” PSE asserts in
a letter that occupied structures have been constructed under
the existing 115 kV transmission lines. While no homes are
under any of the existing lines, the EIS text should have
mentioned that up to three non-residential structures appear in
aerial photos to be under the existing lines, all of which appear
to be commercial or agricultural uses.
Page 10-24 Paragraph 1,
Lines 1–2
The text incorrectly states that PSE would need to purchase
the land adjacent to the Lakeside substation if the Lakeside
site were chosen. PSE owns the land that would be used for
the Lakeside substation expansion. However, PSE would need
to develop the land.
Page 10-26 Paragraph 1,
Table 10–2
The Newcastle Use Restriction information was incorrect.
Utility facilities would be allowed in mixed use, urban
residential, and neighborhood business zoning districts.
Page 10-27 Paragraph 3,
Lines 1–3
It is unknown whether or not introducing a 230 kV line would
be considered a new hazardous use if lower voltage
transmission lines already exist. The following sentences have
been deleted: “This option would have some of the same
zoning consistency issues as Option A (Table 10-2) including
potential for co-location with a high consequence land use,
since it also crosses the OPL Company (OPLC) pipeline in
places and is parallel to it in other locations.”
Page 10-30 Paragraph 2,
Line 6
The text incorrectly states that PSE would need to acquire
additional property for the expansion of the substations under
Alternative 3. It is possible that no additional property
acquisition would be required.
Chapter 11 – Views and Visual Resources
Page 11-20 Paragraph 3,
Lines 2–5
Based on research conducted by the EIS Consultant Team,
the section states that 12.5 kV lines are commonly on wood
poles up to approximately 60 feet tall. PSE has since provided
locally specific information. On the Eastside, 12.5 kV lines are
commonly on wood poles up to approximately 34 to 40 feet
tall.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐8
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Page 11-20 Paragraph 4,
Lines 1–3
Based on research conducted by the EIS Consultant Team,
the section states that 115 kV lines are suspended on single
wood poles and are generally 70 to 90 feet above ground. PSE
has since provided locally specific information. On the
Eastside, 115 kV lines are suspended on single wood poles
and are generally 60 to 80 feet above ground.
Page 11-21 Paragraph 4,
Line 2
The text incorrectly refers to Westminster substation as an
existing substation. It is a proposed substation.
Page 11-37 Paragraph 4,
Line 4
The text incorrectly states that SCL has one 230 kV line within
its existing transmission corridor. SCL has two 230 kV lines in
its existing corridor.
Chapter 12 – Recreation
Page 12-2 Table 12-1 Table 12-1 should have included Redmond’s Transportation
Master Plan (2013) under “Parks and Recreation Plans for
Study Area Communities.” This plan includes pedestrian and
bicycle system plans.
Page 12-15 Paragraph 1,
Lines 1–3
The text incorrectly states that vaults and permanent access
roads would be located on the shoreline every 1,500 to 2,500
feet to provide access for maintenance and repair of the
underwater cables. Vaults and access roads would only be
required at the entrance and exit points to the lake.
Chapter 13 – Historic and Cultural Resources
Page 13-11 Paragraph 4,
Lines 4–5
The section incorrectly states that: “no ground disturbance is
expected under the No Action Alternative...” Ground
disturbance would occur under the No Action Alternative as
part of routine pole replacement activities, and over time all of
the poles along the existing Sammamish to Talbot Hill 115 kV
corridor would be replaced again. This has been clarified in
Section 3.7.4 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Chapter 14 – Transportation
Page 14-13 Paragraph 6 The text incorrectly states that a few hundred truck trips per
day would be required if petroleum products needed to be
transported by vehicle, rather than the pipeline. This is
corrected in Section 4.9.6 of the Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐9
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Chapter 15 – Public Services
Page 15-13 Paragraph 1,
Lines 1–2
Text does not note that water and sewer pipelines may also
need to be extended to the peak generation plants.
Chapter 16 – Utilities
Page 16-12 Paragraph 3,
Line 1
An outdated franchise agreement with OPLC was cited. The
most recent agreement between the City of Bellevue and
OPLC is from 2016.
Page 16-16 Last paragraph,
Line 1
The text incorrectly states that two substations may be
needed. It should have stated that two transformers may be
needed.
Page 16-17 Paragraph 1,
Lines 4–5
Reference to the Bothell-SnoKing double-circuit 230 kV line
should be to the Maple Valley-SnoKing double-circuit 230 kV
line.
Page 16-20 Paragraph 4,
Lines 1–2
The text incorrectly implies that the Westminster and Vernell
substations are existing facilities.
Page 16-20 Paragraph 5,
Line 3
The text incorrectly limits the discussion of foundations to just
transformer foundation.
Page 16-32 Paragraph 2,
Line 1
The text incorrectly states that an additional 230 kV
transmission line would be located along SCL’s easement.
Under Alternative 1, Option B, the new PSE 230 kV
transmission lines would replace the existing SCL 230 kV
transmission lines.
Appendix B – Potential Construction Equipment
Table B-1 Alternative 1
(Options A and B)
and Alternative 3,
removal of existing
wooden poles
Cranes and helicopters should have been listed as equipment
being considered for Alternative 1 (Options A and B) and
Alternative 3 for the removal of existing wooden poles.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐10
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
3.2 PHASE 2 DRAFT EIS ERRATA ITEMS
Page Location Change
Fact Sheet
Page III Under the
“Federal”
heading
The following should have been listed: “Coastal Zone Management
Consistency Determination under the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act, Washington State Department of Ecology.” This information has
been added to the Final EIS (under the State heading).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives
Pages 2-2 to
2-3
Section
2.1.1
The text incorrectly states that the No Action Alternative would not
require issuance of state or local permits. The text should have described
the No Action Alternative as: “those actions PSE would undertake to
maintain the existing line if the proposed project is not approved.” See
Section 2.1.1 of the Final EIS.
Page 2-7 Figure 2.1-2 The “Proposed 115 kV Corridor” should be labeled “Existing 115 kV
Corridor.” See Figure 2-2 in the Final EIS for a revised site plan for the
Richards Creek substation site based on refined design details.
Section 3.1 – Land Use
Page 3.1-45 Section
3.1.5.15
The Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character bullet for the
Renton Segment analysis should have included vacant land as not being
impacted (in addition to single-family residential, as listed). This land use
has been added to the Final EIS.
Page 3.1-3 Section
3.1.1
A discussion about NMC 18.44.052.C.1 and 18.44.052.D should have
been provided. Text has been added to the Final EIS (see Section 4.1.1
of the Final EIS).
Section 3.2 – Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment
Page 3.2-3 Paragraph 2,
Line 2
The text incorrectly states that 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. It is from the centerline of the existing and new
corridor. This statement has been corrected in the Final EIS.
Page 3.2-38 Paragraph 5,
Line 2
The text incorrectly states that the multi-family housing would be 700 feet
from the new substation. It would actually be approximately 450 feet.
This has been rectified in Section 4.2.5.2 of the Final EIS.
Page 3.2-77 Paragraph 1,
Line 4
Text incorrectly states that the poles would be closer to neighboring
residences. Text has been revised in the Final EIS (see Section 4.2.5.7 of
the Final EIS).
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐11
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Page 3.2-80 Figure
3.2-22
Figure 3.2-22 shows an outdated pole configuration. The updated pole
configuration simulation is provided in the Final EIS (see Figure 4.2-18).
Page 3.2-82 Paragraph 3 There is only one SCL crossing in the Renton Segment, just south of the
intersection of 126th Ave SE with NE 25th St. The approach used in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS conservatively portrays impacts as further engineering
is required to determine if the project would require raising the existing
SCL towers. A revised discussion is provided in Section 4.2.5.9 of the
Final EIS.
Page 3.2-87 Section
3.2.6.1
Revised text to include regulatory requirements from Newcastle that
would need to be complied with (NMC 18.44.052.C.1 and 18.44.052.D).
See revised discussion in the Final EIS (see Section 4.2.6).
Section 3.3 – Water
Page 3.3‐12 Section
3.3.4
The discussion of the No Action Alternative should have acknowledged
impacts associated with pole replacement. This discussion has been
added to Section 4.3.4 of the Final EIS.
Page 3.3‐14 Section
3.3.5.2
The information presented for the Richards Creek substation site is
incorrect. It was based on preliminary, reconnaissance-level work. The
Final EIS presents information based on a formal wetland delineation
conducted in June 2017. Therefore, the wetland data presented in the
Final EIS (e.g., names, locations, acreages, etc.) are different than what
was presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. See Section 4.3.5.2 of the Final
EIS.
Pages 3.3-
19, 20, and
21
Tables 3.3-3
and 3.3-4
Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 present incorrect numbers for the number of
“Category I” wetlands impacted under each option. The numbers
presented in the bulleted text for each option (see Sections 3.3.5.5
through 3.3.5.7 and Sections 3.3.5.9 through 3.3.5.12 of the Phase 2
Draft EIS) are correct and should have been used for the tables.
Page 3.3-27 Section
3.3.5.14
Text incorrectly states that “No poles would be located in wetlands or
buffers…” Although PSE’s design did place all of the new poles along the
corridor (excluding substation site) out of wetlands, a few poles would be
in buffers.
Section 3.4 – Plants and Animals
Page
3.4-8
Paragraph 3,
Line 7
The term “Managed Right-of-Way” was misused when referring to tree
removal. The text should have said “The Watershed Company 100-foot
study area.”
Page
3.4-9
Paragraph 1,
Line1
Same as above regarding the term “Managed Right-of-Way.”
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐12
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Page
3.4-9
Figure 3.4-5 Same as above regarding the term “Managed Right-of-Way.”
Throughout Throughout Some of the tree numbers presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS were
incorrect because they were based on a mixture of data sources that
were generated at different points in the analysis, including reports
prepared by The Watershed Company and georeferenced tree data
points, and errors in data processing. The corrected numbers for options
not carried forward into this Final EIS are listed in the table below.
Section 4.4 of the Final EIS provides corrected numbers for the
Redmond, Bellevue North, and Renton Segments. The analysis in Section
4.4 for the remaining segments includes revised tree numbers based on
information in the permit applications submitted to the Cities of Bellevue
and Newcastle. Appendix L provides corrected numbers for the Richards
Creek Substation, Bellevue Central, Bellevue South, and Newcastle
Segments (see Phase 2 Draft EIS column).
Option
Trees
Subject to
Removal
Significant
Trees
Subject to
Removal
Total Trees
Surveyed
% of Trees
Removed
Trees
Removed
Per Acre
Significant
Trees
Removed
Per Acre
Trees
Removed
From
Critical
Habitat
Trees
Removed
From Critical
Habitat
Buffers
Existing Easement 599 232 753 80% 17.6 6.8 50 152
Bypass Option 1 1,767 1,216 3,034 58% 38.4 26.4 241 920
Bypass Option 2 1,171 859 2,234 52% 21.5 15.7 172 604
Oak 1 Option 1,069 656 1,594 67% 24.5 15.0 2 74
Oak 2 Option 1,215 727 1,805 67% 15.0 9.0 2 74
Willow 1 Option 1,032 449 1,385 75% 25.8 11.2 4 76
Willow 2 Option 1,696 904 2,584 66% 25.4 13.6 4 81
Newcastle 301 33 366 82% 16.6 1.8 2 57
Section 3.5 – Greenhouse Gases
Page 3.5‐8 Table 3.5-1 The table incorrectly states that under Bypass Option 2 there would be
39 MT CO2e/year loss of GHGs from sequestration. There would be 40
MT CO2e/year loss of GHGs from sequestration under the Bypass 2
Option.
Page 3.5‐9 Table 3.5-2 The table incorrectly states that under the Oak 2 Option there would be
28 MT CO2e/year loss of GHGs from sequestration. There would be 29
MT CO2e/year loss of GHGs from sequestration under the Oak 2 Option.
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐13
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Section 3.7 – Cultural and Historic Resources
Page 3.7-3 Figure 3.7-1 The Safeway Distribution Center is in the wrong location on the figure. It
should be located at intersection of 124th Ave NE, Bel-Red Road, and NE
12th St. This site is not adjacent to PSE’s Proposed Alignment, so it is
not shown in the Final EIS.
Section 3.8 – EMF
Section 3.8 Throughout The text throughout incorrectly references “industry guidelines” when the
term that should have been used was “reference guidelines.” This has
been revised in Section 4.8 of the Final EIS.
Page 3.8-10 Paragraph 1,
Lines 9-13
The text incorrectly uses the word “conductors” when the word
“structures” should have been used.
Section 3.9 – Pipeline Safety
Pages 3.9-
12 to 3.9-14
Figure 3.9-1 Newport High School is incorrectly located on the Figure 3.9-1 series
from pages 3.9-12 to 3.9-14. It is actually located west of the intersection
of SE Newport Way and Factoria Blvd SE. This has been rectified in
Chapter 4.9 of the Final EIS.
Page 3.9-48 Paragraph 4 The text incorrectly said that diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline would
evaporate in a few days. While gasoline breaks down very quickly, usually
lasting only days to weeks in the environment, jet fuel usually lasts days
to weeks in the environment, and diesel fuel is somewhat persistent
lasting 1 month to 1 year in the environment. This has been stated in
Section 4.9 of the Final EIS.
Section 3.10 – Economics
NA Section 3.10 Tree numbers presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS have been revised to
reflect The Watershed Company’s 100-foot study area as used
elsewhere. Section 4.10 of the Final EIS provides corrected numbers for
the Redmond, Bellevue North, and Renton Segments. The analysis in
Section 4.10 for the remaining segments includes revised tree numbers
based on information in the permit applications submitted to the Cities of
Bellevue and Newcastle. Appendix L provides updated numbers for the
Richards Creek substation, Bellevue Central, Bellevue South, and
Newcastle Segments (see Phase 2 Draft EIS column).
FINAL EIS PAGE 3‐14
CHAPTER 3 ERRATA MARCH 2018
Page Location Change
Chapter 6 – Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Page 6-2 Paragraph 4,
Line 7
The text incorrectly states that the poles in the Newcastle Segment would
be closer to residential streets and homes. This has been rectified in
Chapter 8 of the Final EIS.
Appendix A – Construction
Page A-5 Paragraph 2,
Line 5
The Phase 2 Draft EIS text incorrectly states that the depth of the holes
for pole installation would be typically 10 percent of the pole height plus 2
feet. PSE subsequently clarified that it typically would be 10 percent of
the pole height plus 4 feet. This has been rectified in Appendix A-1 of the
Final EIS.
Page A‐12 Preliminary
Construction
Access Routes
– Renton
Segment Map
The existing corridor line connects to the substation in the wrong
location. The map shows the 230 kV entering Talbot Hill substation on
the 115 kV (western) side of the substation instead of the 230 kV (eastern)
side. This has been rectified in Appendix A-2 of the Final EIS, as well as
other maps throughout the Final EIS.
Appendix C – Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment Methodology
Page C-3 Paragraph 3,
Line 1
The text incorrectly states that 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. It is from the centerline of the existing and new
corridor. This statement has been corrected in the Final EIS.
Page C-29 Table C-9 Newcastle Municipal Code 18.44.052.C.1 and 18.44.052.D should have
been included in Table C-9 under “Guidance for Reducing Visual
Impacts.” These have been included in the Final EIS (see Appendix C,
Table C-10 of the Final EIS)
Appendix I – Pipeline
Page 57 Paragraph 1,
Line 5
Reference to the “10 amps per square meter threshold” should have
been to the “20 amps per meter threshold.”
Page 89 Section
9.3.7
Radius of impact area around each pole is shown in the Draft EIS as
being 25 feet; however, based on information received from PSE, the
impact area could be greater.
Long-Term (Operation) Impacts
and Potential Mitigation
4
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.0‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
CHAPTER 4. 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 5, Short-term (Construction) Impacts. For the purposes of this Final EIS,
impacts associated with routine maintenance of the existing transmission lines under the No Action
Alternative (e.g., occasional replacement or repair of poles, wires, and related equipment) are
considered an operational impact and addressed in Chapter 4.
The analysis in the Final EIS (as presented in both Chapters 4 and 5) is based on the most recent
design details provided by PSE at the time the Final EIS was being prepared. In several areas the
design has refined since publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS. New information on pole types and
locations was provided throughout the corridor, and more detailed information was provided in some
areas where the design was more advanced.
In particular, in summer 2017, PSE provided its Proposed Alignment, including new details on pole
locations and types for the entire corridor. In fall 2017, PSE submitted two permit applications, one
to the City of Bellevue (extending from the Lakeside substation area to the southern city limit) and
one to the City of Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and 2017c, respectively). Information in the two permit
applications is generally at a finer scale than the design information available for analysis in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS, and includes additional data on streams, wetlands, critical areas, vegetation
clearing, and project components such as proposed pole locations. Impact analyses in the Final EIS
for PSE’s Proposed Alignment reflect the refined design details as presented in the permit
applications, where available; however, PSE continues to refine the project design to reduce potential
impacts and address the technical requirements of the project as it prepares other permit applications.
Information on all permit applications is available through the respective City departments.
The impact analyses in the EIS (both for the Draft and Final versions) provide a “worst-case”
analysis for decision-makers to consider when evaluating the proposal, based on the information
available at the time of the analysis. As design is refined, it is anticipated that impacts would be equal
to or less than the impacts described in the EIS. In addition, the Final EIS includes a new appendix
(Appendix L) that presents a “cross-walk” comparison of the data sources used for the Phase 2 Draft
EIS relative to those used for the Final EIS, organized by element of the environment as presented in
Chapters 4 and 5.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
Updated the analysis to
reflect PSE’s Proposed
Alignment.
Added analysis of the new
Newcastle Option 2 route.
Added information on new
sections in the Newcastle
Municipal Code.
Made minor clarifications
throughout based on
comments received,
(including information on
Essential Public Facilities
and Conditional Use
Permits).
4.1 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 in the Final EIS contains parcels that are
included in or abutting PSE’s Proposed Alignment, as well as
parcels in close proximity to the right-of-way (see Figure 4.1-1).
This study area was selected because properties in close
proximity to the right-of-way would have the greatest potential to
be impacted by the project, including changing a property to a
utility land use or intensification of the existing utility land use,
and possible associated removal or relocation of minor structures
within the existing utility right-of-way. For a more detailed
description of the methodology used to determine the study area
for the land use analysis, please see Appendix B-1.
The EIS analysis examined land uses, zoning districts, and
comprehensive plan land use designations in the study area, as
well as broader land use patterns. The analysis considered unique
land uses in the study area that were identified during scoping and
the course of this analysis. Unique uses are those that may be more significantly affected by the
project or those that are used by large numbers of people and include the following:
Schools
Religious institutions
Hospitals
Libraries
Parks, recreational areas, or other public gathering places
Commercial or retail areas
Transportation or other infrastructure
Areas adjacent to or close to the study area that are zoned or
planned for higher intensity uses such as commercial or industrial
were also examined. The EIS analysis considered 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, of the Phase 2 Draft EIS and is incorporated by
reference.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Source: King County, 2015; WA Ecology, 2014.
Figure 4.1-1. Study Area for Land Use and Housing
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.1 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. These plans, policies, and regulations are covered in Section 3.1.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS
and included in Appendix B-3.
Two new code sections from Newcastle that are relevant to determining land use impacts for the
project were not included in the Phase 2 Draft EIS analysis. An additional Conditional Use Permit
decision criterion for utility facilities in Newcastle Municipal Code (NMC) 18.44.052(C)(1) states
that the City must determine whether the impact of the utility facility on the city and environment has
been minimized. Additionally, NMC 18.44.052(D) establishes that the City has the right to impose
conditions on the facility in regards to location, development, design, use, or operation to mitigate
impacts.
4.1.2 Land Use and Housing in the Study Area
The 16-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 4.1-1 for a map of existing
land uses. Based on a linear-feet breakdown of the study area for PSE’s Proposed Alignment, the
most common existing land uses include:
Residential (single-family and multi-family) (49 percent)
Vacant land (17 percent)
Industrial (9 percent)
Institutional (9 percent)
Refer to Section 3.1.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS for a summary of the land use and housing in the
study area. These classifications of land use are based on King County Assessor’s data. It should be
noted that some of the land classified by the assessor as vacant includes portions of public parks.
This information has not changed since the publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS and is incorporated
by reference in the Final EIS.
4.1.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
4.1.3.1 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 Group, 2016). This section verifies that
those findings apply to the alternatives considered in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and this Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐4
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
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. PSE
would allow these transmitters to be replaced on the new poles, so no impacts are expected, either
from the loss of such facilities or from the addition of any new ones. Whether a transmitter is
replaced on the new poles, however, is subject to permit approval for the wireless facility and the
ability to meet carrier coverage objectives in the new location. The land use code in each jurisdiction
requires permits for any new facilities, but would not necessarily restrict them from being placed on
the proposed poles in the future, subject to permit approval.
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.
4.1.3.2 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
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.
4.1.4 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 Washington State
Growth Management Act (GMA) 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.5 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
4.1.5.1 Impacts Common to all Components
Under PSE's Proposed Alignment, the entire project would utilize PSE’s existing 115 kV
transmission line corridor. No new property or easements would be acquired for PSE’s Proposed
Alignment.
Although PSE plans to remove and replace the existing wooden 115 kV H-frame structures, this
planned pole replacement would not change the existing or future land uses, zoning designations, or
housing stock since the land is already in use as a transmission line corridor and does not require
additional easements or property acquisitions. Section 4.2.3 of this Final EIS addresses potential
impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment that may result from replacing the existing
poles with taller pole types, including consistency with the comprehensive plans of the Partner Cities
in regards to visual resources and neighborhood character.
The project is considered either an allowed use or conditional use in all of the zones that it would
cross within the study area. 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. 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 would be 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. PSE's
Proposed Alignment would not change any distribution lines and 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
(see Appendix B-3). 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 co-location of utilities.
Land use is closely tied to several other environmental resources, such as scenic views and aesthetic
environment as well as recreation. While PSE's Proposed Alignment could result in significant
impacts to some of these resources within certain route sections, 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 4.2.5. For a detailed analysis of the impacts to
recreation resources, please see Section 4.6.5.
The following pages summarize the potential impacts on land use for PSE’s Proposed Alignment,
presented for the Richards Creek substation and by segment. For the Redmond, Bellevue North,
Bellevue Central, and Renton Segments, the analysis included a review of refined project design
details for PSE’s Proposed Alignment, with results revised relative to the Phase 2 Draft EIS to reflect
the new information. For these segments, the new information and analysis have not altered the
conclusions presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS regarding significant impacts on land use.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
For the Richards Creek substation site and the Bellevue South and Newcastle Segments, the analysis
included a review of the project design as presented in the permit applications submitted to Bellevue
and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and PSE, 2017c, respectively). The results below have been revised
relative to the Phase 2 Draft EIS, incorporating the more detailed information in the permit
applications on pole locations and critical areas (including wetlands, streams, and their buffers). The
conclusions regarding significant impacts on land use, however, are the same as presented in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS.
4.1.5.2 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 site is owned by PSE and has been used for
storage or equipment and vehicles; the construction and operation of a new substation will not
represent a substantive change to the existing conditions. In addition, the Richards Creek substation
is consistent with the future land use designation of light industrial from the Bellevue Comprehensive
Plan (City of Bellevue, 2015), and the Bellevue City Code (BCC 20.20) allows development of
“utility facilities” under a Conditional Use Permit.
The Chestnut Hill Academy is adjacent to the existing Lakeside substation, approximately 300 feet
north of the proposed Richards Creek substation site. A wooded area separates the school from the
site of the proposed substation. The Richards Creek substation would not cause any housing impacts
because no housing sites are on or adjacent to the proposed substation site.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.5.3 Redmond Segment
Potential types of new uses and development along the Redmond Segment are regulated by the City
of Redmond Zoning Code (RZC) (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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Redmond Comprehensive Plan (City of Redmond, 2011) and the Grass Lawn and Willows Rose
Hill Subarea policies. 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 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 continue to be mostly single-family and multi-family residential, and parks/open space. The
project would use an existing utility corridor and would not interfere with planned development.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this segment.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.5.4 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 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐10
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
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.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: The project would not impact the
existing land use pattern of single-family residential north of SR 520, or the commercial area
south of SR 520. 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐11
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.5.5 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue Central Segment follows the route of the Existing
Corridor Option as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and
placement. Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue Central Segment are
regulated by the City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The East Bellevue Community Council
(EBCC) also has approval-disapproval authority over certain land use actions, including conditional
use permits, within a portion of this segment. The potential impacts to land use and housing for the
Bellevue Central Segment of the project 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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 south of Bel-Red Road, or the
mixed-use commercial area north of Bel-Red Road. 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 segment.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.5.6 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue South Segment follows the route of the Willow 1 Option
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and placement.
Potential types of new uses and development along the Bellevue South Segment are regulated by the
City of Bellevue City Code (BCC, Title 20). The potential impacts to land use and housing for the
Bellevue South Segment 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
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
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 segment 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 segment.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.5.7 Newcastle Segment – Option 1 (No Code Variance)
For the Newcastle Segment, two options are being considered in this Final EIS, including one that
would not require a variance from the 5-foot setback requirement under NMC 18.12.130, and one
that would require a variance.
For Newcastle Segment Option 1 (No Code Variance), the pole height and configuration are the
same as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS for the Newcastle Segment. Therefore, impacts for this
option are the same as the impacts described for the Newcastle Segment in Phase 2 of the Draft EIS.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐16
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
The criteria for approval of that permit include consideration of impacts on surrounding uses, among
other criteria. The analysis in this section focuses on land use and housing impacts. Other impacts are
described in other portions of the Final EIS.
The potential impacts to land use and housing for the Newcastle Segment (Option 1) 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: Under Option 1, the project would be
consistent with the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan for land use and housing impacts (City of
Newcastle, 2016). 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. Policy UT-P10 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan states that the
City “should require utility providers to design and construct overhead transmission lines in a
manner that is environmentally sensitive, safe, and aesthetically compatible with surrounding
land uses.” The project is consistent with this policy, except regarding aesthetics. Regarding
impacts to the visual character of the Newcastle Segment, see Section 4.2.5.7 of the Final EIS.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: Under Option 1, the project would
not impact the existing land use pattern. The project would use the existing corridor and not
require new easements from adjoining properties; single-family residential and other areas on the
corridor would not be converted to other uses. Regarding impacts to the visual character of the
Newcastle segment, see Section 4.2.5.7 of the Final EIS.
Future Land Use Pattern: Under Option 1, the project would not impact future land uses,
which are anticipated to be primarily single-family residential and parks/open space, with a small
section of mixed-use and multi-family residential at the north end of the segment. Future land use
designations were developed based on the assumption that the transmission line 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 option.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐17
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.5.8 Newcastle Segment – Option 2 (Code Variance)
Based on comments received on the Phase 2 Draft EIS and coordination with the City of Newcastle,
PSE developed a second option for the Newcastle Segment for analysis in the Final EIS. The
Newcastle Segment Option 2 (Code Variance) would use the same corridor as Option 1 but would
use poles that are placed closer to the center of the right-of-way than Option 1, which allows use of
shorter poles. Option 2 was proposed to reduce adverse effects to the aesthetic environment
associated with the Newcastle Segment as analyzed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS (as well as Option 1 as
analyzed in the Final EIS). However, placing the poles closer to the center of the right-of-way also
places them closer to the Olympic Pipeline system easement than allowed in Newcastle’s land use
code, and Option 2 would require variance approval from the City of Newcastle.
Title 18 of the Newcastle Municipal Code (NMC) allows development of a “Utility Facility –
Regional” under a Conditional Use Permit. It also regulates transmission line utility poles as
“structures”, and requires them to be separated from regional utility corridors:
“All buildings and structures shall maintain a minimum distance of five feet from property or
easement lines delineating the boundary of regional utility corridors, except for utility
structures necessary to the operation of the utility corridor” (NMC 18.12.130).
The right-of-way easement for the Olympic Pipeline system varies in width and runs through the
middle of the transmission line corridor in the Newcastle Segment, which means that NMC
18.12.130 requires that the poles be placed close to edges of the transmission corridor right-of-way
and therefore near adjacent residences and other structures abutting the corridor, and away from the
buried pipeline.
Under Option 2, PSE would request from the City of Newcastle a Conditional Use Permit and
variance approval to allow the new poles to be placed a minimum of 13 feet from the pipelines.
Because of the varying width of the pipeline right-of-way and the varying location of the pipeline
within the corridor, the proposed poles would not all be outside of the existing pipeline right-of-way
easement. By allowing the poles to be closer to the center of the transmission corridor, a shorter pole
design is possible, with conductors on both sides of the pole instead of just on one side as in Option 1
(see the Newcastle Segment Option 2 Segment Sheet, in Chapter 2, page 2-31). Under this design,
the topmost conductors would also be lower than Option 1, further minimizing potential adverse
effects on the aesthetic environment.
This situation is unique to Newcastle in the project area for two reasons. First, the Olympic Pipeline
system runs down the center of the existing corridor in Newcastle for most of the segment; in most of
the other segments, the pipeline system generally runs along either the west or east side. Second,
Newcastle is the only one of the Partner Cities with existing code language with the 5-foot setback
requirement.
The analysis in the EIS is not intended to determine whether Option 2 meets the variance criteria.
Review of the variance criteria is a separate part of the permitting process. This analysis examines
the impacts that would occur if a variance is approved.
Assuming the variance is granted, the potential impacts on land use and housing for the Newcastle
Segment (Option 2) would be less-than-significant. If the project is found to be consistent with
variance criteria, it is assumed that the project would be consistent with City policies that allow for
flexibility through the approval of variances when there is an unusual property-related condition that
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐18
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
was not anticipated by the Code. The impacts on existing and future land use patterns are described
and summarized below.
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: Under Option 2, the project would be
consistent with the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan because it would help accomplish several of
the policies in the plan, including the policy to promote co-location of major utility facilities
(Policy UT-P3). Because high-voltage transmission lines need to be higher than 115 kV lines,
and approval criteria require that visual impacts on surrounding uses be minimized (Policies UT-
P10 and UT-P14), PSE has proposed pole configurations that are as low as possible to meet
industry and safety standards. The variance would allow PSE to use lower pole heights in their
design, which would decrease visual impacts to adjacent land uses. However, this option would
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐19
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
still adversely affect the visual character of a portion of the segment, although to a lesser degree
than Newcastle Option 1 (see Section 4.2.5.8 for a detailed discussion of impacts to scenic views
and the aesthetic environment for Option 2).
The project would follow the variance procedures required by the City of Newcastle. Consistency
with variance criteria is a means of demonstrating consistency with City policies and code when
there are unusual circumstances that create a hardship for an otherwise allowable use to meet
development standards. A final decision on the variance will be made by the City after
completion of the Final EIS.
Existing Land Use Pattern and Neighborhood Character: Under Option 2, the project would
not change the existing land use pattern of single-family residential. The project would use the
existing corridor and not require new easements from adjoining properties. As noted, this option
would still adversely affect the visual character of a portion of the segment, although to a lesser
degree than Newcastle Option 1 (see Section 4.2.5.8 for a detailed discussion of impacts to scenic
views and the aesthetic environment for Option 2).
Future Land Use Pattern: Under Option 2, the project would not impact future land uses,
which are anticipated to be primarily single-family residential and parks/open space, with a small
section of mixed-use and multi-family residential at the north end of the segment. Future land use
designations in the City of Newcastle Comprehensive Plan reflect the assumption that the
transmission facility would remain. The project would use the existing corridor and would not
interfere with planned development.
Shorelines: There are no designated shorelines in this option.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐20
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.5.9 Renton Segment
Potential types of new uses and development along the Renton Segment are regulated by the City of
Renton’s development regulations (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] Title IV) and the Renton
Shoreline Master Program (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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐21
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: The project would be consistent with the
Renton Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton, 2015). 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 vacant land and 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- and multi-family residential, mixed-use, and industrial. 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. PSE's Proposed Alignment would include replacing existing
transmission lines within the existing corridor but would not change the height of the wires
within the shoreline area. The current wooden H-frame structures (which are not within the
shoreline area) would be replaced by taller steel monopoles with a smaller footprint, which would
be placed in substantially the same locations as the exiting poles, outside of the shoreline zone.
The project would be considered repair and maintenance and would not require a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit or a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (pers. comm., Henning,
2017). The project would require a Shoreline Exemption, which is required for all construction
projects within 200 feet of a designated shoreline that are exempted from the requirement for a
“substantial development permit” under the Shoreline Management Act. A Shoreline Exemption
requires a determination that the project is consistent with the requirements of Renton’s SMP. No
adverse effects to the shoreline or shoreline uses are anticipated; therefore, impacts to shorelines
would be less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐22
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
4.1.6 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are implemented to reduce 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, Mitigation).
See Section 1.11, Key Findings of the EIS, for a discussion of how mitigation is applied under SEPA.
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 4.2.6. For an expanded
discussion of mitigation measures related to critical areas compliance, see Section 4.3.6. Please refer
to Section 4.6.6 for information on mitigation measures related to recreation.
4.1.6.1 Regulatory Requirements
All of the segments and options would need to meet the regulations of the zoning districts that they
traverse. 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
discretionary, and would provide some mitigation for project-related impacts to land use. Mitigation
requiring changes to specific design features would be specified during the permitting process, and
designed prior to construction. The applicable regulations are presented in Appendix B-3. The
setback requirement from the Olympic Pipeline system easement in Newcastle is described in
Section 3.1.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations, and above in
Section 4.1.5.8 of this Final EIS.
The review process for Conditional Use Permits varies by jurisdiction, but often includes
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 discretionary within the regulation of the specific jurisdiction. Such
measures could include those listed under potential mitigation measures below.
In Newcastle, PSE intends to apply for a variance from the setback requirement, which could enable
the use of shorter poles in that segment, as discussed in Section 4.2, Scenic Views and the Aesthetic
Environment. Similar to the Conditional Use Permit review process, variance approval requires a
determination that granting the variance would not harm adjacent land uses. The City has the right to
impose conditions on the facility in regards to location, development, design, use, or operation to
mitigate impacts, as summarized in the section below.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.1‐23
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
Prior to Construction
Design and operate regional utility facilities to minimize impacts on the surrounding uses, the
environment, and the city (NMC 18.44.052.C.1).
Work with the City of Newcastle to adopt any conditions imposed relating to the location,
development, design, use, or operation of a utility facility to mitigate environmental, public
safety, or other identifiable impacts. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to,
natural features that may serve as buffers, or other site design elements such as fencing and
site landscaping (NMC 18.44.052.D).
4.1.6.2 Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on review of the comprehensive plan and
subarea plan policies. The following mitigation measures could be used to reduce potential impacts
from the project.
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).
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. Additional
discussion of use of undergrounding as mitigation is included in Section 4.2.6.
During Operation
Limit the number of cellular telecommunication facilities that could be installed on the
proposed 230 kV poles to the number currently installed in the corridor and proposed to be
reinstalled as part of the EIS (seven locations).
Require the reinstalled telecommunications facilities to be in the same approximate locations
as they were previously and to comply with the requirements of Chapter 80.54 RCW,
Chapter 480-54 WAC, and local jurisdiction regulations.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC
ENVIRONMENT
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. The Phase 1 Draft EIS
provides a programmatic assessment of impacts to visual
character; changes to views, viewpoints, and visual
resources; and light, glare, and exhaust impacts (see
Chapter 11 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS). The Phase 2 Draft
EIS provides a project-level assessment of impacts to
scenic views and the aesthetic environment for a range of
viable segments and options (see Section 3.2.5 of the
Phase 2 Draft EIS). This Final EIS provides a project-
level analysis of impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic
environment resulting from PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
The methodology used for this assessment is the same as
what is described in Section 3.2.3 of the Phase 2 Draft
EIS; that information is incorporated into this Final EIS
by reference, as well as included in Appendix C-1 (which
was revised for the Final EIS). The study area is defined
as the area within 0.25 mile from the centerline of the
existing corridor (Figure 4.2-1). This study area is specific to the scenic views and the aesthetic
environment assessment and is independent of other elements of the environment. Therefore, when
other elements are described in this section (e.g., water bodies, parks and trails, land uses, etc.), the
discussion of these resources may be different than what is described elsewhere in the Final EIS. For
instance, the study area used for this assessment is larger than the one used for the recreation analysis
(Section 4.6). As a result, more recreational resources are described in the analysis of scenic views
and aesthetic environment than are evaluated in Section 4.6, Recreation.
4.2.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
The Phase 1 Draft EIS provides an overview of the planning policies and regulations pertinent to the
protection of views and visual resources (see Section 11.2 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS). For the 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-1). 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 enforce private covenants. However, covenants can affect the physical
environment, and where they do, they are relevant in consideration of the impacts that the project
could have. See Section 4.2.2.1 for more information regarding how covenants in the Somerset area
were considered for this analysis. The Final EIS draws from the planning policies and regulations
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
The scenic views and aesthetic
environment analysis has been
updated to reflect PSE’s Proposed
Alignment. This includes
Revised and detailed pole height
and configuration information.
Updated the visual simulations.
Analyzed the new Newcastle
Option 2.
Reassessed visual compatibility
and scenic view obstruction.
Added mitigation reflecting
current Newcastle Municipal
Code.
Added mitigation discussion of
how pole finish could work in
various locations.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and has been updated to include regulatory requirements from
Newcastle that PSE would need to comply with (NMC 18.44.052.C.1 and 18.44.052.D).
4.2.2 Scenic Views and the Aesthetic Environment in the Study Area
Scenic views and the aesthetic environment in the study area are described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
The study area used for the Phase 2 Draft EIS included route options in central and south Bellevue
outside of PSE’s existing corridor. These are not included in the Final EIS because the Final EIS
focuses on PSE's Proposed Alignment, which is entirely within the existing corridor. Information on
the affected environment (including relevant plans, policies, and regulations) and the description of
scenic views and the aesthetic environment presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS is incorporated into
this Final EIS by reference, and is not repeated here. A revised study area map for PSE’s Proposed
Alignment is provided below (see Figure 4.2-1). Any corrections to the Phase 2 Draft EIS noted in
the Errata section of this Final EIS are also reflected in this section.
4.2.2.1 Bellevue South Segment - Somerset Area Covenants
Although discussed in the impact analysis in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the effect of view covenants on
the Somerset area was not discussed in the affected environment section of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Therefore, the following section provides background on the existing conditions in the Somerset
neighborhood along the Bellevue South Segment. The Somerset neighborhood has neighborhood
covenants that protect views (i.e., the View Guideline for Somerset [Somerset, 2016]). 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. Based on the methodology for the EIS analysis, the viewer sensitivity assessment
should consider customs along with other locally adopted guidance for aesthetic and viewer
preferences. Although the transmission line is not subject to the covenants, incompatibility between
the height of the project and the neighborhood covenants would likely increase viewer awareness of
the impact (see Section 3.2.3.3 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS). 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 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS). 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 View Guideline is not an
adopted SEPA policy. However, higher viewer awareness does affect the potential significance of an
impact. In addition to the higher awareness of the impact, the covenants also have shaped the
physical character of the Somerset community, resulting in shorter buildings than would otherwise be
allowed and, most notably, far fewer tall trees than are found in most neighborhoods on the Eastside.
These physical characteristics are expected to continue because the covenants are permanent and
binding on properties within the Somerset neighborhood.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014.
Figure 4.2-1. Study Area for the Analysis of Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐4
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
The EIS analysis examines two types of visual impacts: (1) impacts to the aesthetic environment, and
(2) impacts to scenic views. It also addresses viewer sensitivity, which applies to both the aesthetic
environment and scenic views. The analysis lists potential mitigation measures that could be used to
minimize or eliminate project impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment. The analysis in
the Final EIS focuses on PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
4.2.3.1 Impacts to Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment
To help assess changes to the aesthetic environment, over 30 viewpoints were selected at various
locations along PSE’s Proposed Alignment to show different ways the Energize Eastside project
could impact the natural and built environments. Areas identified as sensitive during public scoping
and the Phase 2 Draft EIS comment period were also considered during the selection of key
viewpoints. Visual simulations of the project for each of the viewpoints were prepared by Power
Engineers (Power Engineers, 2017). Methods for preparing the visual simulations are detailed in
Appendix C-1. For this EIS, simulations for 15 key viewpoints (KVPs) are used to illustrate impact
conclusions (see Section 4.2.5, Long-term Impacts). They are listed in Table 4.2-1, and their
locations are shown on (Figure 4.2-2). Appendix C-3 incudes simulations for all KVPs and a map
showing their locations.
Table 4.2-1. Key Viewpoints Selected for the Visual Quality Analysis in the Final EIS
KVP Location
Segment/
Option Reason for Selecting Viewpoint
1 Richards Creek
Substation
Richards Creek
Substation site
Shows the new substation, 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.
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 most of the
segment).
4 13508 NE 29th Pl Bellevue North Commenters requested another simulation of
the Bellevue North Segment.
Shows a different pole configuration than what
would be typical.
Shows an area where there is a bend in the
corridor, change in topography, and where a
higher degree of vegetation removal would be
required than other areas of the segment.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
KVP Location
Segment/
Option Reason for Selecting Viewpoint
5 2160 135th Pl SE Bellevue Central Shows pole variation near substation.
6 703 130th Pl SE Bellevue Central From Kelsey Creek Park.
Developed in response to comments on the
Phase 2 Draft EIS.
7 13606 Main St Bellevue Central Shows project from rise in topography looking
along the transmission line corridor.
Is identified in the Wilburton Subarea Plan as a
key view.
8 13636 Main St Bellevue Central Shows a profile view of the project on a rise in
topography.
Is identified in the Wilburton Subarea Plan as a
key view.
9 4411 Somerset
Drive SE
Bellevue South Shows project surrounded by single-family
residential development and placed on a ridge.
Identified via public comment.
10 13300 SE 44th Pl Bellevue South Shows project looking east toward Somerset
from downhill.
11 4730 Somerset
Drive SE
Bellevue South Identified via public comment; shows typical
view from downhill residential street.
12 8446 128th Ave SE Newcastle –
Options 1 & 2
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.
13 Lake Boren Park Newcastle –
Options 1 & 2
View from recreational use.
Shows the project from a lower elevation
looking up at the project.
14 1026 Monroe Ave
NE
Renton Shows project surrounded by institutional and
single-family development.
15 318 Glennwood
Court SE
Renton Shows project on a ridge surrounded by single-
family residential development.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014.
Figure 4.2-2. Locations of Key Viewpoints used in the Aesthetic Environment Analysis
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.3.2 Obstruction of Scenic Views
Impacts to scenic views include the potential for the project to obstruct views of the visual resources
identified in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. To identify areas where project-related view impacts would be
most likely, an updated geographic information system (GIS) analysis was performed for the Final
EIS using only the pole heights for PSE’s Proposed Alignment (see Appendix C-1).
4.2.3.3 Viewer Sensitivity
Viewer sensitivity was assessed as high, moderate, or low, using the methodology described in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS. Section 3.2.3.3 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS (and Appendix C-1) provides more
information about how viewer sensitivity was determined. For the Phase 2 Draft EIS, a high-level
understanding of what pole types would occur in various locations was provided. As a result, the
assessment of visual coherence of the utility lines themselves focused primarily on where the general
pole types would change in each segment (i.e., where there would not be consistent height and form).
For this Final EIS, due to design refinements, there is a greater understanding of what pole types
would be used within each segment than was known during the Draft EIS. Because of the greater
diversity of pole types used within each segment, there is a higher likelihood of inconsistent height
and form (non-coherence). For the Final EIS, additional analysis was conducted to determine
whether or not lack of utility coherence would result in a significant adverse impact to the aesthetic
environment. For more information on the methodology used, see Appendix C-1.
4.2.3.4 Magnitude of Impact
For this analysis, the potential magnitude of project-related impacts is classified as being significant
or less-than-significant using the significance criteria listed below (the same criteria used in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS):
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 impacted scenic views 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
The assessment of impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment under the No Action
Alternative is the same as was presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. 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.
4.2.5 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
4.2.5.1 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 in Section 3.2.5.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Contrast can result from
vegetation removal, changes in topography (i.e., grading), the project not blending with the natural
setting, incompatible height and form with the surrounding built environment, inconsistent project
height and form, and visual clutter.
Several commenters throughout the EIS process have described impacts of the project on the visual
quality of the aesthetic environment as resulting in “blight.” While SEPA dos not provide a definition
of blight, as defined in RCW 35.81.015, a “blighted area" means:
An area which, by reason of the substantial physical dilapidation, deterioration,
defective construction, material, and arrangement and/or age or obsolescence of
buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential;…inappropriate uses
of land or buildings; existence of overcrowding of buildings or structures;
…deterioration of site;… or any combination of such factors…[that] substantially
impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality or its environs...
In general, this is interpreted to mean areas that have been abandoned and fallen into disrepair; the
project is not expected to result in blight or other significant impacts on land use (see Section 4.1.5).
Typical pole heights were used when describing the change in height from existing to proposed.
Typical pole heights vary throughout the corridor depending on the pole configuration used,
differences in topography, and other factors. For this Final EIS, consistent form means that the pole
configuration would continuously be either single-circuit or double-circuit. In general, single-circuit
poles are used in pairs and have typical heights between 50 and 96 feet. Double-circuit monopoles
are singular (not in pairs) and have typical heights between 95 and 99 feet (see Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-
2). However, these typical pole heights vary depending on the segment. Segment-specific typical
pole heights are presented in the analysis below and can be taller than the typical heights presented
for the whole project. Consistent form generally correlates with consistent height in a given segment.
Areas with higher contrast can occur where there is a variety of single-circuit and double-circuit
poles in close proximity.
Although it was assumed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS that all of the pole configurations would be made
of steel with patina applied to provide a rust-colored look, the Final EIS considers various finishes as
being equally likely, including galvanized (light gray), self-weathering (reddish brown), or painted
(powder coat). Finishes could be specified by location to better blend with the background or sky.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Section 4.2.6 of the Final EIS describes considerations for selecting pole finishing that can be used
by PSE and the Partner Cities to determine which finishing type would contrast less with the
surrounding environment.
Cellular Equipment
Comments on the Phase 2 Draft EIS requested more detailed analysis of the appearance of cellular
equipment on the 230 kV poles. As stated in Section 2.1.2, cellular equipment exists in eight
locations spaced through the project corridor. PSE has proposed replacing existing cellular
equipment, if requested by the cellular provider. One of the locations has been identified for
decommissioning, so cellular equipment is proposed to be placed in seven locations. Table 4.2-2 lists
cell carriers that are expected to move or replace their existing equipment on the new transmission
line poles (as of November 2017). Figure 4.2-3 shows existing cellular equipment on a stand-alone
pole (under existing conditions) and what it would look like if the cell equipment were placed in the
middle wire zone. Appendix C-2 includes a diagram that shows what it would look like if cellular
equipment were placed above the wire zone (approximately 10 feet higher than if it were placed in
the middle wire zone). The potential for adverse aesthetic impacts is greater if the cellular equipment
is located in the above wire zone because taller poles are necessary. This is only proposed on the pole
near Newcastle Way at the north end of the Newcastle Segment.
Table 4.2-2. Potential Placement of Cellular Equipment on Project Facilities
Location Segment Cell Companies Location on the Pole
Overlake
13460 NE 40th St
Bellevue North AT&T Below wire zone
Kelsey Creek
13601 SE 10th St
Bellevue Central AT&T/Sprint Below wire zone
Tyee Middle School
3858 136th Ave SE
Bellevue South Sprint Middle wire zone (see
Figure 4.2-3)
Somerset Rec Center
4445 136th Pl SE
Bellevue South T-Mobile Below wire zone
Somerset substation
5200 Coal Creek
Parkway SE
Bellevue South Sprint and T-Mobile To be determined
Newcastle Way
12833 Newcastle Way
Newcastle T-Mobile Above wire zone
4th St (old Cemetery Rd)
3205 NE 4th St
Renton Sprint Below wire zone
Source: PSE, 2017.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐10 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Existing Transmission Pole Height: ~60 feet Figure 4.2-3a. Existing Conditions for Cellular Equipment at 13630 SE Allen Road, Bellevue, Looking Northeast
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐11 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT Proposed Transmission Pole Height: ~95 feet NOTE: Simulated pole heights are site‐specific and may differ from the typical pole heights described in Chapter 2 due to topography and other factors. Pole finishes could vary throughout the project corridor and have not been selected at this point. Source: Power Engineers, 2017 Figure 4.2-3b. Proposed Conditions for Cellular Equipment at 13630 SE Allen Road, Bellevue, Looking Northeast
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Obstruction of Scenic Views
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 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, viewer sensitivity applies to both the aesthetic
environment and scenic views. Relevant plans, policies, and regulations were reviewed as part of the
Phase 2 analysis to identify potential impacts that would affect more sensitive viewers (Table 3.2-4
of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which is incorporated into the Final EIS by reference).
Impact Analysis by Segment in the Final EIS
The following pages summarize the potential impacts on scenic views and the aesthetic environment
for PSE’s Proposed Alignment, presented for the Richards Creek substation and by segment. For the
Redmond, Bellevue North, Bellevue Central, and Renton Segments, the analysis included a review of
refined project design details for PSE’s Proposed Alignment and updated simulations, with results
revised relative to the Phase 2 Draft EIS to reflect the new information. For these segments, the new
information and analysis have not altered the conclusions presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS
regarding significant impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment.
For the Richards Creek substation site and the Bellevue South and Newcastle Segments, the analysis
included a review of the project design as presented in the permit applications submitted to Bellevue
and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and 2017c, respectively), as well as updated simulations (Power
Engineers, 2017). The results below have been revised relative to the Phase 2 Draft EIS,
incorporating the more detailed information in the permit applications on pole locations and
vegetation clearing. The new information and analysis have not altered the conclusions presented in
the Phase 2 Draft EIS regarding significant impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment.
4.2.5.2 New Richards Creek Substation
This analysis has been revised since the release of the Phase 2 Draft EIS to incorporate changes in
the pole height, placement, and form associated with PSE’s Proposed Alignment. However, impacts
to the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant at the Richards Creek substation site as
described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: A new substation would be introduced into the
visual environment in an area that currently includes both cleared open space (utility yard) and
wooded hillside. Clearing and grading associated with site development would result in new
contrast in the aesthetic environment (see Figure 4.2-4, showing KVP 1). Visual quality of the
natural environment would change from current conditions 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 115 kV
transmission lines currently
cross the site heading north
and south. Because the project
would be built adjacent to
similar development, it would
add to the existing visual
clutter. In addition, the
variation in pole type would
be high at the Richards Creek
substation, with multiple lines
entering and exiting the substation. 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 approximately 450 feet to the northeast of the
substation site, but residents would not be able to see the new substation due to topography and
vegetation. The playground and field associated with Chestnut Hill Academy is roughly 200 feet
to the north of the substation site. Although the existing dense tree stands would keep the site
from being visible, tree removal at the Lakeside and Richards Creek substations would
potentially make both substations more visible from the school property. The proposed substation
would not be inconsistent with any study area plans or policies (see Appendix C-1). Therefore,
viewer sensitivity is low.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-4. KVP 1, Existing and Proposed Conditions of Richards Creek Substation
from SE 30th Street Looking East
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.5.3 Redmond Segment
Analysis of this segment was revised for the Final EIS to incorporate changes in the pole height and
form associated with PSE’s Proposed Alignment. However, impacts to the scenic views and the
aesthetic environment in the Redmond Segment would still be characterized as less-than-significant,
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. 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 30 to 40 feet taller than the existing poles,
with a typical pole height of 91 to 102 in the Redmond Segment depending on the pole
configuration. 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. Tree removal would be most noticeable south of Redmond
Way and from Old Redmond Road to the southern terminus of the segment. Because the tree
removal would occur within the existing corridor, the degree of contrast created by the clearing
would be minor. The pole height and configuration would increase the contrast with surrounding
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐16
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
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 lines would have consistent height and form, except where the
transmission lines change direction from heading east-west within the existing 500-foot easement
to heading north-south in the 100-foot easement (approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the
Sammamish substation), at which point the lines transition from being on two single-circuit
monopoles to one double-circuit monopole. This change would occur in an area that is buffered
by vegetation and has few viewers. Single-circuit monopoles would also be placed south of NE
80th Street (west of the Rose Hill substation). The degree of contrast would be low because the
substation would be in the background and there would be a 500- to 700-foot distance between
poles where the lines would transition back to double-circuit monopoles. In addition, viewer
sensitivity would be low because the single-circuit monopoles would be visible from only a few
residences. The project would reduce visual clutter in the corridor by reducing the number of
poles from existing conditions (see Figure 4.2-5, showing KVP 2). Installing a new transformer
and other ancillary equipment at the Rose Hill substation is not expected to increase contrast
because the site already hosts a 115 kV to 12.5 kV substation.
Impacts to the visual quality of the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant.
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 would 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. Policies in the
Redmond Comprehensive Plan call for protecting woodland views in residential neighborhoods.
Trees would be removed, which could potentially change the wooded character of the area. Tree
removal would occur within an existing transmission corridor that is already mostly cleared.
Therefore, the overall appearance of tree stands and woodland views is not expected to be
adversely impacted.
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 is moderate.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐17
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-5. KVP 2, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Redmond Way Looking
Northwest
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐18
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.5.4 Bellevue North Segment
Analysis of this segment was revised for the Final EIS to incorporate changes in the pole height and
form associated with PSE’s Proposed Alignment. Impacts to the scenic views and the aesthetic
environment in the Bellevue North Segment would be less-than-significant, as described in the Phase
2 Draft EIS. The transmission lines 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-1). 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 existing visual separator between residential areas and the
freeway would not be removed (see Appendix C-1).
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 approximately 93-foot poles in the Bellevue North Segment would in most
cases be shorter than the surrounding vegetation or would appear shorter than surrounding
vegetation due to vegetation density (see Figure 4.2-6, showing KVP 3). In general, the
topography does not affect the visibility of the transmission lines along this segment because
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐19
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
dense, tall vegetation obscures the view of the transmission lines (see Figure 4.2-7, showing
KVP 4). Within the built environment the poles would be approximately 40 feet taller than
existing conditions, and the pole diameter would be larger than existing conditions, contrasting
more with the surrounding houses and existing utility infrastructure. The new transmission lines
would have consistent form and height throughout most of the segment, and would reduce visual
clutter by reducing the number of poles. The one exception would be where pairs of single-circuit
monopoles would be used south of NE 24th Street to cross SR 520. This would not create
significant adverse impacts because it would be in a highly vegetated area to the north of SR 520
and in a commercial area abutting SR 520 to the south. Overall, 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, the 520 bike trail, and Viewpoint Park. In
general, because of the high density of tall vegetation, only residential viewers close to the
transmission lines would be able to view the lines. The closer that viewers are to the transmission
lines, the less likely they are to view the lines because increasing the existing pole height by 40
feet would raise the lines out of their line of sight. The presence of dense vegetation also reduces
the likelihood that the transmission lines would be visible from any of the recreational resources,
except where the lines directly cross 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, 2015). Approximately 0.5 percent of the 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 low.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐20
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-6. KVP 3, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13540 NE 54th Place Looking
Northeast
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐21
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-7. KVP 4, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13508 NE 29th Place Looking
South
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐22
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.5.5 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
Analysis of this segment was revised in the Final EIS to incorporate changes in the pole height and
form associated with PSE’s Proposed Alignment. Impacts to the scenic views and the aesthetic
environment along the Bellevue Central Segment would be less-than-significant (as described in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS) because the transmission lines would be within the existing corridor, and contrast
with the existing environment would be minimal. Viewer sensitivity is low because the project would
not be inconsistent with study area plans or policies.
Scenic view impacts along this segment would be less-than-significant.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: Contrast with the natural environment would be
most noticeable 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 visibility of the lines from the west would be limited because views would be
partially to fully blocked by vegetation in the foreground. Near the Lakeside substation, contrast
would also be more noticeable because approximately 43 trees would be removed. Contrast with
the built environment would be slightly greater than existing conditions because the poles would
typically be approximately 40 feet taller and the pole diameter would be larger than the existing
poles. A transmission line already exists in the corridor, and the new transmission lines would
have consistent form and height throughout the segment, except for where the lines would cross
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐23
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Bel-Red Road and would cross the Lakeside substation and tie into the Richards Creek
substation. The change in pole configuration at the Bel-Red Road crossing would not result
significant adverse effects because it would be in a commercial parking lot, with the primary
viewers being drivers on Bel-Red Road. In residential areas north of the Lakeside substation,
increased clutter would be created through the addition of more poles at the substation and the
introduction of new pole configurations (see Figure 4.2-8, showing KVP 5). This would be
visible to only a few residential viewers, and the degree of additional clutter would not dominate
the aesthetic environment to the degree that significant adverse impacts would occur. In general,
the project would reduce visual clutter by reducing the number of poles. Therefore, impacts
would be less-than-significant.
Scenic Views: Scenic view impacts along this segment would be minimal because topography
and vegetation obscure scenic views from most of the study area.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along the segment 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. Kelsey Creek Park hosts a high number of recreational visitors and is used
year-round. The presence of dense vegetation reduces the visibility from Kelsey Creek Park;
however, it would be visible from some locations (see Figure 4.2-9, showing KVP 6). Where
visible, it is likely that only the upper portion of the transmission lines could be seen. Due to the
distance between the transmission lines and the park (approximately 0.34 mile), the project
would not substantially alter the natural setting of Kelsey Creek Park. The project would directly
cross and/ or follow the SE 3rd Trail, the SE 10th Trail, unnamed trail(s), the Highland–Glendale
Property, and Skyridge Park. 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 4.2-10, showing KVP 7, and Figure 4.2-11, showing KVP 8). A transmission
line already exists, and the project would change only the height and form of the line. Chestnut
Hill Academy is less than 100 feet to the east. Tree removal would make the Lakeside substation
more visible; however, because the majority of the tree removal would be located further south,
impacts would be minor. Overall, viewer sensitivity is low.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐24
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-8. KVP 5, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 2160 135th Place SE Looking
Southeast
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐25
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-9. KVP 6, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 703 130th Place SE (Kelsey
Creek Park) Looking Northeast
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐26
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-10. KVP 7, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13606 Main Street Looking
North
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐27
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-11. KVP 8, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13636 Main Street Looking
West
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐28
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.5.6 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
Analysis of this segment was revised for the Final EIS to incorporate changes in the pole height and
form associated with PSE’s Proposed Alignment. Impacts to the scenic views would be less-than-
significant, as indicated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, but moderate impacts affecting scenic views in
limited areas are discussed in detail below. Impacts to the aesthetic environment would be significant
along the Bellevue South Segment, as was described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Contrast with the existing aesthetic environment would generally be low through this segment
because the transmission lines would be within the existing corridor. The exception to this is where
the transmission lines would traverse the Somerset neighborhood. Building and vegetation heights
are lower in the Somerset neighborhood than other areas of the corridor, making the existing
aesthetic environment within that neighborhood unique in this segment and when compared to other
neighborhoods in Bellevue that are affected by the project. As a result, the degree of contrast created
by the taller poles is substantial.
Viewer sensitivity is generally high along this segment, 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 the taller poles would mean that significant impacts to visual quality are expected along
that portion of the Bellevue South Segment.
The new, taller poles would result in scenic view impacts east of the transmission lines, relative to
existing conditions, primarily in the Somerset portion of the Bellevue South Segment. However,
these impacts would be less-than-significant due to the limited degree of obstruction produced by the
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐29
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
wires, the relatively small number of residences impacted, and the lack of policy supporting
protection of private residential views. The neighborhood immediately south of SE Newport Way
would also potentially experience some scenic view impacts, but taller existing vegetation would
limit the impacts.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: The segment would be entirely within the
existing corridor, which has been partially cleared and managed. A substantial number of trees in
the existing corridor have been identified for potential removal, including within residential areas
north and south of the Coal Creek Natural Area (including Newport Hills Mini-Park). This would
change the vegetated appearance for residential viewers immediately adjacent to the corridor.
Because those areas are within an existing, managed corridor, the degree of contrast produced by
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 transmission 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 (see
the Segment Sheet for the Bellevue South Segment in Chapter 2, page 2-27). North of SE
Newport Way and south of the Somerset substation, double-circuit 95-foot tall steel monopoles
would be used. South of SE Newport Way to the Somerset substation, pairs of single-circuit, 79-
foot tall monopoles would be used. Except for the locations where the lines would transition
between single-circuit monopoles to double-circuit monopoles, the height and form of the
transmission line would be consistent. Contrast with the built environment would be less-than-
significant, except for where the transmission lines would cross the Somerset neighborhood.
Based on additional analysis conducted for the Final EIS, Figure 4.2-12 shows the aesthetic
impact area and scenic view obstruction area along the Bellevue South Segment. Although the
new transmission lines would be within an existing transmission corridor, and the height and
form of the transmission lines would be consistent through the Somerset area, there would be a
substantial degree of contrast between the low-scale buildings and vegetation within the
Somerset neighborhood (e.g., see Figure 4.2-13, showing KVP 9). 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 would be more pronounced than in other areas along the segment
where buildings and vegetation are taller. This is where changes to the aesthetic environment
would be the most notable, and significant impacts to the aesthetic environment would occur
(immediately uphill and downhill of the line) in the aesthetic impact area shown on Figure 4.2-
12. This impact would dissipate with distance (see Figure 4.2-14, showing KVP 10). Within the
aesthetic impact area, significant impacts to the aesthetic environment would occur.
Scenic Views: Most of the scenic views in this segment 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-1). The degree of scenic view
obstruction is expected to be higher in the Somerset neighborhood because the poles would
protrude approximately 20 feet higher than under existing conditions, and because this area has
preserved views through property covenants requiring lower vegetation and building heights than
in other areas in Bellevue and the Eastside. The increased pole height would raise the lines above
the viewshed of some residential viewers (those nearest the lines), and into the viewshed of
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐30
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
others farther uphill. Figure 4.2-12 shows the area of Somerset where these impacts on scenic
views would be most pronounced. This area includes approximately 110 residences. For viewers
uphill of the area shown, impacts would be far less pronounced because the proposed taller poles
would be below the horizon and would be farther away. There also could be scenic view impacts
to drivers on streets within the area shown on Figure 4.2-12 that slope down to the west. In the
neighborhood immediately south of SE Newport Way, residences could experience impacts, but
most residents would not experience adverse impacts due to the presence of tall vegetation,
which limits scenic views as well as potential views of the poles. Impacts to scenic views along
the Bellevue South Segment would be less-than-significant because of the limited number of
residences that would experience view obstruction, and because the transmission lines would
alter views but would not completely block them.
Viewer Sensitivity: Sensitive viewers along this segment 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. It is also a highly used year-round recreational resource.
Approximately 20 trees would be removed near the Coal Creek to SE 60th Street segment of the
Lower Coal Creek Trail. 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, Somerset North Slope Open Space, and Newport
Hills Mini Park would be directly crossed by the project. Because these recreation areas are
already traversed by the existing transmission line corridor, viewer sensitivity is lower for users
along the corridor. Sensitivity is expected to be high at the Somerset North Slope Open Space
and Newport Hills Mini Park, where park users would view a higher degree of contrast as the
new transmission lines would be a change in height and form.
The placement of higher poles in the existing corridor has the potential to impact views from
adjacent single-family areas in the Eastgate Subarea. The increase in pole height (approximately
35 feet) would reduce the 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 Subarea Plan, which emphasizes the preservation of
existing trees on protected slopes and hilltops as a distinct visual element. Within the Newport
Hill Subarea, protected slopes are primarily associated with the Coal Creek ravine. Fewer than 40
trees would likely be removed from priority steep slopes, priority steep slope buffers, and
landslide hazard areas (PSE, 2017b). Tree removal would be dispersed and surrounded by
retained trees stands. Therefore, the appearance of the vegetation as a distinct visual element is
not anticipated to change. 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 the Coal Creek Natural Area to the degree that it would
no longer be considered a “distinct visual element” (see Table 3.2-4 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS).
The segment also traverses the Somerset neighborhood, which has shorter buildings and
vegetation than other study area neighborhoods as a result of the covenants described in Section
4.2.2.1. Although the transmission lines are not subject to the covenants, the covenants would
likely increase viewer awareness of the impact (see Figure 4.2-15, showing KVP 11). As such,
viewer sensitivity to changes in the views from those residences would be high. Overall, viewer
sensitivity for the Bellevue South Segment is moderate, but it is high within the Somerset
neighborhood.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐31
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-12. Bellevue South Segment - Aesthetic Impact Area and Scenic View
Obstruction Area in the Somerset Neighborhood
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐32
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-13. KVP 9, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 4411 Somerset Drive SE
Looking Southeast
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐33
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-14. KVP 10, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 13300 SE 44th Place,
Looking East
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐34
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-15. KVP 11, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 4730 Somerset Drive SE
Looking West
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐35
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.5.7 Newcastle Segment – Option 1 (No Code Variance)
Two options are analyzed in the Final EIS for the Newcastle Segment: one that would not require a
code variance, and one that would require a code variance. Option 1 (No Code Variance) has a
similar pole height and configuration to the Newcastle Segment described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Therefore, the assessment below is the same as presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. North of the May
Creek ravine, project impacts on the aesthetic environment of the Newcastle Segment Option 1
would be significant. Although the proposed project would be placed in the existing transmission line
corridor, the poles would be almost double the height (from 55 feet to approximately 95 feet) of the
existing poles, making it more visible from neighboring residences and residential streets. When
coupled with placement of the project on the ridge, this would make the new transmission lines 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. The portion of the option 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. Based on additional analysis conducted for the Final EIS, Figure 4.2-16
shows the aesthetic impact area and scenic view obstruction area along the Newcastle Segment.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐36
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-16. Aesthetic Impact Area resulting from the Newcastle Segment Option 1 (No
Code Variance)
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: In general, the poles and wires would be more
noticeable where the transmission lines are on a ridge with low vegetation (e.g., the portion of the
option 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 95 feet), making them more
visible from residential streets and less likely to be concealed by vegetation due to their
proximity to residences. When coupled with the placement of the line on the top of a ridge, this
would result in the poles contrasting more with the surrounding houses and utility infrastructure
due to the pronounced prominence of the transmission lines. This would substantially change the
residential character of the surrounding neighborhood as the transmission lines would become a
defining visual feature of the neighborhood (see Figure 4.2-17, showing KVP 12). Although
transmission lines already exist in the corridor, and the new transmission lines would have
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐37
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
consistent height and form throughout the option, the degree of contrast with the built
environment would result in significant adverse impacts to visual quality within the residential
portion of Newcastle identified in Figure 4.2-16. 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. On the pole near Newcastle Way, the pole
would be approximately 10 feet taller (above the wire zone) to accommodate proposed cellular
equipment. The pole would be below the ridge, but the cell equipment would protrude above it,
making it visible from residences on the ridge that currently have little if any view of the
transmission line. While no significant impacts would result from this pole due to limited viewer
extent (one pole), it would introduce a higher degree of contrast between the project and the
existing aesthetic environment than similar poles to the south.
Scenic Views: Most views from the Olympus neighborhood are of the Cascades, the Olympics,
and in some places Mount Rainier. Views of the Cascades, Cougar Mountain, and Mount Rainier
from this residential area could be impacted, including places with high population density (see
Appendix C-1). 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 Natural Area (May Creek Park and 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 Option 1 is in the north portion of Newcastle, between Newcastle Way
and SE 80th Way (see Appendix C-1). 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 Newcastle’s 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 (e.g., Policy UT-P10, UT-P14) (City of Newcastle,
2016). From some vantage points, such as from Lake Boren Park, the distance from the lines
would diminish the perceptible differences in height and inconsistency with the surrounding built
environment (see Figure 4.2-18, showing KVP 13). Within the neighborhoods surrounding the
transmission lines, the new transmission lines would become a defining visual feature and
significantly impact the visual character of the residential area (see Figure 4.2-17, showing KVP
12). Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan Policy
UT-P10 and would result in significant impacts.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐38
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-17. KVP 12, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 8446 128th Avenue SE
Looking Northeast (Option 1)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐39
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-18. KVP 13, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Lake Boren Park Looking
Southwest (Option 1)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐40
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.5.8 Newcastle Segment – Option 2 (Code Variance)
A code variance would be required for the Newcastle Segment, Option 2. Option 2 would use the
same route in the existing corridor as Option 1, but would have a different pole configuration and
height, and would be placed more centrally within the corridor. Although this would reduce aesthetic
impacts compared to Option 1, Option 2 would result in significant impacts to the aesthetic
environment due to the change in neighborhood character.
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.
Visual Quality of the Aesthetic Environment: The new poles would be approximately 14 feet
shorter than those proposed under Option 1 (and approximately 25 feet taller than the existing 55-
foot H-frame poles). In addition, approximately half of the new poles would be placed closer to
the center of the transmission corridor under Option 2 because the 5-foot setback from the
pipeline easement would be waived or reduced by the variance approval. Placement of the poles
more centrally within the corridor would reduce the degree of contrast from neighboring
residences and roadways because the increased distance between the poles and the houses would
make the difference in height between the two structures appear to be less. Although the project
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐41
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
would increase the height of the transmission line poles and use larger diameter poles than the
existing poles, it would use fewer poles, and would not become a defining feature of the
neighborhood in the way Option 1 would (see Figure 4.2-19, showing KVP 12). The project
would significantly impact the visual character of the surrounding residential neighborhood
because of the increase in pole height and increased prominence of the transmission line within
the neighborhood (see Figure 4.2-19, showing KVP 12). The aesthetic impact area would be the
same as Option 1 (see Figure 4.2-16), with areas outside of the impact area experiencing less-
than-significant impacts (see Figure 4.2-20, showing KVP 13). 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: The potential for impacts to scenic views would be less than under Option 1
because the poles would be shorter. Similar to Option 1, impacts to scenic views would be less-
than-significant under Option 2.
Viewer Sensitivity: Viewer sensitivity is the same as under Option 1. Under Option 2, the
project would still significantly impact the visual character of the residential area (see Figure
4.2-19, showing KVP 12). Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with the Newcastle
Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual impacts of major utilities.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐42
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-19. KVP 12, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 8446 128th Avenue SE
Looking Northeast (Option 2)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐43
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-20. KVP 13, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Lake Boren Park Looking
Southwest (Option 2)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐44
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.5.9 Renton Segment
Analysis of this segment was revised for the Final EIS to incorporate changes in the pole height and
form associated with PSE’s Proposed Alignment. Impacts to the scenic views and the aesthetic
environment in the Renton Segment would be less-than-significant, as described in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS. Overall, impacts to the aesthetic environment from the Renton Segment would be less-than-
significant. Although the poles would typically be taller (up to 40 feet taller depending on the pole
location and configuration) and larger in diameter than existing poles, the segment would be located
entirely within PSE’s existing corridor, resulting in low contrast with existing conditions. Although
adopted policies address general aesthetic qualities and public views, overall viewer sensitivity is
considered low because development in the area has all occurred around the existing transmission
lines, and the project would not be inconsistent with policies related to aesthetics and public views.
Impacts to the aesthetic environment would be less-than-significant.
Impacts to scenic views would 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐45
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
River. Near the creek and river, the poles would blend with the natural environment because they
would have similar or shorter height than the abutting tree stands. Although the corridor width
would not change, tree removal would be required, particularly within the Honey Creek ravine.
None of the trees in the Cedar River valley would need to be removed because the transmission
lines would be well above the tops of trees (as is the case with the existing line), and would not
need to be removed under PSE’s Vegetation Management Program (The Watershed Company,
2016).
In general, poles are more visible when a transmission line is 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 4.2-21 and 4.2-22, showing KVPs 14 and 15, respectively). Poles and wires are
marginally visible from within ravines (such as the Honey Creek ravine) under existing
conditions. This would continue to be the case under the project. Contrast with the built
environment would be slightly more than existing conditions because the typical pole heights
would range from 5 feet shorter than existing conditions to 40 feet taller, with the tallest poles
associated with the double-circuit monopoles south of Honey Creek. Pole diameter would also be
larger than existing poles, but the number of poles would be reduced.
Visual clutter would be increased in the area north of Honey Creek and near the Talbot Hill
substation. In the 0.29-mile section of the segment that goes past Sierra Heights Elementary
School to the end of Sierra Heights Park, there would be four different pole types, resulting in a
high degree of contrast due to increased visual clutter (see the Segment Sheet for the Renton
Segment in Chapter 2, page 2-33). The portion of the segment that directly crosses Sierra Heights
Park would host three different pole types varying in typical height from 50 to 84 feet. Sierra
Heights Park already hosts a variety of transmission lines of different heights and forms.
Therefore, viewers would be less sensitive to the change in visual clutter produced by the project.
The existing SCL transmission line would not need to change to accommodate the project.
In general, visual clutter along the segment would be lessened south of the SCL crossing due to
the reduced number of poles.
Near the Talbot Hill substation, there would be a variety of pole types within many views,
including double-circuit monopoles and two types of single-circuit pairs. Visual clutter near
substations is typical and likely to be expected, and viewer sensitivity is low. Changes to the built
environment would be less-than-significant because transmission lines already exist in the
corridor; however, they would be replaced with new transmission lines with a different height
and form.
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 lines. 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.
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 on Talbot Hill, which has low
population density. The only public recreation site from which scenic views have the potential to
be impacted is along the Cedar River Trail. Changes to the existing corridor are not expected to
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐46
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
result in significant impacts. The height and location of the proposed poles and transmission lines
would not obscure views of the Cedar River from the trail. Impacts to scenic views would be
less-than-significant.
Viewer Sensitivity: Primary viewers are residential viewers and recreational users of the Cedar
River Natural Zone (Cedar River Park and Cedar River Trail), Honey Creek Open Space
(including Honey Creek Trail), Philip Arnold Park, Riverview Park, and Sierra Heights Park.
These recreational resources are already traversed by a transmission line corridor, so changes to
the aesthetics for these viewers would be associated with any vegetation clearing or changes in
the height and appearance of the transmission lines. The new poles would be approximately 40
feet taller than existing poles, but the change would not be noticeable from the Cedar River Park,
Cedar River Trail, Honey Creek Open Space, Honey Creek Trail, Philip Arnold Park, or
Riverview Park due to the distance from common viewpoints, topography, and presence of dense
vegetation. The corridor directly crosses Sierra Heights Park. Within the park, the three different
new pole types would vary in height from 50 to 84 feet.
No vegetation clearing would be required where the project crosses the Cedar River Park, Cedar
River Trail, or Riverview Park because the topography of the Cedar River valley provides
sufficient clearance between the lines and the vegetation below. Figure 4.2-23 (not a KVP) shows
the appearance of the existing 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 4.2-23) (also see Appendix C-2, 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, 2015). Changes to the
appearance of those features would be minor because an existing corridor would be used. The
City of Renton also has comprehensive plan policies stating that change should be
accommodated “in a way that maintains Renton’s livability and natural beauty” (City of Renton,
2015). Because the project would utilize an existing transmission line corridor, the project would
be consistent with the plan. In general, viewer sensitivity along this segment is moderate along
the Cedar River Trail and low elsewhere.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐47
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-21. KVP 14, Existing and Proposed Conditions from 1026 Monroe Avenue NE
Looking North
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐48
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-22. KVP 15, Existing and Proposed Conditions from Glennwood Court SE
Looking North
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐49
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-23. Existing Views from the Cedar River Trail
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐50
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.6 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. Each
jurisdiction’s discretionary decision-making will be informed by the analysis and comparison of the
options set forth above. 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. Alternatively, 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.
Section 4.2.6.1 details the regulatory requirements that PSE would need to meet. Section 4.2.6.2
describes potential mitigation measures that could be used to reduce impacts. Section 4.2.6.3
provides information to assist decision-makers with selection of pole finishes based on different
background colors. Section 4.2.6.4 describes considerations that would need to be taken into account
if placing the transmission lines underground is used as a mitigation measure.
4.2.6.1 Regulatory Requirements
Local regulations would require 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
listed below based on the stage when they would be applied. Requirements are summarized below by
jurisdiction and would be required to be incorporated into the design prior to construction. (Note:
The Cities of Redmond 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.)
Within the City of Bellevue, the project (other than the conductors) would need to be sight-screened
through landscaping and fencing (Bellevue City Code 20.20.255). In the City of Newcastle, the
project would need to be designed and operated to minimize impacts to surrounding uses, the
environment, and the city (Newcastle Municipal Code [NMC] 18.44.052.C.1). PSE would also need
to work with the City of Newcastle to adopt any conditions imposed relating to the location,
development, design, use, or operation of a utility facility to mitigate environmental, public safety, or
other identifiable impacts. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, natural features
that may serve as buffers, or other site design elements such as fencing and site landscaping (NMC
18.44.052.D).
4.2.6.2 Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on City of Bellevue, City of Newcastle,
and City of Renton’s comprehensive plans. (Note: plans and policies of the City of Redmond do not
directly address mitigation of impacts to scenic views or the aesthetic environment that would be
produced by this project. However, general policies for 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐51
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Prior to Construction
Ensure siting and location of transmission facilities is accomplished in a manner that
minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses (City of Renton Plan
Policy U-72).
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 a self-weathering finish) to reduce
contrast with the surrounding environment (see Section 4.2.6.3 below).
During Construction
Retain or 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐52
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Use landscape plantings to screen or improve the appearance of areas surrounding above-
ground utility facilities and to diminish visual impacts vegetation clearing in the corridor
(City of Newcastle Plan Policy UT-P20).
Require the reinstalled telecommunications facilities to be in the same approximate locations
as they were previously and to comply with the requirements of Chapter 80.54 RCW,
Chapter 480-54 WAC, and local jurisdiction regulations.
4.2.6.3 Considerations for Selecting Pole Finishes
PSE’s Proposed Alignment would include poles that could have various finishes, including
galvanized (light gray), self-weathering (dark reddish brown), or painted (powder coat of any color).
Finishes could be specified by location to better blend with the surrounding environment. Table 4.2-3
provides information to assist decision-makers with selection of pole finishes based on different
background colors.
Background color is not uniform, so it may be helpful to employ a professional with experience in
evaluating visual character, such as a landscape architect or urban designer, to determine the
dominant background color. Background color and the color of the surrounding features will also
vary depending to the viewpoint considered. When determining appropriate pole finishes, decision-
makers should consider a variety of viewpoints along the segment and locations of sensitive viewers
for which they wish to reduce contrast.
PSE has indicated that its preferred finish is the self-weathering finish because it requires the least
maintenance. This finish has the least contrast of the three finishes in areas with trees, which are
common along much of the corridor.
In some areas, where there are few trees as tall as the transmission line poles (and therefore the poles
would be mostly viewed against the sky), or where the background is otherwise light in color,
galvanized poles could have lower contrast than poles with self-weathering finish.
In some instances, such as commercial districts with distinctive character, a painted pole as an accent
color may be desired, to work with an overall urban design theme or similar objective. Depending on
the paint color selected, it could either reduce or increase contrast. Use of a painted pole could reduce
contrast if a site-specific, natural color were selected. However, it is more likely that a painted pole
would increase contrast. In areas where viewer sensitivity is low, a painted pole in a contrasting color
could be used to accentuate the existing built character (e.g., if sited in a district with set design
standards and painted an appropriate color). An example of this is shown in Figure 4.2-24, where a
transmission pole was painted the same color as one of the neighboring high school’s school colors,
along a busy road within a commercial district.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐53
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Table 4.2-3. Considerations for Selecting Pole Finishing
Consideration
Galvanized Steel
Pole Finish
Self-weathering
Pole Finish Painted Poles
Background Color
Darker due to presence of
vegetation or development
Produces more
contrast.
Produces less
contrast.
Can produce more or
less contrast depending
on the color selected.
Lighter due to absence of
vegetation or development
Produces less
contrast.
Produces more
contrast.
Can produce more or
less contrast depending
on the color selected.
Color of Surrounding Features
Surrounded by taller,
darker features
Produces more
contrast.
Produces less
contrast.
Can produce more or
less contrast depending
on the color selected.
Surrounded by no
features; light features; or
shorter, darker features
Produces less
contrast.
Produces more
contrast.
Can produce more or
less contrast depending
on the color selected.
Surrounding Land Use
Surrounded by a natural
landscape
Can produce more or
less contrast
depending on
background color and
color of surrounding
features.
Can produce more
or less contrast
depending on
background color
and color of
surrounding
features.
Can produce more or
less contrast depending
on the color selected.
Surrounded by a
residential neighborhood
Can produce more or
less contrast
depending on
background color and
color of surrounding
features.
Can produce more
or less contrast
depending on
background color
and color of
surrounding
features.
Can produce more or
less contrast depending
on the color selected.
Part of district with set
design standards
Can produce more or
less contrast
depending on
background color and
color of surrounding
features.
Can produce more
or less contrast
depending on
background color
and color of
surrounding
features.
Can be a defining
feature that
accentuates existing
district character
depending on color
selected.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐54
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Figure 4.2-24. Example of a Painted 115 kV Transmission Line Pole in Bellevue (near the
intersection of NE 24th Street and Bel-Red Road)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.2‐55
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
4.2.6.4 Considerations for Choosing to Underground the Transmission Lines
Although proposed as a potential mitigation measure, installing the transmission lines underground
involves several technical challenges, as well as the potential for other impacts to the environment.
An underground line would require a new corridor to avoid co-location with the Olympic Pipeline
system (Power Engineers, 2014). This new corridor would need to be in a street or on other public or
private property that PSE would have to obtain rights to use. An agency requiring an underground
segment would need to coordinate with PSE on design, including finding places where a transition
point can be made to the overhead lines at each end. PSE has indicated that their tariff (as described
in Section 2.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS) requires that a requesting party pay the additional costs for
design, construction, and operation of the underground line. For portions in public right-of-way,
utility conflicts must be evaluated and can contribute to substantial costs, construction duration, and
technical challenges, including effects of stray current and corrosion.
There are aesthetic and other considerations for design of underground transmission lines. Trees
cannot be planted on top of underground lines because heat from the lines can damage tree roots, and
roots can inhibit access to the lines if needed for repair. Construction could require removal of trees
whose roots would be damaged. Transition stations, where the lines change from overhead to
underground, are described in Section 11.6.3.8.1 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Technical requirements
make these structures more massive and encumbered with equipment than typical overhead poles. In
addition, underground access vaults about 25 feet in length would be needed every quarter of a mile,
and cannot have plantings or structures near or over them that would obstruct access to them.
The Energize Eastside project has an objective of being developed in time to address an anticipated
capacity deficiency in the near future. Several factors related to undergrounding a portion of the line
could cause substantial delay in completing the project. Developing a design could take several
months. Gaining permission to cross private property, if necessary, could require legal action that
would delay construction. Materials for underground lines are different from those for overhead lines
and can have lead times of many months for delivery. Construction of an underground segment also
takes longer than an overhead segment. Given all these factors, construction of an underground
segment could lag behind the rest of the project by many months to years. One potential way to
address the timing issues would be to allow the overhead lines to be built on the condition that they
be replaced at a later date with underground lines. This would add to construction cost and
construction impacts.
Construction costs (not including right-of-way costs) for underground installation of a 230 kV
transmission line for the Energize Eastside project were estimated to be approximately $23 million to
$28 million per mile, as compared to $3 million to $4 million per mile for an overhead line (Power
Engineers, 2014). This would be based on PSE’s tariff, which PSE has indicated places the burden of
any cost above that of the most economical design on the requesting party.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
Updated the analysis to reflect
PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
Added analysis of the new
Newcastle Option 2 route.
Revised information for the
Richards Creek substation site
based on new site data.
Revised and clarified some of
the mitigation measures,
based on comments received.
Revised the analysis of
potential impacts on water
resources based on refined
design details, such as pole
placement.
Made minor clarifications
throughout based on
comments received (such as
information on wetland and
stream categories).
4.3 WATER RESOURCES
This section provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts on 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 4.3-1. More
detailed maps of the streams, rivers, and wetlands in the study
area are included in Section 4.3.5. Impacts on fish and aquatic
resources are discussed in Section 4.4, Plants and Animals.
Water resources within the study area were assessed primarily
using the critical areas delineation reports for the Redmond,
Bellevue North, Bellevue Central, and Renton Segments
prepared by The Watershed Company for PSE for the Energize
Eastside project (The Watershed Company, 2016, 2017). Water
resources information for the Richards Creek substation site
and the Bellevue South and Newcastle Segments are based on
permit applications submitted to the cities of Bellevue and
Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and 2017c).
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.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil maps.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) interactive mapping programs
(Priority Habitats and Species [PHS] on the Web and SalmonScape) (WDFW, 2016, 2017).
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 and aerial imagery for the study area.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; FEMA, 2016; Kirkland, 2015; Redmond, 2015; Sammamish, 2015; Issaquah, 2015;
Newcastle, 2015; Renton, 2015; Bellevue, 2015.
Figure 4.3-1. Water Resources in the Study Area
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
4.3.1 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 on 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.
4.3.2 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 for PSE’s Proposed Alignment. 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 on
floodplains are not described further.
4.3.2.1 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 the 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 4.1 and Appendix B-3 for additional discussion
of the Shoreline Master Programs).
Table 4.3-1 summarizes the streams within the existing corridor for PSE’s Proposed Alignment,
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 and 2017), as well as the permit applications for
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐4
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Bellevue and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b, 2017c). The table uses the same naming convention as The
Watershed Company reports for unnamed tributaries. Additional streams may be identified as part of
the permitting process. For all streams, PSE would comply with mitigation requirements in
accordance with applicable critical area regulations.
Table 4.3-1. Streams in the Study Area
Stream Stream Type1 Required Buffer
(feet)
Richards Creek Substation Site – Two streams are on or adjacent to the Richards Creek
substation site. Stream A is a seasonal stream that flows through Wetland C and into Wetland A.
Stream C flows along the west edge of the site and is crossed by the existing access road.
Stream A Type N 50
Stream C Type F 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. (Note:
PSE has proposed a project to improve flow and habitat conditions in Willows Creek, south of the
Sammamish substation.)
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 Type N 50
Bellevue Central Segment, Revised 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 Type F 100
Kelsey Creek tributaries EB02 to EB05, EB10, EB11 Type F 25
Kelsey Creek tributaries EB9, EB12 to EB14 Type N 50
East Creek Type F 100
Other Richards Creek tributaries Type F 100
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Stream Stream Type1 Required Buffer
(feet)
Bellevue South Segment, Revised Willow 1 Option – The Bellevue South Segment crosses the
East Creek, Sunset Creek, and Coal Creek drainages.
Unnamed streams MB01, MB03 Type N 50
Unnamed stream MB01 Type N 25
Unnamed streams JB02, JB04, JB05 (Coal Creek),
MB02
Type F 100
Newcastle Segment – The Newcastle Segment crosses May Creek and a small seasonal drainage
that flows to Lake Boren.
Unnamed streams MN01, MB01 Type Ns 25
May Creek Type F 100
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.
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016 and 2017.
4.3.2.2 Wetlands
Wetlands in the study area were delineated as part of the critical areas assessments conducted by The
Watershed Company in 2016 and 2017, as well as the permit applications for Bellevue and
Newcastle (PSE, 2017b, 2017c). The Watershed Company delineated wetlands generally 25 feet on
either side of the existing corridor. In some areas, a wider study area was used based on conditions at
the site.
Table 4.3-2 summarizes the wetlands within PSE’s Proposed Alignment, 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 and 2017), as well as the permit applications for Bellevue and Newcastle (PSE,
2017b, 2017c). The table uses the same naming convention for wetlands as The Watershed Company
reports. Note that the 2017 report changed the names of the wetlands at Richards Creek; the table
shows the 2017 name and notes the former name in parenthesis. Additional wetlands may be
identified as part of the permitting process. For all wetlands, PSE would comply with mitigation
requirements in accordance with applicable critical area regulations.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Table 4.3-2. Wetlands in the Study Area
Wetland Wetland
Category1
Required Buffer
(feet)
Richards Creek Substation – Five wetlands are on or adjacent to the Richards Creek substation
site3.
Wetland A (formerly Wetland BC) Category III 110
Wetland B (formerly Wetland E) Category III 60
Wetland C (formerly Wetland A) Category III 110
Wetland D (formerly Wetland FG) Category II 110
Wetland H (formerly Wetland JB01) Category II 110
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, Revised 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Wetland Wetland
Category1
Required Buffer
(feet)
Bellevue South Segment, Revised Willow 1 Option – Thirteen wetlands were identified along
the Bellevue South Segment. These wetlands are associated with small streams crossing the existing
corridor, as well as several larger wetland complexes associated with East and Coal creeks.
Wetland JB08 Category III 110
Wetland MB01 Category III 60
Wetlands MB04, JB04, A (Somerset), D (Somerset), E
(Somerset)
Category IV 40
Wetlands JB02, JB03, JB05, MB02, MB03, C
(Somerset)
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 III 60
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 were rated using either Ecology’s 2014 Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2014) or the 2004 rating system (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 For this Final EIS, the wetland descriptions have been updated based on the delineation report prepared by The Watershed
Company in June 2017. The delineation report used different names for the wetlands than were used for the 2016
reconnaissance‐level report.
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016 and 2017.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Methods for Analyzing
Long-term Impacts
The analysis of potential long-
term or operational impacts
on 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.
4.3.2.3 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.
4.3.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
Potential long-term impacts on 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 on 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 on 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Significant – Impacts on 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.
4.3.4 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 on
water resources. Environmental requirements regarding the protection of these resources would apply
to PSE’s activities. Activities under the No Action Alternative would be limited in scale and
frequency, typically consisting of maintenance of the transmission facilities, such as pole
replacement and periodic vegetation maintenance activities along the existing transmission line
corridor. Any pole replacement would occur in place and with similar poles. Vegetation 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. None of these activities would have a significant impact on
stormwater runoff, surface water quality or quantity, or groundwater.
4.3.5 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
4.3.5.1 Impacts Common to all Components
Similar to the analysis presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, in general, long-term impacts on water
resources would be less-than-significant under PSE’s Proposed Alignment. 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. 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. Similarly, PSE would avoid locating poles in wetlands to the extent feasible.
However, in some places it may not be possible to avoid putting new poles in wetlands or wetland
buffers. PSE would not locate permanent access roads in wetlands. Any poles in wetlands or buffers
would require compliance with the Partner Cities’ critical areas ordinance, which require avoidance
and mitigation. Placement of overhead lines crossing the Cedar River would require compliance with
the shoreline management ordinance. The size of disturbance and the permanent reduction in wetland
or buffer acreage would be small (generally less than 25 square feet per pole). In some locations,
replacement poles may require larger footings than the existing poles, resulting in a small net
increase in disturbance within wetland buffers. 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 4.4, Plants and Animals.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐10
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
The new 230 kV transmission lines would require tree removal along the existing corridor as
described in Section 4.4.1.1, Plants and Animals. PSE’s vegetation management plan (described in
detail in Section 4.4.1.1) 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 on 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 and replacement. Poles would be replaced
in the same location with a similar type of pole. 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 and control 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. 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 303(d) 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 303(d) listings. Avoiding tree removal by pruning or topping
trees in compliance with critical areas regulations would help maintain shading and reduce
temperature increases.
The following pages summarize the potential impacts on water resources for PSE’s Proposed
Alignment, presented for the Richards Creek substation and by segment. For the Redmond, Bellevue
North, Bellevue Central, and Renton Segments, the analysis included a review of refined project
design details for PSE’s Proposed Alignment, with results revised relative to the Phase 2 Draft EIS to
reflect the new information. For these segments, the new information and analysis have not altered
the conclusions presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS regarding significant impacts on water resources.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐11
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
For the Richards Creek substation site and the Bellevue South and Newcastle Segments, the analysis
included a review of the project design as presented in the permit applications submitted to Bellevue
and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and 2017c, respectively). The results below have been revised relative to
the Phase 2 Draft EIS, incorporating the more detailed information in the permit applications on pole
locations and critical areas (including wetlands, streams, and their buffers). The conclusions
regarding significant impacts on water resources, however, are the same as presented in the Phase 2
Draft EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.5.2 New Richards Creek Substation
New facilities at the Richards Creek substation would be sited to avoid the wetlands and streams on-
site to the extent possible. A large wetland (Wetland A) is on the north and west sides of the site, and
Wetland B is on the site. Three smaller wetlands (Wetlands C, D, and H) are outside the property
boundary. Stream C is west and south of the site and Stream A is north of the site.
The fenced portion of the main substation facility would not be in Wetland A or D, but the realigned
access road and the north portion of the substation (including a large cleared area) would be within
their 110-foot buffers (see Figure 2-1). Wetland B would be filled to accommodate the substation
facilities. Ten poles would be located in Wetland A or its buffer, and approximately six poles would
be in Wetland H or its buffer. No impacts would occur to Wetland C or its buffer. Impacts on the
wetlands and buffers would be mitigated in compliance with City of Bellevue requirements, which
include on-site buffer enhancement.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
The realigned access road would cross Stream C. As part of the mitigation proposed at the Richards
Creek substation site, PSE would realign upstream and downstream sections of the stream and
replace the existing culverts at the road crossing. The stream realignment, larger culverts, and stream
enhancement (channel improvements, installation of woody debris, and vegetation planting) would
increase streamflow conveyance capacity, improve sediment transport, reduce flooding on adjacent
properties, improve fish passage, and improve habitat conditions. Additional mitigation for impacts
on Stream C would need to comply with City of Bellevue Critical Areas Ordinance standards for
stream crossings and restoration (see Appendix D). A stormwater detention vault would be
constructed within the buffers for Wetland A and Stream C.
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.
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 on 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. The new
culvert at Stream C and stream enhancement would increase streamflow capacity.
Wetlands and Buffers. The new substation and associated facilities would impact the buffers of
Wetlands A, D, and H, and Wetland B would be filled. Poles would be installed in Wetlands A
and H. Required mitigation would protect the wetland functions and values. Impacts would be
less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.5.3 Redmond Segment
In general, impacts on 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 on the streams or buffers. No
poles would be located in streams or buffers. The Energize Eastside project would not interfere
with PSE’s proposed Willows Creek habitat improvement project, south of the Sammamish
substation.
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 on 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.5.4 Bellevue North Segment
In general, impacts on 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 streams or 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐16
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.5.5 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue Central Segment follows the route of the Existing
Corridor Option as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and
placement. Impacts on 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 streams or stream buffers, so no impacts
would occur.
Wetlands and Buffers. All of the wetlands along this segment are Category III or IV with
relatively small buffers. Some of the Category IV wetlands are too small to be regulated by the
City of Bellevue. The existing three poles in wetlands would be reduced to zero with this
segment. Removing the poles would cause a minor reduction in wetland acreage that would be
mitigated in accordance with critical area requirements. Therefore, there would be no long-term
impact on wetlands. The number of poles in buffers would be reduced from 14 to nine, resulting
in beneficial impacts.
Shorelines. The Bellevue Central Segment is outside the Kelsey Creek shoreline jurisdiction, so
no impacts would occur.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐17
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.5.6 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue South Segment follows the route of the Willow 1 Option
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and placement. The
Bellevue South Segment is within the existing corridor. Impacts on 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 crosses unnamed tributaries of East, Sunset, and
Coal creeks. The crossings would not cause long-term impacts on streams and no poles would be
located in streams or buffers. Impacts on buffers would be minor and mitigated in accordance
with applicable critical area requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. All of the wetlands along this segment are Category III or IV with
relatively small buffers. The number of poles in wetlands would remain the same, but the number
located in buffers would decrease from seven to one, resulting in beneficial impacts.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐18
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.5.7 Newcastle Segment – Option 1 (No Code Variance)
Impacts on water resources would be slightly greater than for Option 2 because the larger pole size
requirement requires larger footings. Impacts on 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 Newcastle Segment, Option 1 crosses May Creek and two unnamed
streams along the existing corridor. No poles would be placed in streams or stream buffers. The
crossings would not cause long-term impacts on streams. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. The number of poles in wetland buffers would be reduced as compared
to existing conditions, resulting in beneficial impacts. The larger footings for the poles required
for Option 1 would result in a small net increase in fill in the wetland buffer.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐19
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.5.8 Newcastle Segment – Option 2 (Code Variance)
Impacts on water resources would be slightly less for Option 2 of the Newcastle Segment because of
the smaller footings for the poles. Impacts on 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. Same as Option 1.
Wetlands and Buffers. The number of poles in wetland buffers would be reduced relative to
existing conditions, resulting in beneficial impacts. The smaller footings for poles for Option 2
would result in a net reduction in fill in the wetland buffer.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐20
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.5.9 Renton Segment
The Renton Segment would be within the existing corridor. Impacts on 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—May, Honey, and an
unnamed tributary—and the Cedar River in the existing corridor, the same as existing conditions.
No poles would be placed in streams or stream buffers. The crossings would not cause long-term
impacts on streams, and no impacts on buffers would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less-
than-significant.
Wetlands and Buffers. The one wetland in this segment identified in the critical areas
delineation reports for the Renton Segment is Category III with a 100-foot buffer (The Watershed
Company, 2016, 2017). No poles would be placed in the wetland or buffer. Any impacts to
wetlands or buffers would be minor and mitigated in accordance with applicable critical area
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐21
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
4.3.6 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
4.3.6.1 Regulatory Requirements
The project would need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, some of
which would mitigate the potential for long-term adverse impacts on 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
The wetlands within PSE’s Proposed Alignment are waters of the state subject to the applicable
requirements of state law (see RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.201A). Some are also waters of the U.S.
and subject to Section 404 and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [USC]
§1341) and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 121.2. Before any direct wetland impacts
occur, PSE would obtain the necessary state and federal authorizations. To obtain state and federal
authorization, PSE must provide:
A jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stating whether the
delineated wetlands are under federal jurisdiction.
An application and report presenting impacts on jurisdictional wetlands.
A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetland impacts following the standards in Wetland
Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology, 2006).
The project would also need to comply with the following regulations of the Partner Cities:
Stormwater regulations of the Partner Cities, which are based on the standards set by
Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology, 2014).
Requirements of Shoreline Master Programs for Renton in crossing the Cedar River (see
Appendix B-3).
Requirements of each applicable Partner City’s critical areas ordinance (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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.3‐22
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
This section has been
updated from the Phase 2
Draft EIS to reflect impacts
associated with PSE’s
Proposed Alignment, clarify
vegetation management
protocols, include additional
information on potential
wildlife impacts, and refine the
discussion of impacts
associated with the Richards
Creek substation site.
4.4 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
4.4-1). The study area extends about one-half mile on either side of
PSE’s Proposed Alignment, 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), 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 are listed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS (Section 3.4, page 3.4-1).
Two sets of GIS data were used for the Final EIS: tree inventory data collected and analyzed during
2015 and 2016 for the Phase 2 Draft EIS (The Watershed Company, 2016c), and tree inventory data
that were collected and analyzed in 2017 for segments of the project PSE carried forward for permit
review (The Watershed Company, 2017).
The tree inventories conducted in 2015 and 2016 occurred along the approximately 100-foot-wide
existing PSE easement (The Watershed Company, 2016a). The survey identified the number and
location of all vegetation with a potential to reach a mature height of 15 feet or more. This method
provided a conservative estimate, in that PSE could trim or prune rather than completely remove
trees in a manner that ensures compliance with NERC standards. See Appendix E-2 of this Final EIS
for a description of the methodology that The Watershed Company used for the survey, and for the
steps the EIS Consultant Team took to confirm the surveys met best practice. These data were used
for the Redmond Segment, Bellevue North Segment, Bellevue Central Segment (north of the
Lakeside substation), and Renton Segment. A more refined methodology was used for the analysis of
the 2017 tree inventory that considered the proximity of the actual transmission alignment and
variations in topography (see Appendix E-2). It more accurately represents what trees would need to
be removed for the project. These 2017 data were used for the following segments/options:
The portion of the Bellevue Central Segment that includes the Lakeside substation
Richards Creek substation site
Bellevue South Segment
Newcastle Option 1 (No Code Variance)
Newcastle Option 2 (Code Variance)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014.
Figure 4.4-1. Study Area and Land Cover for Plants and Animals
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
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). 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 4.3, Water Resources. This
section analyzes their value as fish and wildlife habitat.
4.4.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Since publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, no new laws, plans, policies, or regulations have been
implemented that would apply to the management of aquatic and terrestrial species, within King
County or the Partner Cities. For more details, refer to Section 3.4.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
However, additional clarification has been obtained regarding vegetation management requirements
for 230 kV transmission lines, which is provided below.
4.4.1.1 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
As described in Section 3.4.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, 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 currently maintains (i.e., trims or
removes) trees that would mature to a height of greater than 25 feet, and 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 (Figure 4.4-2). 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 within the Legal Right-of-Way but outside of the
Managed Right-of-Way that are at risk of falling on or otherwise likely to come in contact with
nearby wires are proactively trimmed or removed. This area was previously misidentified as the
Danger Tree Zone in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Draft EISs. As an ongoing maintenance practice that
would not change as a result of the Energize Eastside project, if trees outside of the Legal Right-of-
Way would pose a threat to the transmission line, PSE coordinates with adjacent land owners to
obtain permission to trim or remove them.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐4
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
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).
Figure 4.4-2. 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 of the Phase 2
Draft EIS.
Vegetation Management/Maintenance Standards for 230 kV Transmission Lines
To provide reliable service to PSE customers and respond to 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 4.4-3). The overall size of the vegetation
management/maintenance area typically varies by transmission pole type (see Appendix E-1). Based
on strict application of these standards, PSE would remove any vegetation within the Wire Zone that
matures to a height of more than 15 feet (PSE, 2014), unless terrain conditions allow at least 20 feet
of clearance between the lowest conductor and the potential mature height of the vegetation. Within
the Managed Right-of-Way, PSE would conduct selective vegetation removal and maintenance on a
case-by-case basis based on the proximity of vegetation to its built infrastructure, as determined in
the field by PSE vegetation maintenance crews. Trees outside of the Managed Right-of-Way but
within the Legal Right-of-Way could also be trimmed to maintain at least 16 feet of clearance from
the wires, or removed based on a combination of tree height, species, health, and distance from the
wires. In general, it is assumed that trees with a height of 70 feet or greater between the Managed
Right-of-Way and the Legal Right-of-Way would be removed, along with all dead or dying trees of
any height. However, with the primary exception of lowering the maximum potential mature tree
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
height limit, tree maintenance activities along transmission lines at 200 kV or higher (including 230
kV lines) would be largely unchanged compared to existing procedures in the 115 kV transmission
line corridor. No trees are proposed for removal outside of the Legal Right-of-Way as part of the
Energize Eastside project. PSE’s policies for weed management and vegetation restoration are also
the same for 230 kV and 115 kV transmission lines.
Figure 4.4-3. Vegetation Management Zone for 230 kV Transmission Lines
4.4.1.2 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 of local importance, and
those protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the
Endangered Species Act. See Section 3.4.1.4 in the Phase 2 Draft EIS for a description of PSE's
Avian Protection Program.
4.4.2 Plants and Animals in the Study Area
4.4.2.1 Vegetation Cover
Vegetation within the study area is described in Section 3.4.1.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, indicating
that a substantial portion of the Phase 2 study area is already developed or maintained to varying
degrees.
Plants
As indicated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS (see Section 3.4.2.1), 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 streambank 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
As described at the beginning of Section 4.4, two sets of GIS data showing proposed tree removal
were used for the Final EIS analysis. Appendix E-2 describes the different methods used for the two
datasets, and Appendix L describes how the 2017 permit-level data were applied to this analysis. The
consolidated information from these surveys includes an inventory of approximately 5,500 trees
(Figure 4.4-4).
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016c, 2017.
Figure 4.4-4. Total Trees Surveyed
Rare Plants
As indicated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, no rare plants are known to occur within PSE’s Proposed
Alignment (WDNR, 2016).
4.4.2.2 Fish and Wildlife
As described in Section 3.4.2.2 of the Phase 2 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 PSE’s existing 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
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,
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 occasionally occur 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 are not known to extensively use the existing
transmission line corridor for breeding or foraging, and PSE’s Avian Protection Program is intended
to discourage such uses.
The wetlands, streams, floodplains, and rivers in the study area (described in Section 4.3, 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).
Ecology has categorized the lower reaches of May Creek, Coal Creek, and the Cedar River as “Core
Summer Salmonid Habitat” for aquatic life use (Ecology, 2011; King County, 2016). As part of the
updated water quality standards, these stream reaches have also been assigned an additional
“Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection,” which specifies temperature criteria of 13ºC to
be applied from September 15 through May 15.
4.4.2.3 Sensitive or Protected Fish and Wildlife
As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Section 6.4) and Section 3.4.2.3 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, 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, species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act). 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, and species of local concern are identified in
Section 3.4.2.3 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
4.4.3 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 activities that could disturb species or their habitats. 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.
As described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS (Section 3.4.3), the
project would typically install new poles as close to the
existing poles as practicable, and the existing poles would be
removed. However, the proposed pole types 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
and quality of natural resource habitat in the study area is not
expected to substantially decrease. 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.
4.4.3.1 Magnitude of Impact
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Significant Trees
Significant trees are defined by the
trunk diameter (measured at 4 feet
above existing ground), but vary by
jurisdiction and tree species:
Redmond and Bellevue – 8-inch-
diameter tree
Newcastle – 8-inch-diameter
evergreen or 12-inch-diameter
deciduous tree.
Renton – 6-inch-diameter tree or 8-
inch-diameter alder or cottonwood
tree.
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.
4.4.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Long-term impacts of the No Action Alternative are the same as those described in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, PSE would continue its current line maintenance activities
along the existing corridor as described in Chapter 2. As a result, the Phase 2 Draft EIS concluded
that there would be a minor loss of vegetation or disturbance to animals from permanent structures.
As discussed, only minor direct and indirect impacts are expected to occur from temporary noise
disturbances, limited habitat alteration or loss (temporary or permanent vegetation clearing),
temporary degradation of aquatic habitat from runoff from disturbed areas, and the potential spread
of invasive plant species into areas disturbed by maintenance activities. Therefore, the No Action
Alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts to plants and animals. See the Phase 2 Draft
EIS, Section 3.4.4 for a detailed discussion.
4.4.5 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
4.4.5.1 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 additional mature trees along the existing
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. These activities would be
similar to those that would occur under the No Action
Alternative.
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, and the density of trees removed within given
portions of PSE’s Proposed Alignment. The analysis also addressed both total trees and significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐10
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
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, PSE’s Proposed Alignment would
result in the removal of the least number of trees (up to about 3,600 trees) compared to the other
alignments analyzed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Figure 4.4-5 shows the total number of trees subject to
removal under PSE’s Proposed Alignment by segment, as well as the total number of significant
trees subject to removal by segment.
Figure 4.4-5. Total Trees and Significant Trees Subject to Removal, by Segment
The percentage of surveyed trees subject to potential removal ranges between 41 and 80 percent
within the project segments (Figure 4.4-6). However, these percentages do not reflect the actual
number of trees subject to removal, or the magnitude of the change in habitat quality or quantity
(e.g., tree density). 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, with most
segments ranging between 14 and 26 trees removed per acre (Figure 4.4-7).
The number of significant trees removed per acre ranges between 2 and 21 in the segments along
PSE’s Proposed Alignment (Figure 4.4-7), which are typically lower than the other alignment options
evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. 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 1,900 inventoried trees retained within the
surveyed areas, many of which would be contiguous with trees on adjacent properties (The
Watershed Company, 2016a). Selective removal or trimming of trees along the existing corridor
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐11
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
would not measurably increase habitat fragmentation, windthrow, or habitat edge effects, because the
alignment would remain within the existing Legal Right-of-Way and vegetation management
protocols would remain largely unchanged. With the exception of the Richards Creek substation site
and an area adjacent to the east side of the Lakeside substation, the amount of forested habitat within
and adjacent to the corridor would remain similar to existing conditions.
While about 2.8 acres of forested habitat would be removed at the Richard Creek substation site, a
relatively wide (more than 200-foot wide) forested buffer along the east side of the site would be
maintained, and edge habitat would only be marginally changed. 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 PSE’s Proposed Alignment would result in
a less-than-significant impact.
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016c, 2017.
Figure 4.4-6. Percentage of Surveyed Trees Subject to Removal, by Segment
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016c, 2017.
Figure 4.4-7. Total Trees and Significant Trees per Acre, Subject to Removal, by Segment
Potential Impacts to Animals and Critical Habitat
Of the approximately 3,600 trees that could potentially be removed along PSEs Proposed Alignment,
about 182 of these trees (5 percent) occur in critical areas (primarily wetland habitat), and about 545
trees (15 percent) occur in wetland and stream buffer areas (Figure 4.4-8) (The Watershed Company,
2016c, 2017). This would increase the potential disturbance of these sensitive habitats and reduce the
shading provided by the trees. As described above, these numbers are typically based on the strict
application of PSE’s vegetation management standards (see Section 4.4.1.1), and generally represent
a conservatively high (i.e., worst-case) rate of tree removal (see Appendix E-2). 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.
Section 3.3.5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS describes the impacts of tree removal on streams, and Section
3.4.5 describes the impacts to stream buffers (critical areas). However, few trees would be removed
that provide direct canopy shade for streams, with most occurring in the buffer areas away from the
actual stream channel. Therefore, changes in the amount of direct shade provided to the stream would
likely have no measurable effect on water temperature or instream habitat. Trees would also be
selectively cut, leaving smaller and/or preferred species trees (those that would not reach mature
heights greater than about 15 feet), as well as understory shrub vegetation in place, to continue to
provide stream shade and future wood recruitment functions.
While trees reduce overland stormwater runoff, which can help regulate flows to area waterways
during rain events, they also intercept a substantial portion of rain volume (up to more than 20
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
percent), much of which is subsequently lost to evaporation rather than being available to recharge
groundwater resources (Armson et al., 2013; Inkilainen et al., 2013). Groundwater provides
important functions for stream habitat conditions by helping to maintain base flows and water
temperatures during critical low flow summer and early fall periods. The small trees and understory
vegetation that would remain in place would replace some of the rainfall interception capabilities lost
through tree removal actions, helping to maintain runoff regulation functions during storm events.
Therefore, while the character (species compositions) of vegetation in critical areas would change in
some areas of the transmission line corridor, there would be no substantial change in the amount of
pervious surface area (overall vegetated area), and much of the vegetation functions would be
maintained.
Poles would be replaced in about the same locations as the existing poles, with a small number
within or near 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.
Source: The Watershed Company, 2016c, 2017.
Figure 4.4-8. Trees in Critical Habitats and Buffers, Subject to Removal, by Segment
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). Overall, the changes in the
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
number of poles would have less-than-significant impacts because few protected wildlife species
occupy the segments, 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, there is some evidence that the avoidance of powerlines may be related to the ability of
species to see UV light corona, which can be emitted from powerlines (Tyler et al., 2014). This
characteristic could result in the wires being even more detectable to some avian species, thereby
potentially further reducing electrocution or collision mortality or injury rates.
In addition, replacing 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.
Although electrocution and collision rates are expected to be lower, the higher voltage lines would
produce greater electric and magnetic fields and corona light effects than the existing 115 kV
transmission lines, resulting in the potential for greater impacts to some wildlife species. Such
impacts tend to be variable and often unquantifiable or inconclusive, particularly for free-ranging
species in the wild (Fernie and Reynolds, 2005). Electric and magnetic fields generated by power
lines could also affect the behavior or migratory/navigational capabilities of some ground-oriented
species, such as mammals and insects (WHO, 2005). While the electric and magnetic fields around
the 230 kV lines would be stronger than the existing 115 kV lines, the wires would typically be
higher off the ground, which is expected to reduce the potential effects on low-flying insects or
ground-oriented wildlife species. Therefore, any incremental changes in electric and magnetic fields
along PSE’s Proposed Alignment are expected to result in less-than-significant effects on these
species.
The project would result in less-than-significant impacts to fish or fish habitat, as project activities
would not cause 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 in 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 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 4.3.5.1, Water Resources.
Impacts specific to the project components, including the new substation and individual segments,
are summarized below. The tree inventory numbers reflect PSE’s inventory of trees within the
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
surveyed area, depending on the segment (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
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.
Impact Analysis by Segment in the Final EIS
The following pages summarize the potential impacts on plants and animals for PSE’s Proposed
Alignment, presented for the Richards Creek substation and by segment. For the Redmond, Bellevue
North, Bellevue Central, and Renton Segments, the analysis included a review of refined project
design details for PSE’s Proposed Alignment, with results revised relative to the Phase 2 Draft EIS to
reflect the new information. For these four segments, the new information and analysis have not
altered the conclusions presented in Section 3.4.5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS regarding significant
impacts on plants and animals.
For the Richards Creek substation site and the Bellevue South and Newcastle Segments, the analysis
also included a review of the project design as presented in the detailed permit applications submitted
to Bellevue and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and 2017c, respectively). The results for these portions of
the project are different from the Phase 2 Draft EIS, incorporating the more detailed information in
the permit applications on pole locations and critical areas (including wetlands, streams, and their
buffers). The conclusions regarding significant impacts on plants and animals, however, are the same
as presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
4.4.5.2 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 178 trees, 108 of which are categorized as
significant 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, and replacing the existing culverts under the Richards Creek substation
site access road (adjacent to SE 30th Street) with a fish passable culvert design would have potential
short-term impacts to lamprey during construction (see Section 5.4). However, replacing the existing
culverts would improve fish passage conditions, and improving the habitat with the realignment of
Stream C (upstream and downstream of the culvert) would benefit this and other aquatic species over
the long term. These improvements would also offset other potential wetland and stream impacts
related to construction and operation of the substation and associated transmission lines. The critical
areas adjacent to the culvert replacement and realigned stream channel would be enhanced by
planting native vegetation, further offsetting impacts on other portions of this site. Therefore, the
impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants would be less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐16
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Vegetation Clearing: About 178 (41 percent) of the more than 400 trees on the parcel would be
removed, including about 108 significant trees, three dead or dying trees, 23 trees in critical
areas, and 76 trees in critical area buffers.
Wildlife Habitat: The substation would occupy about 2 acres (24 percent) of the 8.4 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, and riparian habitat
and fish passage improvements would improve stream habitat conditions.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐17
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.5.3 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 (80 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 Willows
Creek drainage, but stream habitat is not expected to be
affected by the project.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐18
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.5.4 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 (61 percent of the
total surveyed in the segment) could be removed, including
the potential removal of about 181 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐19
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.5.5 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue Central Segment follows the route of the Existing
Corridor Option as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with revised design details for pole types and
placement. Although the potential effects of tree removal in this segment 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 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 642 trees (70 percent of the
total trees surveyed in the segment) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 234 significant
trees, as well as about 68 trees from critical areas, and
about 172 trees from the 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. 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐20
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.5.6 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue South Segment follows the route of the Willow 1 Option
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and placement.
Effects of tree removal in this segment would be similar to those described for the Redmond
Segment, although a lower percentage of trees would be removed. 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 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 1,030 trees (68 percent of
trees surveyed along the segment) could be removed,
including the potential removal of about 442 significant
trees, three trees from critical areas, and about 69 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 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, Sunset, and Coal creeks,
stream habitat would not be substantially affected by the
project.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐21
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.5.7 Newcastle Segment – Both Options 1 and 2
Two options are evaluated for the Newcastle Segment, with Option 1 being identical to what was
presented for this segment in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The second option (Option 2) would differ from
Option 1 by installing shorter power poles and allowing some poles to be located closer to the Olympic
Pipeline system. Neither of these options is expected to result in substantially different impacts to fish
and wildlife species, and vegetation clearing would be similar for both options.
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 250 trees (approximately 67
percent of the trees surveyed along the segment) could be
removed (244 for Option 1 and 251 for Option 2),
including the potential removal of about 30 significant
trees and about 21 trees from critical area buffers. In some
cases, removal may be avoided by trimming. Tree clearing
per acre along the segment for Option 2 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐22
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.5.8 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 (57 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐23
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.4.6 Mitigation Measures
Federal, state, and local regulations, policies, ordinances, and programs, established to protect natural
resources (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 discretionary. 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.
4.4.6.1 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.
In the Bridle Trails Subarea in the City of Bellevue, plant replacement trees as required under
the City’s Tree Retention and Replacement Code.
During Operation
Trees removed from critical areas in Bellevue and Renton may require mitigation monitoring.
4.4.6.2 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
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.
Critical area and buffer trees would be trimmed and not removed if possible, and trimmed
branches and trunks at least 4 inches in diameter would be left in place to provide a greater
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.4‐24
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
amount of woody debris for the area streams, compared to the long-term natural recruitment
process.
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, including the removal of existing infestations of invasive species.
Continue to implement PSE’s 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 of species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 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 all avian species by retrofitting existing
structures with wire guards, flight diverter devices, and bird guards.
During tree maintenance activities, critical area and buffer trees would be trimmed and not
removed if possible, and trimmed branches and trunks at least 4 inches in diameter would be
left in place to provide a greater amount of woody debris for the area streams, compared to
the long-term natural recruitment process.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.5‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
The GHG assessment was
revised in this Final EIS to
explain recent changes in
regulatory guidance and to
incorporate the latest available
data into the description of
existing GHGs. However, these
updates were minimal and did
not require changes to the
impact analysis or result in new
findings. Tree removal would
be the same as was assessed
in the Phase 2 Draft EIS for the
Redmond, Bellevue North, and
Redmond Segments, but
updated tree removal data
were available for the Bellevue
Central and Bellevue South
Segments and both Newcastle
options (see Appendix L). In
addition, modifications were
made to the model used for
the Phase 2 Draft EIS
regarding how carbon is
calculated. Therefore, impacts
were reassessed to account
for changes to the model. The
Final EIS presents the potential
GHG emissions that may result
from PSE’s Proposed
Alignment.
4.5 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 is 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
Energize Eastside 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 4.5.2).
4.5.1 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 22,800 times more potent than
CO2 (IPCC, 2013; EPA, 2017). 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.5‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
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
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.
4.5.2 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 Final EIS 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).
4.5.3 Greenhouse Gases in the Study Area
Ecology estimated that in 2013, Washington produced about 94 million gross metric tons (about 104
million U.S. tons) of CO2e (Sandlin, 2016). Sources of GHG emissions in the state are shown in
Figure 4.5-1.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.5‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
Figure 4.5-1. Sources of GHG Emissions in Washington State
4.5.4 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
The Phase 1 Draft EIS provided an overview of the planning policies and regulations pertinent to
GHG emissions. For the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the policies and regulations considered were updated to
be applicable to the project-level analysis (see Section 3.4.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS). On April 5,
2017, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) withdrew its Final Guidance for Federal
Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of
Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews (CEQ, 2016) for further review.
Consideration of GHG sources identified in the guidance was used in the impact assessment;
however, the GHG sources used are typical to those used in other land use planning analyses, such as
the General Reporting Protocol of the Climate Registry (The Climate Registry, 2016) and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD,
2017). Therefore, no changes have been made to the GHG impact assessment methodology for this
Final EIS.
4.5.5 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
4.5.5.1 Methods for Analyzing Long-term Impacts
The Energize Eastside 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, 2017) for each project segment.
Tree removal for the Newcastle Options (i.e., Option 1 – No Code Variance and Option 2 – Code
Variance) would be roughly the same because, despite their differing pole placement and
configurations, the required clearing area would be the same. Sequestration calculations were made
using the i-Tree 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 (USFS,
2017). See Section 4.10, 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 that 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.5‐4
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
state and overall global GHG burden. Potential mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate GHG
emissions associated with the project are considered, as warranted.
A quantitative assessment of GHG emissions of sulfur hexafluoride (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 22,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a GHG (EPA, 2017). 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 predicts 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.
4.5.6 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
The assessment of impacts to GHG emissions under the No Action Alternative is the same as
presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, no infrastructure
improvements, changes to vegetation management activities, or new or relocated utility 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.
4.5.7 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
The following pages summarize the potential impacts on GHGs for PSE’s Proposed Alignment,
presented for the Richards Creek substation and by segment. For the Redmond, Bellevue North,
Bellevue Central, and Renton Segments, the analysis was unchanged from the Phase 2 Draft EIS. For
the Richards Creek substation site and the Bellevue South and Newcastle Segments, the analysis
included a review of the project design as presented in the permit applications submitted to Bellevue
and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and 2017c, respectively). The results below have been revised relative to
the Phase 2 Draft EIS, incorporating the more detailed information in the permit applications on tree
removal. The new information and analysis have not altered the conclusions presented in the Phase 2
Draft EIS regarding significant impacts to GHG.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.5‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
4.5.7.1 Impacts Common to all Components
Construction of any of the segments and the Richards Creek substation site would result in some
level of sequestration losses due to tree removal. Additionally, PSE’s Proposed Alignment would
result in fugitive SF6 emissions from gas-insulated circuit breakers at the Richards Creek,
Sammamish, and Talbot Hill substations. PSE’s Proposed Alignment would result in a project-wide
sequestration loss of 134 metric tons of CO2e per year. However, the emissions would be
substantially below the State of Washington reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons and, therefore,
less-than-significant. Figure 4.5-2 presents the sequestration losses associated with each segment,
and the following narrative describes the tree losses associated with each segment.
Figure 4.5-2. Estimated GHG Sequestration Losses in Project Segments
4.5.7.2 New Richards Creek Substation and other Substation Improvements
The assessment below has been updated to incorporate permit-level data for the Bellevue Central
Segment, Richards Creek substation site, and the Bellevue South Segment. Analysis for the other
segments has not changed. The total lot area for the substation site is 8.4 acres in size, and the
substation yard would cover 1.9 acres within a fenced lot. Approximately 178 trees would be
removed to allow for the installation of the substation and equipment (The Watershed Company,
2017). 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 4.4 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.5‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
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. At the Rose Hill substation, PSE would rebuild the existing substation from a 115 kV to
12.5 kV substation to a 230 kV to 12.5 kV substation in order to operate both lines at 230 kV such
that two 230 kV circuit breakers would be installed, each with a nameplate capacity of 161 pounds.
Consequently, all new breakers would total an SF6 load of approximately 1,738 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 8.69 pounds per year, which is
equivalent to 90 metric tons of CO2e per year.
4.5.7.3 Redmond Segment
The assessment below is the same as presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, as the analysis has not
changed. Approximately 632 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 12 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.
4.5.7.4 Bellevue North Segment
The assessment below is the same as presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, as the analysis has not
changed. Approximately 509 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 6.0 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.
4.5.7.5 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue Central Segment follows the route of the Existing
Corridor Option as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The number of trees that would be removed is
the same as what was presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS for the Existing Corridor Option, except it
also includes permit-level tree data for the Lakeside substation (see Appendix L). Approximately 642
trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles along the Bellevue
Central Segment (The Watershed Company, 2016, 2017). Tree removal along the Existing Corridor
Option would result in 7.39 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.
4.5.7.6 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue South Segment follows the route of the Willow 1 Option
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The number of trees that would be removed is the same as
what was presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS for the Willow 1 Option. Approximately 1,030 trees
would be removed to allow for the installation of power lines and poles along the Bellevue South
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.5‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
Segment (The Watershed Company, 2016, 2017). Tree removal along the Bellevue South 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.
4.5.7.7 Newcastle Segment (Option 1, No Code Variance)
Under Option 1, approximately 244 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power
lines and poles along the Newcastle Segment (The Watershed Company, 2017). Tree removal along
the Newcastle Segment would result in 2.3 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.
4.5.7.8 Newcastle Segment (Option 2, Code Variance)
Under Option 2, approximately 251 trees would be removed to allow for the installation of power
lines and poles along the Newcastle Segment (The Watershed Company, 2017). Tree removal along
the Newcastle Segment would result in 2.4 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.
4.5.7.9 Renton Segment
Approximately 351 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 7.5 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.
4.5.8 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 PSE to adopt or the local
jurisdictions to impose as a condition of project approval.
4.5.8.1 Regulatory Requirements
Although there are no regulations specifically limiting GHG emissions, PSE would need to comply
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations that apply to other resources, some of which
would mitigate the potential for long-term adverse GHG impacts (e.g., regulations that protect tree
coverage in critical areas). Mitigation measures required for compliance with these other regulations
are not discretionary.
As described in Section 4.4.6, 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 4.4.6, 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.5‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
case of the City of Newcastle, mitigated by paying into an in-lieu fee program. Replacement
may be based on the cross-sectional diameter of trees removed, or on habitat functions lost
due to trees removal, depending on applicable regulations.
4.5.8.2 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 BMP 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
The options that would have
required an easement and
resulted in the conversion of
recreation land purchased with
restricted funds for non-
recreation purposes are no
longer being considered. Thus
there would be no significant
impacts to recreation from
PSE’s Proposed Alignment. No
poles would be placed in
recreation sites where none
currently are located.
4.6 RECREATION
This section 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 4.2,
Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment. The study area for
recreation resources includes PSE’s existing corridor and adjacent
parcels (Figure 4.6-1).
4.6.1 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. Additional applicable plans
included in the Phase 2 Draft EIS are the City of Bellevue Parks & Open Space System Plan (City of
Bellevue, 2016) and Redmond’s Transportation Master Plan (2013). PSE’s Proposed Alignment
would not require the conversion of recreation lands to a non-recreation use. Thus, the City of
Bellevue’s Comprehensive Plan (2015) policy that requires a public review process for proposed
conversions of park property to a non-recreational use would not
be applicable.
4.6.2 Recreation Resources in the Study Area
The recreation study area for the Final EIS contains
approximately 18 recreation sites plus many miles of trails,
shown on Figure 4.6-1. This encompasses approximately 475
acres in recreation sites owned and operated primarily by local
governments, and includes four 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 Resources in the study area are
described in more detail in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Note: Trails are not labeled here but are shown in the maps of individual segments in Section 4.6.5, below.
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; Bellevue, 2015; Newcastle, 2015; Renton, 2015; Kirkland, 2015; Redmond, 2015.
Figure 4.6-1. Recreation Sites in the Study Area
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Methods for Studying Long-
term Impacts
To determine long-term
(operational) impacts, the EIS
Consultant Team overlaid the
segments 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 to obtain easements
within a recreation site was
also considered.
4.6.3 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.
4.6.4 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. Under the No Action Alternative,
recreation sites (including trails) may be temporarily closed during maintenance of the existing
transmission lines.
4.6.5 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
4.6.5.1 Impacts Common to all Components
Recreation sites are located within and adjacent to PSE’s existing corridor. PSE has easements or
owns the parcels outright along the existing corridor and would not acquire new easements as part of
PSE’s Proposed Alignment. Within PSE’s existing corridor, poles would be replaced in generally the
same location as the existing poles (i.e., usually within 25 feet up or down the line). The existing H-
frame structures are approximately 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. Similar to the No Action Alternative, recreation sites
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐4
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
(primarily trails along the corridor) may be temporarily closed during maintenance of the new
transmission lines.
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,
PSE’s Proposed Alignment would require a substantial number of trees to be removed (see
Vegetation Management in Section 4.4.1.1, 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 recreation site and thus no
change would be perceived.
Other potential impacts under PSE’s Proposed Alignment 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.
The following pages summarize the potential impacts on recreation for PSE’s Proposed Alignment,
presented for the Richards Creek substation and by segment. For the Redmond, Bellevue North,
Bellevue Central, and Renton Segments, the analysis included a review of refined project design
details for PSE’s Proposed Alignment, with results revised relative to the Phase 2 Draft EIS to reflect
the new information. For these segments, the new information and analysis have not altered the
conclusions presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS regarding significant impacts on recreation.
For the Richards Creek substation site and the Bellevue South and Newcastle Segments, the analysis
included a review of the project design as presented in the permit applications submitted to Bellevue
and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and 2017c, respectively). The results below have been revised relative to
the Phase 2 Draft EIS, incorporating the more detailed information in the permit applications on pole
locations and vegetation clearing. The conclusions regarding significant impacts on recreation,
however, are the same as presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with one exception. In the Phase 2 Draft
EIS, impacts from Bypass Options 1 and 2 would have been 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. The Bypass Options evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS are not analyzed the
Final EIS because they are not part of PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
4.6.5.2 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
300 feet to the north). The new substation may be visible from recreation facilities at the school;
however, some of the forested area between the school and the proposed substation site would
remain. Impacts would be less than significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
4.6.5.3 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. PSE’s Proposed Alignment follows the route of the
Redmond Segment as evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS but includes refined design details for pole
types and placement.
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 either two approximately 90-foot or two 110-foot steel monopoles (this differs
from the design evaluated in Phase 2 Draft EIS, which replaced the two H-frames with one
monopole). Note that not all poles in this location would be removed, only those for the existing
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
115 kV lines that would be replaced as part of this project. 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.
Rose Hill Middle School: The existing H-frame structures would be replaced with one
approximately 100-foot monopole (the same pole configuration as the Phase 2 Draft EIS). 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. The existing H-frame structures immediately south of
the school property would be replaced with one approximately 110-foot monopole. Impacts
would be less-than-significant. The existing 115 kV lines and monopoles to the east of the project
would not change.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
4.6.5.4 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. PSE’s Proposed Alignment follows the
route of the Bellevue North Segment as evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS but includes refined
design details for pole types and placement.
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 two approximately 110-foot monopoles (this is different than the design
evaluated in Phase 2 Draft EIS, which replaced the two H-frames with one monopole).
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
4.6.5.5 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue Central Segment follows the route of the Existing
Corridor Option as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and
placement. Impacts to recreation from the project in the Bellevue Central 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.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Glendale Country Club (private): The existing corridor crosses the east edge of the country
club. Six approximately 100-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 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), 10th
Avenue Trail, and SE 3rd Trail: There would be fewer poles (one approximately 100- to 110-
foot monopole at each location instead of two H-frames) and more vegetation cleared. Up to 125
trees would be removed that may visible from the trail. 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 approximately 100- to 110-foot monopoles placed near existing poles
(with this design, the poles may be taller than was evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS for this
location). 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 an approximately 100-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, up to six 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.
Richards Valley Open Space: It is unlikely that the taller poles with a differing pole
configuration would be visible from the park because it heavily vegetated and downslope from
PSE’s corridor. This park is outside of the existing corridor and would not be affected by
vegetation clearing. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐10
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
4.6.5.6 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue South Segment follows the route of the Willow 1 Option
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and placement.
Impacts to recreation from PSE’s Proposed Alignment in the Bellevue South 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.
Mountains to Sound Greenway I-90 Trail: The Bellevue South Segment 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.
Tyee Middle School: The more northern H-frame structures would be replaced with a 100-
monopole; the H-frame structure near SE Allen Road would be replaced with two approximately
110-foot monopoles. This is different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which
evaluated a single monopole replacing each set of H-frame structures. Most of the area is
already maintained with low-growing vegetation, and vegetation management would be similar
to existing conditions. However, four trees near SE 40th Street, one adjacent to the school, and
approximately 12 trees near SE Allen Road would be removed. These changes would be
noticeable but not affect recreation opportunities and uses, and impacts would be less-than-
significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐11
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Somerset North Slope Open Space: No poles are currently within the existing easement
through the open space, and no poles would be placed within or adjacent to the open space. The
Phase 2 Draft EIS evaluated placing a pole within and adjacent to the open space. Vegetation
would be removed, including one tree within the 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.
Somerset Recreation Club (private): Two approximately 90-foot poles would be placed in a
similar location to the existing two H-frame structures on the site, and approximately 4 to 8 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.
Forest Hill Neighborhood Park & Open Space: The two 60-foot H-frame structures would be
replaced with two approximately 90-foot tall monopoles. There would be more vegetation
clearing than existing conditions; including the removal of approximately 13 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
approximately 110-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 Creek Natural Area parking lot. Approximately 25–
30 trees would be cleared (mostly near Coal Creek Parkway), 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: The two H-frame structures in Newport Hills Mini Park have three
poles each (six poles total). These would be replaced with two approximately 110-foot tall poles.
This is different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which evaluated two 85-foot
tall poles at this location. Vegetation would be cleared to PSE standards and approximately 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.
Waterline Trail: The trail runs parallel to PSE’s existing corridor in a Seattle Public Utilities
(SPU) 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 Seattle Public Utilities (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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
4.6.5.7 Newcastle Segment – Option 1 (No Code Variance)
The impacts to recreation would be the same with both options for the Newcastle Segment. The
appearance of the poles (height and spacing) would be different between options, but vegetation
clearing would be similar between the two options. Neither option would result in significant impacts
to recreation. Impacts in the Newcastle Segment Option 1 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 approximately 95-foot tall poles. This is
different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which evaluated two 85-foot tall
poles at this location. 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
May Creek Natural Area: At each pole site, the two existing H-frames would be replaced with
two approximately 95-foot tall monopoles in the corridor through the May Creek Natural Area.
This is different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which evaluated two 85-foot
tall poles at this location. 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 approximately 45 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
4.6.5.8 Newcastle Segment – Option 2 (Code Variance)
The impacts to recreation would be the same with both options in the Newcastle Segment. The
appearance of the poles (height and spacing) would be different between options, but vegetation
clearing would be quite similar between the two options. Neither option would result in significant
impacts. Impacts in the Newcastle Segment Option 2 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 approximately 80-foot tall poles. This
is different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which evaluated two 85-foot
tall poles at this location. 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
May Creek Natural Area: At the more northern pole site, the two existing H-frames would
be replaced with two approximately 95-foot tall monopoles. At the more southern pole site,
the two existing H-frames would be replaced with two 80-foot tall monopoles. This is
different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which evaluated 85-foot tall
poles at this location. Vegetation is currently maintained for the existing transmission lines,
but vegetation that could grow taller than 15 feet would be removed, including approximately
45 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐16
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
4.6.5.9 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. PSE’s Proposed Alignment follows the route of the Renton
Segment as evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS but includes refined design details for pole types and
placement.
Sierra Heights Park: Three pairs of H-frames are currently located in the park. The H-frame
structure in the north part of the park would be replaced with two approximately 95-foot tall
poles, and the other two would be replaced with two approximately 50-foot tall poles at each pole
site. There would be a total of six poles in the park. The 50-foot pole pairs are used in this
location to cross underneath the SCL poles and wires. The SCL poles and wires that also cross
the park would not be changed. This is different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS, which evaluated 85-foot and 100-foot poles at this location (see Section 3.6 in the Phase 2
Draft EIS for details). 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐17
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
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.
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 (four poles) would be replaced with two
approximately 95-foot tall poles. The poles would be taller, but there would be fewer poles than
existing conditions. This is different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which
evaluated one 100-foot tall monopole at this location. 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 approximately 100-foot tall monopole, with two poles located
within the natural area. This is different than the design evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, which
evaluated four 100-monopoles poles 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.6‐18
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
4.6.6 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.
4.6.6.1 Regulatory Requirements
None of the Partner Cities have regulations that would require mitigation of project-related impacts
to recreational resources.
Prior to Construction
Avoid placement of infrastructure within or adjacent to recreation sites where there is none
currently to the extent possible.
4.6.6.2 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
Use vegetation outside of any area required to be cleared to screen poles and wires where
transmission infrastructure is placed within a recreation site.
Work with each Partner City to determine mitigation for tree removal within recreation sites
in its jurisdiction.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
Updated the analysis to
reflect PSE’s Proposed
Alignment.
Added analysis of the new
Newcastle Segment, Option
2.
Revised the analysis of
potential impacts to historic
resources based on refined
design details, such as pole
height and placement (and
associated distance to
existing resources).
4.7 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts to known and probable historic and
cultural resources in the study area. See Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2
of the Phase 2 Draft EIS for a discussion of the methodology for
the analysis and a description of the affected environment.
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.”
4.7.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Since publication of the Phase 2 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, and Renton, or unincorporated King County. Relevant historic
registers are the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Washington Heritage Register (WHR),
Washington Heritage Barn Register (WHBR), and King County Local Landmarks List (KC
Landmarks). Resources listed on the NRHP, WHR, and WHBR are managed by the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). Resources on the KC
Landmarks register are managed jointly by King County Historic Preservation Program and the cities
where the resources are located. For more details, see Section 3.7.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
PSE’s cultural resources consulting firm (Historical Research Associates, Inc.) completed a historic
property survey for the project and is currently in the process of submitting the resulting historic
property inventory forms and associated report to DAHP. DAHP will review the results and provide
eligibility determinations. As of this writing (January 2018), DAHP has not made eligibility
determinations for these resources.
PSE is conducting a cultural resources pedestrian and subsurface survey in two phases. The first
phase began on August 24, 2017. The first phase includes subsurface shovel probes at specific
proposed pole locations; the majority of this has been completed with some exceptions due to
property access. The second phase will survey staging areas, laydown areas, stringing sites, and
access roads once PSE has more information on these locations. As of this writing, the second survey
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
has not begun. PSE initiated consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
with DAHP, the City of Redmond, King County Historic Preservation Program, Duwamish Tribe,
Muckleshoot Tribe, Snoqualmie Nation, Stillaguamish Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes
via letter on June 21, 2017. The consultation letters define the Area of Potential Effect for locations
where a Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required. They
acknowledge that a separate EIS is being prepared for the project under SEPA. They also state that
PSE sent project notification letters in April 2017 to “agencies, potentially interested parties, and
Native American Tribes including: DAHP, King County Historic Preservation Program, and
municipal governments.” Copies of these documents are provided in Appendix G.
4.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources in the Study Area
The study area for historic and cultural resources has a high sensitivity for containing unevaluated
historic cultural resources, based on an analysis of published ethnographies, local histories, historical
maps, and the Statewide Predictive Model (see Phase 2 Draft EIS, Figure 4.7-2). There is a recorded
archaeological site within 2 miles of the Redmond Segment that dates to the earliest known time
period of human occupation in the region.
For the identification of significant historic resources and protected archaeological resources, the
study area for the Final EIS includes all resources within 0.5 mile of PSE’s Proposed Alignment (see
Figure 4.7-1). The study area contains one protected archaeological site (the Columbia & Puget
Sound Railroad), five significant historic resources (resources that are either historic register-listed,
recommended eligible for listing, or determined eligible for listing in a historic register), and
hundreds of unevaluated historic resources (see Figure 4.7-1). The five significant historic resources
are:
Eastside Transmission System (recommended eligible for listing in a historic register).
Twin Valley Dairy Barn/Kelsey Creek Farm (listed in a historic register).
Somerset Neighborhood (recommended eligible for listing in a historic register).
Newcastle Cemetery (listed in a historic register).
Mt. Olivet Cemetery (recommended eligible for listing in a historic register).
For detailed descriptions of these resources, see Section 3.7.2, Historic and Cultural Resources in the
Study Area, of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; HRA, 2016.
Figure 4.7-1. Study Area for Historic and Cultural Resources
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐4
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
4.7.3 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.
4.7.3.1 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.
4.7.3.2 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 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).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
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.
4.7.4 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 most 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 (as described in more detail in Section 3.7.2.1 of
the Phase 2 Draft EIS). 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.
4.7.5 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
4.7.5.1 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 wooden 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 or two steel monopoles
(see Section 2.1.2.2, and Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Poles would be replaced in generally the same location
as the existing poles (i.e., within 25 feet up or down the line). The visual appearance of the
infrastructure would be different than existing conditions, as the poles would be taller and made of
steel instead of wood.
PSE’s Proposed Alignment 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. 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. In PSE’s Proposed Alignment,
all of the existing H-frame structures would be removed; this would have significant impacts to the
Eastside Transmission System, if impacts cannot be mitigated. PSE is evaluating this resource as part
of a historic property inventory and will request an eligibility determination from DAHP. If
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 study area. In the Newcastle Segment (both Option 1 and Option
2), poles would be constructed approximately 60 feet southwest and 320 feet northwest of the
Newcastle Cemetery parcel boundaries. In the Renton Segment, poles would be constructed
approximately 890 feet southeast and 1,000 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 PSE’s Proposed Alignment 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. Impacts to unevaluated historic resources will be known when
the historic property inventory is completed and eligibility concurrence is determined by DAHP,
which is not 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 479 unique unevaluated
historic resources within PSE’s Proposed Alignment 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 in the Phase 2
Draft EIS).
All segments and options in PSE’s Proposed Alignment 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. In all segments and options, ground disturbance
would occur 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 the removal
and replanting of vegetation also has the potential to disturb archaeological sites.
With one exception described below in the Redmond Segment, 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, the
northern terminus of the Redmond Segment is situated on a Holocene-aged landform with a higher
sensitivity for archaeological resources.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following pages summarize the potential impacts on historic and cultural resources for PSE’s
Proposed Alignment, presented for the Richards Creek substation and by segment. For the Redmond,
Bellevue North, Bellevue Central, and Renton Segments, the analysis included a review of refined
project design details for PSE’s Proposed Alignment, with results revised relative to the Phase 2
Draft EIS to reflect the new information. For these segments, the new information and analysis have
not altered the conclusions presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS regarding significant impacts on
historic and cultural resources.
For the Richards Creek substation site and the Bellevue South and Newcastle Segments, the analysis
included a review of the project design as presented in the permit applications submitted to Bellevue
and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b and 2017c, respectively).
No new historic and cultural resources have been recorded in the study area since completion of the
Phase 2 Draft EIS. The more detailed information in the permit applications on pole locations and
vegetation clearing does not show work occurring within the boundaries of any recorded
archaeological site. It is assumed that PSE is providing its subconsultant, HRA, with the information
in the permit applications so that the subsurface archaeological resources survey addresses the
current design. The conclusions regarding significant impacts on historic and cultural resources are
the same as presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.5.2 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.5.3 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 due to being a
Holocene-aged landform and within 2 miles of an archaeological site that dates to the earliest
known time period of human occupation in the region. For example, ground disturbance could
destroy the depositional integrity of an archaeological site, which is non-renewable.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐10
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.5.4 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐11
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.5.5 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue Central Segment follows the route of the Existing
Corridor Option as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and
placement. In the Bellevue Central Segment, 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
Avenue 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 segment.
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 segment.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.5.6 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue South Segment follows the route of the Willow 1 Option
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and placement. In the
Bellevue South Segment, the project would replace existing H-frame structures of the Eastside
Transmission System with steel monopoles and would cross through the Somerset neighborhood.
Poles within this potential historic district would be replaced with taller poles. Proposed poles would
have a typical height of 85 feet and maximum height of 109 feet (slightly shorter than those
described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS). No protected archaeological sites are known to be at or adjacent
to the Bellevue South Segment.
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.
Somerset Neighborhood
Unevaluated Historic Resources: There are 125 unevaluated historic resources along this
segment. 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 segment.
Based on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.5.7 Newcastle Segment – Option 1 (No Code Variance)
Both options in the Newcastle Segment propose revised pole locations that are farther from the
Newcastle Cemetery. In the Newcastle Segment, Option 1, the proposed poles would be the same
height as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, while Option 2 proposes slightly shorter poles.
In the Newcastle Segment, Option 1, 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 320 feet northwest and 60 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 option.
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 option. Based
on geology and soils conditions, the sensitivity for archaeological resources is very low, except
as noted around the Newcastle Cemetery.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.5.8 Newcastle Segment – Option 2 (Code Variance)
In the Newcastle Segment, Option 2, the project would replace existing H-frame structures of the
Eastside Transmission System, using poles with a typical height of 82 feet and a maximum height of
97 feet (slightly shorter than the poles in Option 1). The Newcastle Cemetery is listed on the WHR
and is a KC Landmark, and poles are proposed within approximately 320 feet northwest and 60 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.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.5.9 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 890 feet southeast and 1,000 feet southeast of Mt. Olivet Cemetery, and
approximately 250 feet northwest and 230 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐16
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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. Proposed pole locations do not extend into the valley floors and as such, are
outside of the very high sensitivity areas.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐17
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.7.6 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, King County Historic
Preservation Program (KCHPP), and any other stakeholders. Such potential mitigation measures can
be adopted voluntarily by the applicant or imposed as conditions by the jurisdictions as part of the
permit process. These would need to be implemented prior to and during construction of the project.
Typically, mitigation measures are designed 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.
4.7.6.1 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).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐18
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
4.7.6.2 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.
No mitigation measures have been identified to date. PSE initiated consultation under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act with DAHP, the City of Redmond, King County Historic
Preservation Program, Duwamish Tribe, Muckleshoot Tribe, Snoqualmie Nation, Stillaguamish
Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes via letter on June 21, 2017. The consultation letters
define the Area of Potential Effect for locations where a Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers will be required. They acknowledge that a separate EIS is being prepared for the project
under SEPA. They also state that PSE sent project notification letters in April 2017 to “agencies,
potentially interested parties, and Native American Tribes including: DAHP, King County Historic
Preservation Program, and municipal governments.” Copies of these documents are provided in
Appendix G. PSE states that the Snoqualmie Nation Cultural Resources Department has expressed
interest in participating in cultural resources survey fieldwork, as able.
Prior to Construction
Conduct a historic property inventory (field work is complete; resulting forms and associated
report are being submitted to DAHP for review).
Conduct archaeological resource surveys for the selected route that include subsurface testing
(pedestrian and subsurface survey of the 16-mile alignment and specific proposed pole
locations began in August 2017 and is still ongoing as of this writing [January 2018]; PSE
will conduct a second pedestrian and subsurface survey to assess staging areas, laydown
areas, stringing sites, and access roads once more information on these locations is available;
as of this writing, this has not started).
Prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) for the project and discuss the IDP during pre-
construction meeting(s).
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)).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.7‐19
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
The EMF analysis was revised
to show magnetic field values
associated with PSE’s
Proposed Alignment.
Calculated magnetic field
values are below the magnetic
field values presented in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS, and well
below reference guidelines.
4.8 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 Phase 1 Draft EIS describes typical magnetic
field levels associated with overhead and underground
transmission lines for the Energize Eastside project and provides
a detailed discussion of environmental health studies related to
EMF. The Phase 2 Draft EIS describes magnetic field values for
representative areas along the segment and option routes. This
Final EIS section presents magnetic field values associated with
PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
The methodology for the Final EIS assessment is the same as the
assessment described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS; the study area is the area immediately under and
adjacent to the transmission lines, including areas within 250 feet from the centerline of the
transmission line corridor, consistent with the study area used by Power Engineers (2017a) (Figure
4.8-1) (also see the Methods for Studying the Affected Environment, to the right). 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.
4.8.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Policies adopted by the Cities of Bellevue and Redmond addressing EMF exposure are described in
both the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Section 8.2.3) and the Phase 2 Draft EIS (Section 3.8). Section 8.2.3 of
the Phase 1 Draft EIS also identifies the only two states in the U.S. (Florida and New York) that have
enacted their own standards for magnetic fields from overhead transmission line (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.
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).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐2 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF Redmond Segment Bellevue North SegmentSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 4.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐3 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)Sources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 4.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis (continued)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐4 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF Newcastle Segment, Option 1 and Option 2 Renton SegmentSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 4.8-1. Study Area for the EMF Analysis (continued)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
There are reference 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 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 Table 4.8-1 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).
Table 4.8-1. 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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 as a result of the project,
PSE retained Power Engineers to
calculate existing magnetic fields
at locations along the
transmission line corridor (Power
Engineers, 2017a and 2017b).
Methodologies used by Power
Engineers were reviewed by the
EIS Consultant Team to verify
compliance with industry
standards (Enertech Consultants,
2017).
4.8.2 Magnetic Fields in the Study Area
The existing magnetic field values within the study area are described
in Section 3.8.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Section 3.8.2 also identifies
unique sites, such as schools and recreation facilities, within the study
area and describes the relationship between land uses and the length of
exposure to magnetic fields. The information in Section 3.8.2 has not
changed since publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS and is incorporated
in the Final EIS by reference with one exception: an error regarding
the reason for higher magnetic field values in Renton compared to the
rest of the existing transmission line corridor has been corrected in
Chapter 3, Errata, of this Final EIS.
4.8.3 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 PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
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 PSE’s Proposed
Alignment.
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 PSE’s Proposed
Alignment (Power Engineers, 2017b).
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 PSE’s Proposed
Alignment 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 PSE’s Proposed Alignment because loads for PSE’s Proposed Alignment
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).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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, 2017a, 2017b). 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, 2017).
Magnetic field levels for PSE’s
Proposed Alignment 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.
Magnetic fields from electrical equipment at the Richards
Creek substation were not evaluated for the Final EIS
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 located within the substation (EPRI,
2005).
4.8.3.1 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.
4.8.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action
Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, PSE would continue to
operate its 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). The load south of
the Lakeside substation in winter peak periods is expected to be 6 to 8 times higher than the load
north of the Lakeside substation in winter peak periods, resulting in a corresponding magnitude of
difference in magnetic field values, as presented below.
Table 4.8-2 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
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 reference guidelines (Power Engineers, 2017a). 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 (in particular, Section 8.6.2).
Table 4.8-2. 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 71 27 47 18
Bellevue South 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, 2017a.
4.8.5 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
4.8.5.1 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. For a discussion on
pole type and configuration, see Chapter 2 of this Final EIS. As discussed, 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). For this reason, the expected magnetic field levels are considerably less than
those presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, as described in greater detail below.
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,
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
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.
Each segment of PSE’s Proposed Alignment is presented in the following pages, which show the
magnetic field levels as bar graphs for the 35 representative locations where calculations were
performed. The representative locations presented are the same as what were presented in the Phase 2
Draft EIS. The magnetic field level numbers in the Final EIS are different from the Phase 2 Draft
EIS. The Final EIS magnetic field level numbers reflect calculations with both transmission lines
operating at 230 kV, rather than one line at 230 kV and one line at 115 kV.
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
PSE’s Proposed Alignment. The magnetic field values would generally drop below 5 mG toward the
outermost edge of the study area. (See the Power Engineers report dated March 7, 2017 for graphs
that depict the magnetic field levels as a function of distance. These graphs represent the segment and
options presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS which represent higher mG levels than PSE’s Proposed
Alignment). 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 for
PSE’s Proposed Alignment relative to the No Action Alternative. 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 2-2).
The proposed poles also 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.
PSE’s Proposed Alignment 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. The calculated magnetic field levels
would be substantially less than the reference guidelines and avoid known health effects, and
therefore are consistent with Bellevue and Redmond policies.
As discussed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, there are no known health effects from power frequency EMF
at the levels expected from the No Action Alternative or PSE’s Proposed Alignment. For all
segments and options in PSE’s Proposed Alignment, the calculated magnetic field levels would be at
least 1,900 mG below the lowest reference guideline for magnetic field exposure for the general
public (Power Engineers, 2017a)3. This includes all of the unique sites listed in Table 4.8-4 of the
3 The highest calculated magnetic field level for the Proposed Alignment would be 65 mG (see Newcastle Segment).
The lowest reference guideline established for general public exposure to magnetic fields is 2,000 mG.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐10
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
Phase 2 Draft EIS that are near PSE’s Proposed Alignment (see Appendix H for a map of unique
sites). Therefore, for all segments and options under PSE’s Proposed Alignment, impacts would be
less-than-significant. Please refer to Chapter 8 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS for the complete discussion.
4.8.5.2 Redmond Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under PSE’s Proposed
Alignment in the Redmond Segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project
along the Redmond Segment would be well below reference guidelines; therefore, impacts would be
less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐11
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
4.8.5.3 Bellevue North Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under PSE’s Proposed
Alignment in the Bellevue North Segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the
project along the Bellevue North Segment would be well below reference guidelines; therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
4.8.5.4 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue Central Segment follows the route of the Existing
Corridor Option as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and
placement. Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under PSE’s
Proposed Alignment in the Bellevue Central Segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated
by the project along the Bellevue Central Segment would be well below reference guidelines;
therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
4.8.5.5 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue South Segment follows the route of the Willow 1 Option
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and placement.
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under PSE’s Proposed
Alignment in the Bellevue South Segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the
project along the Bellevue South Segment would be well below reference guidelines; therefore,
impacts would be less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
4.8.5.6 Newcastle Segment – Option 1 (No Code Variance)
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under PSE’s Proposed
Alignment in the Newcastle Segment, Option 1. Calculated magnetic field values presented below
represent a 230 kV/115 kV configuration based on Alternative 1 presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Therefore, the values that are presented are higher than what would be generated by PSE’s Proposed
Alignment, which has a cancellation effect because both lines would operate under a 230kV. Even
with these higher magnetic field levels generated by the project along the Newcastle Segment,
Option 1 would be well below reference guidelines; therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
4.8.5.7 Newcastle Segment – Option 2 (Code Variance)
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under PSE’s Proposed
Alignment in the Newcastle Segment, Option 2. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by
the project along the Newcastle Segment, Option 2 would be well below reference guidelines;
therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant. Option 2 has magnetic field values that are lower
than Option 1 because the values presented here reflect the cancellation effect associated with both
lines operating at 230kV.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐16
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
4.8.5.8 Renton Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, magnetic field levels would decrease under PSE’s Proposed
Alignment in the Renton Segment. The calculated magnetic field levels generated by the project
along the Renton Segment would be well below reference guidelines; therefore, impacts would be
less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.8‐17
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – EMF
4.8.6 Mitigation Measures
No adverse impacts from magnetic fields are expected.
If radio frequency interference is found, PSE would de-tune pole structures by installing hardware
(such as arresters).
Mitigation for potential corrosion of the pipeline is discussed in Section 4.9.8, 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, as discussed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS (Section 3.8.5.1) (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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
The results of the pipeline safety
risk assessment completed for
the Phase 2 Draft EIS apply
equally to PSE’s Proposed
Alignment and all other build
alternatives. They likely overstate
the potential risks associated
with PSE’s Proposed Alignment
due to the incorporation of
recommendations included in the
DNV GL report (2016), and
additional measures
recommended as part of
Stantec’s independent technical
review of the DNV GL report.
Therefore, the risk assessment
results are not repeated in the
Final EIS. This section reflects
the changes incorporated in
PSE’s Proposed Alignment to
minimize electrical interference,
and further discussion has been
included to illustrate the range of
possibilities for a pipeline release,
including a comparison of
potential impacts by segment.
4.9 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. The analysis in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS included the following two components:
1. Risk assessment results
2. Long-term impacts on resources
The Phase 2 Draft EIS presented the results of a
probabilistic pipeline risk assessment conducted by EDM
Services, a firm specializing in pipeline safety, on the
existing corridor and on the proposed 230 kV corridor. The
risk assessment evaluated what could go wrong (causes of
pipeline incidents), how likely those are to occur
(probability of incidents), and what the consequences could
be (estimated human fatalities) if there were an
unintentional release from the pipelines. 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), were
considered in the risk assessment. The EIS Consultant
Team retained Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) to
perform an independent technical review of the AC
Interference Study completed by DNV GL. Based on
Stantec's experience and industry standards, it is their
opinion that the technical approach used to achieve an
optimal transmission line route and powerline conductor
configuration to minimize the AC interference risks on the
Olympic Pipeline system is consistent with industry
practice. However, Stantec recommended that additional
analysis be performed in the detailed design stage of the
project to verify mitigation needs for the project prior to
transmission line energization (Stantec, 2017). These
measures were incorporated into Section 3.9.7.2 of the
Phase 2 Draft EIS.
In addition to measures incorporated into alternatives
evaluated during the Phase 2 Draft EIS, PSE's Proposed Alignment as analyzed in the Final EIS
incorporates the full set of recommendations included in the DNV GL report to reduce and control
the risk of electrical interference to the pipelines. These include initially operating both lines at 230
kV rather than 230/115 kV, minimizing points of pipeline and transmission line divergence, using a
delta conductor configuration, and locating poles and pole grounds at least 13 feet away from the
pipeline(s). In addition to these design features, the Final EIS includes additional measures related to
minimizing arcing risk. Because these changes would reduce electrical interference risks, no
additional risk assessment was conducted for PSE’s Proposed Alignment. Therefore, the full risk
assessment results presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS are not repeated in this Final EIS but are
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
incorporated by reference. The pipeline safety analysis presented in this Final EIS describes how
PSE’s Proposed Alignment relates to the risk assessment conducted for the Phase 2 Draft EIS. In
response to comments received on the Phase 2 Draft EIS, additional qualitative discussion of possible
release scenarios resulting from a pipeline leak has been included in Section 4.9.6 in the Final EIS.
Comments received on the analysis, and responses from the Partner Cites and the EIS Consultant
Team, are included in Chapter 6, Appendix K, and Chapter 3 (Errata).
The Phase 2 Draft EIS describes long-term impacts to resources in the event of a pipeline incident
related to the project, presented as a general overview by element of the environment. In response to
comments on the Phase 2 Draft EIS, this Final EIS includes Section 4.9.7, Impact Comparison by
Segment, describing the general conditions in each segment that could affect the extent of a fire
resulting from a large spill as well as the resources that could be affected.
As described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, one or both of the two petroleum pipelines (part of the
Olympic Pipeline system) are generally 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 (see Figure 4.9-1). There are risks associated with pipelines that are independent of the
presence of transmission lines, and there are risks related to the presence of transmission lines
(electrical interference). The focus of the analysis is the incremental change in risk from the baseline
condition (No Action Alternative, or existing 115 kV corridor with the existing pipelines) and PSE’s
Proposed Alignment, also co-located with the existing pipelines (referred in this section also as the
proposed 230 kV corridor).
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 (as defined in Section
4.9.2, below). The potential magnitude of such an event, if it did occur, would be the same regardless
of whether 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 4.9 along with a
description of the operational concerns for the Energize Eastside project that affect pipeline safety.
Section 5.9 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.
4.9.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
As described in both the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Section 8.2) and the Phase 2 Draft EIS (Section 3.9.1),
environmental health and safety issues related to pipeline safety are regulated at federal, state, and
local levels. Appendix I-6 lists and summarizes the applicable laws and regulations addressing
pipeline safety. Federal and state regulations apply to the operation of existing pipelines. Local
regulations establish structure setbacks from hazardous liquid pipeline corridors. The regulations
identified below apply to the Olympic Pipeline system located in the transmission line corridor.
Under federal and state law, the Olympic Pipe Line Company (Olympic), as the pipeline operator, is
responsible for the safety of its pipelines in compliance with these federal and state safety
requirements.
For PSE, national and state standards, codes, and regulations and industry guidelines govern the
design, installation, and operation of transmission lines and associated equipment (see Section
4.9.8.1). For a detailed summary of the major pipeline safety regulations, see Section 3.9.1 of the
Phase 2 Draft EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.2 Pipelines in the Study Area
4.9.2.1 Study Area Characteristics
The study area for pipeline safety focuses on the area potentially affected by an Olympic Pipeline
system leak or fire caused by the construction or operation of the Energize Eastside project. The
study area for this analysis is PSE’s existing corridor and the surrounding area including human
populations, urban environment, and natural resources that could be affected by an incident.
4.9.2.2 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. The Olympic Pipeline system transports refined petroleum products, including
diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline. It connects four refineries in northwest 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, 2017a). 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.
Olympic has also been communicating with the EIS Consultant Team to provide information
necessary in the preparation of the EIS, to the degree it is able to release information.
Buried hazardous liquids pipeline, similar to the Olympic
Pipeline system
Pipeline warning sign in the project corridor
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐4 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Redmond Segment Bellevue North Segment Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; UTC, 2015. Figure 4.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐5 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option) Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option) Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; UTC, 2015. Figure 4.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area (continued)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐6 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY Newcastle Segment (Both Options) Renton Segment Source: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014; PSE, 2015; SCL, 2015; UTC, 2015. Figure 4.9-1. Existing Electric Transmission Lines and Natural Gas/Petroleum Pipelines in the Study Area (continued)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
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 generally co-located with PSE’s transmission line
within all of the segments, although in the Renton Segment it is only co-located in the north part of
the segment and crosses the pipeline once in south portion of the segment (Figure 4.9-1). The
transmission line corridor predates the pipeline by approximately three decades. 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, only one of the pipelines (16-inch) is along PSE’s existing corridor.
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 its pipelines in
accordance with or to exceed U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA) 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 and external 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 pipeline 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). In addition to the inspections, Olympic conducts cathodic protection testing, voltage testing,
and close interval survey testing at frequencies that meet or exceed regulatory interval requirements
(Olympic, 2017b).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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 4.9.4 (and in Section 3.9.3.3 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS). Additional
information is provided in Appendix I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, Pipeline Safety Technical Report
(EDM Services, 2017).
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 in accordance with state and
federal requirements for pipeline leak detection. If an unexpected loss of pressure is detected, block
valves will close off each affected pipeline segment. The control center analyzes pressure differential
on either side of a block valve to isolate the location of the leak. Olympic personnel will then be
dispatched to the area for visual inspection (Olympic, 2017a).
General Construction Requirements. Olympic has a general list of requirements as part of BP
Pipelines (North America) General Construction Requirements (BP and Olympic, 2016) for all work
proposed near the pipelines (see Appendix I-2). 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 (non-Olympic) utility lines underground
within the pipeline easement. It also includes specific notification and monitoring requirements,
consistent with federal, state, and local requirements.
Protections in Place to Prepare for and Respond to an Incident
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). As the
pipeline operator, Olympic is required to maintain an oil spill contingency plan under state and
federal law that provides guidelines to prepare for and respond to a spill from its system. Olympic’s
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. For security reasons, this document is not
publicly available.
Olympic’s emergency response plans address a variety of scenarios and involve coordination with
federal, state, and local agencies and first responders. Olympic’s response plans involve spill
isolation, containment, and remediation, with the goals of protecting the environment and the
public’s health, safety, welfare, and property. The unique circumstances surrounding an event that
results in pipeline damage or a leak would dictate the appropriate scale and type of response.
Olympic regularly participates in emergency response exercises in coordination with local
responders. Olympic conducts annual deployment and worst-case drills for each portion of its
pipeline system, and invites members of affected local responders to participate. Olympic also
periodically participates in drills conducted by local responders (Olympic, 2017a).
As described in Chapter 15 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS (Section 15.3.1.3), 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, City of Renton, and King
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Incident Data
The baseline data used for the
risk assessment are described in
Sections 3.9.3 and 3.9.4 of the
Phase 2 Draft EIS, and include
information on the frequency,
major causes, and major risks
associated with pipeline releases.
The primary source of baseline
data used for the risk
assessment is reported
unintentional release incidents (in
the PHMSA database) for
hazardous liquid pipelines from
the most recent data range under
current rules (PHMSA, 2016).
Section 3.9.3 of the Phase 2
Draft EIS also includes data on
releases from the Olympic
Pipeline system provided by the
PHMSA incident database for
hazardous liquid pipeline
releases and Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission
(UTC) inspection report data for
Olympic’s facilities in Washington
State for the years 2012 through
2016 (UTC, 2017). Neither the
reason for using these data nor
the information presented has
changed since the publication of
the Phase 2 Draft EIS and is
incorporated by reference in the
Final EIS.
County recently acquired an emergency notification system (referred to, respectively, as Bellevue
Inform, ALERT Renton, and 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).
Chapter 15 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS provides additional
information on emergency response procedures of local
jurisdictions within the corridor.
4.9.3 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 of
incidents), external corrosion (22 percent), outside
force/excavation (20 percent), and material failure (17
percent). Figure 4.9-2 shows the distribution of these incidents
by cause. Figure 4.9-3 shows the volume (barrels) of reported
incidents by cause. This is the same information as presented
in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐10
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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 4.9-2. Number of Reported Pipeline Incidents by Cause, 2010–2015
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐11
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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 4.9-3. Average Volume (Barrels) Per Incident 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 a pipeline could 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 5.9 of
the Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
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
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, Rose Hill, Lakeside,
Somerset, and Talbot Hill substations. Electrical interference can
occur during normal high voltage AC transmission line (steady-
state) 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. Fault conditions can
result in damage to the pipeline coating or directly to the pipeline
itself.
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.
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 4.9-4). Throughout the study area, the Olympic Pipeline
system is 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 pipelines with a connection to a
source of electric direct current (DC) to drive the protective
electrochemical reaction.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Representative photograph from PHMSA report
showing hole in a pipe wall caused by electrical fault
(not Olympic Pipeline system)
Figure 4.9-4. 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 Pipeline system has 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 on the
pipeline coming from the transmission lines (coating stress voltage).
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 4.9-5). 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 Pipeline system, such as exterior coating, the existing
transmission lines do not have a shield wire.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
Figure 4.9-5. Shield Wire
Arc Damage. High currents from a fault condition can cause arcing damage to a 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 a pipeline is within the arc
distance of transmission line poles, pole grounds (and sometimes ground wires or other grounding
systems) are typically installed to provide adequate separation between the transmission line and the
pipelines.
Additional information on external corrosion is provided in Appendix I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS
(AC Interference Study [DNV GL, 2016]).
4.9.4 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. For descriptions of the
pipeline product characteristics, see Section 3.9.4 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Depending on these
characteristics and conditions, pipeline releases can result in a pool fire, flash fire, or explosion,
which are clarified below from the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
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).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
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 water
body, pool fire
characteristics were
different than the depiction
in Figure 4.9-6. See the
discussion in Section 4.9.7
for characteristics of each
segment that could
contribute to the spread of
a pool fire.
EDM Services (2017) used a number of reasonable assumptions and
data inputs, including the estimated release rate and pipe contents of
the Olympic Pipeline system, to model a release and subsequent pool
fire as described in Sections 7.1 and 8.3 of their report (see Appendix
I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS). Based on these inputs, EDM Services
estimated the following maximum release volume: 372,162 gallons.
Figure 4.9-6 is a schematic representation of the estimated pool fire
size based on the maximum release volume (yellow circle) and the
resulting heat flux zones. For this conceptual representation, 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 and could result in injury or property damage but
typically would not result in fatalities due to the fire.
For the modeled release volume, 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 schematic figure is a simplistic representation and does not show site-specific conditions. For
example, this figure is presented for flat terrain and illustrates a release where no hills, water bodies,
or catch basins are present. If sloping terrain, water bodies, catch
basins, or impervious surfaces were present, the pipe contents could
flow away from the site of the release and form a pool some distance
from the pipeline, or the pool may be elongated instead of round, or
the pool area might be smaller or larger. In sloping terrain, a pool
may not form at all due to evaporation and percolation as the fluid
flows away from the release site. 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.
The schematic represents the calculated heat flux endpoints that were
used by EDM Services to estimate potential fatalities for the pipeline
risk assessment. Although the pool fire and heat flux areas could be
larger under variable or site-specific conditions, this diagram provided the basis for calculating the
number of potential fatalities assuming a worst-case release volume, and informed the risk
assessment results presented in Section 3.9.5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Additional information on
how pool fire size was estimated is included in Section 7.1 of Appendix I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
As acknowledged in Section 7.1, there are literally thousands of possible pool size configuration
scenarios based on local conditions. In response to comments received on the Phase 2 Draft EIS,
additional qualitative discussion of possible scenarios in the communities along the corridor has been
included in Section 4.9.7, Impact Comparison by Segment, of the Final EIS. They all result in
potential fatalities under a worst-case release.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐16
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Note: This diagram is meant to be a conceptual representation of where released pipe contents would spread (or
pool) and result in a fire (if an ignition source is present) if the terrain at the spill site is flat and no water bodies or
catch basins are present. This diagram does not show site-specific conditions. See Sections 7.1 and 8.3 of the EDM
Services report in Appendix I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS for more information on assumptions and data inputs used
to develop this diagram.
Source: EDM Services, 2017.
Figure 4.9-6. Typical Pool Fire and Heat Flux Areas Diagram
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐17
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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-5 of the Phase 2 Draft
EIS) 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 the probability of a potential
leak or fire. Estimated existing
pipeline safety risk was then
compared to estimated pipeline
safety risk with the new 230 kV
corridor.
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 Pipeline system 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). Although this level is sufficient to result in window breakage, it
is not high enough to pose potentially fatal risks to the public. Outdoors, an explosion overpressure
level of 2.4 pounds per square inch is necessary to cause mortality for 1 percent of an exposed
population. As a result of the low estimated peak overpressure level in the project corridor,
explosions are not described further in the EIS. For additional information on explosions, see the
Pipeline Safety Technical Report (Appendix I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS).
In response to comments received on the Phase 2 Draft EIS, it is acknowledged that specific release
scenarios could result in an explosion. EDM modeled release scenarios based on the releases
occurring on flat terrain and with no catch basins, storm drain,
culverts, or other man-made conveyances present. If refined
petroleum product were to flow into a storm drain or other pipe
where the atmosphere was confined, then an explosion could
result due to the confinement. A deeply incised creek bed might
also be sufficient to provide adequate confinement to pose
some explosion risk to humans.
4.9.5 Risks During Operation
As described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, there are risks associated
with the Olympic Pipeline system that are independent of the
presence of transmission lines within the corridor. If one or
both of the pipelines were damaged, 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. The presence of
transmission lines in the corridor could increase the risk of this
occurring as a result of electrical interference, which is the
focus of this analysis.
To quantify this risk for the Phase 2 Draft EIS, EDM Services
conducted a probabilistic pipeline risk assessment for the
following conditions:
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐18
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Individual Risk
Annual probability of fatality
resulting from a pipeline
failure and release for an
individual, at a specific
location.
Societal Risk
The annual probability that a
specified number of people
will be affected by a given
pipeline release event.
Olympic Pipelines Co-located with Existing Transmission Lines (No Action, or existing 115
kV corridor).
Olympic Pipelines Co-located with Proposed Transmission Lines (Alternative 1 as evaluated
in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, or the proposed 230 kV corridor).
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.
Section 3.9.4 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS included detailed descriptions of the pipeline safety risk
assessment and methodology, including risk assessment steps, discussion of limitations of the
baseline data, and risk terminology definitions. These descriptions have not changed since the
publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS and are incorporated by reference in the Final EIS. Additional
information on the risk assessment can be found in Appendix I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, Pipeline
Safety Technical Report (EDM Services, 2017).
The risk assessment conducted by EDM estimated the potential risk
of human fatalities occurring as a result of a pipeline leak and pool
fire. The risk assessment was not a comprehensive assessment of
specific risks in specific communities or locations along the
corridor. It estimated the probability of a catastrophic release from
the pipelines over the length of the co-located pipelines (for
estimates of Individual Risk) and along a sample 1-mile segment of
the pipelines (for estimates of Societal Risk). It described this in a
manner commonly used for pipeline risk assessments, taking into
account the quantity and characteristics of the fuel that could be
released in a single event, as well as population density along the
corridor. Given the variations in population, land cover, and
topography, there are countless variations of circumstances in which
releases could occur.
The discussion of impacts presented in the Final EIS provides the same information included in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS, but has been revised to focus on PSE’s Proposed Alignment. PSE's Proposed
Alignment as presented in the Final EIS incorporates the recommendations included in the DNV GL
report to reduce and control the risk of electrical interference to the pipelines. These include initially
operating both lines at 230 kV rather than 230/115 kV, minimizing points of pipeline and
transmission line divergence, using a delta (triangular) conductor configuration, and locating pole
grounds away from the pipeline(s). Because electrical interference risks would be reduced, no
additional risk assessment was conducted for PSE’s Proposed Alignment. The pipeline safety risk
under PSE’s Proposed Alignment would be expected to be no greater (and likely less) than the
estimated pipeline safety risk under Alternative 1 in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐19
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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. For the pipeline risk
assessment, 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. To estimate the
maximum, or worst-case
incremental change in risk from the
No Action Alternative to the
proposed 230 kV corridor, 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 possibly
overstating the actual difference
in risk between the No Action
Alternative and PSE’s Proposed
Alignment.
4.9.5.1 Magnitude of Impact
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 a 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.
4.9.5.2 Risk Assessment Results
The results of the risk assessment conducted for the Phase 2
Draft EIS remain relevant for PSE’s Proposed Alignment,
and likely overstate the potential risks associated with
PSE’s Proposed Alignment. This is due to the incorporation
of recommendations included in the DNV GL report into
the proposed project. Therefore, the risk assessment results
presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS still apply to PSE’s
Proposed Alignment and are incorporated by reference in
the Final EIS.
4.9.5.3 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 115 kV corridor are associated with refined petroleum
products that are currently transported in the Olympic Pipeline system. 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, flash fire, or explosion. Safety risks related to outside
force/excavation are addressed in Section 5.9 of this Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐20
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
As described in Section 3.9.5.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, 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 above in Section
4.9.4 of this Final EIS. The estimated incident frequencies (or estimated incidents per 1,000 mile
years) for individuals (individual risk) and groups of people (societal risk) are presented in Section
3.9.5.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
External Corrosion. As described in the AC Interference Study (DNV GL, 2016), AC current
density levels less than 20 amps per square meter do not cause AC-induced corrosion, and the
corrosion impacts arising from AC current density levels above 20 amps per square meter are
difficult to accurately predict (i.e., they are unpredictable). 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. These include a location in Somerset where the 16-inch pipeline diverges from the
transmission line corridor, and a location near the Lake Hills Connector where the 20-inch pipeline
crosses from the east side of the corridor to the west side. Typically, peaks in theoretical AC current
density occur at points of divergence between a transmission line and a pipeline. The current
densities in these areas are estimated to range from 22 to 35 amps per square meter. The incident
frequencies presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS employ worst-case assumptions about the length of
pipeline affected and the duration of peak winter voltages. Winter peak loading scenarios represent
the maximum current loading scenarios expected on the transmission lines, scenarios expected to be
limited to 1 week or less per year.
Fault Damage. When the risk assessment was completed for the Phase 2 Draft EIS, no data were
available from Olympic to estimate the coating stress voltages on the existing Olympic Pipeline
system within the existing 115 kV corridor. As a result, the existing pipelines were assumed to have
the same coating stress voltages and potential for coating stress-caused pipeline releases as for the
proposed 230 kV lines. See Section 4.9.5.4 of this Final EIS (PSE’s Proposed Alignment) for
information on fault damage. Using this assumption in the risk assessment calculation likely
overstates the overall change in risk associated with the proposed 230 kV lines because the proposed
design would include a shield wire to limit the risk of fault damage, while the existing system does
not.
Arcing Damage. Because Olympic did not provide data to estimate the arc distances for the existing
Olympic Pipeline system 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 the
proposed 230 kV transmission lines. See Section 4.9.5.4 of this Final EIS (PSE’s Proposed
Alignment) for information on arcing damage. Using this assumption in the risk assessment
calculation could understate the overall risk associated with the existing 115 kV lines relative to the
proposed lines, because the proposed lines have features that could provide greater protection from
arcing than provided by the existing lines. 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 pipelines.
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 pipelines related to
coating stress and arc distances, as described above. Instead of modeling existing conditions to
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐21
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
Divergence
Electrical interference
commonly occurs where a
transmission line and a
pipeline diverge. Under
PSE’s Proposed Alignment,
the transmission lines would
remain in the same position
relative to the pipelines as
the existing transmission
lines, thereby not increasing
the number of points of
divergence with the
pipelines.
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 Appendix I-5
of the Phase 2 Draft EIS (Pipeline Safety Technical Report [EDM Services, 2017]).
No Action Alternative Impacts Conclusion
Using low estimates of existing risk (to present a worst-case change in risk associated with the
project), 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 Pipeline system within the existing 115 kV corridor, the existing pipelines were
assumed to have the same risk as the proposed 230 kV corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the
likelihood of a pipeline rupture and fire is low, due primarily to safety precautions taken by the
pipeline operator, as required by federal and state regulations. Under the No Action Alternative, PSE
would continue to operate its existing 115 kV transmission lines as described in Chapter 2 of this
Final EIS (Section 2.1.1). 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.
4.9.5.4 PSE’s Proposed Alignment
This section describes the potential pipeline safety risks under PSE’s
Proposed Alignment, focusing on how these risks would change
compared to the No Action Alternative. This section provides the
same information presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS (for Alternative
1), but has been revised to focus on PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
PSE's Proposed Alignment incorporates the recommendations
included in the DNV GL report to reduce and control the risk of
electrical interference on the pipelines (DNV GL, 2016). These
include operating both lines at 230 kV rather than 230/115 kV,
minimizing points of divergence between the pipelines and
transmission lines, using a delta conductor configuration, and
locating poles and pole grounds away from pipelines. In addition to
these design features, PSE would verify arc distances once the poles
are installed and, where necessary, ground wires or other grounding
systems will be installed to ensure that pole grounds are all
adequately separated from the pipelines. The effects that these
design and operational features have on pipeline safety risk are described further below.
As described in Section 3.9.5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the risk 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 PSE’s Proposed Alignment are expected to be the same as the No Action
Alternative, no change in risk related to ongoing maintenance activities is anticipated.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐22
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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.
The Phase 2 Draft EIS concluded the following with regard to pipeline safety risk associated with
Alternative 1:
For external corrosion (related to AC density), without consideration of potential mitigation,
the project could increase AC-induced corrosion risk in two areas where modeled current
densities would be at levels that could cause corrosion.
For 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 arcing damage (related to arc distances), without consideration of potential mitigation
measures, there could be an increase in potential risk of damage to the pipelines.
The AC Interference Study was limited by the lack of available data, as described in Section 4.9.5.3
of this Final EIS. 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 the proposed 230 kV
transmission lines. Using these assumptions likely understates the existing risk (No Action) relative
to the project, thereby possibly overstating the actual difference in risk between the No Action
Alternative and Alternative 1 in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
PSE's Proposed Alignment incorporates mitigation for pipeline
safety risk; therefore; the expected risks would be even lower
than for Alternative 1 as analyzed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
External Corrosion. For PSE’s Proposed Alignment, there are no
locations along the corridor where the estimated AC current
density would exceed 20 amps per square meter. The estimated
current density would be below 20 amps per square meter under
peak winter loads. These levels do not cause AC-induced
corrosion.
Note that the incident frequencies presented in Section 3.9.5.2 of
the Phase 2 Draft EIS were based on Alternative 1, a route with
more points of pipeline and transmission line divergence and
with the transmission lines initially operating at 230 kV/115 kV.
These incident frequencies do not reflect the reduced AC current
density levels predicted for PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
Fault Damage. PSE plans to use a shield wire on the new
transmission lines (see also Section 4.9.8, 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, PSE’s Proposed Alignment
would likely improve conditions related to fault conditions because the shield wire would reduce the
risk of fault damage to the pipelines (Fieltsch and Winget, 2014).
Arcing Damage. Based on the DNV GL recommendations, PSE revised the design from that
presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS to ensure that all poles would be at least 13 feet from the
pipelines, because this was the maximum calculated arc distance necessary to prevent arcing between
the poles and the pipelines, based on soil conditions in the corridor. If the modeled conditions are
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐23
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
correct, there would be no risk of arcing damage. However, soil conditions are quite variable;
therefore, actual arc distances could vary. Actual arc distances will be measured at each pole once the
poles are installed. Where necessary, pole grounds would be installed to provide adequate separation
from the pipelines.
Installation of the shield wire on the proposed 230 kV transmission lines would also substantially
reduce the fault current flowing into the soil from the faulted structure by distributing the current to
multiple structures. This would also reduce the arcing distance; therefore, the arc damage risk from
PSE's Proposed Alignment would be reduced compared to the No Action Alternative.
As described in Section 3.9.3.3 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the existing transmission lines do 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 pipelines. Because no data
were available to estimate the arc distances for the existing Olympic Pipeline system within the
existing 115 kV corridor, for purposes of the risk assessment conducted for the Phase 2 Draft EIS,
the existing pipelines were assumed to have the same ground fault arc distances and potential for arc-
caused pipeline releases as for the proposed 230 kV transmission lines. Using this assumption in the
risk assessment calculation likely overstates the overall change in risk associated with the proposed
230 kV transmission lines because the proposed design incudes a shield wire, pole distance, and
commitment to measuring arcing actual distance and adjusting grounding distances, if needed, after
installation.
Note that the incident frequencies presented in Section 3.9.5.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS were based
on worst-case estimates of average pole spacing and pipeline configuration at the grounding rods. For
example, 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]);
under PSE's Proposed Alignment, no portion of the pipelines would be closer than 13 feet to a
transmission pole. The risk assessment results presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS therefore do not
reflect the measures to mitigate potential arc damage to the pipelines that are included in the PSE's
Proposed Alignment.
Extreme Weather Events and Seismic Hazards. Based on the results of the Phase 1 analysis, the
Phase 2 Draft EIS did not include additional analysis on Earth resources (e.g., seismic hazards). In
response to comments received on the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the Final EIS includes additional
information on Earth resources, and seismic risks specifically (see Section 4.11, Earth, of the Final
EIS).
Safety measures would be incorporated into the project design to address the extreme weather and
seismic conditions that occur in western Washington, to prevent poles from falling and damaging the
buried pipelines. Final structural design for electrical utility structures must comply with the National
Electrical Safety Code (NESC) 2017 as adopted by the UTC. For transmission lines, NESC 2017
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
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Manual No. 74, “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” (ASCE,
2009).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐24
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
In the event of a large seismic event that ruptures the Olympic Pipeline system, there could be
immediate life safety concerns along the alignment if the spilled fuel were to ignite. Such a seismic
event would likely have widespread, regional impacts with multiple demands on emergency
responders and issues related to access because of damaged transportation infrastructure. However,
based on the results of the analysis of seismic risks in Section 4.11, these risks exist currently and are
not expected to increase with PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
Impact Conclusion for PSE’s Proposed Alignment
Based on the results of the risk assessment, the probability of a pipeline release and fire occurring
and resulting in fatalities remains low under PSE’s Proposed Alignment. However, the potential
public safety impacts would be significant if this unlikely event were to occur.
Under PSE’s Proposed Alignment, including mitigation for corrosion and arc risk incorporated into
the design, the probability of a significant pipeline safety incident would likely be the same or lower
than the No Action Alternative. Because of the variability of soils, it is possible that the arcing risk
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. See Section 4.9.8, Mitigation Measures for measures that would lower the risks.
The individual and societal risks described in Section 3.9.5.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS would be
similar across all segments of PSE’s Proposed Alignment. The risk would be proportional to the
distance that the transmission lines are co-located with the Olympic Pipeline system. For PSE's
Proposed Alignment, the Renton Segment has the lowest number of co-located miles. Table 4.9-1
lists the length of the Olympic Pipeline system (both the 20-inch and 16-inch diameter pipelines) co-
located with the transmission lines in each segment.
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 the proposed 230 kV lines. Using these assumptions likely
understates the existing risk (No Action), thereby possibly overstating the actual difference in risk
between the No Action Alternative and PSE’s Proposed Alignment. The likelihood of a pipeline
rupture and fire would remain low, with no substantial change in risk. As a result, the potential
impact on environmental health with regard to pipeline safety is not considered significant. With
implementation of the mitigation described in Section 4.9.8 of this Final EIS, conditions related to
potential for fault damage due to coating stress and arc distances would likely improve under PSE’s
Proposed Alignment 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).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐25
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
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 was considered in
the assessment, as well as the
impact distance identified in
the Pipeline Safety Technical
Report for a fire.
Table 4.9-1. Miles of Transmission Line and Olympic Pipelines Co-location in Study Area
with PSE’s Proposed Alignment, by Segment
Segments
Miles of Co-location Highest and Lowest Number of
Co-Located Miles
20-inch
diameter
16-inch
diameter
Redmond 1.6 1.6
Bellevue North 2.3 2.3
Bellevue Central,
Existing Corridor
2.9 2.9 Highest number of co-located miles
Bellevue South,
Existing Corridor
1.2 3.3
Newcastle 1.5 1.5
Renton 0.4 0.4 Lowest number of co-located miles
4.9.6 Long-term Impacts on Resources
Implementation of the regulatory requirements identified in Section
4.9.1 of this Final EIS, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations,
and the mitigation measures described for pipeline safety in Section
4.9.8 of this Final EIS, will reduce the chances of a pipeline incident.
However, some level of risk would remain, and it is possible that
petroleum products transported through the Olympic Pipeline system
could still enter the environment, or a fire could occur, as a result of
proximity to the transmission lines under either the No Action
Alternative or PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
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
would not affect pipeline pressure and flow rates, or other operating parameters of the pipeline
system, the potential characteristics of a spill or fire would be the same regardless if it occurred under
the No Action Alternative or PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐26
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
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, can be difficult to contain and remove, and
can be toxic. A release could enter a water body in a number of ways, such as through surface or
subsurface flow, through a catch basin, or across impervious surfaces. The Olympic Pipeline system
carries diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline, which are very light or light oils. Gasoline breaks down very
quickly, usually lasting only days to weeks in the environment; jet fuel usually lasts days to weeks in
the environment; and diesel fuel is somewhat persistent lasting 1 month to a year in the environment
(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 4.9.4 of this Final EIS, Major Risks to Public from Unintentional Pipeline Release, and
Section 5.9.1 of this Final EIS, Risks During 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 4.9-6 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. Section 4.9.7
describes conditions specific to each segment.
Land Use and Housing
A release of material from the Olympic Pipeline system 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.
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.
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.
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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐27
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
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 or indirectly (e.g., through catch basins) 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. Air quality near a
stream affected by a spill could be degraded to an extent that people and animals could be harmed or
killed. 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.
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, or if they
occurred in drainage pipes, culverts, or other piped conveyances where the atmosphere was confined.
In these situations, an explosion could result due to the confinement. A deeply incised creek bed may
also be sufficient to provide adequate confinement to pose some explosion risk. In addition to risks to
humans in the explosion area, an explosion could substantially degrade ecological conditions within
the water body where the explosion occurred, or nearby water bodies.
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 entered 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 4.4 of
this Final EIS, Plants and Animals, are particularly susceptible (Ecology, 2016).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐28
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
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.
Recreation Resources
If a spill occurred 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 entered a watercourse.
If a fire occurred 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
caused the site to be 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐29
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
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 on 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.
Transportation
If significant damage to the pipeline system occurred, petroleum products normally transported in the
pipelines would be transported by other means, primarily by trucks using interstate highways. This
would be expected to generate up to a few thousand truck trips per day, distributed throughout the
day and across the interstate highway system. Impacts would be greatest at major distribution points
and major end users, and could cause local congestion such as near refineries or at airports. If an
accidental shutdown occurred, short-term disruption would occur to airports or other customers of
the Olympic Pipeline system until transportation could be arranged. No long-term disruption in
petroleum product supply would be anticipated for any planned temporary shutdown or relocation.
Economics (Ecosystem Services)
If a spill or fire damaged 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 described in Section 4.9.6 of this Final EIS
could be significant if a pipeline incident occurred. However, the likelihood of a pipeline rupture and
release remains low under PSE’s Proposed Alignment, and implementation of regulatory
requirements (Section 4.9.1 of this Final EIS) and mitigation measures (Sections 4.9.8 and 5.9.4 of
this Final EIS) would further reduce the probability of a pipeline incident occurring.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐30
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.7 Impact Comparison by Segment
Section 4.9.5.4 of this Final EIS describes the potential for the project to increase pipeline safety
risks, and Section 4.9.6 of this Final EIS describes the general consequences in the event of a spill or
a fire on the pipeline. As noted, conditions within each segment vary, and these can influence both
the possibility of an incident adversely affecting the pipelines and the consequences in that location.
This section (which is new for the Final EIS and was not presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS)
provides a segment-level discussion of these two sets of variables. Factors affecting the possibility of
an accident include the presence of a co-located pipeline, the segment location relative to the Seattle
Fault, landslide hazard areas, and liquefaction zones. Factors affecting the potential consequences
include the presences of slopes and streams, crossings of impervious areas, the types and density of
land uses, and types and sensitivity of vegetation and habitat present. For specific information about
the affected environment, other sections of the EIS provide greater detail. For more information
regarding co-location of the project with the Olympic Pipeline system, see Section 4.9.2 of this Final
EIS (including Figure 4.9-1), as well as Table 4.9-1.
4.9.7.1 Richards Creek Substation
One of the pipelines crosses through the middle of the Richards Creek substation site
(see Figure 2-2).
Adjacent Land Uses: The predominate types of structures surrounding the site are the
Lakeside substation and Chestnut Hill Academy to the north, industrial warehouses to the
west and south, and multi-family residential and commercial buildings to the east. These
structures are relatively dispersed and surrounded by parking lots.
Land and Vegetation Cover: The Richards Creek substation site is comprised of 80 percent
vegetation cover. However, after development of the site, tree removal would result in less
vegetation cover. The site is primarily comprised of, and surrounded by, trees.
Seattle Fault, Landslide Hazard Areas, and Liquefaction Hazards: The Richards Creek
substation site is entirely within the Seattle Fault Zone. The site has small pockets of
landslide hazard areas, but these would be re-graded during construction of the project.
Topography and Nearby Water Bodies: Topographically, the site generally slopes
downhill to the west. One stream is just outside the western property boundary and traverses
the southwest portion of the site. Another stream is located in the northeast corner of the
property. Wetlands are also located on the property.
Road Crossings and Impervious Surfaces: The site would not cross any roadways, but an
existing access road turns into SE 30th Street. A spill on the site could potentially flow down
the access road (and into the stormwater system) or into one of the streams on-site.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐31
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.7.2 Redmond Segment
Adjacent Land Uses: The predominate types of structures along the segment are detached
single-family homes and multi-family buildings. Rose Hill Middle School is adjacent to the
segment, and commercial warehouses are adjacent to the Sammamish substation.
Seattle Fault, Landslide Hazard Areas, and Liquefaction Hazards: The segment is
entirely outside of the Seattle Fault Zone. The northern 0.85 mile of the corridor is located
primarily within landslide hazard areas.
Land and Vegetation Cover: Land cover is forested for the northernmost 0.8 mile. Along
the rest of the corridor, the land cover is developed with varying amounts of vegetation (20–
80 percent land cover).
Topography and Nearby Water Bodies: The Redmond Segment generally slopes downhill
to the east. Swan Lake, a constructed lake associated with the Sixty-01 condominium
complex, is approximately 450 feet to the east of the corridor with an 11 percent slope in
between. A spill could flow downhill and into Swan Lake. The segment crosses several
wetlands and streams.
Road Crossings and Impervious Surfaces: The segment crosses five roadways and a
parking lot behind the Sixty-01 condominium complex, where a release from the pipelines
could reach an impervious surface and flow into the stormwater system or Swan Lake.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐32
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.7.3 Bellevue North Segment
Adjacent Land Uses: Portions of the corridor passing through single-family neighborhoods
are generally lined with tall trees. Structure types along the segment are primarily detached
single-family residences. Approximately 0.5 mile before the segment terminates, it passes
Westminster Chapel, crosses Viewpoint Park and SR 520, and traverses a car dealership.
Seattle Fault, Landslide Hazard Areas, and Liquefaction Hazards: The segment is
entirely outside of the Seattle Fault Zone. A small landslide hazard area is located north of
NE 24th Street.
Land and Vegetation Cover: Land cover along the segment is a mosaic of forested areas
and developed areas, with vegetation coverage ranging from 50 to 80 percent.
Topography and Nearby Water Bodies: The topography along the Bellevue North
Segment generally slopes downhill to the south and east. Valley Creek is approximately 0.3
mile to the east of the transmission line corridor with a 9 percent slope in between. A spill
could potentially flow downhill and intercept the creek. The segment crosses several
wetlands.
Road Crossings and Impervious Surfaces: The segment crosses seven roadways, as well as
parking lots associated with commercial properties north of NE 20th Street, where a release
from the pipelines could reach an impervious surface and flow into the stormwater system.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐33
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.7.4 Bellevue Central Segment
Adjacent Land Uses: Single- and multi-family homes are the predominate structures along
the segment. However, there are commercial and industrial structures in the BelRed area and
near the Lakeside substation. Chestnut Hill Academy, also near the Lakeside substation, is
the only school adjacent to the corridor in this segment. In addition, three major open spaces
are adjacent to the segment: Glendale Country Club, Kelsey Creek Park, and a cemetery near
the Lakeside substation.
Seattle Fault, Landslide Hazard Areas, and Liquefaction Hazards: The segment is
entirely outside of the Seattle Fault Zone. However, the southern terminus of the Bellevue
Central Segment borders the northern boundary of the zone. There are pockets of landslide
hazard areas between approximately SE 3rd Street and SE 16th Street.
Land and Vegetation Cover: Vegetation coverage ranges from 20 to 80 percent along the
corridor in this segment. More heavily vegetated areas include Kelsey Creek Park and the
open space in Richards Valley (west of the corridor). Portions of the corridor passing through
single-family neighborhoods are generally lined with ornamental trees of varying heights.
Topography and Nearby Water Bodies: The north portion of the segment is on a slight
ridge, with the underlying topography sloping downhill slightly to the east and more steeply
to the west. South of Bel-Red Road, the topography general slopes downhill to the west. The
portion of the corridor along the Glendale Country Club and the Kelsey Creek Park
experiences a sharp depression with a 20 percent slope to the west from the easement.
Therefore, spills could flow down into Kelsey Creek Park, which includes Kelsey Creek and
its tributaries. The segment crosses several wetlands and streams.
Road Crossings and Impervious Surfaces: The northern 0.43 mile of the segment is
entirely on impervious surfaces (parking lots and roadways), where a release from the
pipelines could reach an impervious surface and flow into the stormwater system.
Throughout the corridor, the segment crosses nine roadways.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐34
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.7.5 Bellevue South Segment
Adjacent Land Uses: Portions of the corridor passing through single-family neighborhoods
are generally lined with ornamental trees of varying heights. Structures along the corridor are
primarily single-family homes; however, commercial buildings with large parking lots line I-
90, and Tyee Middle School is just north of SE Newport Way.
Seattle Fault, Landslide Hazard Areas, and Liquefaction Hazards: The entire segment is
within the Seattle Fault Zone. There are small, scattered areas of landslide hazard between
the Richards Creek substation site and I-90, as well as along Somerset Hill. However, the
largest landslide area crossed by the corridor is south of the Somerset substation and
surrounding the Coal Creek ravine.
Land and Vegetation Cover: Vegetation coverage ranges from 20 to 80 percent. The
segment traverses the heavily forested Coal Creek ravine.
Topography and Nearby Water Bodies: The topography generally slopes downhill to the
south and west, with the steepest slopes along the Coal Creek ravine. Because there are few
flat areas, slopes contribute to the risk of a release from the pipeline spreading. Depending on
where it originates, a spill could potentially flow into Coal Creek. The segment crosses
several wetlands and streams.
Road Crossings and Impervious Surfaces: There are 19 road crossings, as well as parking
lots associated with commercial development south of I-90, where a release from the
pipelines could reach an impervious surface and flow into the stormwater system.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐35
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.7.6 Newcastle Segment (both Options)
Adjacent Land Uses: Portions of the corridor passing through single-family neighborhoods
are generally lined with ornamental trees of varying heights. Typical structures along the
segment are predominately single-family homes; however, there are some commercial
buildings and townhouses near Coal Creek Parkway, as well as Newcastle City Hall.
Seattle Fault, Landslide Hazard Areas, and Liquefaction Hazards: The entire segment is
within the Seattle Fault Zone. The portion of the segment that crosses the May Creek Natural
Area is located within a landslide hazard area. There are no liquefaction hazard areas along
the segment.
Land and Vegetation Cover: The land cover is developed with varying degrees of
vegetation cover (20–80 percent). More heavily vegetated areas exist where the segment
traverses the forested area within and around the Newcastle Cemetery and the ravine at May
Creek Park.
Topography and Nearby Water Bodies: The transmission line corridor passes through
mostly moderately sloping areas with a high point approximately 500 feet south of SE 80th
Street. Steep slopes (greater than 40 percent) are concentrated in two areas: near Coal Creek
(from Coal Creek Parkway SE to SE 60th Street) and near May Creek (between about SE
May Creek Park Drive and SE 95th Way). Because there are few flat areas, slopes contribute
to the risk of a release from the pipelines spreading. It is possible that, depending on where a
spill originates, it could intersect with one of these two water bodies. Lake Boren is
approximately 600 feet east of the transmission line and at a 10 percent slope downhill. A
spill could potentially flow into Lake Boren. The segment crosses several small wetlands and
streams.
Road Crossings and Impervious Surfaces: There are eight road crossings where a release
from the pipelines could reach an impervious surface and flow into the stormwater system.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐36
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.7.7 Renton Segment
Adjacent Land Uses: The predominate types of structures surrounding the co-located
utilities are single-family homes and Sierra Heights Elementary School.
Seattle Fault, Landslide Hazard Areas, and Liquefaction Hazards: The entire segment is
outside of the Seattle Fault Zone. However, the north portion of the segment borders the
southern boundary of the zone. The portion of transmission lines that is co-located with the
pipelines does not cross landslide hazard areas or liquefaction hazard areas. There is a
landslide hazard area along Honey Dew Creek and a moderate to high liquefaction hazard
area located along the Cedar River.
Land and Vegetation Cover: Along the co-located portion of the segment, the land cover is
forested.
Topography and Nearby Water Bodies: The topography along the co-located section of the
Renton Segment slopes downward to the north into the Honey Dew Creek ravine. Therefore,
a spill could travel downhill and reach Honey Dew Creek. The co-located portion of the
segment does not cross wetlands or streams.
Road Crossings and Impervious Surfaces: The co-located portion of the segment crosses
two roadways, where a release from the pipelines could reach an impervious surface and flow
into the stormwater system. From approximately NE 4th Street to NE 7th Street, and from the
NE 11th Place to NE Sunset Blvd, the corridor crosses numerous parking lots associated with
commercial development and multi-family residences.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐37
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.8 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 Section 5.9.4 of this Final EIS for mitigation measures
applicable 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
interference from the Energize Eastside project. The design features and BMPs that PSE proposes to
use to avoid or minimize impacts during operation have been considered in assessing the
environmental impacts to environmental health and safety.
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, PSE has added some
mitigation measures, such as pole locations, layout, and configuration as part of the refined design. In
addition to these design features, PSE would verify arc distances once the poles are installed and,
where necessary, install ground wires or other grounding systems to ensure that pole grounds are all
adequately separated from the pipelines. Other mitigation measures would need to be implemented
after the project is energized or during peak winter load conditions in order to take into account
measured field conditions.
For the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the EIS Consultant Team retained Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
(Stantec) to perform an independent, technical review of DNV GL’s AC Interference Study. Based
on Stantec's experience and industry standards, it was Stantec’s opinion that the technical approach
used to achieve an optimal transmission line route and powerline conductor configuration to
minimize the AC interference risks on the Olympic Pipeline system is consistent with industry
practice. However, Stantec recommended that additional analysis be performed in the detailed design
stage of the project to verify mitigation needs for the project prior to transmission line energization
(Stantec, 2017). These measures are listed below.
Olympic, as pipeline operator, is responsible for operating and maintaining its 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 its
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.
4.9.8.1 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 Pipeline system. 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 NESC 2017, 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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐38
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
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 Pipeline system, 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's Proposed Alignment presented in the Final EIS now
incorporates the recommendations included in the DNV GL report to reduce the risk of electrical
interference to the pipelines. These include the following engineering aspects: initially operate both
lines at 230 kV rather than 230/115 kV; minimize points of pipeline and transmission line divergence
along the corridor; use a delta conductor configuration; and locate poles and pole grounds away from
the pipeline(s). PSE also plans to perform an AC interference study prior to construction that
incorporates the final powerline route, configuration, and operating parameters to confirm that
current densities would remain within acceptable levels, and inform Olympic of any locations where
additional measures may be needed to protect the pipelines.
Olympic Responsiblities and Requirements
As the pipeline operator, Olympic is responsible for operating and maintaining its 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 its pipeline in compliance
with federal safety requirements, measures to be used will be determined by Olympic in coordination
with PSE and based on a 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 it will identify specific measures, or a suite
of measures, following the detailed engineering analysis of the final design and based on site-specific
conditions and field measurements conducted at project start-up and during peak loading scenarios,
and in consideration of the AC interference study that incorporates the final powerline route,
configuration, and operating parameters. For example, Olympic has informed PSE that after
energization, it plans to perform a site survey to ensure that all AC interference risks have been fully
mitigated under steady-state operation of the powerline.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐39
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
4.9.8.2 Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on results and recommendations of DNV
GL’s AC Interference Study (2016); Stantec’s independent, technical review of DNV GL’s AC
Interference Study (Stantec, 2017); measures PSE has indicated it 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.
Perform an AC interference study incorporating the final powerline route, configuration, and
operating parameters to confirm that current densities would remain within acceptable levels,
and inform Olympic of any locations where additional measures may be needed to protect the
pipelines.
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 co-location, including both inductive and resistive
coupling.
Fully assess the safety and AC corrosion risks under steady state operating conditions on the
powerline.
Reassess the safe separation distance at each pole location to minimize arcing risk based on
NACE SP0177-2014 and considering the findings in CEA 239T817 (Stantec, 2017).
Ensure that the separation distance between the pipelines and the powerline structures
exceeds the safe distance required to avoid electrical arcing by installing pole grounds at
appropriate distance from the pipeline based on engineering analysis.
File a mitigation and monitoring report with the Partner Cities demonstrating that sufficient
safety factors have been incorporated into design, and documenting all consultations with
Olympic, including the sharing of modeling and engineering information with Olympic to
assist Olympic in its monitoring and mitigation responsibilities. The report should include a
plan that identifies the process for conducting additional field surveys and data collection for
identifying mitigation measures following project start-up, and proposed monitoring to
ensure that mitigation related to operational issues is followed.
Install Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) shield wire on the transmission line poles.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.9‐40
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ‐ PIPELINE SAFETY
At Project Start-up
Work with Olympic to evaluate and implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
electrical interference on the Olympic Pipeline system to safe levels. (Olympic has informed
PSE that, after the system is energized, it plans to collect field data to assess the necessity for
the installation of AC grounding or similar systems to address steady-state conditions.
Olympic has informed PSE that it plans to implement appropriate mitigation measures to the
extent needed based on its analysis of field data collected following system energization. AC
grounding systems are commonly installed in connection with power transmission poles to
dissipate any energy to ground.)
Verify arc distances once poles are installed and, where necessary, install ground wires or
other grounding systems to ensure that pole grounds are all adequately separated from the
pipelines.
Mitigation that Olympic could provide based on the results of the analysis 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, as appropriate.
During Operation
If indicated by the AC interference study conducted for final design, inform Olympic when
the electrical system is expected to operate at or near winter peak loading so as to provide
Olympic a reasonable opportunity to take appropriate steps to measure actual AC current
densities.
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.
Provide Olympic with as much advance notice as practical of when outages are planned 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.
Provide the Partner Cities with PSE monitoring data on maximum currents under peak winter
operating conditions.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.10‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ECONOMICS
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
Impacts associated with property
tax revenue in Newcastle and the
potential cost to a community
requesting placement of a 230 kV
transmission line underground
have not been revised because the
estimates were made using a
broad analysis that was not
segment-specific. Therefore, the
findings still apply to PSE’s
Proposed Alignment, and this
information is not repeated in the
Final EIS.
Ecosystem services were analyzed
at the segment level; therefore, this
Final EIS has been updated to
present data related to PSE’s
Proposed Alignment. Tree removal
would be the same as was
assessed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS
for the Redmond, Bellevue North,
and Redmond Segments.
However, updated tree removal
data were available for a portion of
the Bellevue Central Segment, the
Bellevue South Segments, and
both Newcastle options (see
Appendix L). In addition,
modifications were made to the
model used for the Phase 2 Draft
EIS regarding how carbon and
structural value are calculated.
Therefore, impacts for all
segments were reassessed to take
into account changes to the
model, and the revised tree
removal numbers for some
segments. The Final EIS presents
the potential impacts on
ecosystem services that may result
from PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
4.10 ECONOMICS
This section provides a project-level analysis of
potential impacts to economics associated with the
Energize Eastside project. The analysis in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS addressed 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.
The first two components of the analyses (property tax
revenue and cost of undergrounding) are not dependent on the
segment or route chosen, and the information has not changed
since publication of the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Therefore, they are
not included in the Final EIS but are incorporated by
reference. Comments received on those analyses, and
responses from the Partner Cities and the EIS Consultant
Team, are included in Chapter 6 and Appendix K. The
economic analysis presented in this Final EIS focuses on lost
ecosystem services associated with PSE’s Proposed
Alignment. The assessment of ecosystem services includes
the study area used by The Watershed Company (Appendix
E-2) to survey existing trees in the existing and new
transmission line corridors.
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
analysis of the value of lost ecosystem services due to
reduced tree cover was 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.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.10‐2
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ECONOMICS
Methods for Studying the
Affected Environment
Ecosystem services are the
benefits that the ecosystem
provides to humankind. In some
cases, these services can be
assigned an economic value. For
the ecosystem services analysis,
trees within each segment of the
study area were inventoried by The
Watershed Company between
March 2015 and July 2016 (The
Watershed Company, 2016b).
Revised permit-level data were
from surveys in 2017, and used for
the Bellevue Central Segment,
Richards Creek substation,
Bellevue South Segment, and
Newcastle Options. Data collected
during the inventories 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 using United
States Forest Service (USFS) i-Tree
Eco software (USFS, 2017), a peer-
reviewed software program that
provides urban and rural forestry
analysis and benefits assessment
tools.
4.10.1 Tree Cover Along Transmission Line Corridor
This section has been updated in the Final EIS to present the
information related to PSE’s Proposed Alignment. No new
modeling analysis was conducted for this Final EIS.
Individual trees as well as groups of trees provide
ecological benefits and environmental values. Trees
improve air quality by absorbing CO2 and potentially
harmful gases, such as sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide,
from the air, and releasing oxygen. Trees also store carbon,
reduce soil erosion, remove pollutants, and provide food
and habitat for birds and other wildlife. The amount of
carbon stored in a tree increases as it grows, as does the
tree’s environmental value. Carbon is stored in the leaves,
stems, roots, and other parts of a tree when they absorb CO2
from the atmosphere and use it to grow. Trees are important
for carbon sequestration, because they live a long time and
can store their carbon for many years. Each year, an acre of
trees absorbs the amount of carbon produced by driving a
car for 26,000 miles, and an individual urban tree contains
about four times more carbon than individual trees in
forests. Some tree species hold higher value than others
based on the magnitude of the ecological functions
performed; and groups of trees have a higher ecological
value than a series of isolated trees, because of the
environmental benefits indicated above (ACTrees, 2011).
To determine the ecosystem services provided by the trees
currently in the study area, a statistical model was run for
trees surveyed along the existing and new corridors.
In total, approximately 5,500 trees were inventoried along
PSE’s Proposed Alignment and used in the i-Tree model
(The Watershed Company, 2016b, 2017). The model
identifies the current amount of carbon stored in the trees
(based on tree species, diameter of trunk at breast height, and tree height), and the cost of
replacing the tree with a similar tree (called the “structural value”). The total fixed value of the
“forest” (structural value + carbon storage value) within the study area is $6.7 million. This
represents the ecosystem services provided by the “forest” at a fixed point in time. Removing all
of the study area trees would incur this one-time cost of $6.7 million. The model also identifies
the amount of avoided runoff, pollution removal, and gross carbon sequestration on an annual
basis using the following methods (USFS, 2017):
Annual avoided surface runoff is calculated based on rainfall interception by vegetation,
specifically the difference between annual runoff with and without vegetation. The model
only accounts for the precipitation intercepted by leaves in this analysis. The value of
avoided runoff is based on estimated local values from the U.S. Forest Service
Community Tree Guide Series (as cited in i-Tree, 2016).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.10‐3
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ECONOMICS
Pollution removal is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Air pollution removal estimates are
derived from calculated hourly tree-canopy resistances for ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen
dioxides based on a hybrid of big-leaf and multi-layer canopy deposition models. The air
pollution removal value is calculated based on local incidence of adverse health effects
and national median externality costs.
Annual carbon sequestration is estimated using the current tree condition and the average
diameter growth added to the existing tree diameter to predict the tree diameter and
amount of carbon that will be sequestered in the next year. The value is based on
estimated carbon values from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015) and the
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2015).
The total services value provided by the “forest” per year (gross carbon sequestration value +
avoided runoff value + pollution removal value) is $14,200. The total services value represents
ecosystem services calculated on an annual basis and would fluctuate over time, based on tree
health, tree mortality, and the planting of replacement trees.
The fixed values and services value/year is the highest for the Redmond Segment. The Bellevue
South Segment has 28 percent of all of the trees surveyed, but due to the make-up of tree species, it
has 19 percent of the carbon storage value and 21 percent of the structural value. A summary of the
current ecological value of the trees within each segment is provided in Table 4.10-1.
4.10.2 Long-term Impacts from Operation of the Project
The methods for analyzing impacts of the project on ecosystem services are the same as what was
used for the Phase 2 Draft EIS. They are as follows:
Ecosystem Services: For this analysis, the following ecosystem services associated with tree
cover in the project corridor were assigned an economic value (as described below under
Ecosystem Services Methods): sequestration (storage) of carbon dioxide, the principal
atmospheric greenhouse gas; absorption of air pollutants; and reduction in stormwater runoff
and required infrastructure.
No threshold of significance was set for the ecosystem services analysis. The costs of such services
are spread widely, including costs for energy, health care, and stormwater management, and not all
such costs are borne locally. Cumulative ecosystem service impacts from this and other projects
could be significant, but mitigation measures are available to offset or mitigate such impacts.
4.10.2.1 Ecosystem Services Methods
To estimate the loss of ecological services from tree removal proposed by the project, the i-Tree model
was run a second time, but with the trees proposed for removal deleted from the data set. The number of
trees that could be removed along the corridor is based on a tree database prepared by The Watershed
Company for PSE for the Energize Eastside project (The Watershed Company, 2016b) and updated
permit-level tree removal data for the Lakeside substation portion of the Bellevue Central Segment,
Richards Creek substation, Bellevue South Segment, and Newcastle Segment (both options) (The
Watershed Company, 2017). The results include tree removal for the entire corridor including the
Richards Creek substation. Tree removal for the Newcastle Segment No Code Variance and Code
Variance Options are both shown, although only one of these options would be implemented. Totals are
shown for PSE's Preferred Alignment with the No Code Variance and with the Code Variance option.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.10‐4 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 ECONOMICS Table 4.10-1. Current Ecological Value of Trees in the Entire Alignment and in Each Segment Segment Acres No. of Trees* Carbon Storage Structural Value Total Fixed Value Gross Carbon Sequestration Avoided Runoff Pollution Removal Total Services Value/ Year Ton $ Ton/yr $/yr ft3/yr $/yr Ton/yr $/yr Richards Creek Substation 8.4 429 147 19,106 1,070,711 $1,089,817 3.2 415 12,720 850 0.08 715 $1,980 Redmond 24.2 776 139 18,093 1,523,134 $1,541,227 3.8 493 21,721 1,452 0.14 1,382 $3,327 Bellevue North 27.2 733 61 7,946 776,477 $784,423 2.2 289 10,304 688 0.07 656 $1,633 Bellevue Central 33.9 811 90 11,663 901,329 $912,992 3.2 424 12,916 863 0.09 726 $2,013 Bellevue South 40.0 1,400 126 16,354 1,426,799 $1,443,153 4.3 568 20,347 1,360 0.13 1,144 $3,072 Newcastle - No Code Variance 18.2 366 27 3,562 298,187 $301,749 1.1 151 4,446 297 0.03 250 $698 Newcastle – Code Variance 18.2 365 27 3,561 298,143 $301,704 1.1 151 4,441 296 0.03 249 $697 Renton 48.5 499 67 8,725 692,464 $701,189 2.3 297 9,053 605 0.06 576 $1,478 Total (No Code Variance) 200.4 5,014 657 85,449 6,689,101 $6,774,550 20.1 2,637 91,507 6,115 0.60 5,449 $14,201 Total (Code Variance) 200.4 5,013 657 85,448 6,689,057 $6,774,505 20.1 2,637 91,502 6,114 0.60 5,448 $14,199 *The number of trees varies slightly from those reported in other sections of the EIS because i‐Tree only reports trees with recorded dbh values and tree species known by the model. Trees omitted as part of this analysis are considered to have low ecological value and therefore their omission does not impact the findings.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.10‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ECONOMICS
4.10.2.2 Tree Cover Along Transmission Line Corridor
This assessment provides the same information presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, but has been
revised to focus on PSE’s Proposed Alignment. PSE’s Proposed Alignment would require tree
removal along the existing corridor and at the Richards Creek substation site. The loss of tree cover
means the natural environment of the study area would be less able to reduce air pollutants, reduce
stormwater runoff, and sequester carbon dioxide. Potential loss of ecosystem value is described in
Table 4.10-2. Under PSE’s Proposed Alignment, the following would occur:
The project corridor would lose 410 tons of carbon stored in trees, and a loss of 13.3 tons of
carbon sequestered per year.
The project corridor would lose its ability to remove 0.43 ton of air pollutants annually,
valued at $3,967 per year.
Without tree canopy to reduce stormwater runoff volume, the municipalities within the study
area must manage an additional 65,216 cubic feet of stormwater per year, valued at $4,358
per year.
The City of Bellevue conducted an ecosystem services analysis city-wide based on 2007 tree canopy
information (American Forests, 2008). In 2007, the City of Bellevue had an overall tree canopy of 36
percent. The ecosystem services provided by Bellevue’s tree canopy in 2007 is summarized below to
provide context by which to measure the scale of the impact to ecosystem services under PSE’s
Proposed Alignment:
Bellevue’s tree canopy stored 332,000 tons of carbon in trees, and sequestered 2,582 tons of
carbon per year.
Bellevue’s tree canopy removed 344 tons of pollutants annually at a value of $1.55 million
per year.
Bellevue’s tree canopy provided 62 million cubic feet in stormwater detention services per
year, valued at $123 million.
The total ecosystem services lost as a result of PSE’s Proposed Alignment, when compared to
Bellevue alone would constitute less than 0.2 percent of the services provided by urban tree cover,
which is not considered to be a large amount. Based on this comparison, ecosystem services are not
expected to be significantly impacted by the project.
4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation for economic impacts from a project is not required under SEPA; however, potential
mitigation measures for tree removal are identified in Section 4.4.6, and include the following
(among others):
Replace trees removed for the project based on tree protection ordinances and critical areas
regulations in each jurisdiction; some of these trees would likely be planted off-site or, in the
case of the City of Newcastle, mitigated by paying into an in-lieu fee program. Replacement
may be based on cross-sectional diameter of trees removed, or on habitat functions lost due to
tree removal, depending on applicable regulations.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.10‐6 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 ECONOMICS Table 4.10-2. Loss of Ecological Value Scenario # of Trees Removed Loss of Carbon Storage Loss of Structural Value ($) Total Loss of Fixed Value ($) Loss of Gross Carbon SequestrationLoss of Avoided Runoff Loss of Pollution Removal Total Loss of Services Value/ Year ($) Ton $ Ton/yr $/yr ft/yr $/yr Ton/yr$/yr Variance 3,554 409 53,166 4,378,400 $4,431,566 13.3 1,741 65,2164,358 0.433,967$10,066 No Variance 3,546 410 53,178 4,375,088 $4,428,266 13.3 1,739 65,1484,354 0.433,964$10,057
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐1
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
Key Changes from the
Phase 2 Draft EIS
The Phase 2 Draft EIS did not
discuss impacts related to earth
resources because the Phase 1
Draft EIS found that significant
impacts are not anticipated. In
response to the number of
comments on the Phase 2 Draft
EIS asking for additional
information on seismic risks,
the Final EIS includes this
expanded discussion of the
specific seismic risks present in
the study area for PSE's
Proposed Alignment. While
seismic risks are present in the
study area and throughout the
region, the project would not
substantially affect those risks.
4.11 EARTH RESOURCES
This section provides project-level discussion and
analysis of potential risks and impacts related to earth
resources, specifically in regard to the potential for seismic
activity to affect the project. 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. In the Phase
1 Draft EIS, impacts under all alternatives were determined to be
less-than-significant, assuming regulatory compliance and
implementation of industry standards, geotechnical
recommendations, and BMPs. Therefore, Earth was not further
analyzed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
In response to comments received during the Phase 2 Draft EIS
comment period, the Partner Cities determined that additional
discussion of the risk of seismic activity at a project level should
be provided. While seismic risks, including both the general
seismic risks in the region as well as risks related to liquefaction-
prone soils were discussed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, the project
alternatives pass through specific locations with varying types of
geotechnical hazards. In addition, information on the regulations
that apply to development in areas of seismic and liquefaction
risk is further described in this section.
Information on erosion-prone soils, landslide areas, and steep
slopes is provided in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, Chapter 3 (Section
3.3). This section describes seismic risks in the study area, which
includes all areas within 1 mile of PSE's Proposed Alignment
(Figure 4.11-1). Geology and soils information was obtained
from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data (including
GEOMapNW)1, and critical areas mapping was obtained from
study area communities. In addition to the USGS data, the
following sources were reviewed to obtain the data presented in this chapter:
GeoEngineers, Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for Energize Eastside Project, June
8, 2016.
Department of Natural Resources, Modeling a Magnitude 7.2 Earthquake on the Seattle Fault
Zone in Central Puget Sound, 2012–2013.
King County geographic information systems (GIS) web portal (King County, 2015).
Information from the Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (City of Seattle, 2017;
CREW, 2013).
Key Findings – Earth
Resources
Seismic and geotechnical
hazards including fault rupture,
ground shaking, liquefaction,
landslides, and other hazards
are present throughout the
area. Impacts would be minor
with implementation of NESC
standards, geotechnical
recommendations, and
regulatory requirements.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐2 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 EARTH Redmond Segment Bellevue North SegmentSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 4.11-1. Seismic Hazards in the Earth Resources Study Area
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐3 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 EARTH Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)Sources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 4.11-1. Seismic Hazards in the Earth Resources Study Area (continued)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐4 CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018 EARTH Newcastle Segment, Options 1 and 2 Renton SegmentSources: King County, 2015; Ecology, 2014 Figure 4.11-1. Seismic Hazards in the Earth Resources Study Area (continued)
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐5
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
4.11.1 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations
This section describes the relevant regulatory framework including plans, policies, and regulations
related to geology and soil resources that would apply to the alternatives. The Phase 1 Draft EIS
provides a full description of the relevant plans, policies, and regulations that apply to earth
resources. Following is a brief listing of those plans, policies, and regulations.
The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) establishes basic provisions for safeguarding of persons
from hazards arising from the installation, operation, or maintenance of: (1) conductors and
equipment in electric substations, and (2) overhead and underground electric supply and
communication lines (IEEE, 2017). The NESC is adopted by the state public utility commission (in
Washington, the Utilities and Transportation Commission or UTC) and is updated every 5 years.
Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) requires all cities and counties to identify
geologic hazard areas, which are areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geologic
events, as part of the designation of critical areas (Chapter 36.70A.060(2) and 36.70A.172 RCW).
As required by the GMA, each jurisdiction in the study area has adopted codes regulating
development in or near geologic hazard areas (including building codes). Protecting structures from
liquefaction2 and ground shaking are generally addressed through implementation of building code
standards that include seismic design measures. Typically, for new construction, an applicant is
required to provide a site-specific geotechnical investigation that identifies underlying soil and
bedrock properties, and geotechnical hazards, as well as demonstrate that identified hazards can be
overcome through the application of geotechnical engineering recommendations. The Washington
State Building Code is modeled on the 2015 International Building Code, combined with
Washington State amendments. However, the International Building Code, which applies in all
jurisdictions, specifically exempts utility structures in a right-of-way controlled by the utility, as is
the case with the Energize Eastside project. Therefore, with regard to structural stability, electric
utility structures for the project are governed by NESC standards only. Nonetheless, PSE has
provided geotechnical studies that incorporate the methodology used in the International Building
Code to determine seismic requirements, and provide recommendations in accord with those
findings.
Final structural design for electrical utility structures must comply with NESC 2017 as adopted by
the UTC. For transmission lines, NESC 2017 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, “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”
(ASCE, 2009).
2 Liquefaction occurs where saturated, loose granular soils are subjected to ground shaking such that the soil loses
strength and begins to behave more like a liquid than a solid. Saturated loose soils within 50 feet of the ground
surface are considered at most risk of liquefaction.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐6
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
4.11.2 Seismic Hazards in the Study Area
Seismic hazards include the primary effects of earthquakes, such as ground displacement from fault
rupture and ground shaking and secondary effects such as liquefaction and landslides. While
tsunamis and seiche waves can be also triggered by earthquakes, no portion of the study area is close
enough to major water bodies to be affected. Settlement3, fires, and hazardous materials releases are
also likely secondary effects from a major earthquake in an urban region such as the study area for
the Energize Eastside project.
4.11.2.1 Primary Effects: Earthquake-induced Ground Rupture and
Groundshaking
Earthquake-induced ground rupture and groundshaking are defined as the physical displacement of
surface deposits in response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. The magnitude, characteristics, and
nature of fault rupture can vary for different faults or even along different strands of the same fault.
The Puget Sound basin is a seismically active area dominated by the Cascadia subduction zone,
which forms the boundary between two tectonic plates: the North American plate and the Juan de
Fuca plate. The project vicinity has been subject to earthquakes in the historic past and will
undoubtedly undergo shaking again in the future. Damage from earthquakes depends on many
factors including distance to epicenter, soil and bedrock properties, and duration of shaking.
Earthquakes in the Puget Sound region result from one of three sources:
1. Crustal or Shallow Earthquakes from faults found in the North American tectonic plate
that are near the crust's surface. Intense shaking occurs near the epicenter but usually
diminishes quickly with distance relative to the other earthquake types. The closest active
crustal fault to the study area is the Seattle Fault Zone, which runs roughly east-west in south
Bellevue and roughly parallel to I-90 (see Figure 4.11-1). The Seattle Fault Zone is the
primary but not only source for shallow earthquakes in Seattle. A Seattle Fault earthquake
could be as large as magnitude 7.5, but a magnitude less than 7.0 is more probable (Seattle,
2015). This type of earthquake could have the highest intensity in the study area compared to
the other earthquake sources described below, but the degree of accompanying regional
damage would likely be smaller than the megathrust earthquakes described below. Geologic
evidence suggests displacement on the Seattle fault in West Seattle (Alki Point) from an
earthquake about 1,100 years ago. Investigation of an 8,000-year history of activity on the
Seattle fault found evidence for possibly one additional earthquake on the Seattle fault about
6,900 years ago, suggesting a recurrence interval of thousands of years for large earthquakes
(Seattle, 2015).
2. Intraplate or Deep Earthquakes that occur at depths of approximately 20 to 40 miles where
dense oceanic crust dives under lighter continental crust. Because of the depth, even
buildings right above the epicenter are generally far enough away that ground motions are
attenuated and damage is limited. Deep earthquakes are the most common large earthquakes
that occur in the Puget Sound region. Deep earthquakes with magnitude greater than 6.0
3 Ground shaking can cause shifting and rearrangement of unconsolidated materials that result in settlement of the
ground surface, both uniformly and differentially (i.e., where adjoining areas settle at differing amounts due to
different characteristics).
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐7
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
(Richter scale) have occurred six times between 1909 and 2001 in the Puget Sound region,
and the highest recorded event was magnitude 7.3 in 1946. The 2001 Nisqually Earthquake
was a deep earthquake with a magnitude of 6.8 (Seattle, 2015).
3. Subduction Zone or Megathrust Earthquakes occur on the Cascadia Subduction Zone,
Megathrust earthquakes are the largest type of earthquakes in the world, and the greatest risk
to the region as a whole. A megathrust earthquake could reach magnitude 9.0+ at its
epicenter, and affect an area from Canada to northern California. Shaking in Seattle would be
violent and prolonged, but not as intense as a Seattle Fault quake. The last known megathrust
earthquake in the northwest was in 1700. Geologic evidence suggests that seven megathrust
earthquakes have occurred over the last 3,500 years indicating a return interval of 400 to 600
years (PNSN, 2017).
Strong ground shaking from a major earthquake can produce a range of intensities experienced at
any one location. Ground shaking may affect areas hundreds of miles distant from the
earthquake’s epicenter. The ground shaking can result in slope failure, settlement, soil
liquefaction, tsunamis, or seiches, all of which pose a risk to the public. Areas considered to be of
high seismic risk are depicted in Figure 4.11-1. These include Seattle Fault Zone, liquefaction
prone soils, and landslide prone areas.
4.11.2.2 Secondary Effects
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is often the cause of damage to structures during earthquakes. Liquefaction occurs
where soils are primarily loose and granular in consistency and located below the water table.
Saturated loose soils within 50 feet of the ground surface are considered at most risk of liquefaction.
The consequences of liquefaction include loss in the strength and settlement of the soil. The loss of
strength can result in lateral spreading, bearing failures, or flotation of buried utility vaults and pipes.
Liquefaction hazard areas identified in Figure 4.11-1 are those areas where the foundation soils are
subject to liquefaction or lateral spreading during an earthquake (but could also be susceptible to
seismically induced settlement). Typically, these soils are in low-lying areas near bodies of water,
such as along the larger streams and around lakes where there is a high probability of loose,
saturated, alluvial soils. In the study area, areas such as lowland lakeside areas within the Redmond
Segment north of Lake Sammamish, as well as the floodplains of the Cedar River, contain areas that
have low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction. Other areas are generally not considered
susceptible. However, site-specific geotechnical investigation identified two areas with soil
conditions considered susceptible to liquefaction (GeoEngineers, 2016), which are described below.
Landslides
Landslides have often occurred during past earthquakes in the Puget Sound region, due to the
region’s geologic and soil formations. Factors affecting the likelihood of landslides during an
earthquake include the types of materials involved (e.g., the geologic composition of materials),
precipitation, topography, slope geometry, and human activity that has altered slope support.
Earthquake motions can induce significant horizontal and vertical dynamic stresses in slopes that can
trigger failure that might otherwise be stable under static conditions.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐8
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
Methods and Approach for
Studying the Long-term
(Operation) Impacts
Potential impacts were
determined by identifying the
geologic hazard areas present
within the study area and the
geotechnical approaches to
minimize the hazards.
4.11.3 Long-term (Operation) Impacts Considered
4.11.3.1 Magnitude of Impact
The magnitude of the potential impacts from the Energize
Eastside project due to seismic activity is classified as less-
than-significant or significant, defined as follows:
Less-than-Significant – Impacts due to seismic
activity would be considered less than significant if,
assuming compliance with current practices and
regulations pertaining to structural safety, the project
would not substantially increase the risk of damage to
natural resources or adjacent land uses.
Significant – Impacts due to seismic activity would
be considered significant if, even with compliance with current regulations, the project could
substantially increase the risk of damage, injury, death, or widespread or long-term
interruption of power supply as a result of an expected seismic event. Impacts could be
considered significant even if the overall probability is remote.
Geology and soil considerations important to the Energize Eastside project include general
topography, underlying geological characteristics and properties, and soil characteristics, as well as
seismic and other related geologic hazards. Regional geology and seismicity would not change as a
result of the project, but the way the project is designed and constructed will determine its structural
stability in the event of a large earthquake. If the poles or other structures in the project were to fail,
it would directly affect the electrical supply. Falling poles or failing foundations in the substation
could result in secondary damage to people, adjacent structures, and infrastructure.
4.11.4 Long-term Impacts: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, PSE would continue to operate the existing 115 kV transmission
lines, as described in Chapter 2.
Under the No Action Alternative, existing risks of seismic activity would remain. Seismic activity is
likely to occur during the life of the existing transmission lines, and could result in ground rupture,
ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, any of which could cause the transmission line poles to
fall. This in turn could cause substantial power outages, damage to adjacent structures, injuries, or
death. However, even in severe earthquakes, it is not common for transmission line poles to fall
because the poles are designed to be flexible to resist considerable lateral movement due to wind
loads, which create forces that exceed earthquake loads (IEEE, 2017).
Ground rupture from a surface fault rupture on the Seattle Fault zone could cause the Olympic
Pipeline system that runs underground through much of the corridor to burst and release flammable
petroleum products. In the event of a release from the pipelines, the risk of a fire near the
transmission lines would be high, and the wood poles could burn. Because it is unlikely for a pole to
fall in an earthquake, it is also unlikely that a falling pole would in some way cause a rupture on the
pipeline.
An arc from a broken transmission line could provide an ignition source for a fire in the event of a
release from the pipeline. However, the likelihood of an arc starting a fire in this manner is limited by
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐9
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
the following factors: (1) if a transmission line breaks or there is some other electrical fault on the
transmission line, a circuit breaker would shut down the power to the transmission line in a fraction
of a second; (2) because of the slack in transmission lines, it is not common for them to break during
an earthquake; and (3) transmission lines are designed so that the individual wires or conductors can
swing, either due to wind or earth shaking, without striking each other and causing an arc. While
these factors make the likelihood of an arc on the transmission line starting a fire very low, it is not
impossible that a severe earthquake could cause a simultaneous release from the pipelines and a
break in the transmission lines, resulting in a fire. Section 4.9, Pipeline Safety, addresses the potential
effects if a transmission line were to ignite fuel that had been released from the Olympic Pipeline
system.
Ground shaking could also cause damage at substations from a seismic event on the Seattle Fault
Zone or from other sources along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Equipment such as transformers,
switches, and buswork could be damaged structurally. Catastrophic failures of circuit breakers,
transformer bushings, and disconnect switches at substations can result in widespread power outages.
Due to potential for oil used as insulation in this equipment to be released if the equipment is
damaged, fires are also possible.
These existing risks of adverse impacts to the environment would not change under the No Action
Alternative because the transmission lines and substations would remain in place, as would existing
infrastructure surrounding the transmission lines, including the Olympic Pipeline system.
4.11.5 Long-term Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
4.11.5.1 Impacts Common to all Components
The Energize Eastside project under any alternative or option would cross the same seismic and other
geologic hazard areas as crossed by the existing transmission lines. As such, the project would be
subject to the probability of future seismic activity. Seismic activity will likely occur during the life
of the proposed transmission lines, and could result in ground rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction,
and landslides, any of which could cause transmission line poles to fall or other equipment to fail as
described in the No Action Alternative, if not designed appropriately. However, according to the
geotechnical investigation conducted by a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer during
the design stage of the project, the recurrence interval of the Seattle Fault is on the order of 1,000
years and considered to have a low risk of causing fault rupture over the design life of the project
(GeoEngineers, 2016). This is not to suggest that ground shaking is not a hazard present throughout
the alignment, as discussed below.
There would be no wood poles, so fires resulting from a seismic event would not cause the poles to
burn, although other damage to wires and connectors could be similar, and fires could weaken steel
poles if they are hot enough. Pole heights would be substantially taller than the existing poles in most
segments of the project and could reduce the possibility of fire damage to the lines in those areas. If a
pole were to fall, the taller poles would be both heavier and have greater force should one strike a
person, property, or structure.
The final structural design for poles and other electrical equipment at the substations would comply
with NESC 2017 as adopted by the UTC (IEEE, 2017). In addition, PSE provided calculations
showing that the design of the project facilities could withstand probable seismically induced ground
shaking as would be required if the project were subject to the International Building Code. Modeled
potential seismic impacts were determined for the area to determine what the peak ground
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐10
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
acceleration (PGA) value, a measure of maximum groundshaking, would be for the study area. Using
the estimated PGA value of 0.606 according to methods consistent with the International Building
Code, the loadings or forces that would be produced would be 82 to 87 percent of the NESC
requirements for wind and ice load on transmission poles. Therefore, as noted above, designing for
weather is sufficient to ensure that the appropriate structural design would be able to withstand both
of these conditions. Therefore, the NESC requirements for transmission poles are more stringent that
the current International Building Code. Wind load is not as great a factor for substation facilities,
however.
The liquefaction potential of the study area corridor was reviewed by a Washington State licensed
geotechnical engineer during the design stage as part of the geotechnical review for seismic stability.
Areas of potential liquefaction were identified and the amount of ground settlement that could occur
as a result of liquefaction was estimated to range up to a maximum of 4 to 8 inches. Design of
structures to resist seismic forces and secondary effects such as liquefaction was informed by
geotechnical engineering methods by a Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer that was
consistent with current regulatory standards.
Under the Energize Eastside project, a minimum of 16 miles of new overhead transmission lines
would be constructed. As noted above, the transmission lines would be constructed in accordance
with the standards outlined by NESC, FERC, NERC, and ASCE Manual No. 74 (ASCE, 2009). In
areas of common utility corridors, coordination with other utility providers would be conducted as
appropriate. Site-specific geotechnical investigations have been used to define the underlying
engineering properties and identify geotechnical hazards that may be present. Geotechnical
engineering methods, such as the use of engineered fill or foundation design, would be used to ensure
that the effects of any identified hazards are minimized and impacts during operation would be
minor.
4.11.5.2 Richards Creek Substation
The Richards Creek substation site is on the edge of the Seattle Fault Zone. Areas within the fault
zone are at a potential risk of ground surface displacement and groundshaking hazards. As noted
above, improvements would be designed in accordance with NESC standards, which may or may not
meet the same standard as the International Building Code. Because earthquakes in other regions
have resulted in damage to substations, it is reasonable to assume that substation equipment could be
damaged unless designed to withstand earthquakes typical of the region.
Seismic hazards at the site, including fault rupture and liquefaction, were considered in development
of seismic design recommendations presented in the project geotechnical report (GeoEngineers,
2016). PSE has indicated that recommendations included in the geotechnical report are consistent
with the International Building Code (IBC) requirements for designing structures to resist seismic
hazards known to be present on a site, and that the Richards Creek substation will be designed in
accordance with the design recommendations presented in the project geotechnical report.
Seattle Fault Zone/Fault Rupture Hazards: The substation site is on the fault zone. As
noted above, the recurrence interval of the Seattle Fault Zone represents a low risk of fault
rupture.
Liquefaction Hazard Areas: The substation site does not intersect a mapped liquefaction
hazard area with a moderate or high hazard rating. However, a geotechnical evaluation
conducted by a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer provided an analysis of the
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐11
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
liquefaction potential and estimated the potential for ground settlement due to liquefaction in
the small area between the Lakeside substation and the south side of the existing pole yard,
which was not shown on the general area map cited above. Consideration of this area was
incorporated into the design criteria (GeoEngineers, 2016).
Landslide Hazard Areas: The substation site does not intersect an identified landslide
hazard area.
4.11.5.3 Redmond Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, this segment would include new, taller poles that intersect
landslide and seismic hazard areas. However, impacts would be less-than-significant with
implementation of NESC standards and geotechnical recommendations based on the geotechnical
evaluations that have been conducted by a Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer.
Seattle Fault Zone/Fault Rupture Hazards: This segment is outside of the fault zone.
Liquefaction Hazard Areas: The north portion of this segment (in the vicinity of the
Sammamish substation) intersects the edge of an identified liquefaction hazard area with a
moderate or high hazard rating. A geotechnical evaluation conducted by a Washington State
licensed geotechnical engineer provided an analysis of the liquefaction potential and
estimated the potential for ground settlement due to liquefaction in the wetland area near the
Sammamish substation, which was more specific than the general area maps. Consideration
of this area was incorporated into the design criteria (GeoEngineers, 2016).
Landslide Hazard Areas: The north portion of the segment intersects an identified landslide
hazard area that has received geotechnical evaluation and appropriate design measures by a
Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer.
4.11.5.4 Bellevue North Segment
Relative to the No Action Alternative, this segment would include new, taller poles that would not
intersect any identified landslide and seismic hazard areas. Implementation of NESC standards
overseen by a Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer would ensure that the new poles would
have less-than-significant impacts related to seismic (primarily groundshaking) hazards.
Seattle Fault Zone/Fault Rupture Hazards: This segment is outside the fault zone.
Liquefaction Hazard Areas: This segment does not intersect any identified liquefaction
hazard areas.
Landslide Hazard Areas: The segment is outside of any identified landslide hazard areas.
4.11.5.5 Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue Central Segment follows the route of the Existing
Corridor Option as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS (see Section 2.1.2.3), with refined design
details for pole types and placement. Relative to the No Action Alternative, potential impacts would
be similar as the new poles, even though taller, would be better designed to withstand seismic
hazards; therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐12
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
Seattle Fault Zone/Fault Rupture Hazards: This segment is largely outside of the fault
hazard zone. However, the south end of the segment abuts the north edge of the fault zone
area, as described above for the Richards Creek substation site. As noted above, the
recurrence interval of the Seattle Fault Zone represents a low risk of fault rupture
(GeoEngineers, 2016).
Liquefaction Hazard Areas: This segment does not intersect any identified liquefaction
hazard areas.
Landslide Hazard Areas: The segment is outside of any identified landslide hazard areas.
4.11.5.6 Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
PSE’s Proposed Alignment for the Bellevue South Segment follows the route of the Willow 1 Option
as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, with refined design details for pole types and placement. In
this segment, poles would be placed within the Seattle Fault Zone where potential ground surface
displacement could occur along any of the fault strands within this zone. The thrust fault strands
within this zone are complex, not well defined because of surface concealment, but thought to
include three main strands. Incorporating seismic design measures as guided by geotechnical
evaluations from a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer would make the potential for
catastrophic failure unlikely. As a result, the potential impacts would be less-than-significant.
Making this more closely reflect the conclusion of the geotech report.
Seattle Fault Zone/Fault Rupture Hazards: This segment is located entirely in the fault
hazard zone. Final design was reviewed by a geotechnical evaluation by a Washington State
licensed geotechnical engineer, which provided appropriate design criteria. As noted above,
the recurrence interval of the Seattle Fault Zone represents a low risk of fault rupture.
Liquefaction Hazard Area: This segment does not intersect any identified liquefaction
hazard areas.
Landslide Hazard Area: The segment is outside of any identified landslide hazard areas.
4.11.5.7 Newcastle Segment – Option 1 and 2
This segment includes two options that represent different approaches in pole design and placement
but would follow the same route; thus, both would be exposed to similar hazards. Relative to the No
Action Alternative, this segment would place poles of either design within the Seattle Fault Zone
where potential ground surface displacement could occur along any of the fault strands. The thrust
fault strands within this zone are complex and not well defined because of surface concealment, but
thought to include three main strands. Incorporating seismic design measures as guided by
geotechnical evaluations from a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer would make the
potential for catastrophic failure unlikely. As a result, the potential impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Seattle Fault Zone/Fault Rupture Hazards: This segment is largely located within the fault
zone. However, as noted above, the recurrence interval of the fault represents a low risk of
fault rupture.
Liquefaction Hazard Areas: This segment does not intersect any identified liquefaction
hazard areas.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐13
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
Landslide Hazard Areas: The segment is outside of any identified landslide hazard areas.
4.11.5.8 Renton Segment
This segment is outside of the Seattle Fault zone but still at risk of groundshaking hazards. In
addition, the alignment intersects a landslide hazard area (near the Honey Creek Open Space) that
could be triggered by a seismic event. Implementation of NESC standards overseen by a
Washington-licensed geotechnical engineer would ensure that the geotechnical design of the new
poles minimizes the seismic and landslide hazards present; therefore, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Seattle Fault Zone/Fault Rupture Hazards: This segment is outside the fault hazard zone.
However, the north end of the segment abuts the south edge of the fault zone. However, as
noted above, the recurrence interval of the fault represents a low risk of fault rupture.
Liquefaction Hazard Areas: This segment would intersect an identified liquefaction hazard
area with a moderate to high rating (see Figure 4.11-1). However, no poles or other structures
would be constructed in the liquefaction hazard area; therefore, the project would not be
affected by this hazard.
Landslide Hazard Areas: The segment intersects an identified landslide hazard area that has
received geotechnical evaluation and appropriate design measures by a Washington State
licensed geotechnical engineer.
4.11.6 Mitigation Measures
This section describes mitigation measures that would be used during operation of the project and
recommends additional measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts related to seismic risks.
Federal, state, and local regulations would minimize the potential for impacts dues to seismic activity
resulting from the Energize Eastside project. The design features and BMPs that PSE proposes to use
to avoid or minimize impacts during design and operation and those required by agency standards are
assumed to be part of the project and have been considered in assessing the environmental impacts
that could result from seismic activity.
All mitigation measures would be determined during the permitting process. Measures may be
required prior to construction, at project start-up, or during operation of the project. For instance,
mitigation measures related to the design of poles and substation equipment would be incorporated
into the project design prior to construction. Other mitigation measures, such as monitoring
foundations, would need to be implemented after the project is constructed.
4.11.6.1 Regulatory Requirements
PSE Responsibilities and Requirements
PSE is responsible for the Energize Eastside project’s design, construction, and operational
parameters within the shared corridor with the Olympic Pipeline systems. For general responsibilities
of the Olympic Pipe Line Company regarding pipeline safety, see Section 4.9. For geotechnical
recommendations for construction activities near the Olympic Pipeline system, see Section 5.9.
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
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐14
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
Electrical Safety Code (NESC) 2017, 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 final specifications and
standards that would be incorporated into the project have not been identified.
4.11.6.2 Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on results and recommendations of the
GeoEngineers, Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for Energize Eastside Project, June 8,
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
Confirm that a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer has conducted geotechnical
hazard evaluations for all proposed elements addressing groundshaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction, and landslides, and that all geotechnical recommendations have be incorporated
into project design.
Design the Richards Creek substation in accordance with the design recommendations
presented in the project geotechnical report (GeoEngineers, 2016). This will ensure that
substation structures are designed to IBC seismic standards even though the IBC exempts this
project from its requirements.
Use the 2012 IBC parameters for short-period spectral response acceleration (SS), 1-second
period spectral response acceleration (S1), and Seismic Coefficients FA and FV presented in
Table 2 of the geotechnical report (GeoEngineers, 2016).
Use site-specific soil input parameters for lateral load design that consider the effects of
liquefaction through the application of p-multipliers for LPILE parameters.
For the area north of the proposed Richards Creek substation, reevaluate the lateral spreading
risk to the proposed poles in this area once their final locations have been determined, to
determine appropriate foundation dimensions.
Where liquefiable deposits are present, extend foundations below the loose to medium
density liquefiable deposits into underlying dense, non-liquefiable soils.
Reevaluate the axial capacity of the pole foundations and potential downdrag loads for poles
in liquefiable deposits once final locations are selected, and consider these in the structural
design.
For the one location where soil test results indicated a moderate to high potential for
corrosion, consider involving a corrosion engineer.
FINAL EIS PAGE 4.11‐15
CHAPTER 4 LONG‐TERM (OPERATION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
Where bedrock is near the surface, additional options such as rock anchors or micropiles
might be appropriate as an alternative to drilled shafts. If micropiles are used, the contractor
should submit a detailed micropile plan describing methods and demonstrating consistency
with specifications.
The contractor should submit a detailed drilled shaft installation plan describing casing and
drilled shaft construction methods for review and comment by the engineer before
construction. The submittal should include a narrative describing the contractor’s
understanding of the anticipated subsurface conditions, the overall construction sequence,
access to the pole locations, and the proposed pole foundation installation equipment.
The contractor should submit a detailed direct embedment pole installation plan describing
both uncased and temporary casing methods.
During Constrution
Implementation of the following measures during construction would ensure proper installation and
prevent damage to adjacent structures for all of the proposed segments:
If drilled shafts are used where groundwater is present, the concrete for drilled shafts should
be placed using the “tremie” method (as described in the geotechnical report).
Monitor the installation of the drilled shafts to confirm that soil conditions are as anticipated
and that the shafts are installed in accordance with project plans and specifications, document
variations in the field if necessary, and provide consultation as required should conditions
vary from those anticipated.
Where sensitive structures may be present within about 100 feet of the work area, vibration
should be monitored.
During Operation
Implementation of the following measures during operation would reduce or minimize the potential
for damage due to seismic activity for all of the proposed segments:
Develop a monitoring and maintenance program that includes inspection and reporting on
structural stability.
As part of PSE’s regular inspection of the transmission line, monitor all improvements for
changes in conditions such as cracking foundations or slumping slopes that could reduce the
ability of structures to resist seismic disturbances. This could include regular reporting to
permitting agencies to ensure compliance.
If changes are identified during inspection and monitoring of conditions, implement
additional measures to reduce or minimize those impacts.
Short-Term (Construction)
Impacts and Potential Mitigation
5
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.1‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
CHAPTER 5. SHORT-TERM (CONSTRUCTION)
IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION
This chapter describes short-term (construction) impacts that could result from construction of PSE’s
Proposed Alignment. Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur; therefore, the
No Action Alternative is not evaluated below. For the purposes of this Final EIS, impacts associated
with routine maintenance of the existing transmission lines (e.g., occasional replacement or repair of
poles, wires, and related equipment, and associated access disturbance) are assessed as part of
Chapter 4, Long-Term (Operation) Impacts and Potential Mitigation.
5.1 LAND USE AND HOUSING
5.1.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The magnitude of short-term project-related impacts to land use and housing is classified as being
less-than-significant, or significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant – Construction activities are disruptive (e.g., noise and dust are
generated) but not to the extent that current use of the property is altered and is for a duration
that would not infringe on the use or access of the parcel or housing structures thereupon.
Significant – Construction activities are disruptive and/or continue for an interval long
enough to infringe on the current use of the parcels in the study area by causing a nuisance
(e.g., noise, dust, etc.) that changes the use of the land or by impeding access to the parcels or
housing structures thereupon.
5.1.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
Construction of the project would entail the installation of poles and stringing of conductor wires.
According to PSE, pole installation requires 3–14 days each (within a 2-month work window), no
significant excavation is required, access to adjacent land uses would be maintained, and installation
would not create significant noise, provided that the project complies with local noise regulations.
Any nuisance caused by the construction activities of PSE’s Proposed Alignment would be less than
significant due to the relatively short duration of the impacts in any one location.
In general, PSE does not anticipate the need to evacuate homeowners during construction. At some
locations, however, access may be more difficult due to terrain, vegetation, topography, or existing
structures, and cranes or helicopters could facilitate construction by lifting pole sections over
buildings. This type of construction could reduce the duration and extent of impacts on adjacent uses
and is described under mitigation below.
PSE and the construction contractor would coordinate directly with affected land owners regarding
replacing fences and ancillary structures that are either removed or disturbed, tree removal and/or
pruning, temporary evacuation, and other construction-related access issues consistent with
conditions established by permitting requirements.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.1‐2
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
LAND USE AND HOUSING
5.1.3 Mitigation Measures
Short-term (construction) land use impacts would be less-than-significant. However, the following
measure could be implemented to reduce construction-related site disturbance, construction duration,
or inconvenience for adjacent land uses.
During Construction
In locations where access is difficult, a helicopter or large crane could be used to lift
foundation rebar and/or poles over adjacent properties and into place. Helicopters could also
be used to facilitate stringing the new transmission line into place, reducing the need to enter
property to feed the initial lead line (called a “sock line”) that is used to pull the actual
conductors into place.
The decision to use a large crane or helicopter is usually determined by the construction
contractor to address access concerns and minimize site disturbance. Use of a helicopter for
this purpose is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A “congested air”
permit and advance notification are required. Because of the potential impacts of this type of
construction, local regulators may also want to limit where this type of construction would be
allowed. Appendix A-3 includes a series of questions and answers about helicopter use.
Following is a brief summary of considerations regarding this type of construction.
o Helicopter use for stringing the sock line takes only a few minutes per pole, for each
conductor. It involves flying directly over the poles and would not likely involve
suspending anything over occupied buildings or homes.
o If a crane or helicopter were used to install poles, it would require occupants of buildings
or homes in the path of the poles being transported to vacate the premises for up to 2
hours at a time during daylight working hours.
o Helicopters generate substantial noise that is not regulated by local codes. Appendix A-4
includes a table that shows expected noise levels.
o Helicopter use would not eliminate the need for construction access by vehicles for
excavation and pouring concrete.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.2‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
SCENIC VIEWS AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
5.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC
ENVIRONMENT
5.2.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The Phase 1 Draft EIS described the types of project-related construction impacts that could affect
the visual environment of the study area. Common construction-related impacts include clearing and
grading or general construction activities (e.g., the presence of construction workers, vehicles, or
equipment). Impacts would likely result from the creation of short-term, construction access roads;
temporary vegetation clearing to facilitate construction; or the increased presence of construction
vehicles, equipment, materials, and personnel, as well as the potential for increased light and glare
associated with construction site lighting.
Short-term project-related impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic environment are classified as
being less-than-significant or significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant:
Aesthetic environment – The degree of contrast created by construction activities (e.g.,
temporary access roads, temporary vegetation clearing, construction equipment, light and
glare) would not be more intense in scale and duration than typical construction activities
associated with linear corridor projects, or viewer sensitivity would be low.
Scenic views – The area with impacted scenic views would not include a substantial
number of sensitive viewers; the degree of additional obstruction of views compared to
existing conditions would be minimal; or the degree of scenic view blockage would be of
short duration (1–3 years).
Significant:
Aesthetic environment – The degree of contrast created by construction activities (e.g.,
temporary access roads, temporary vegetation clearing, construction equipment, light and
glare) would be substantially more intense in scale and duration than typical construction
activities associated with linear corridor projects, and viewer sensitivity would be high.
Scenic views – The area with scenic views impacted includes a substantial number of
sensitive viewers, defined as residential viewers, viewers from parks and trails, or
viewers from outdoor recreation facilities; the degree of additional obstruction of views
compared to existing conditions would be substantial; and the degree of scenic view
blockage would be of long duration (more than 3 years).
5.2.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
During the Phase 1 Draft EIS evaluation, the EIS Consultant Team determined that construction
impacts to the aesthetic environment and scenic views, due to their temporary nature, would be less-
than-significant. Areas cleared for temporary construction activities (including construction access
roads) would be replanted post construction; the presence of construction vehicles, equipment,
materials, and personnel would end; and increased light and glare would terminate after construction.
No further evaluation of construction (short-term) impacts to scenic views and the aesthetic
environment was conducted for the Phase 2 Draft EIS or this Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Methods for Analyzing
Short-term Impacts
The EIS Consultant Team
used the same mapping
methods as for long-term
(operation) impacts to
determine the short-term
(construction) impacts.
Impacts were assessed based
on project construction
methods, the scale of
construction activities, and
proximity of these activities to
water resources. The impact
analysis considered the extent
of vegetation clearing,
construction grading, and
other project actions.
5.3 WATER RESOURCES
5.3.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The project has the potential to cause minor short-term impacts to water resources, in particular water
quality, due to construction site runoff, dewatering discharge, accidental spills, temporary vegetation
clearing, and operation of heavy equipment. The scale and proximity of construction activities to
water resources determine the intensity of potential impacts. The analysis considered the cumulative
impacts and potential mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate project impacts to water
resources. For this analysis, the magnitude of short-term project-related impacts is classified as being
less-than-significant, or significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant – Impacts to water resources
would be considered less-than-significant if project
activities would cause temporary or minor permanent
alterations to or disturbance of water resources; impacts
can be fully mitigated according to permit requirements;
or impacts are largely avoided by the implementation of
BMPs.
Significant – Impacts to water resources would be
considered significant if project activities would cause the
permanent or net loss of wetland or buffer acreage or
impairment of functions that cannot be fully mitigated;
would be in noncompliance with applicable water quality
standards; or would cause groundwater contamination that
cannot be avoided by construction BMPs.
5.3.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts:
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
5.3.2.1 Richards Creek Substation
Construction of the Richard Creek substation facilities would require clearing and grading of
approximately 2 acres. Temporary access roads would be constructed in Wetlands A and H. Clearing
would expose bare soils, and stormwater runoff from these areas could cause increased sedimentation
and turbidity to wetlands and streams on and near the site if erosion from cleared areas is not
controlled. Compliance with applicable permits and implementation of BMPs would control surface
water runoff and erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
The access road would cross Stream C, the existing culvert under the access road would be replaced,
and Stream C would be realigned to increase streamflow conveyance. Construction would include in-
water work and work in wetlands and buffers that could temporarily increase erosion and
sedimentation to the stream. Construction would occur in the summer low flow period and would be
done in compliance with City of Bellevue performance standards (LUC 20.25H.100) and
implementation of BMPs. This would minimize impacts and make them less-than-significant.
To minimize impacts to wetlands, the site would be excavated into the slope on the east side. This
would require approximately 26,500 cubic yards of cut and 8,000 cubic yards of fill. A soldier pile
retaining wall would be installed. Excavation could encounter shallow groundwater and require
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐2
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
dewatering as described in Section 5.3.2.2, below. Pump tests would be conducted prior to
construction to determine potential drawdown and appropriate mitigation. Most of the other
substation facilities would be placed on concrete pads, requiring limited excavation. Therefore, no
impacts to groundwater are anticipated.
Table 5.3-1 describes construction impacts to water resources in the study area by segment. Because
the impacts are similar for all segments, the table refers to Section 5.3.2.2.
5.3.2.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Common to All Segments
Construction impacts to water resources would primarily be associated with installing transmission
poles, access roads, and staging areas. Construction of the new transmission lines and poles would
have similar impacts for all segments and could potentially cause temporary water quality impacts to
nearby water bodies. Impacts would be temporary and minor with the implementation of BMPs and
temporary and therefore less-than-significant. Impacts to the acreage and function of wetlands and
buffers are described as long-term impacts in Section 4.3.
Installation of the transmission poles would require excavation for pole foundations. Excavations
would be 4 to 8 feet in diameter and could extend 25 to 50 feet deep. Poles in the existing corridor
would be replaced in approximately the same location as existing poles, minimizing the amount of
additional clearing and disturbance required. Existing poles would be removed and disposed of at an
approved landfill. PSE’s Proposed Alignment is entirely within the existing corridor. PSE would
utilize existing roads for access and existing developed areas for staging to the extent possible, but
some new staging areas and short segments of access roads would be required.
Construction would require clearing of trees and vegetation within the managed right-of-way, which
could expose bare soil and potentially increase erosion and sedimentation during construction.
Implementation of BMPs and sediment and erosion control plans would reduce potential impacts.
Disturbed areas would be replanted and stabilized following construction to prevent future erosion.
(See Section 4.4 regarding replacement vegetation.) Therefore, these impacts would be temporary
and less-than-significant.
Installation of poles in wetlands or buffers would require the clearing of vegetation and excavation,
which would disturb soils and could cause minor, temporary increases of erosion and sedimentation.
Construction vehicles could compact soils and damage wetlands or buffers. PSE would implement
BMPs and provide mitigation in compliance with applicable critical areas regulations, including
mitigation requirements described in Appendix D. Timber mats and specialized equipment, such as
tracked vehicles, would be used to minimize the extent of wetland disturbance. Implementation of
BMPs and compliance with these requirements would result in less-than-significant impacts to
wetlands and buffers.
No poles would be placed in stream beds, but the transmission line would cross streams in several
locations, as described in Table 5.3-1. These crossings would consist of overhead transmission wires,
which would not impact the stream directly. Restringing the wires would not require construction
equipment or activities in the stream, so no impacts would occur. Stringing sites would be located
outside of wetlands and streams. For these reasons, impacts to streams would be less-than-
significant.
The presence of construction vehicles and equipment in the vicinity of streams and wetlands could
result in accidental spills of fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, and other chemicals. These fluids could reach
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐3
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
wetlands, streams, or groundwater if spills are not controlled. Construction contractors would be
required to develop spill prevention plans prior to issuance of the clearing and grading permit, that
would be implemented to minimize impacts, so these impacts would be less-than-significant.
Construction for the installation of some poles would also require excavation up to 50 feet, which
could encounter shallow groundwater. This could require dewatering to remove groundwater that
seeps into excavation areas. The uncontrolled release of dewatering water could contaminate surface
waters. Use of sediment tanks to settle soil particles and potentially filter or treat water pumped from
the excavations would prevent contamination. Because the area of excavation for each pole would be
limited to approximately 8 feet in diameter, any dewatering would be minimal and impacts would be
less-than-significant.
Excavation also has the potential to change or interfere with the flow patterns of shallow
groundwater, and dewatering could cause drawdown of groundwater levels. However, the limited
extent of the excavations would not impact groundwater flows or levels. Pump tests would be
conducted prior to construction to determine the potential for drawdown and settlement, and
appropriate mitigation measures would be developed to minimize impacts.
PSE will establish staging sites to store equipment and materials, as well as stringing sites to stage
operations to restring (install) the new wires. Generally, PSE will use already developed areas for
staging and stringing, minimizing the need to clear new areas, but some new areas would be required.
Clearing of these areas could increase erosion and sedimentation to adjacent water resources, but
implementation of BMPs would minimize impacts. New staging areas would be restored following
construction, so impacts would be temporary and less-than-significant.
5.3.2.3 Short-term (Construction) Impacts by Segment
Table 5.3-1 summarizes the short-term (construction) impacts for the Richards Creek substation and
transmission line segments and options, taking into account code-required mitigation. Information in
this section is based on the 2016 and 2017 wetland delineation reports for Redmond, Bellevue North,
Bellevue Central, and Renton (The Watershed Company, 2016, 1017) and the critical areas permit
applications for Richards Creek Substation, Bellevue South, and Newcastle (PSE, 2017b, 2017c).
Additional wetland and stream impacts may be identified during the permitting process. PSE would
comply with all mitigation requirements, so impacts are expected to be less-than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐4
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Table 5.3-1. Short-term Impacts to Water Resources in the Study Area by Segment
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Richards Creek Substation
Sedimentation and
turbidity
Increased sedimentation and turbidity could occur in
the wetlands and stream reaches on and near the site
if erosion from cleared areas is not controlled.
Implementation of BMPs and compliance with City of
Bellevue stormwater and clearing and grading
regulations (LUC 24.06 and LUC 23.76) would
minimize potential impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to wetlands and
streams
Construction of substation facilities could temporarily
increase erosion and sedimentation in wetlands on
and near the site. Construction of the access road
crossing of Stream C, including culvert replacement
and stream realignment, could increase erosion and
sedimentation to the stream. Compliance with City of
Bellevue performance standards (LUC 20.25H.100)
and implementation of BMPs would minimize impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Contamination from
accidental spills or leaks
Oil, fuel, and other chemicals could inadvertently spill
or leak from construction equipment and contaminate
surface and groundwater. Implementation of spill
prevention plans would minimize impacts.
Less-than-
Significant
Contamination from
dewatering
Excavation to install most substation facilities would
be shallow and would not encounter groundwater.
Installation of poles could encounter groundwater and
require dewatering. No contamination from dewatering
is anticipated because the dewatering would be
minimal.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to groundwater
flow or water levels
Excavation to construct the substation would be
shallow and would not impact groundwater flows or
levels. Installation of poles could encounter
groundwater, but the limited extent of excavation
would not impact groundwater flows or levels.
Less-than-
Significant
Reduced groundwater
infiltration
Heavy construction equipment could compact soils
and reduce the rate of surface water infiltration and
groundwater recharge. Limiting the area of
construction impact would minimize compaction.
Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐5
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Redmond Segment
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from
accidental spills and leaks
Contamination from
dewatering
Impacts to groundwater
flows or water levels
Reduced groundwater
infiltration
See Section 5.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Replacement poles would be located in approximately
the same location as they are currently. Approximately
4 poles would be located in wetlands, but no poles
would be located in buffers. Existing access roads
would be used. Staging and stringing sites would be
located outside of critical areas, to the extent feasible.
Impacts from installing new poles or wires, or
removing old poles from stream and wetland buffers
would be less-than-significant.
Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream
crossings
The transmission line would cross two streams and the
buffer of one other. Stringing the wires across the
stream would not cause impacts because no
construction activities would occur in the stream.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue North Segment
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from
accidental spills and leaks
Contamination from
dewatering
Impacts to groundwater
flows or water levels
Reduced groundwater
infiltration
See Section 5.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
No transmission poles, staging areas, or stringing sites
would be located in streams, wetlands, or buffers, so
no impacts would occur.
No Impact
Number of stream
crossings
The transmission line would not cross any streams in
the existing corridor, so no impacts would occur.
No Impact
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐6
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from
accidental spills and leaks
Contamination from
dewatering
Impacts to groundwater
flows or water levels
Reduced groundwater
infiltration
See Section 5.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
No transmission poles would be located in streams.
Two poles are proposed in wetlands and nine poles
would be located in buffers (these would replace
existing poles). Staging and stringing sites would be
located outside of critical areas, to the extent feasible.
Impacts from installing new poles and removing old
poles from stream and wetland buffers would be less-
than-significant.
Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream
crossings
The transmission line would cross 13 streams or
surface water drainage features in this segment in the
existing corridor. No new clearing would be required.
Stringing the wires across these features would not
cause impacts because no construction activities
would occur in these water courses.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from
accidental spills and leaks
Contamination from
dewatering
Impacts to groundwater
flows or water levels
Reduced groundwater
infiltration
See Section 5.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Segments.
Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐7
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Two poles are proposed in wetlands (these would
replace two existing poles) and one is proposed in a
stream buffer. Staging and stringing sites would be
located outside of critical areas, to the extent feasible.
Impacts from installing new poles and removing old
poles from stream and wetland buffers would be less-
than-significant.
Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream
crossings
The corridor would cross seven streams, which is the
same as existing conditions. No new clearing would be
required. Restringing the wires across the stream
would not cause impacts because no construction
activities would occur in the stream. No new impacts
would occur from stream crossings.
Less-than-
Significant
Newcastle Segment (Both Option 1 and Option 2)
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from
accidental spills and leaks
Contamination from
dewatering
Impacts to groundwater
flows or water levels
Reduced groundwater
infiltration
See Section 5.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
Poles would be replaced in wetland buffer, resulting in
minor impacts. Under Option 1, slightly more
temporary impacts would occur in stream and wetland
buffers because additional pole work areas and
access routes would be required.
Less-than-
Significant
Number of stream
crossings
The corridor would cross three streams, which is the
same as existing conditions. No new clearing would be
required. Stringing the wires across the streams would
not cause impacts because no construction activities
would occur in the streams.
Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐8
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Renton Segment
Sediment and turbidity
Contamination from
accidental spills and leaks
Contamination from
dewatering
Impacts to groundwater
flows or water levels
Reduced groundwater
infiltration
See Section 5.3.2.2, Impacts Common to All
Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to groundwater Portions of the segment are within Zone 2 of Renton’s
Wellhead Protection Area. Compliance with the City’s
construction standards would minimize impacts to
groundwater.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to streams and
wetlands
No poles, staging areas, or stringing sites would be
placed in wetlands, streams, or their buffers, so there
would be no impacts.
No Impacts
Number of stream
crossings
The corridor would cross four streams, which is the
same as existing conditions. No new clearing would be
required. Stringing the wires across the streams would
not cause impacts because no construction activities
would occur in the streams. No poles would be placed
in the shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River.
None
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐9
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
5.3.3 Mitigation Measures
The following construction-specific mitigation measures would be required or could be imposed to
reduce construction impacts to water resources. Construction-specific mitigation measures were
identified based on a review of regulations and standard construction BMPs, both of which would be
required. Therefore, no potential mitigation measures are proposed because required regulatory
mitigation measures would adequately alleviate any potential impacts to water resources. Some of
the required and potential mitigation measures identified in Section 4.3.6, such as compliance with
critical areas ordinances, also have the potential to mitigate construction-related impacts.
5.3.3.1 Regulatory Requirements
PSE would need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements for
stormwater, streams, wetlands, and critical areas, and Shorelines of the State. Compliance with these
requirements would mitigate the potential for short-term adverse impacts to water resources.
Mitigation measures required to comply with such regulations are not discretionary.
Prior to Construction
Apply for all necessary permits (BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified in
the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to
implement).
During Construction
Comply with code provisions for the protection of water resources from clearing and grading
activities.
Comply with all necessary permits:
o National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for construction
(issued by Ecology).
o Hydraulic Project Approval (issued by WDFW).
o Construction Stormwater General Permit.
Implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Temporary Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan to mitigate potential increased sedimentation and turbidity from stormwater
runoff. These plans will include BMPs to ensure that sediment originating from disturbed
soils would be retained, with the limits of disturbance such as the following:
o Temporary covering of exposed soils and stockpiled materials.
o Silt fencing, catch basin filters, interceptor swales, or hay bales.
o Temporary sedimentation ponds or sediment traps.
o Installation of a rock construction entrance and street sweeping.
Implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan to minimize the potential
for spills or leaks of hazardous materials. BMPs in the Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures Plan would include the following:
o Operating procedures to prevent spills.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.3‐10
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
WATER RESOURCES
o Control measures such as secondary containment to prevent spills from entering nearby
surface waters.
o Countermeasures to contain, clean up, and mitigate the effects of a spill.
o Construction vehicle storage and maintenance and fueling of construction equipment will
be located away from streams and wetlands.
Comply with a dewatering plan to monitor groundwater withdrawal during excavations and
to avoid groundwater contamination. This would likely include collecting dewatering water
from excavations and treating it before discharge to surface water or stormwater systems.
Comply with construction standards applicable to Wellhead Protection Zone 4 (RZC
21.64.050D.4.b) in the City of Redmond.
Comply with construction standards applicable to Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2 (RMC 4-
4-030.C8) in the City of Renton. These standards include requirements for the following:
o Secondary containment for hazardous materials.
o Securing hazardous materials.
o Removal of leaking vehicles and equipment.
o Cleanup equipment and supplies.
Monitor soils from construction-related excavation/grading for contamination; if
contaminated soils are encountered, mitigate in accordance with federal, state, and local
regulations.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.4‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Methods for Analyzing
Short-term Impacts
The EIS Consultant Team
used the same methods as for
long-term (operation) impacts
to determine the short-term
(construction) impacts to
plants and animals in the
study area. Impacts were
assessed based on the type
and scale of construction
activities and potential habitat
modifications, and the likely
presence of protected fish and
wildlife species.
5.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
The potential effects of short-term (project construction) activities on plant and animal
resources in the study area were assessed on the basis of project construction methods,
the scale of the construction activities, and the quality and proximity of typical species and habitat
resources. The analysis considered the scale of PSE’s Proposed Alignment in determining potential
impacts to species or their habitats, including noise disturbance, the disturbance or short-term
alteration of available habitat, and construction area stormwater runoff.
Impacts were assessed based on the number and type of power transmission facilities installed,
amount of ground disturbance during construction, the presence of natural or critical areas, and the
proximity of construction areas to known or potential species habitats. These include known or
potential nesting, migration, and rearing habitats within the study area.
5.4.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The project is expected to cause temporary (short-term)
modifications of available fish and wildlife habitat, as well as
potential direct impacts to fish and wildlife species. The scale and
proximity of construction activities to these resources determined
the intensity of potential impacts. The analysis considered the
cumulative impacts and potential mitigation measures to minimize
or eliminate project impacts to plant and animal resources. For this
analysis, the magnitude of short-term impacts is classified as being
less-than-significant or significant, as follows:
Less-than-Significant–Impacts to fish and wildlife are
considered less-than-significant if project activities would
cause temporary, or minor permanent, alterations or
disturbances to study area habitats, including impacts that
could be minimized but not fully mitigated; occur in
developed areas with minimal or poor quality habitat; or
when impacts are mitigated through compliance with tree
protection or critical areas ordinances. This would include
limited interference with the breeding, feeding, or movement of resident or migratory fish,
bird, amphibian, or mammal species. This would also include activities that could cause
harassment, injury, or death to common species, whose populations would not be
substantially altered by such impacts.
Significant–Impacts are considered significant where construction activities would cause the
following: injury, death, or harassment of federal and state listed endangered or threatened
species, or bald eagle and peregrine falcon (state sensitive and federal species of concern); a
reduction of habitat quality or quantity that can substantially affect the critical survival
activities (breeding, rearing, and foraging) of listed species; substantial interference with the
breeding, feeding, or movement of native resident or migratory fish, bird, amphibian, or
mammal species; or noncompliance with tree protection ordinances or critical areas
ordinances.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.4‐2
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
5.4.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
5.4.2.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Common to All Components
A range of potential direct and indirect impacts to plants and animals could occur during
construction, including the following: noise disturbance, habitat alteration or loss (vegetation
clearing), degradation of aquatic habitat, and introduction of invasive plant species.
Disturbance from Construction Noise and Human Activity
Increased construction noise and human activity could cause some animal species to temporarily
relocate to surrounding habitats, or in some instances to be displaced. This would be a significant
adverse impact if listed species are harassed, lost, or permanently displaced. However, the typical
construction activities would not cause excessive noise disturbances, and protected wildlife species
are not known to occupy habitat within the study area. In addition, construction BMPs would be
implemented for PSE’s Proposed Alignment to eliminate or substantially reduce impacts.
Most of the construction activities would occur in discrete locations (i.e., individual pole locations)
dispersed along the existing corridor. The work areas would typically be limited to the immediate
area around the pole locations, where vegetation could be removed to allow a safe working space for
equipment, vehicles, and materials. The amount of ground disturbance would be limited. Disturbing
these small, isolated areas would require wildlife to move only short distances to avoid direct effects,
and limit indirect effects to surrounding habitat. The pole locations would also be chosen to minimize
the disturbance of sensitive or critical areas, by typically allowing placement within approximately
25 feet of the existing poles.
Loss of Habitat
Construction activities that disturb the vegetation and soil would result in the short-term loss or
alteration of habitat for ground-oriented species, thereby decreasing the value of the habitat for
wildlife. The primary factor resulting in habitat loss would be the amount of area needed to install the
poles and wires along the corridor. The construction activities typically consist of excavating a hole
using a Vactor truck or auger, to minimize ground disturbance. The poles would either be placed
directly in the hole and backfilled, or reinforced-steel anchor bolt cages would be installed and filled
with concrete to secure the pole. After the poles are erected, the new power lines would be strung
between the poles. Stringing new wires would require additional staging areas to pull the wires and
achieve the correct wire tension. Some additional vegetation clearing, grading or other ground
disturbance activities would sometimes be necessary at these sites, depending on site conditions.
Overall, the amount of ground-disturbing activities associated with installing the poles and stringing
the new conductors would be limited, and disturbed areas would be replanted to the extent
practicable. As a result, these activities would have less-than-significant impacts to fish and wildlife
habitat.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.4‐3
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Sedimentation of Aquatic Habitats
Construction activities adjacent to streams or within wetlands have the potential to increase
sedimentation of aquatic habitats, due to runoff from disturbed areas. While most segments avoid
critical areas and their buffers, there are a few instances where pole placements could result in
potential impacts as described in Table 5.3-1. Such impacts would be significant if protected fish or
other aquatic species are present. However, complying with state and local stormwater permit BMPs,
including installing temporary erosion control measures prior to ground-disturbing activities, would
minimize or eliminate potential impacts. In addition, the limited amount of disturbed area, and the
flexibility of locating poles up or down the existing corridor, would minimize the potential for turbid
runoff from reaching sensitive habitats. As a result, expected impacts would be less-than-significant.
Contamination of Aquatic Habitats
Construction activities adjacent to critical areas or their buffers have the potential to result in
accidental spills of oils, fuels, solvents, and other chemicals from construction equipment. If not
controlled, such spills could enter nearby surface waters and adversely affect aquatic species.
However, such impacts would be minimized or eliminated by fulfilling permit requirements and
implementing Spill Prevention and Control Plans. As a result, expected impacts would be less-than-
significant.
Invasive Plant Control
PSE would replant disturbed areas after construction to reduce the space and opportunity for invasive
species to become established. PSE would also continue to selectively use herbicides for vegetation
management, in accordance existing permits and associated BMPs. Therefore, less-than-significant
impacts are expected.
5.4.2.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts by Component and Segment
While the extent and duration of construction activities would vary among segments, the types of
construction impacts would be similar for each. The primary difference between segments would be
the number of construction sites (pole locations) within the segment, ranging from 21 to 59 poles per
segment, and the availability and condition of access routes. For example, access to the north portion
of the Redmond Segment could require access through a vegetated greenbelt with wetland habitat
features, but existing access roads would be used. Along most of the existing corridor, the new poles
would be placed in the same general area as the existing poles, using existing access routes, also
limiting potential impacts. The analysis of potential construction impacts considered both existing
access routes as well as proposed temporary access routes for the project.
In addition to access-related impacts, project construction activities have the potential for direct and
indirect impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitat. The installation of new poles would disturb or
replace small areas of existing habitat, although these impacts would generally be offset by the
removal of a similar, or slightly greater, number of existing poles. As described above, the potential
short-term impacts of construction activities on fish, wildlife, and plant species are expected to be
limited due to the low-impact construction methods needed to install the poles and string the
conductors.
Impacts by segment (and the Richards Creek substation) are summarized in Table 5.4-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.4‐4
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Table 5.4-1. Impacts to Plants and Animals by Segment and Option
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Richards Creek Substation
Noise disturbance activities Increased noise levels could disturb or displace
species on or near the site, particularly during pile
driving activities to protect the hillside to the east of
the site. However, pile driving activities would occur
for a relatively short period of time (several weeks).
Other construction noise would likely be similar to
background levels in surrounding areas, protected
species use of the habitat in the vicinity is limited,
and seasonal restrictions would be implemented to
limit construction during sensitive periods (breeding
and nesting seasons).
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) Much of the existing site is already disturbed and
used as a storage area. As a result, potential
impacts of construction access and construction
staging during installation of the substation would be
limited.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species With the potential exception of lamprey, no
protected aquatic species are expected to occur in
the small streams adjacent to the substation site.
Construction of the access road crossing of Stream
C, including culvert replacement and stream
realignment, would require in-water work and could
increase erosion and sedimentation to the stream.
Compliance with City of Bellevue performance
standards (LUC 20.25H.100) and state and federal
permit requirements including implementation of
BMPs would minimize impacts would minimize the
potential to affect aquatic species.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Discriminating use of growth regulators and
herbicides for vegetation management will be used
in accordance with existing permits and associated
BMPs.
Less-than-
Significant
Redmond Segment
Noise disturbance from
ground-clearing activities
See Section 5.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts Common to
All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.4‐5
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Habitat loss (temporary) Impacts to available habitat from installing new poles
and stringing new wires would be less-than-
significant because the segment is in the existing
corridor, existing access roads would be used, and
timber mats would be used to access the pole
locations to minimize ground disturbance.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species With the potential exception of lamprey, no
protected aquatic species are expected to occur in
the small streams in this segment. Direct impacts to
aquatic habitat would be avoided, and compliance
with appropriate construction BMPs would minimize
the potential to affect aquatic habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control As with the Richards Creek substation site, this
would include discriminating use of growth
regulators and herbicides in accordance with
existing management plans and permits.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue North Segment
Noise disturbance from
ground-clearing activities
See Section 5.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts Common to
All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Loss of habitat (temporary) Impacts from installing new poles and stringing new
wires on available habitat would be less-than-
significant because the segment is in the existing
corridor with available access to minimize ground
disturbance.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Several protected fish species could occur in Valley
Creek in this segment. However, no poles would be
located in the stream or buffers, and available
access to the pole sites would minimize or eliminate
potential short-term impacts to aquatic habitat or
species.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond Segment. Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.4‐6
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
Noise disturbance from
ground-clearing activities
See Section 5.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts Common to
All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) Impacts from installing new poles on available
habitat would be less-than-significant because the
segment is in the existing corridor with available
access to minimize ground disturbance.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Several protected fish species occur in the streams
in this segment. However, no poles would be located
in streams or stream buffers, and available access to
the pole sites would minimize or eliminate potential
short-term impacts to aquatic habitat or species.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond Segment. Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue South Segment, Revised Willow 1 Option
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 5.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) Impacts from installing new poles and restringing
wires would be less-than-significant because the
segment is in the existing corridor, and mitigation
would minimize short-term impacts to available
habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Seven streams are located in this segment,
including Coal Creek, which supports several
protected fish species. However, no new impacts
would occur near these streams.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
Newcastle Segment
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 5.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) Impacts on available habitat from installing new
poles and restringing wires would be less-than
significant because the segment is in the
existing corridor and mitigation would minimize
short-term impacts to available habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.4‐7
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Location/Segment Short-term Effect Impact
Impacts to aquatic species May Creek occurs in this segment and supports
several protected fish species, the same as
existing conditions. No new impacts would
occur at these stream crossings.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
Renton Segment
Noise disturbance from ground-
clearing activities
See Section 5.4.2.1, Short-term Impacts
Common to All Components.
Less-than-
Significant
Habitat loss (temporary) Impacts on available habitat from installing new
poles and restringing wires would be less-than-
significant because the segment is in the
existing corridor, and mitigation would minimize
short-term impacts to available habitat.
Less-than-
Significant
Impacts to aquatic species Five streams occur in this segment, including
Honey Creek and the Cedar River, which
support several protected fish species. No new
impacts would occur at these stream crossings.
No poles would be placed in the shoreline
jurisdiction of the Cedar River.
Less-than-
Significant
Invasive plant control Impacts would be similar to the Redmond
Segment.
Less-than-
Significant
5.4.3 Mitigation Measures
As described above for long-term impacts, PSE would provide mitigation for potential long-term
impacts to fish, wildlife, and plant resources caused by construction, using on- and off-site habitat
enhancements, which would be developed in coordination with local, state, and federal agencies
(Section 4.4.6). In addition, to mitigate for the short-term impacts described in this chapter, the
following mitigation measures would be used during construction to reduce construction-related
impacts.
5.4.3.1 Regulatory Requirements
The following measures are required to comply with regulations and are not discretionary.
During Construction
Implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 5.3.3 to minimize impacts on water
resources would also minimize impacts on plants and animals. In addition, PSE would comply with
applicable construction windows for in-water work.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.4‐8
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
PSE would also comply with all requirements of their Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
(JARPA) imposed by natural resource agencies to protect fish and wildlife species and their habitat,
such as:
Limit work to allowable “fish window” time periods.
Limit work during sensitive nesting and breeding seasons for protected wildlife species
occurring in the area.
Implement PSE’s established bird protection programs and procedures.
Provide fish exclusion if required to prevent harm to protected species.
Replant and stabilize disturbed construction and staging areas with native trees, shrubs, and
grasses.
Implementation of temporary erosion control measures.
Utilize a Spill Prevention and Control Plan.
5.4.3.2 Potential Mitigation
During Construction
PSE would continue to implement an ecologically based, integrated weed management
program to control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds at disturbed areas by planting
native plants.
Flag the limits of construction, trees to be retained, and critical habitat areas and associated
buffers to be avoided.
At sites where access is difficult, a helicopter or large crane may be used to limit the extent of
disturbance necessary for construction access. See the discussion of helicopter use in Section
5.1.3.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.5‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
Methods for Analyzing
Short-term Impacts
Short-term construction
emissions of GHGs were
qualitatively assessed with a
construction phase duration of
2 years as the criteria for
requiring BMPs as mitigation.
5.5 GREENHOUSE GASES
5.5.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
The following specifically defines project-level short-term
(construction) impacts to GHGs:
Less-than-Significant – The project would result in construction-
related GHG emissions over a limited period not exceeding 2
years.
Significant – The project would result in construction-related
GHG emissions over an extensive construction period exceeding 2
years and not implementing BMPs.
5.5.2 Short-term (Construction) Impacts:
PSE’s Proposed Alignment
Construction truck trips, off-road equipment, and worker trips would generate GHG emissions.
Construction equipment would include specialized oversize trucks and trailers, backhoes or
excavators, concrete trucks, and cranes or other specialty equipment to place transformers. Most of
this equipment would operate on diesel fuel, which has an emission factor of 10.15 kilograms of CO2
per gallon.
As described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, the Energize Eastside project would have a relatively short
construction period (approximately 12 to 18 months). Installing transformers would be performed
concurrently with the transmission line and poles. Consequently, although the project would involve
a relatively large amount of construction equipment, its relatively short duration would result in
temporary construction GHG emissions.
The Phase 1 Draft EIS addressed the potential for lifecycle emissions from manufacturing and
transport of material resources required for the Energize Eastside project. The primary material
resources would be concrete for pier and transformer foundations, steel or laminated wood poles for
towers, and conductors. Of these materials, concrete is likely the most GHG-intensive to produce.
Production of 1 cubic meter of concrete generates approximately 101 kilograms (222 pounds) of CO2
(Kjellsen et al., 2005), which accounts for cement production, aggregate production, water, and
transport. The most recent estimate of installation requirements for the proposed project indicates
that there would be 221 pole foundations required and that of those approximately 40 percent (89)
would require concrete foundations. Assuming caisson foundations 35 feet deep and 6 feet in
diameter, each foundation would require approximately 6 cubic meters of concrete, yielding a
minimum GHG estimate for all towers of 54 metric tons of CO2.
Project-related GHG emissions from construction would be temporary, would not represent a
continuing burden on the statewide inventory, and would likely be below state reporting thresholds;
in addition, in practice, the reporting threshold applies to emissions from a facility and not to
temporary construction activities. Consequently, construction-related GHG emissions would be less-
than-significant.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.5‐2
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
GREENHOUSE GASES
5.5.3 Mitigation Measures
Short-term (construction) GHG impacts would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation measures
are required. However, the following BMPs could be implemented to reduce construction-related
GHG contributions.
5.5.3.1 Potential Mitigation Measures
During Construction
Use renewable diesel for diesel-powered construction equipment. The fuel can achieve a 40–
80 percent reduction in GHG emissions compared to fossil diesel and is a recommended
component of GHG reduction efforts in other jurisdictions such as the Drive Clean Seattle
program (Seattle OSE, 2012).
Use non-petroleum lubricants for construction equipment.
Replant disturbed construction and staging areas with native trees, shrubs, and grasses.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Methods for Studying Short-
term Impacts
The EIS Consultant Team
used the same mapping
methods used for long-term
(operation) impacts to
determine the short-term
(construction) impacts. They
then considered the type and
scale of construction
activities, the time of year of
construction (e.g., during peak
summer use), duration of
construction, number of users
affected, and type and
number of recreation sites
affected.
5.6 RECREATION
5.6.1 Short-term (Construction) Impacts Considered
Potential short-term impacts to recreation include the loss of use of a recreation site during
construction activities. The following specifically defines short-term impacts to recreation.
Less-than-Significant – Impacts would be less-than-significant if a recreation site were not usable
for a short duration or if construction activities are noticeable (e.g., decreased visual enjoyment) and
cause irritation to users but do not preclude recreation use (e.g., if a trail is closed for 3 to 14 days
over a 2-month period while a pole is replaced and the lines are
restrung). Impacts would also be less-than-significant if a
recreation site were unusable or access completely blocked outside
of peak use or in a recreation site or area of a recreation site that is
not frequently used (e.g., if construction site access blocks a trail
that is located in a park for a 2-month period while all poles in that
park are replaced and the lines are restrung). Construction on
school property would be less-than-significant if it occurred when
school is not in session (e.g., weekends, summertime).
Significant – Impacts are considered significant if a recreation site
were unusable or access is completely blocked during peak use for
an extended period of time (e.g., a park is inaccessible during the
summer months and many users are affected). Construction
through easements on school property during the school year
would be significant if sports and play fields are not available to
the students (e.g., a soccer field is inaccessible during a
tournament).
5.6.2 PSE’s Proposed Alignment: New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines
5.6.2.1 New Richards Creek Substation
Short-term impacts to recreation from the construction of the substation would be less-than-
significant. Students at the Chestnut Hill Academy may hear construction noise in outside play areas
or sports fields, but this is not expected to disrupt their activities.
5.6.2.2 Impacts Common to All Segments
Activities within a recreation site in the vicinity of construction may be limited for the duration of
active construction (see Section 2.1.3, Construction, for details). For example, where a pole site is
located within a park, the portion of the park nearby could be inaccessible for 3 to 14 days while
work is being done. If poles and access routes are not located in areas used by recreationists,
recreation would not likely be affected. Where a trail is located along PSE’s existing corridor and
access to a number of poles would be along the corridor, the trail could be temporarily closed or
rerouted during active work (i.e., while workers are on-site) until all poles are replaced. For example,
if a trail is used to access four pole sites, that trail could be affected for up to 20 days within a 2-
month period. The trail could remain open provided it was safe, but users would see construction
activities and vehicles on the trail, which may affect user enjoyment. Bicycle and pedestrian use of
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐2
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
roads or sidewalks may be restricted while poles are replaced or constructed along roads. In between
active work (i.e., between work stages, including evenings and weekends), areas may have
indications of construction (e.g., disturbed soil or a small area cordoned off), but access would be
maintained. PSE would work to maintain access to recreation sites while providing a safe working
area for crews and the public. Recreation users may relocate to nearby parks during construction,
making those parks busier than usual. PSE will try to keep recreation areas open to the extent
possible; however, during certain construction activities (e.g., movement of construction equipment),
safety is paramount and may require temporary closure of some areas.
Trees and vegetation may be removed within the managed right-of-way within or adjacent to
recreation sites to facilitate project construction and access. Grasses, shrubs, and saplings would be
disturbed or cleared in areas subject to ground-disturbing activities. Temporary vegetation cleared to
facilitate construction will be restored, but areas may be fenced off to allow vegetation to reestablish.
Impacts to recreation from permeant changes to vegetation are described in Section 4.6, Recreation.
Construction vehicles may use parking spaces or adjacent street parking. In addition, it is possible
that recreation sites or facilities may be used for temporary construction staging. PSE would work
with the appropriate cities to identify suitable locations for staging that would result in minimal
impacts to recreation. Such suitable locations may include overflow parking areas or parts of the site
that are underutilized.
After poles are replaced, the site (including any staging areas) would be restored and available for
recreation. Recreation users would be inconvenienced by construction activities; however, impacts
would be short in duration at each recreation site and less-than-significant.
Short-term (construction) impacts at specific recreation sites are summarized by segment in Table
5.6-1. As shown, there would be no impacts or less-than-significant impacts at all recreation sites in
the study area.
Table 5.6-1. Short-term Impacts to Recreation Sites in the Study Area by Segment
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Richards Creek Substation
Chestnut Hill Academy Students may hear some construction noise from
outside play areas or sports fields; however, there
would be no change to recreation during
construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Redmond Segment
Willows Crest Park The parcel adjacent to Willows Crest Park would be
used to access 11 pole sites (2 poles per site) on
the easement. There would no construction in the
park, but users would be disturbed by vehicles
driving past the park intermittently for up to 3
months.
Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐3
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Willows Creek Neighborhood
Park
Construction would not be visible from the park,
and there would be no disturbance to the park
itself.
No Impact
Trails (unnamed on corridor,
between the Sammamish
substation and where the
corridor turns south)
The trail would be temporarily closed while adjacent
poles are replaced. Vegetation may be cleared to
facilitate construction. Ten new poles are proposed
in the vicinity of the trail. This trail may be closed
until all poles are replaced, or users may avoid the
area. Given the number of poles, work in this area
would likely be continuous for approximately 2
months. As this is not a high use area, impacts
would be limited.
Less-than-
Significant
Unnamed Trails (on the north-
south portion of the corridor)
Trails along the north-south portion of the
Redmond Segment may be temporarily closed
while adjacent poles are replaced. How long a trail
would be affected would depend on proximity to
roads and if the trail is needed to access other
poles. Vegetation may also be cleared to facilitate
construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Rose Hill Middle School Access to playfields would be restricted during
active construction while poles and wires are
replaced. Two H-frames (four poles) would be
removed and replaced with one pole on the school
property. Work would take 6 to 14 days. Vegetation
clearing during construction would be limited
because the area is already cleared. The existing
115 kV lines (part of a different transmission line)
and monopoles on the east side of the property
would remain.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue North Segment
Bridle Crest Trail No poles are located on this trail. The trail would be
intermittently closed (less than 1 week at a time)
while poles on the adjacent parcel are replaced.
Work would take 3 to 14 days.
Less-than-
Significant
Unnamed Trail along NE 52nd
Ln right-of-way and SR 520
Trail
No poles are located on either of these trails. These
trails may be temporarily closed for 1 day during
restringing of lines across the trails. Restringing of
lines across SR 520 would likely take place at night.
Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐4
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Viewpoint Park The portion of the park within the existing corridor,
including the trail, may be closed while the poles
(one set of poles within the park) and wires are
replaced. Vegetation clearing during construction
would be limited because the area is already
cleared. Work would take 3 to 14 days.
Less-than-
Significant
Bellevue Central Segment (Revised Existing Corridor Option)
Unnamed Trail (on corridor at
Bel-Red Rd and NE Spring
Blvd)
There would be no changes to this section of trail
and therefore no associated construction.
No Impact
Highland-Glendale Property No poles are in this park, and it would not be used
to access other poles. Wires would be restrung
over the park, but ground disturbance is unlikely
and the area is already cleared. The park may be
closed for up to 1 day during restringing of lines.
Less-than-
Significant
Glendale Country Club
(private)
There are six pairs of poles along the east edge of
the golf course that would need to be replaced,
which would result in disturbance at each pole site.
Access for construction is not limited; thus; work in
one area would not likely restrict access
somewhere else. Users of the clubhouse and golf
course would see construction activities, including
vegetation clearing, and holes or trails under the
lines may be closed during active construction.
Construction on the club property would be
completed in less than 2 months.
Less-than-
Significant
Unnamed Trails along the
Existing Corridor (between SE
10th St and SE 20th St), 10th
Ave Trail, and SE 3rd Trail
Portions of trails would be closed during active
construction while the poles and wires are
replaced, and vegetation cleared. PSE would drive
along the easement to access poles farther from
the road, and trail users would need to be aware of
construction traffic on the trail and possible
restrictions. Between SE 10th St and SE 20th St,
there are six pole sites, five of which PSE would
access from the south, and the trail could be
affected for up to 25 days within 2 months in
addition to site preparation.
Less-than-
Significant
Kelsey Creek Park In Kelsey Creek Park, trails in PSE’s easement
would be closed during active construction while
the poles and wires are replaced, and vegetation
cleared. PSE would need to drive along the
easement to access poles farther from the road,
and trail users would need to be aware of
construction traffic on the trail and possible
Less-than-
Significant
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐5
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
restrictions. Between SE 1th St and the Lake Hills
Connector, there are four pole sites, which PSE
would access from the north, and the trail could be
affected for up to 20 days within 2 months in
addition to site preparation.
Skyridge Park One pole site is located on the east edge of the
park. Park users would see construction activities,
such as vegetation clearing. As the pole site is near
the entrance to the park, access to the park may be
closed for 3 to 14 days within 2 months.
Less-than-
Significant
Richards Valley Greenway
(Trail)
This portion of the greenway may be temporarily
closed for 1 day during restringing of lines across
the greenway.
Less-than-
Significant
Bel-Red Mini Park, McDowell
House, Wilburton Hill Park
and Bellevue Botanical
Gardens, Eastside Rail
Corridor (ERC), West Kelsey
Open Space, Woodridge
Open Space, Richards Creek
Open Space, Bannerwood
Ballfield Park, and Richards
Valley Open Space
The Revised Existing Corridor Option is not near
these parks.
No Impact
Bellevue South Segment (Revised Willow 1 Option)
Mountains to Sound
Greenway I-90 Trail
No poles are located on the trail. Although unlikely,
it is possible that the trail may be temporarily
closed for up to 1 day during restringing of wires
across the trail.
Less-than-
Significant
Tyee Middle School Access to the playfields would be restricted during
active construction while poles are replaced.
Vegetation disturbance would be minimal as
existing vegetation is primarily lawn grass.
Construction on school property would take 6 to 14
days.
Less-than-
Significant
Somerset North Slope Open
Space
This open space is not open to the public. No Impact
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐6
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Somerset Recreation Club PSE would access the poles from Somerset Pl SE.
Construction would be visible, and access to the
area near the poles may be limited. Although
unlikely, it is possible that the club may be
temporarily closed for up to 1 day during restringing
of wires. PSE would work with the club to avoid
disturbance to recreation activities.
Less-than-
Significant
Forest Hill Neighborhood
Park & Open Space
The portion of the park within the existing corridor
would have limited access during active
construction. Users of the greenspace to the east
of the corridor would see construction activities,
but access would not be limited.
Less-than-
Significant
Forest Drive Open Space The north end of the open space would be used to
access the pole site on the easement. Use of the
access road as a trail would be limited during active
construction, approximately 3 to 14 days.
Less-than-
Significant
Coal Creek Natural Area The Bellevue South Segment does not follow Coal
Creek Parkway but follows the existing easement
south of Forest Dr SE. The Lower Coal Creek
Trailhead near Forest Dr SE, the trailheads near the
parking lot north of Coal Creek, and the parking lot
itself are not expected to be affected by
construction. Where the corridor crosses through
the natural area, access would be limited while the
poles at three pole sites are replaced, as access for
construction vehicles would be along the corridor
and trail. Construction through the natural area
could take up to 3 weeks.
Less-than-
Significant
Newport Hills Mini Park Access to the park would be limited during active
construction, which would take 3 to 14 days.
Vegetation disturbance would be minimal; existing
vegetation is primarily lawn grass.
Less-than-
Significant
Waterline Trail (SE 60th St to
Newcastle Way)
Access to the trail would be limited during active
construction. Vegetation disturbance would be
minimal as existing vegetation is primarily lawn
grass. There are two pole sites north of SE 63rd St
and three to the south; access may be limited to
portions of the trail up to 2 and 3 weeks,
respectively.
Less-than-
Significant
Newport High School and
ERC
The Revised Willow 1 Option is not near these sites. No Impact
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐7
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Newcastle Segment (Both Option 1 and Option 2)
Waterline Trail, China Creek
(proposed) Cross Town Trail,
and Olympus Trail
Trail access would be limited in the vicinity of each
pole site. Because there are many road crossings,
work at one pole site would unlikely affect access
to an adjacent pole site. Vegetation may be
temporarily cleared to facilitate construction. There
are six pairs of poles along the corridor between
the Cross Town Trail and SE May Creek Park Dr
where the Olympus Trail is located. Each set of
poles would take 3 to 14 days to be replaced within
a 2-month period.
Less-than-
Significant
May Creek Natural Area There are two pole sites within the natural area;
however, they are not near areas used for
recreation, and recreation would not be affected.
Access to the May Creek Trail where it crosses the
corridor may be restricted while the wires are
strung. Vegetation may be temporarily cleared to
facilitate construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Lake Boren Park There would be no construction work in or adjacent
to Lake Boren Park.
No Impact
Renton Segment
Sierra Heights Park Access to the portion of the park along the existing
corridor would be restricted during active
construction. Each set of poles (3 pairs) would take
3 to 14 days to be replaced within a 2-month
period. The trail is not on the corridor, and access
to the trail would not be affected.
Less-than-
Significant
Sierra Heights Elementary
School
The easement crosses the northwest corner of the
school. The school sports fields are separated from
the easement by a forested area. Construction
activities are unlikely to be visible from the sports
fields and would not affect recreation opportunities
and uses.
No Impact
May Creek Greenway There would be no construction work in or adjacent
to the May Creek Greenway.
No Impact
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐8
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Recreation Sites Short-term Effect Impact
Honey Creek Open Space There is one pole site (two H-frame structures
would be replaced with two poles) within the park,
on the south side of Honey Creek. Access to the
Honey Creek Trail, which crosses the corridor, may
be closed during active construction. The poles
would take 3 to 14 days to be replaced within a 2-
month period. Vegetation may be temporarily
cleared to facilitate construction.
Less-than-
Significant
Cedar River Greenway
System: Riverview Park,
Cedar River Natural Zone,
Cedar River Trail
During active construction, access would be limited
in the portion of the system within the existing
corridor. It would take 3 to 14 days to replace the
poles within a 2-month period. The Cedar River
Trail, south of the Cedar River, crosses the existing
corridor near a pole site, and the trail may be
closed while poles are replaced at that site.
Vegetation may also be temporarily cleared to
facilitate construction. Riverview Park and the
Cedar River Trail are in the valley bottom would not
be affected by construction activities.
Less-than-
Significant
5.6.3 Mitigation Measures
Required and potential mitigation measures described in Section 4.6.6 have the potential to mitigate
construction-related impacts. However, the following construction-specific mitigation measures
would also be required or could be imposed to reduce construction impacts to recreational resources.
Construction-specific mitigation measures were identified based on discussion with the Partner
Cities. Mitigation measures specified during the permitting process, such as use of construction
BMPs, would be required, whereas measures suggested by the City of Bellevue or based on
comprehensive plan policies would be at the discretion of the applicant to adopt or the local
jurisdictions to impose as a condition of project approval.
5.6.3.1 Regulatory Requirements
The following measure is required.
During Construction
Use BMPs to minimize noise, dust, and other disturbances to visitors to recreation sites
during construction, as well as in areas used for informal recreation (e.g., along roads).
5.6.3.2 Potential Mitigation Measures
Prior to Construction
Coordinate with potentially affected park districts/departments.
Provide alternative access points to recreation sites and trail detours.
Avoid construction during months when recreation sites are busier, when possible.
Avoid vegetation clearing for construction activities where possible.
Avoid replacing poles at Rose Hill Middle School and Tyee Middle School while school is in
session.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.6‐9
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
RECREATION
Notify local jurisdictions, schools, or private owners (including the Somerset Recreation
Club), 60 days in advance of work within recreation sites.
Notify the public of any temporary closure of trails or recreations sites 2 weeks in advance.
Provide signage along trails or park entrances at least 1 week prior to closures.
Post Construction
Restore recreation sites or trails after construction.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.7‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.7 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.7.1 PSE’s Proposed Alignment: New Substation and 230 kV
Transmission Lines
5.7.1.1 Archaeological Resources (belowground)
Construction impacts to archaeological resources would be an irreversible and permanent impact as
these resources are non-renewable, and any impact to the depositional integrity (i.e., context) of a
protected archaeological resource would be significant. Therefore, analysis of impacts to protected
archaeological resources is addressed as a permanent impact in Section 4.7.
5.7.1.2 Historic Resources (aboveground)
Construction impacts to historic resources would be temporary and could reduce a resource’s historic
register eligibility or reduce the ability of the resource to convey its historic significance. These
impacts could be reversible or irreversible. Reversible impacts would be less-than-significant.
Irreversible impacts would be permanent. As such, these impacts are addressed in Section 4.7.
Permanent impacts could occur during construction if increased vibration levels result in structural
damage to a significant historic resource. The necessary level of vibration to result in structural
damage would be above the standard threshold limits defined in the Federal Transit Administration’s
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006). The project does not propose work that would
result in this level of vibration. Permanent impacts could result from the placement of a new pole
within the viewshed of a significant historic resource, demolition of a significant historic resource, or
irreversible alterations to contributing resources within a historic district. It is probable that these
impacts could be mitigated and therefore are not considered significant.
Less-than-Significant–Less-than-significant construction impacts are defined in this analysis
as those that are temporary, reversible, and that do not impact the significant historic
resource’s historic register eligibility or ability to convey its historic significance. Less-than-
significant impacts could temporarily alter a resource’s integrity of setting, feeling, or place,
but it is probable that these impacts could be mitigated through BMPs that would reduce
levels of dust, vibration, and noise.
Significant–Significant construction impacts are defined in this analysis as those that are
irreversible and permanent. Because these would result in permanent impacts, analysis is
addressed in Section 4.7.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.8‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS
5.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - ELECTRIC AND
MAGNETIC FIELDS
Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) associated with construction are described in more detail in
Chapter 8 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS. As described in that document, although small motors in
construction equipment generate some level of magnetic fields, these fields are very small and would
be indistinguishable from background levels for the public outside of the construction site. Workers
within the construction site would experience magnetic fields from this equipment as they would
from working on any similar construction site (these fields would be at lower levels than those
investigated as potentially causing health impacts). Therefore, any increase in magnetic fields during
construction would be minor and are not described in further detail in this chapter.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.9‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Methods for Assessing
Risks During Construction
The Pipeline Safety Technical
Report (EDM Services, 2017)
estimated the increase in
existing pipeline safety risk
that would be present during
construction. The analysis
considers the following
activities: excavation and
surcharge loading. The report
estimated the likelihood of
unintentional pipeline releases
or fires from these
construction activities and
identified actions that can
mitigate the potential impacts
and risks.
5.9 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH –
PIPELINE SAFETY
5.9.1 Risks During Construction
During construction, the Olympic Pipelines would be exposed to an
increased risk of damage by construction activities (e.g., outside
force/excavation), which includes both excavation activities and
potential for pipelines to be overstressed by surcharge loading from
construction equipment. This section addresses the potential pipeline
safety risks associated with construction within PSE’s Proposed
Alignment. Risks during construction were assessed in the Phase 2
Draft EIS by EDM Services using the risk assessment methodology
described in Section 3.9.5.1 (and described further in Appendix I-5
of the Phase 2 Draft EIS) to assess the temporary increase in
potential risks of pipeline damage and pool or flash fires associated
with project construction activities.
5.9.1.1 Significance Thresholds
As described in Chapter 4, thresholds for significance were
established based on Partner Cities workshop discussions. For this analysis, project-related risks
associated with construction are classified as being significant or less-than-significant as follows:
Less-than-Significant
With implementation of mandatory safety standards, including Olympic general construction
procedures, there would be no substantial increase in risk of a pipeline release or fire during
construction that could result in public safety impacts or damage to property and
environmental resources.
Significant
Even with the implementation of mandatory safety standards, including Olympic general
construction procedures, there would be a substantial increase in risk of a pipeline release or
fire during construction that could result in public safety impacts or damage to property and
environmental resources.
5.9.1.2 Risk Assessment Results
Because construction disturbance would be similar to that evaluated for the Phase 2 Draft EIS, the
results of the risk assessment developed by EDM Services for the Phase 2 Draft EIS (as described in
Section 3.9.5.1, Methodology) remain relevant for PSE’s Proposed Alignment. Therefore, the
detailed presentation of the risk assessment results is not included in the Final EIS but is incorporated
by reference. No further evaluation of construction (short-term) impacts to pipeline safety was
conducted for this Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.9‐2
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Surcharge Loading
The presence of equipment
and other loads on the soil
surface (surcharge loads) can
place stress on the underlying
substructures, including
pipelines. These stresses can
over-stress the pipe, causing
damage.
5.9.2 Risks During Construction: No Action Alternative
No risk assessment was conducted for existing risks during construction since there would be no
construction activity under the No Action Alternative. Any change in risks related to ongoing pole
replacement activities (an operational activity) is expected to be minimal. Therefore, the construction
risks for the No Action Alternative would be the same as the operational risks for the No Action
Alternative. See Section 4.9.5.3.
5.9.3 Risks During Construction: PSE’s Proposed Alignment
This section summarizes the potential pipeline safety risks during construction. During construction,
the possibility of pipeline damage could occur from excavation activities and/or surcharge loading
from construction equipment. The consequences of those impacts on resources, in the unlikely event
an incident occurs, are provided in Section 4.9.6. The Pipeline Safety Technical Report was used as a
resource in this evaluation. See Appendix I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS for additional detailed
information included in this analysis. In the EIS, the pipeline owner and operator are collectively
referred to simply as Olympic.
If a pipeline is encountered during excavation, the pipeline could be damaged and could result in an
immediate or subsequent release that could place the public and/or workers at risk. PSE or the
construction contractor would be required under state law to notify
Olympic at least 48 hours prior to the start of any work to comply
with the state’s “one-call” locater service law. After Olympic is
notified, PSE or the construction contractor would mark the ground
where the facilities exist. As company practice, if a project is within
100 feet of the pipelines, 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 pipelines, the Damage Prevention Team would be on-site
at all times to monitor excavation. These procedures are designed to
ensure that excavation would not damage any underground utilities
and to decrease potential safety hazards (see Section 5.9.4,
Mitigation). Therefore, unintentional damage to the pipelines from project-related construction
would be unlikely.
Vibrations from the operation of equipment to excavate for the poles could also be a potential
construction impact. PSE would work with Olympic to confirm that potential vibration associated
with proposed excavation methods for pole installation, which include the use of vacuum trucks and
auger drills, would avoid damaging the pipelines.
The presence of equipment and other loads on the soil surface (surcharge loads) can place stress on
the underlying substructures, including pipelines. These stresses can over-stress the pipe, causing
damage. During construction, surcharge loads would be imposed over the existing Olympic Pipeline
system from heavy equipment, crane mats, and other loads that could be placed on the ground above
the pipelines. PSE would coordinate with Olympic during project design to identify site-specific
surcharge load requirements and needed mitigation measures to reduce or distribute the loads (see
Section 5.9.4, Mitigation). Therefore, when measures are implemented, pipeline damage caused by
surcharge loads would be unlikely. Site-specific coordination will also address construction at the
Richards Creek substation site, where the existing pipeline is near or crosses the planned locations of
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.9‐3
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
an underground vault, the realigned access road, and the footprint of the substation facility, where
site grading will occur (see Figure 2-2).
Construction of the pole foundations has the potential to encounter underground boulders that could
place additional stress on an adjacent pipeline. Section 5.9.4, Mitigation Measures, includes
excavation techniques that PSE would use to address this potential. Using the excavation techniques
specified, lateral forces on the pipelines from a “rolled” boulder are not anticipated.
As described in Section 4.9.3, “outside force/excavation” caused 20 percent of the refined petroleum
product releases (nationally) from January 2010 through December 2015. In many cases, damage
from outside/force excavation occurs because a contractor or other third-party fails to notify the
utility locator service, or the utility improperly locates the buried pipeline. With PSE’s awareness of
the pipelines within the corridor, Washington State’s Damage Prevention Law and “one-call” locator
service, and Olympic’s procedures to prevent third-party damage described in Section 5.9.4, the
increased risk posed to the pipelines during construction of the Energize Eastside project is relatively
low.
Despite procedures in place to prevent third-party damage, the estimates for individual and societal
risk incident frequencies were developed using worst-case assumptions about the potential increase
in risk during construction. The assessment assumed that the potential for third-party damage during
construction would increase by 50 percent (EDM Services, 2017), a conservatively high assumption.
Because the probability of damage to the pipelines during construction is so low to begin with, even
with these assumptions, the results indicate that there would still be a very small increase in total risk.
With the implementation of measures to mitigate potential excavation and surcharge loading risks
described in Section 5.9.4, these risks would likely be even lower.
Based on the results of the risk assessment presented in Section 3.9.5.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS,
there could be an increased risk of a pipeline release and fire during construction when compared
with the No Action Alternative (see Section 5.9.1.2). Based on the results, and in consideration of
project safeguards, the probability of a pipeline release and fire remains low under PSE’s Proposed
Alignment. However, the potential environmental health and safety impacts are significant if this
unlikely event were to occur.
The individual and societal risks described in Section 3.9.5.2 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS would be
similar across all segments of PSE’s Proposed Alignment. There would be reduced risk in segments
where fewer miles of the transmission line are co-located with the Olympic Pipeline system. The
Renton Segment has the lowest number of co-located miles. See Table 4.9-2 for the length of the
Olympic Pipeline system (both the 20-inch and 16-inch diameter pipelines) co-located with the PSE
transmission lines by segment.
With the implementation of additional measures to mitigate potential excavation and surcharge
loading risks, the construction risks could be even lower (see Section 5.9.4, Mitigation Measures).
Even with worst-case assumptions related to the increased risk during construction, the likelihood of
a pipeline release and fire would remain low, and no substantial change in risk compared to the
existing condition (No Action Alternative) has been identified. As a result, the potential risk is not
considered significant.
For additional details about the analysis of construction risks under PSE’s Proposed Alignment, see
the Pipeline Safety Technical Report (Appendix I-5 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS).
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.9‐4
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
PSE/Olympic Coordination
PSE is responsible for the
Energize Eastside project’s
design, construction, and
operational parameters within
the shared corridor with
Olympic. Olympic and PSE
have worked together in the
corridor for 40 years, and
communicate regularly to
coordinate activities related to
standard pole replacement
and other maintenance work.
As part of the project
development process for the
Energize Eastside project,
PSE has and will continue to
coordinate with Olympic on
specific issues/actions,
including construction.
5.9.4 Mitigation Measures
The following construction-specific mitigation measures would be required or could be imposed to
reduce the potential for environmental health and safety impacts related to pipeline safety.
Construction-specific mitigation measures were identified based on a review of regulations,
construction BMPs, and construction requirements for work in the corridor, all of which would be
required. Additional mitigation measures are proposed to further reduce the potential for
construction-related environmental health and safety impacts related to pipeline safety. Some of the
required and potential mitigation measures listed in Section 4.9.8 (such as integrating the results and
recommendations of the AC Interference Study [DNV GL, 2016] where applicable to the design of
pole locations and layout) also have the potential to mitigate construction-related impacts.
As the pipeline operator, Olympic is responsible for operating and maintaining its pipelines in
accordance with or to exceed PHMSA’s Minimum Federal Safety
Standards in 49 CFR 195. The regulations are intended to adequately
protect the public and to prevent pipeline accidents and failures. As a
result of potential hazards and in compliance with these federal
requirements, Olympic has a general list of requirements as part of BP
Pipelines (North America) General Construction Requirements for all
work proposed near the pipeline (see Appendix I-2). These
requirements have been shared with PSE.
As part of ongoing coordination between PSE and Olympic,
additional mitigation measures may be identified during final design.
Appendix I-4 includes a “frequently asked questions” sheet,
summarizing steps that PSE and Olympic will take during
construction for corridor safety.
5.9.4.1 Regulatory Requirements
PSE construction activities within all segments would need to comply
with applicable federal, state, and local damage prevention laws,
regulations, and requirements, and Olympic’s general construction
requirements for work near its pipelines, including the following
measures:
Develop construction and access plans in coordination with Olympic’s Damage Prevention
Team and mutually agreed upon by both parties. These plans will outline the specific actions
that PSE will take to protect the pipelines from vehicle and equipment surcharge loads,
excavation, and other activities in consideration of Olympic’s general construction
requirements and in consultation with Olympic on the Energize Eastside project design
specifically. The following general measures, at a minimum, would be included in the
construction and access plans:
o Notify “one-call” 811 utility locater service at least 48 hours prior to PSE or PSE
designated contractors conducting excavation work. (Olympic’s line marking
personnel would then mark the location of the pipelines near the construction areas.
These procedures are designed to ensure that excavation would not damage any
underground utilities and to decrease potential safety hazards.)
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.9‐5
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
o Field verify the distance between the pipelines and transmission line pole grounds.
o Add the pipeline location and depth to project plans and drawings and submit to
Olympic for evaluation.
o Arrange for Olympic representatives to be on-site to monitor construction activities
near the pipelines.
o Install temporary fencing or other markers around the pipeline area.
o Provide all necessary information for Olympic to perform pipe stress calculations for
equipment crossings and surface loads (surcharge loads). Based on pipe stress
calculations, and in coordination with Olympic, provide additional cover that may
include installing timber mats, steel plating, or temporary air bridging; utilize a
combination of these; or avoid crossing in certain identified areas in order to avoid
impacts on Olympic pipelines. Ensure that mitigation to address potential surcharge
load impacts is implemented in accordance with applicable requirements and
recommended practices, including the following:
49 CFR 195, Transportation of Hazardous Liquid by Pipeline.
American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1102, Steel Pipelines
Crossing Railroads and Highways.
American Lifelines Alliance, Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe.
o Comply with additional measures related to minimizing surcharge loads included in
Olympic’s general construction requirements (Appendix I-2).
As part of Olympic’s general construction requirements for all work proposed near the
pipelines (see Appendix I-2), comply with other applicable requirements, including the
following:
o No excavation or construction activity will be permitted in the vicinity of a pipeline
until appropriate communications have been made with Olympic’s field operations
and its Right-of-Way Department. A formal engineering assessment (conducted by
Olympic) may be required.
o No excavation or backfilling within the pipeline right-of-way will be permitted for
any reason without a representative of Olympic on-site giving permission.
o In some instances, excavation and other construction activities around certain
pipelines can be conducted safely only when the pipeline operating pressure has been
reduced. PSE must inform its designated contractors that excavation that exposes or
significantly reduces the cover over a pipeline may have to be delayed until the
reduced operating pressures are achieved.
o For a project within 100 feet of the pipelines, 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 pipelines, the
Damage Prevention Team would be on-site at all times to monitor excavation.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.9‐6
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Pipeline Location
To identify appropriate
measures to mitigate potential
surcharge load impacts on the
existing pipelines to safe
limits, Olympic would locate
the existing pipeline using a
variety of methods, which may
include electronic pipe
locators, probing, and soft
digging methods. Once the
pipeline is located and
identified, Olympic would
perform pipe stress
calculations for equipment
crossings and surface loads,
in coordination with PSE.
5.9.4.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures are summarized below based on recommendations of EDM Services
(2017), measures PSE has indicated it will use, and measures the EIS Consultant Team has proposed
to provide additional safety assurances.
Prior to Construction
Prior to permit issuance of the Energize Eastside project, prepare a preliminary plan detailing
measures PSE will require of its contractor to protect the pipeline during construction.
Prior to construction of the Energize Eastside project, file a mitigation and monitoring report
with the Partner Cities documenting consultations with Olympic and mitigation measures to
address safety-related issues. The report should include a
monitoring plan that identifies how mitigation measures will be
monitored to ensure that mitigation related to construction
activities is followed.
Require that a geotechnical engineer review final plans and
indicate in their report measures necessary to ensure that
construction activity will not increase the risk of landslides that
could damage the Olympic Pipeline system.
Coordinate with Olympic and include safeguards in the project
construction and access plans to protect nearby pipelines from
excavation activities and surcharge loads.
Develop an adjacent use protection plan near sensitive land uses
to identify appropriately sized construction zones to protect the
general public, construction timing limits, and other mitigation
measures that would effectively limit the exposure of the general
public to potential pipeline incidents.
Coordinate with school districts to identify the most appropriate
time for construction to occur near schools that would minimize
exposure to students or others in the school facility.
During Construction
To address the potential to encounter boulders, use vacuum truck/equipment (or hand digging
in difficult to access areas) to dig past the depth of the pipelines before auguring type
equipment is utilized.
Coordinate with Olympic to ensure that line marking personnel mark the entire length of any
pipeline within 50 feet of any excavation or ground disturbance below original grade, and not
only the location of angle points (points of intersection).
Use soft dig methods (e.g., hand excavation, vacuum excavation, etc.) whenever the
pipeline(s) are within 25 feet of any proposed excavation or ground disturbance below
original grade.
Coordinate with Olympic to ensure that an Olympic employee, trained in the observation of
excavations and pipeline locating, is on-site at all times during excavation and other ground-
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.9‐7
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
disturbing activities that occur within 100 feet of the pipelines where the pipelines are co-
located with the proposed transmission lines.
Arrange for a special monitor (third-party monitor) on-site at all times during excavation and
other ground-disturbing activities that occur within 100 feet of the pipelines where the
pipelines are co-located with the proposed transmission lines.
Where excavations will be within 10 to 20 feet of the Olympic Pipeline system, temporary
casing in the upper 10 to 15 feet should be considered to reduce the risk of sloughing under
the pipeline.
Steel plates or mats should be placed over the pipelines to distribute vehicle loads where
construction equipment needs to cross over the pipelines.
Utility settlement monitoring points, similar to those described below and recommended by
PSE’s geotechnical engineer, should be established on the Olympic Pipeline system where
drilled shafts will be within 15 feet, if requested by Olympic, to monitor settlement during
installation of the drilled shafts. Settlement monitoring points should be installed so that
base-line readings of the settlement monitoring points may be completed prior to the
contractor mobilizing to the site. Monitoring should continue during construction on a daily
basis and twice a week in the 3 weeks following construction. The monitoring readings
should be reviewed by the Engineer on a daily basis. If measured settlement exceeds 1 inch,
or the amount specified by the utility owner, the integrity of the utility should be tested and
the contractor should be required to repair any damage to the utilities as a result of
construction.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.10‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
ECONOMICS
5.10 ECONOMICS
The economic aspects of the project that are evaluated in this Final EIS do not relate to construction
impacts; no further detail is provided in this chapter.
FINAL EIS PAGE 5.11‐1
CHAPTER 5 SHORT TERM (CONSTRUCTION) IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MARCH 2018
EARTH
5.11 EARTH
Construction impacts on earth resources are addressed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (see
Section 3.6), which included analysis of erosion hazards, slope instability and landslide
hazards, seismic hazards, construction-induced vibrations, and hazards associated with the Olympic
Pipeline system. As documented in the Phase 1 Draft EIS (see Section 3.6), implementation of
construction BMPs as required by local codes would ensure that impacts are minor and not
significant. This includes having a geotechnical engineer review plans and make recommendations to
avoid increasing the risk of destabilizing landslide-prone slopes or increasing soil erosion, and
implementing those recommendations during construction.
Although the Phase 2 Draft EIS did not include an analysis of earth resources, comments received on
the Draft EIS led to the inclusion of additional information on seismic and associated landslide
hazards in the Final EIS. Those risks are primarily associated with operation of the project, and are
therefore addressed in Section 4.11. Construction is not expected to increase any seismic-related risks
associated with the project.
For detailed information on construction hazards associated with the Olympic Pipeline system, see
Section 4.9 and 5.9 (Pipeline Safety) of the Final EIS.
Construction (short-term) effects on earth resources are not addressed further in this Final EIS
subsection. Appendix M compiles all mitigation measures as identified in the Phase 1 Draft EIS,
Phase 2 Draft EIS, and Final EIS.
Summary of Comments
and Responses
6
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐1
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES
This chapter summarizes comments and responses provided on both the Phase 1 Draft EIS and the
Phase 2 Draft EIS for the Energize Eastside project. Appendix J provides a complete set of responses
to comments on the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and Appendix K provides a complete set of responses to
comments on the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
The Phase 1 Draft EIS was programmatic in nature and not required under SEPA (see Section 1.4
and Chapter 2, page 2-2, of this Final EIS for more detail). Therefore, responses to comments during
Phase 1 were prepared as the comment-response narrative summary in Appendix J-1. Although a
separate response was not prepared for each individual comment, the EIS Consultant Team made a
significant effort to capture all substantive issues raised in the comments, and prepared the summary
responses in the narrative to address those concerns. The Phase 1 Draft EIS comment response
narrative is intended to provide a logical flow and understanding of the issues associated with this
project. Comments were grouped into major topics and identified “key themes.” Following the
narrative summary in Appendix J-1, all comment letters received on the Phase 1 Draft EIS are
reproduced in full in Appendix J-2, with cross-references provided to the corresponding key theme
that summarizes the associated response in the summary narrative.
Because the Phase 2 Draft EIS focused on a specific project proposed by PSE, responses to Phase 2
comments are presented in Appendix K for each individual comment received, rather than using a
narrative summary. The comment letters are reproduced in full in Appendix K, with the responses
presented next to the identified comments.
Source of Comments Received on the Phase 1 Draft EIS
Comments on the Phase 1 Draft EIS were received in the form of website forms, emails, oral
testimony, and letters, many
of which included
attachments. Most of these
comments were provided by
email and oral testimony
(Figure 6-1).
Comments were submitted
by 1,068 individuals.
Individuals who provided
their names on a petition
that was submitted as a
single attachment to one
comment letter are included
in this count. Of these, 456
signatories added individual
comments to the petition. Of
the 1,068 individual Figure 6-1. Comment by Type, Phase 1
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐2
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
commenters, some submitted multiple website forms and/or spoke at more than one meeting, and are
only counted once in this total. Some individuals submitted duplicate forms, emails, and letters.
Comments were received from 26 different organizations (e.g., homeowner associations), six public
agencies, and the Muckleshoot Tribe. A comment received from an organization, the Coalition of
Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy (CENSE), referenced 50 comment letters included as an
attachment.
Source of Comments Received on the Phase 2 Draft EIS
Comments on the Phase 2 Draft EIS were received in the form of website forms, emails, oral
testimony, and letters, many of which included attachments. Most of these comments were provided
by email and oral testimony (Figure 6-2).
Comments were
submitted by 173
individuals. Some of
these individuals
submitted multiple
website forms and/or
spoke at more than
one meeting, and are
only counted once in
this total. Some
individuals submitted
duplicate forms,
emails, and letters.
Comments were
received from 21
different organizations
(e.g., homeowner
associations), two
public agencies, and
one Tribe.
Topics, Issues, and Themes Raised in Comments during Phase 1 and Phase 2
Comments received at both stages followed similar topics and themes. The following summary in
Chapter 6 lists those topics and the general themes raised within them. It also summarizes how the
comments received were taken into account in preparing the Final EIS. Any errors in the analysis
identified in either Draft EIS are corrected in the Final EIS; see Chapter 3, Errata, in this Final EIS.
The intent of this summary is to provide the reader a “road map” for how the comments were
responded to and addressed; the more detailed responses are captured in Appendix J, Appendix K,
the Errata, and revisions to the Final EIS, based on comments received.
Figure 6-2. Comment by Type, Phase 2
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐3
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.1 SEPA AND EIS PROCESS
Comment Theme Response
Objectivity and overall
adequacy of the Phase 1 Draft
EIS
The Partner Cities have taken steps to ensure the EIS analysis is independent
and objective. The EIS includes an appropriate level of analysis of all
potentially significant impacts identified during scoping. See Key Theme EIS-
1 in Appendix J-1.
SEPA process, including
phased EIS and opportunities
for meaningful public input
The Partner Cities acknowledge the document is long, and the public process
has also been long. However, SEPA provides flexibility by allowing a phased
EIS process and other provisions, to address complex issues such as those
posed by the Energize Eastside project. See Key Theme EIS-2 in Appendix J-
1. No change in Final EIS.
Completeness of the Phase 1
Draft EIS scope
Concerns about the level of detail provided in the Phase 1 Draft EIS are
addressed through the project-level analyses in both the Phase 2 Draft EIS and
the Final EIS. The scope of the economics analysis is at the discretion of the
Lead Agency under SEPA; in this case, the Partner Cities elected not to include
all of the economic information requested in the scoping process and public
comment periods. See Key Theme EIS-3 in Appendix J-1.
6.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Comment Theme Response
Objectives of proposal (to
address reliability issues or to
increase capacity for other
purposes)
The Phase 1 and Phase 2 Draft EISs evaluated PSE’s proposal to construct 230
kV overhead transmission lines; the Lead Agency has limited authority under
SEPA to question an applicant’s motives and cannot use SEPA to alter the
applicant’s objectives. The EIS Consultant Team reviewed the planning model
and found that PSE had used standard planning practices. The project is
intended to address an anticipated future transmission capacity issue in the
study area that could affect PSE’s broader transmission system reliability. No
change in Final EIS. See Key Theme OBJ-1 in Appendix J-1.
Disagreement with PSE’s
planning data and assumptions,
and how they define project
need
The EIS Consultant Team confirmed that the needs assessment was conducted
in accordance with industry standards for utility planning. No change in Final
EIS. See Key Theme OBJ-2 in Appendix J-1.
The Lauckhart/Schiffman Load
Flow Study suggests that the
project is not needed
PSE indicates that it has a responsibility for planning its system according to
NERC, WECC, and ColumbiaGrid requirements. The Lauckhart/Schiffman
Load Flow Study makes a number of assumptions that are not consistent with
WECC and ColumbiaGrid model assumptions. Even using their assumptions,
the City of Bellevue’s independent analysis found that at least one transformer
would exceed capacity. No change in Final EIS. See Key Theme OBJ-3 in
Appendix J-1.
ColumbiaGrid PSE alone is responsible for delivering power within PSE's service area and
cannot depend on ColumbiaGrid to make up for the transmission shortfall in
the Eastside. No change in the Final EIS. See Key Theme OBJ-4 in Appendix
J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐4
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.3 ALTERNATIVES
Comment Theme Response
Alternatives considered in the
Draft EIS
The Phase 1 Draft EIS was a programmatic-level analysis, whereas the Phase 2
Draft EIS was a project-level analysis. The project-level Phase 2 Draft EIS
includes a more specific and detailed review of alternatives based on the
analysis of Phase 1. The Partner Cities are not obligated to consider every
conceivable scenario, but rather present a reasonable range of alternatives, per
SEPA rules. No change in the Final EIS. See Key Theme ALT-1 in Appendix
J-1.
Comparative summary of
impacts
Lead Agencies are granted leeway in how they choose to present and format
information on the comparative impacts of the alternatives. An error in Table
1-3 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS was corrected in the Errata section of the Final
EIS. See Key Theme ALT-2 in Appendix J-1.
6.4 LAND USE AND HOUSING
Comment Theme Response
Property condemnation During the Phase 1 programmatic evaluation, project alignments were not
definitively identified, and it was therefore not known whether property would
need to be acquired for the project. For the Phase 2 Draft EIS, locations of the
various project segments and options were identified, and no houses or
businesses would be condemned or demolished under any of the segments or
options analyzed. PSE’s Proposed Alignment in the Final EIS would be
entirely within the existing corridor and can be developed without need for
displacement of houses or businesses. No change in the Final EIS. See Key
Theme LU-1 in Appendix J-1.
Easement width required for
safety
No houses or businesses would be condemned or demolished under any of the
segments or options analyzed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The corridor would not
need to be widened to accommodate the 230 kV transmission lines, and no new
easements would be needed. No change in the Final EIS. See Key Theme LU-2
in Appendix J-1.
Essential public facility (EPF) The proposed project will follow the conditional use, shoreline, and critical
areas permit processes in the applicable jurisdictions. For the Final EIS, no
Partner City has indicated that the project will go through the EPF permit
process. This clarification is reflected in the analysis presented in the Final
EIS. See Key Theme LU-3 in Appendix J-1.
Greater impacts in denser
residential or natural areas
The Phase 1 Draft EIS addressed impacts to communities in the project area at
a programmatic level, whereas specific alignments were chosen for the
alternatives for the Phase 2 Draft EIS analysis, allowing an examination of
impacts to the specific neighborhoods that would be crossed by the 230 kV
transmission lines. PSE’s Proposed Alignment in the Final EIS would be
entirely within the existing corridor. Therefore, the land uses within this
corridor would be the same as are currently identified. No changes in the Final
EIS. See Key Theme LU-4 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐5
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.5 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Comment Theme Response
Study area and key viewpoints The study area for the Phase 1 Draft EIS was broad because it focused on a
broad range of approaches rather than project-specific details. For the Phase 2
analysis, the project-specific analysis includes a GIS-analysis based on more
detailed information. Roadways are considered to be viewpoints
programmatically in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Specific roadway corridors were
evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, and key viewpoints were added. The Phase
1 Draft EIS lists public viewpoints provided at parks, trails, and public open
spaces. For the Phase 2 Draft EIS, all recreation areas within the study area
(parks, trails, outdoor recreation facilities) were assessed regardless of their
ownership. Additional key viewpoints were simulated for the Final EIS. See
Key Theme VR-1 in Appendix J-1.
Methodology There is no adopted or widely recognized methodology for evaluating visual
impacts of transmission lines in urban environments. The Phase 1 and Phase 2
Draft EIS visual impact assessment methodologies were based in part on the
2015 Federal Highway Administration guidance for evaluating highway
projects and on guidance for evaluating wind farms. Viewer sensitivity was
assigned based on a viewer's proximity to the project and their level of
awareness. The Phase 2 analysis included a more refined methodology for
viewer sensitivity than what was used in the Phase 1 analysis. Visual
simulations are provided in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and the Final EIS. Potential
significant adverse visual impacts were identified in the Phase 2 Draft EIS,
and the Final EIS refines the analysis with additional maps and key
viewpoints. See Key Theme VR-2 in Appendix J-1.
Vegetation clearing would
reduce visual quality
Project-specific vegetation clearing is described and assessed in the Phase 2
Draft EIS, which includes the use of PSE’s existing 100-foot-wide
Sammamish-Lakeside-Talbot Hill 115 kV corridor. Regulations for 230 kV
transmission lines call for the removal of trees with a potential height of
greater than 15 feet within the managed right-of-way, while 115 kV lines
allow 25-foot trees within the managed right-of-way zone. Updated vegetation
removal information is provided in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and in the Final EIS.
No changes were made to the visual analysis in the Final EIS. See Key Theme
VR-3 in Appendix J-1.
Project would be inconsistent
with comprehensive plan
policies
Updated vegetation removal information is provided in the Phase 2 Draft EIS
and the Final EIS, and the resulting impacts to the aesthetic environment are
also evaluated in greater detail. There is no overarching policy that states that
vegetation removal is inconsistent with Eastside aesthetic values, although
policies discouraging tree removal in certain areas are discussed in the Phase 2
Draft EIS. The Phase 2 Draft EIS did find some areas where the project would
be inconsistent with policies protecting neighborhood character. In Newcastle,
new policies were adopted after the Phase 1 Draft EIS was published and were
included in the Phase 2 analysis. No changes in the Final EIS, except the
addition of the Code Variance Option in Newcastle, which would reduce the
visual impacts compared to the No Code Variance Option. See Key Theme
VR-4 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐6
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
Comment Theme Response
Condemning of homes and
installation of a new
transmission line would change
the visual character of Eastside
neighborhoods
The Phase 1 Draft EIS acknowledged that condemnation and removal of
homes for a new corridor could have significant impacts on neighborhood
character. For the Phase 2 Draft EIS alternatives and for PSE’s Proposed
Alignment in the Final EIS, no houses or businesses would be condemned or
demolished. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme VR-5 in Appendix
J-1.
Light and glare Aviation warning lights would not be required for this project. The EIS
Consultant Team evaluated light and glare impacts associated with
construction and operation of the project. No significant impacts were
identified regarding light and glare. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key
Theme VR-6 in Appendix J-1.
Mitigation Additional details on potential mitigation are presented in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS. The Final EIS shows that the Code Variance Option in Newcastle would
have lesser visual impacts in the Olympic Ridge neighborhood than the No
Code Variance Option. PSE has also committed to using a combined shield
wire/communication line, which would reduce the total number of wires in the
air. See Key Theme VR-7 in Appendix J-1.
6.6 WATER RESOURCES
Comment Theme Response
Water resources not identified in
the Phase 1 Draft (e.g., springs,
streams, lakes, Coal Creek basin
resources, etc.)
The Phase 1 Draft EIS provides a high-level, programmatic assessment of
potential impacts to water resources within the combined study area.
Comments on the Phase 1 Draft EIS were considered when developing the
scope for the Phase 2 Draft EIS analysis. The Phase 2 Draft EIS provides a
more thorough, project-level assessment of the potential impacts of PSE’s
proposal. The Phase 2 Draft EIS reports the results of geotechnical studies
conducted along the existing corridor. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key
Theme WTR-1 in Appendix J-1.
Stormwater management A project-level assessment of potential impacts to water quality is provided in
the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The amount of new impervious surface would be
minimal. In addition, once installed, the new poles would not affect
groundwater infiltration or shallow groundwater flow. For tree-removal
impacts to stormwater, the Phase 2 Draft EIS found that impacts would be
less-than-significant because PSE would comply with state and local
stormwater permit requirements and would implement BMPs to control
surface water runoff. In the Final EIS, PSE’s Proposed Alignment would be
constructed entirely within the existing corridor. The Final EIS states that
approximately 60% of the poles for PSE’s Proposed Alignment would be
directly embedded, which requires a smaller impervious footprint than poles
with concrete foundations. See Key Theme WTR-2 in Appendix J-1.
Groundwater pollution and
diversion
If coal ash were present in the soil, it is unlikely that it would contaminate the
groundwater because of requirements for preventing pollution during
construction. Construction for pole installation would also require excavation
for pole foundations or direct embedding, which could encounter shallow
groundwater and could require dewatering. Because the area of excavation for
each pole would be limited to approximately 8 feet in diameter, any
dewatering would be minimal. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme
WTR-3 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐7
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
Comment Theme Response
Construction-related impacts It would not be necessary to reroute springs under any of the alternatives
considered for this project. The implementation of BMPs, and compliance
with local and state permit requirements, would be required to reduce potential
water quality impacts, which is covered in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Draft
EISs, as well as the Final EIS. Alternative 2 in the Phase 1 Draft EIS has a
lower potential for construction impacts to water resources, but was
determined not to be a feasible alternative and therefore was not carried
forward for additional analysis in the Phase 2 Draft EIS or the Final EIS. No
changes to the Final EIS. See Key Theme WTR-4 in Appendix J-1.
Water quality and permitting Case-by-case analysis is required to confirm the applicability of Section 404
and Section 10 permit requirements to surface waters such as rivers, streams,
ditches, lakes, ponds, territorial seas, and wetlands. During the permitting
process, PSE would be required to demonstrate compliance with the NFIP
BiOp, which includes showing that proposed development activities in a
floodplain do not result in an adverse effect on listed species or habitat. No
changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme WTR-5 in Appendix J-1.
Tribal treaty rights These comments relate specifically to Alternative 1, Option D as presented in
the Phase 1 Draft EIS. That option, which would involve construction in Lake
Washington where treaty rights would need to be taken into account, was not
carried forward for additional analysis in Phase 2 or the Final EIS.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐8
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.7 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Comment Theme Response
Habitat The Phase 2 Draft EIS provides a project-level assessment of impacts to
habitat associated with Coal Creek Park Natural Area within 0.5 mile of the
project alignment, and notes that Coal Creek supports Chinook salmon and
steelhead. The potential presence of amphibians and reptiles in the combined
study area has been added to the Errata. PSE's existing corridor provides
habitat and migration corridors for area wildlife, as well as specific critical
habitat areas. Specific impacts to hedgerows were not assessed; however,
vegetation removal within the right-of-way is covered. There is no evidence
that animals avoid high voltage lines in urban areas beyond what would occur
as a result of human presence and vegetation clearing. See Key Theme P&A-1
in Appendix J-1.
Tree removal/vegetation clearing The Phase 1 Draft EIS examined the worst-case scenario for new overhead
transmission lines, which assumed that a new corridor for a 230 kV line would
be 120 to 150 feet wide. The 40% existing tree canopy coverage cited in the
Phase 1 Draft EIS was based on the average tree coverage mapped in the
project area jurisdictions, based on the best available information. Updated
vegetation removal information, including a more detailed discussion of the
managed right-of-way, is provided in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and in the Final
EIS. The Phase 2 Draft EIS assessment did not estimate the amount of noise
attenuation lost as a result of tree removal because dense forested vegetation
must be greater than 60 feet in depth to have a noticeable effect. Tree removal
and mitigation will be evaluated as part of the permitting process. Note that
the corridor width as evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and Final EIS is 100
feet. See Key Theme P&A-2 in Appendix J-1.
Fish and wildlife Larger wire sizes for the 230 kV transmission lines would be more visible to
flying species, resulting in increased avoidance behavior, which is expected to
reduce direct impacts from collision or potential air quality changes resulting
from ionization of pollutant particles by the corona discharge. EMF impacts
to wildlife species are generally unknown or inconclusive. Discussion of EMF
impacts is included in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and expanded in the Final EIS.
Noise impacts from the corona discharge were found to be negligible,
although noise impacts from peak generators were moderate to significant.
The effects of power lines on wildlife species are highly variable and limited
information is available. Western big-eared bat, Keen's myotis, long-legged
myotis, and long-eared myotis have been added to the Bellevue list in the
Final EIS (See Errata, Chapter 3). See Key Theme P&A-3 in Appendix J-1.
Impacts to birds The Phase 2 Draft EIS states that the project would reduce the electrocution
and collision rates for avian species due to the increased separation between
conductors and larger, more visible conductors. Eagle nest locations were
considered during development of the Phase 2 Draft EIS. No changes in the
Final EIS. See Key Theme P&A-4 in Appendix J-1.
Mitigation The Phase 1 Draft EIS states that impacts on vegetation and habitat would be
mitigated through site and facility design to minimize the need for vegetation
and tree removal to the extent feasible. The Phase 2 Draft EIS also includes a
mitigation measure to increase pole heights to allow greater separation
between poles so that some poles can be moved out of critical areas or
associated buffers. The Final EIS takes into account the more fully developed
design, including refined pole locations. See Key Theme P&A-5 in Appendix
J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐9
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.8 GREENHOUSE GASES
Comment Theme Response
Phase 1 Draft EIS scope,
analysis, mitigation, and
conclusions
Alternative-specific mitigation measures are listed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Mitigation is not limited to the measures listed in the EIS, and additional
mitigation could be required. Alternatives 2 and 3 were not carried forward for
analysis in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Given the relatively small level of emissions
from a worst-case assumption regarding project emissions for concrete
foundations, it was concluded that the project would not result in significant
emissions from manufacturing construction materials. More project-specific
estimates were included in the Phase 2 Draft EIS analysis. No changes in the
Final EIS. See Key Theme GHG-1 in Appendix J-1.
Tree clearing analysis and GHG
effects
An updated vegetation removal assessment, including a more detailed
discussion of the tree inventory assessment, is provided in the Phase 2 Draft
EIS and the Final EIS. See Key Theme GHG-2 in Appendix J-1.
Sustainable utilities and climate
change
Whether or not a utility should be required to purchase or implement carbon
offsets or its willingness to adopt new technologies to reduce fossil fuel use is
beyond the scope of this EIS analysis. Information and analysis on impacts of
coal-based generation are not included because they are outside the scope of
the EIS analysis. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme GHG-3 in
Appendix J-1.
Need for air quality analysis
under SEPA
Construction of a new power plant, such as a peak generation facility, was not
carried forward as an alternative in the Phase 2 Draft EIS analysis. The project
is not being constructed to increase power production; therefore, impacts
associated with increased power production, such as mercury emissions and
other air pollutants from existing power sources, were not evaluated as part of
this EIS process. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme GHG-4 in
Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐10
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.9 RECREATION
Comment Theme Response
Trails in utility corridors Improvements to recreational resources, including trails, can be identified as
permit conditions by the appropriate municipality, where an adverse impact
has been identified. There is a potential for permanent impacts to recreation
within the existing transmission corridors if vegetation removal results in a
permanent conversion of vegetation type. The Phase 2 Draft EIS found that
within the existing corridor, impacts to recreation would be less-than-
significant because vegetation clearing and changes to poles and wires would
not affect the use of recreation sites. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key
Theme REC-1 in Appendix J-1.
Birding as a recreation activity Potential impacts to wildlife, including birds, are discussed in the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Draft EISs. The Phase 2 Draft EIS did not evaluate the Cross Kirkland
Trail because the alignment route and options did not extend into the City of
Kirkland. Potential impacts to the Eastside Rail Corridor were evaluated in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme REC-2 in
Appendix J-1.
Permanent loss of recreation
sites
For the Final EIS, PSE’s Proposed Alignment would occur within its existing
right-of-way and would not require new easements or property acquisition.
Safety issues, as they relate to recreation resources, are described in the Phase
2 Draft EIS. Mitigation measures in the Phase 1 Draft EIS were in keeping
with the programmatic nature of the document, and mitigation measures
proposed were high-level in nature. The Phase 2 Draft EIS provides more
specific mitigation strategies. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme
REC-3 in Appendix J-1.
Cumulative impacts Cumulative impacts are described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and Final EIS. No
changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme REC-4 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐11
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.10 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
Comment Theme Response
Interpretation of impacts The potential for ground disturbance and associated impacts under the No
Action Alternative is addressed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The Eastside
Transmission System has been recommended eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places, and PSE is conducting further evaluation
of the resource and consulting with DAHP to obtain an eligibility
determination for the system as part of a historic property inventory field
assessment. 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. Noise and
vibration are addressed in the Historic and Cultural Resources chapter of the
Phase 1 Draft EIS. Implementation of the No Action Alternative could have
minor to moderate impacts to aboveground historic properties, primarily from
the installation of components associated with energy conservation measures.
No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme H&C-1 in Appendix J-1.
Analytical process The Phase 2 Draft EIS addresses the analysis of individual properties. PSE has
begun conducting site-specific historic property and archaeological studies for
the resources identified in the EIS, and has committed to completing the
analysis prior to construction so that impacts can be avoided or mitigated. No
changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme H&C-2 in Appendix J-1.
Existing and proposed cultural
resources
The Phase 2 Draft EIS describes the Newcastle Cemetery, noting its historic
significance, and the Somerset neighborhood, and describes potential
mitigation measures. PSE will request a determination from DAHP regarding
the cemetery's eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places. Analysis of components associated with peak generation plants and
energy efficiency (as presented in the Phase 1 Draft EIS) was not included in
the Phase 2 Draft EIS because these project elements are no longer under
consideration. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme H&C-3 in
Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐12
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.11 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH– ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC
FIELDS (EMF)
Comment Theme Response
Potential health effects from
electric and magnetic fields
Extensive health studies have not found a causal link between adverse health
effects and EMF from electrical transmission lines. An analysis of the
potential health impacts is included in the Phase 1 Draft EIS due to public
concerns raised during scoping. Dr. Asher Sheppard, a consultant with the EIS
Consultant Team who has a scientific background in evaluating human health
effects from electrical transmission lines, reviewed the additional citations to
research as provided by commenters to determine whether the findings
presented by the cited studies would change the conclusions provided in the
Phase 1 Draft EIS. Dr. Sheppard’s findings are summarized in the Final EIS.
See Key Theme EMF-1 in Appendix J-1.
Potential health effects from
corona ions
Available studies and research, including those in Section 8.3.6 of the Phase 1
Draft EIS, are considered inconclusive and do not suggest a probable health
impact associated with corona ionization, either during the construction or the
operation of PSE’s proposed project. Dr. Sheppard reviewed the other studies
cited by commenters. Dr. Sheppard’s findings are summarized in the Final
EIS. See Key Theme EMF-2 in Appendix J-1.
Populations particularly
susceptible to electric and
magnetic fields
Exposure to magnetic fields in homes, schools, parks, and daycare facilities is
acknowledged in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The calculated magnetic field levels
would be well below the lowest reference guideline, even assuming 24-hour
exposure. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme EMF-3 in Appendix
J-1.
Potential for increase in
magnetic fields
The magnetic field levels associated with the project are anticipated to be
lower than existing field levels along the existing transmission line corridor.
No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme EMF-4 in Appendix J-1.
6.12 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
Comment Theme Response
Risk of catastrophic explosions
and leaks caused by construction
The risks of accidents in the pipeline corridor is acknowledged in the Phase 1
Draft EIS, and more fully discussed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. Most accidents are
caused by a failure to properly locate the underground utility during
construction. In the case of the corridor shared by PSE’s transmission line and
the Olympic Pipeline system, PSE and Olympic have worked together in the
corridor for 40 years, and communicate regularly to coordinate activities related
to pole replacement and other maintenance work. Risk assessment completed
for the Phase 2 Draft EIS indicate that there would be a very small increase in
total risk during construction. The risk to the Olympic Pipeline system due to
vibrations from construction equipment is addressed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.
Regarding mitigation, PSE will follow protocols established by the pipeline
operator during construction. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme
PLS-1 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐13
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
Comment Theme Response
Risk of catastrophic explosions,
fires, or leaks caused by natural
forces, such as earthquakes,
windstorms, and lightning
Operational risks related to natural forces were broadly analyzed in the Phase
1 Draft EIS. The Phase 1 Draft EIS and the Phase 2 Draft EIS both
acknowledge that earthquakes and lightning strikes or wires downed by
extreme weather events present risks of fault conditions or arcing from the
transmission lines to the pipelines. The risk assessment included in the Phase
2 Draft EIS took into account historical incident rates for natural force-caused
pipeline incidents on similar systems nationwide, and current risks in the
corridor in consideration of fuel type/flammability, pipe parameters, safety
features, and other factors, and determined that the project is not expected to
increase the risks of accidental release due to seismic activity or other natural
forces. Additional information on seismic risks in the corridor and how these
risks are accounted for is provided in the Final EIS. See Key Theme PLS-2 in
Appendix J-1.
Risk of pipeline corrosion
caused by electrical interference
from power lines
PSE retained DNV GL to develop a detailed analysis of risks and
recommendations for the Energize Eastside project, which was used in
preparing the analysis for the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The Phase 2 Draft EIS also
contained additional recommendations beyond those presented in the DNV
GL report, to be used to analyze potential for AC interference once final pole
locations are developed. Even using conservatively high assumptions for risk
factors, the analysis showed that there would be a small increase in total risk
during operation. Mitigation can decrease those risks even further. No changes
in the Final EIS. See Key Theme PLS-3 in Appendix J-1.
Evaluation of worst-case
scenario involving pipeline
rupture and fire
For a buried pipeline transporting refined petroleum product, the greatest risk
to the public is posed by pool fires. EDM Services used data specific to the
Olympic Pipeline system, including an estimated maximum release volume
based on pipe size, pressure, and other factors, to model a release and
subsequent pool fire size. The risk assessment modeled a worst-case scenario
using the maximum release volume from U.S. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
release data, which is described in detail in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. The focus
of the risk assessment in the Phase 2 Draft EIS was estimating the change in
risk that would occur with PSE’s proposal, compared to existing conditions.
The Phase 2 Draft EIS acknowledged that local conditions could affect the
shape and consequences of a fire. The Final EIS discusses the variable
conditions that could affect the spread and impact of a fire in each segment.
See Key Theme PLS-4 in Appendix J-1.
Risk of non-compliance with
safety regulations that apply to
Olympic and PSE
The Partner Cities, in issuing permits, can decide that additional conditions are
required. 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 plans to integrate, where applicable, the results
and recommendation 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. Olympic,
however, is responsible for the safety of its pipeline system in compliance
with federal safety requirements. To estimate the probability of pipeline
failures, historical data on pipeline incidents/spills that have occurred on
similar systems are most commonly used. However, the historical
incident/spill data do not include information on these similar systems'
violations record, which means that comparison in this case is not feasible. No
change in the Final EIS. See Key Theme PLS-5 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐14
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
Comment Theme Response
Engagement of Olympic in the
EIS process
The Partner Cities and the EIS Consultant Team contacted Olympic during the
development of the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and made additional inquiries during
the project-specific phase of the EIS. Olympic, however, did not provide some
requested information for the Phase 2 analysis, which could be attributed to
proprietary or security concerns. PSE cannot compel Olympic to release the
information. PSE has limited authority to influence specific mitigation
measures undertaken by Olympic Pipe Line Company related to pipeline
operation or monitoring, but can provide information to assist pipeline
operators in protecting the pipeline. No change in the Final EIS. See Key
Theme PLS-6 in Appendix J-1.
6.13 NOISE
Comment Theme Response
Noise from corona discharge Corona noise was analyzed as a part of the Phase 1 Draft EIS and was found
to be relatively low for nearby residential environments and virtually the same
as existing noise levels, which is well below the limits required by local noise
regulations. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme NOI-1 in Appendix
J-1.
Construction and operational
noise
Because of the short duration of construction and the restrictions imposed by
noise regulations, construction impacts were not expected to be significant.
Operational noise would also be regulated at the local level, both through
permit review and also through enforcement of local codes after the project is
operational. Substations are not exempt from local noise regulations, but are
also not subject to the 10 dBA reduction per Washington State law. Noise was
not analyzed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS because no significant and unavoidable
noise impacts were identified in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, assuming compliance
with noise regulations. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme NOI-2 in
Appendix J-1.
Applicable noise regulations and
significance thresholds
Noise regulations are based on the Washington Administrative Code (WAC),
which informs the noise regulations at the local level. Per WAC 197-11-794,
significance involves context and intensity, magnitude and duration, and is
determined by the Lead Agency. For the Phase 1 Draft EIS, the City of
Bellevue (along with the other Partner Cities) determined that the project
would have a significant impact if it would generate operational noise that
would conflict with local ordinances or would increase ambient noise levels
by 5 dBA or greater at a sensitive land use. No changes in the Final EIS. See
Key Theme NOI-3 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐15
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.14 ECONOMICS
Comment Theme Response
Property value depreciation SEPA does not require that economic impacts be evaluated, although it was
included in the EIS because it was highlighted as a concern during scoping.
The Phase 1 Draft EIS provided a review of the impacts at a programmatic
level; therefore, no site-specific data were analyzed. Further economic
analysis regarding impacts to property values from transmission lines was
included in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. This analysis did not find studies that
indicated a negative effect on property values due to the replacement of lower
voltage with higher voltage transmission lines in an existing utility corridor.
The Phase 2 Draft EIS includes a detailed analysis of the visual impacts and
found that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts to scenic views.
PSE’s Proposed Alignment evaluated in the Final EIS would be entirely in the
existing utility corridor, so economic impacts due to property acquisitions
were not further analyzed. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme
ECON-1 in Appendix J-1.
Tax revenue impacts The Phase 2 Draft EIS analyzed the potential loss of property tax revenue,
using Newcastle as a proxy for impacts. This was to provide a comparison
with similar analysis in the Phase 1 Draft EIS regarding the City of Bellevue.
Impacts on property values from the conversion of land to a utility use are not
evaluated in the Phase 2 Draft EIS because no land would be acquired for the
project. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme ECON-2 in Appendix J-
1.
Need for a full cost-benefit
analysis
Economic analysis is not required under SEPA. The analysis 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. Based on estimates provided by PSE, the
proposed project is not anticipated to significantly affect the price of
electricity in the Eastside. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme
ECON-3 in Appendix J-1.
Fairness of financial burden It is the responsibility of the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (WUTC) to determine if the cost of electrical upgrades is
appropriate. PSE has stated that the cost for the project would be included in
future annual capital projects budgets, and that $1 to $2 of the average
monthly bill for residential customers would go toward the project. PSE
determined that Alternative 2 was not a feasible approach for solving the
transmission capacity deficiency. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key
Theme ECON-4 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐16
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.15 EARTH
Comment Theme Response
Earthquake-related hazards The Phase 1 Draft EIS indicates that the proposed project would not increase
the probability of an earthquake to occur nor increase the amount of damage
that would occur to the pipeline in an earthquake. The final structural design
would comply with NESC 2017 as adopted by the WUTC, as well as seismic
recommendations from an engineer licensed in Washington. An expanded
discussion of seismic and liquefaction impacts and requirements is included in
the Final EIS, Section 4.11. See Key Theme EARTH-1 in Appendix J-1.
Impacts from taller poles and
pole installation
PSE stated that there have been no structure failures of its steel transmission
poles due to geologic hazards, and failures of wood poles have been rare,
involving extenuating circumstances like placement in a bog or being
impacted by a landslide in a remote mountain setting. Key findings from the
PSE geohazard reports are included in the Final EIS Section 4.11. See Key
Theme EARTH-2 in Appendix J-1.
Earthwork activities near
Olympic Pipeline system
The project would be required to comply with all regulations regarding
erosion-prone areas, such as steep slopes. The Olympic Pipe Line Company
has stringent construction requirements in the area of its pipelines and would
continue its close coordination with PSE and local jurisdictions for all
construction activities located adjacent to the pipelines. A risk assessment that
took into account the risks in the corridor was conducted as part of the Phase 2
Draft EIS. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme EARTH-3 in
Appendix J-1.
Regulatory thresholds and
mitigation measures
The mitigation measures identified in the Phase 1 Draft EIS were prepared in
the context of a programmatic level of analysis. These mitigation measures are
not specific to certain facilities, but would be applied where needed. BMPs are
developed on a project-specific basis and determined by the local regulatory
agency. The project will incorporate seismic recommendations of an engineer
licensed in Washington. Use of appropriate stormwater management
(detention) facilities to reduce stream flow velocities and flooding, as well as
NESC seismic engineering design requirements have been included as
mitigation in the Phase 1 Draft EIS, and carried forward into the Final EIS.
The Final EIS Section 4.11 clarifies that NESC standards for transmission
lines do not include specific seismic requirements because addressing wind
and ice loads results in structures that are more than adequate to address
seismic requirements. See Key Theme EARTH-4 in Appendix J-1.
Request for more location-
specific data
The Phase 1 Draft EIS determined that impacts under all alternatives would be
minor with the implementation of BMPs, geotechnical recommendations,
regulatory requirements, and industry standards. Revised pole location data
are included in the Final EIS analysis, and Section 4.11 discusses the seismic
risks in each segment. See Key Theme EARTH-5 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐17
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.16 TRANSPORTATION
Comment Theme Response
General congestion
/transportation impacts
associated with construction
The Phase 1 Draft EIS contains an analysis of impacts due to the use of
construction vehicles and other construction activities. In Phase 2, it was
determined that no houses would need to be removed for the project. The
methods used to install new steel poles will depend on the type of pole used
and both its physical and functional location. The Final EIS includes a
discussion of the pole types expected for PSE’s Proposed Alignment.
Driveways along the transmission line route would be passable during
construction unless there is an alternative driveway serving a property that can
accommodate vehicles if one driveway is temporarily closed. Brief road
closures may be required for pulling wires, but PSE will prepare traffic control
plans and work closely with City public works staff regarding road closures,
traffic plans, etc. No change in the Final EIS. See Key Theme TRAN-1 in
Appendix J-1.
Potential need to truck contents
of the pipelines
The estimate included in the Phase 1 Draft EIS was provided by Olympic, and
would result in a substantial reduction in the amount of fuel being transported
through the region, or a substantial amount being transported by means other
than truck, such as by barge or rail. A higher estimate of 4,000 truck trips per
day is considered a worst-case estimate because it assumes no reduction in
volume of products being shipped through the region, and all of the products
being shipped by truck. This is noted in the Errata in the Final EIS. See Key
Theme TRAN-1 in Appendix J-1.
Transporting project
components
Construction timing/scheduling was not known at the time of the Phase 1
Draft EIS or the Phase 2 Draft EIS, but the projected project schedule,
including phasing, is described in the Final EIS. Replacement of large
equipment happens infrequently, and operational transportation impacts would
be minor, as described in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. No changes in the Final EIS.
See Key Theme TRAN-3 in Appendix J-1.
Mitigation of transportation
impacts during construction
The Phase 1 Draft EIS presents general mitigation measures identified to
avoid or reduce the potential transportation impacts expected during
construction. There are no plans to relocate residential customers to hotels.
However, this is a potential mitigation measure that could be employed, if
warranted, as described in the Phase 2 Draft EIS. No changes to the Final EIS.
See Key Theme TRAN-4 in Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐18
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.17 ENERGY AND UTILITIES
Comment Theme Response
Energy use of peaker plants Construction of new peaker plants was not carried forward as an alternative
because the noise they produce would be incompatible with the predominately
residential surroundings. The distributed generation component and peaker
plants would rely on non-renewable resources (fossil fuels such as diesel or
natural gas) to operate, as discussed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. No changes to
the Final EIS. See Key Theme EGY-1 in Appendix J-1.
Alternative 1 would increase
demand for energy and therefore
require more fossil fuel use
Alternative 1 would provide more than adequate capacity to meet the
projected transmission shortfall in the Eastside. However, there is no
intermediate size of transmission facility that would meet PSE’s stated
objectives. There is no indication in its IRP that PSE plans to increase reliance
on or transmission from the Colstrip plant. No changes in the Final EIS. See
Key Theme EGY-2 in Appendix J-1.
The need for utility providers to
adopt measures that reflect
sustainability, conservation, and
efficiency
PSE has a conservation program that is part of its IRP. Consistency of the
project with adopted energy policies was conducted for the Phase 1 Draft EIS
analysis. The Energize Eastside project would not adversely affect PSE’s
conservation program. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme EGY-3
in Appendix J-1.
Impacts to other utilities The Phase 1 Draft EIS describes the potential for interference with other
electronic communications equipment. If the project is constructed, PSE will
work with telecom companies to reinstall cellular equipment onto the new 230
kV poles, subject to the requirements of Chapter 80.54 RCW, Chapter 480-54
WAC, and local jurisdiction regulations. PSE will continue to coordinate with
King County Water Treatment Division as the project design is refined. No
changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme UTL-1 in Appendix J-1.
Utility disruptions caused by
terrorism or natural hazards
Public safety risks associated with terrorist attacks are discussed in the Phase
1 Draft EIS as an unlikely, but possible worst-case scenario, although the
project is not expected to increase this risk. Redundancy is considered by PSE
as part of its long-range planning efforts. No changes in the Final EIS. See
Key Theme UTL-2 in Appendix J-1.
Utility oversight WUTC regulation of the Olympic Pipeline system is independent from PSE’s
project. The IRP process is separate from the setting of rates and relates to the
sources of power that PSE plans to use to provide electricity to its customers.
No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme UTL-3 in Appendix J-1.
Co-location with Olympic
Pipeline system
Olympic Pipe Line Company is responsible for operating its pipeline system
safely. Olympic does not have legal authority to deny PSE’s project. Liability
due to a pipeline failure would depend on the cause. No change to the Final
EIS. See Key Theme UTL-4 in Appendix J-1.
Conclusions of the Phase 1 Draft
EIS
PSE stated that this project is needed in part to protect the regional grid from
harm that could result from an overloading of PSE’s system due to growing
demand within the Eastside. Conformance with industry standards and
regulatory requirements would ensure that potential hazards are identified and
design plans developed to minimize adverse effects from these hazards.
Maintenance activities for 230 kV lines and poles are similar to those for the
current 115 kV lines. No changes to the Final EIS. See Key Theme UTL-5 in
Appendix J-1.
FINAL EIS PAGE 6‐19
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MARCH 2018
6.18 PUBLIC SERVICES
Comment Theme Response
Response to pipeline-related
incident
Existing local service providers are expected to be adequate to address the
demand for fire and other emergency response for most incidents that could
occur during construction and operation of the transmission lines. The need
for emergency response services would be the same for the project as they
would be for the No Action Alternative. The Phase 1 Draft EIS analysis was
based on a review of the comprehensive plans and policies of each
jurisdiction, as well as phone interviews with the major police and fire
departments. The Bellevue Fire Department Standards of Response Coverage
document was not reviewed at the time of the Phase 1 Draft EIS because it
was not identified as a source, but the data from the report are consistent with
the findings in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Draft EISs. The Phase 1 Draft EIS did
not discuss the potential need for additional personnel from adjacent
jurisdictions if there were a major fire on the pipeline, but this has been
included as a mitigation measure in the Final EIS. With the additional
mitigation measures proposed in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and Final EIS, the
project would not substantially increase the risk of an accidental release from
the pipelines, and could decrease some aspects of the risk. Insurance rates are
not expected to increase as a result of the project. The Final EIS discusses the
Bellevue Fire Department Standards of Response Coverage in responses to
comments on the Phase 1 Draft EIS and Phase 2 Draft EIS. See Key Theme
SVC-1 in Appendix J-1.
Interference with
communication devices
Overhead transmission lines do not generally interfere with radio or television
reception, although corona can affect AM radio frequencies. No corona-
generated interference with police and emergency personnel communication/
emergency devices is anticipated. PSE would design the new 230 kV lines in
consideration of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers design
guidelines. No changes in the Final EIS. See Key Theme SVC-2 in Appendix
J-1.
Safety measures and plans Operation of the alternatives presented in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Draft
EISs could increase demand for emergency services in the study area.
However, mitigation can decrease impacts. Current safety measures, including
emergency service providers, levels of service, and response times, are
detailed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. Access to residential and commercial
properties would be maintained at all times. The Phase 1 Draft EIS presented
a general analysis of risks regarding pipeline safety. For the Phase 2 Draft
EIS, a more detailed pipeline safety risk assessment was conducted to further
evaluate pipeline safety risks, including construction risks. The Final EIS
describes the variable conditions that could affect the spread and impact of a
fire in each segment. See Key Theme SVC-3 in Appendix J-1.
Reliable energy is required for
community services to operate
PSE has clarified how the project relates to reliability, which is presented in
the Phase 2 Draft EIS and the Final EIS. PSE determined that, without the
project, under certain circumstances the Eastside communities would need to
be placed at risk of load shedding (deliberate power outages) in order to
protect the regional grid. The degree of additional system reliability provided
by the project is unknown because of the complexity of the system and the
variety of factors that can cause equipment failure. No changes in the Final
EIS. See Key Theme SVC-4 in Appendix J-1.
Cumulative Impacts
7
FINAL EIS PAGE 7‐1
CHAPTER 7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MARCH 2018
CHAPTER 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
“Cumulative impact” is not defined in the SEPA rules, but it is defined under federal rules
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). “Cumulative impact” is defined in the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations as the “impact on the environment that results
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes
such other actions” (40 CFR Part 1508). This chapter considers the effects of the Energize Eastside
project when considered with other proposed actions or projects within the potentially affected area.
Washington courts have limited the requirement for cumulative impact analysis under SEPA, stating
that an analysis of the cumulative impacts of a proposed project is not required under SEPA unless:
(1) there is some evidence that the project will facilitate future action that will result in additional
impacts, or (2) the project is dependent on subsequent proposed development. A project's cumulative
impacts that are merely speculative need not be considered (Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn.
App. 711(2002) – Cumulative impacts).
7.1 LAND USE AND HOUSING
In general, as population and employment growth occurs, there is an increased likelihood that land
uses will change, although consistency with comprehensive plans and subarea plans helps to decrease
the potential for adverse impacts. The Energize Eastside project is proposed in response to expected
growth, because a reliable electrical transmission system is needed to support that growth. The
Energize Eastside project is not expected to affect the scale of future development, but it could affect
the timing of future development, depending on the schedule of implementation. The availability of
reliable electricity is not expected to represent a cumulative impact to land use. It will not
incrementally increase or alter proposed land uses because it is being undertaken to supply land uses
that have been identified in adopted land use plans.
7.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
In general, as development occurs, there is an increased likelihood that scenic views and the aesthetic
environment will be adversely impacted. Development can result in large buildings or structures that
block or obscure views, and the trend of urbanization and densification results in changing views and
vistas. The Energize Eastside project will contribute to that trend, by providing electricity to supply
projected development. The incremental visual impact from the project will add to the increasingly
urbanized visual environment within the study area. Because development is expected to conform to
each community’s plans, policies, and regulations regarding aesthetics, these cumulative impacts are
not expected to be significant (beyond those identified for the Bellevue South and Newcastle
Segments in Sections 4.2.5 and 8.2).
7.3 WATER RESOURCES
No long-term impacts to water resources would occur as a result of PSE’s Proposed Alignment, and
the project is not expected to contribute to indirect or direct impacts resulting from other projects;
therefore, no cumulative impacts to water resources would occur.
FINAL EIS PAGE 7‐2
CHAPTER 7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MARCH 2018
7.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Urbanization has resulted in an overall loss and degradation of available fish and wildlife habitat
throughout the study area, although current regulations have slowed the trend of habitat loss to a
degree, and in the case of fish passage in particular, future projects will likely improve habitat. The
Energize Eastside project would contribute to the trend toward degradation directly by removing
trees and altering available habitat conditions, and indirectly by continuing to supply energy to
support a growing, developing region. Mitigation would help to reduce cumulative impacts, but it
would not immediately replace all habitat lost. Replacing large, significant trees with smaller
planting-sized trees would not fully replace the habitat functions provided by the existing conditions.
In accord with regulations, over time the loss of function would be replaced through replacement
trees and habitat restoration, reducing the net impact of development. Other large projects, such as
Sound Transit’s East Link project, overlap with the proposed Energize Eastside project. The East
Link project will impact plants and animals by continuing to contribute to the trend of reducing
habitat (forested areas) in Bellevue, Redmond, and King County (Sound Transit, 2011).
7.5 GREENHOUSE GASES
All GHG emissions contribute to cumulative climate change impacts. The analysis of the effects of
GHG emissions is essentially a cumulative effects analysis that is subsumed within the general
analysis and discussion of climate change impacts. Therefore, direct and indirect effects analysis for
GHG emissions will adequately address the cumulative impacts for climate change from the project,
and a separate cumulative effects analysis for GHG emissions is not needed (CEQ, 2016).
7.6 RECREATION
In general, there is pressure on recreation areas from development and increased use. The significant
impacts to recreation sites from PSE’s Proposed Alignment could contribute to the degradation of
existing recreation resources and limit the ability for municipalities to provide additional recreation
opportunities, unless mitigation is provided. Construction activity throughout the region could result
in potential impacts to parks and other recreation sites. The most likely future action that could alter
or affect recreation sites within the Energize Eastside study area is Sound Transit’s East Link project,
which could be constructed during the same general time frame as the project. The East Link project
will impact some parks in Bellevue, Redmond, and King County (Sound Transit, 2011). In
combination with the East Link project and other projects planned in the study area, the Energize
Eastside project could potentially cause cumulative impacts to recreation if the same recreation sites
are affected or if the construction periods overlap. The Energize Eastside project may avoid direct
impacts to recreation sites by siting facilities outside of designated parks or recreation areas.
Construction of the East Link project is scheduled to occur between 2015 and 2021. Construction for
the Energize Eastside project may occur during this same period; however, construction of Energize
Eastside and East Link could be coordinated to avoid or minimize impacts to recreation areas by
limiting the duration of construction that would result in the closure of recreation areas or disruption
of access to recreation areas. Coordination with potentially affected Cities will reduce potential
impacts through facility siting, and would comply with applicable permitting requirements to
mitigate impacts. With appropriate mitigation, the cumulative construction and operation effects of
the project and other planned projects are not expected to change long-term trends related to the use
of recreation facilities in the study area.
FINAL EIS PAGE 7‐3
CHAPTER 7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MARCH 2018
7.7 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
The project has the potential for cumulative impacts by supporting development and redevelopment
within the Eastside area. Development has the potential for ground disturbance, which could impact
additional belowground archaeological resources, if present. For historic resources, development
could involve demolition or alterations to the setting of existing historic resources, if present. It is
probable that potential impacts to historic and cultural resources would be mitigated through
appropriate preservation planning and, at the time of development, through consultation with DAHP,
affected Tribes, and local governments, as applicable to the type of impacted resource.
7.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC
FIELDS
The project would reduce magnetic fields along existing transmission line corridor; therefore, there
would be no cumulative effect. All of PSE’s Proposed Alignment is entirely within PSE’s existing
corridor, with no new sources of magnetic fields associated with a new corridor. Overall, no adverse
cumulative effects are expected because existing sources combined with magnetic fields associated
with the project are expected to be well below reference guidelines.
7.9 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
No significant adverse impacts to environmental health related to pipeline safety are likely from the
Energize Eastside project. The likelihood of a pipeline incident would remain low in the shared
corridor, and no substantial increase in risk compared to existing conditions has been identified. With
implementation of mitigation measures, these risks would be even lower. Other activities by other
parties (e.g., ground-disturbing activities), unrelated to the Energize Eastside project, may occur in
the corridor on occasion. While these activities remain a source of potential pipeline safety risk in the
corridor, the project would not contribute to adverse impacts resulting from these other activities;
therefore, no cumulative impacts to environmental health from pipeline safety would occur.
7.10 ECONOMICS
The economic impacts of the project have not been fully evaluated in this EIS because SEPA does
not require an economic analysis. To the extent that the project supports growth and development as
described under Land Use and Housing, property values are likely to rise, offsetting any potential
adverse impacts to assessed value used for property tax assessment. The effects to ecosystem services
would be cumulative with other development that removes trees. If mitigation is provided per codes
and regulations, over time the loss of ecosystem services would be replaced through replacement
trees, reducing the net impact of development. Temporal losses could also be offset with additional
mitigation.
FINAL EIS PAGE 7‐4
CHAPTER 7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MARCH 2018
7.11 EARTH RESOURCES
Although the entire region is a seismically active area, geologic and soil conditions vary widely
within a relatively short distance. Other projects in the area would also be required to adhere to the
same Washington state and local building codes as the Energize Eastside Project, which would
reduce the risk to people and property in the region. While future seismic events cannot be predicted,
adherence to federal, state, and local programs, requirements, and policies pertaining to building
safety and construction would limit the potential for injury or damage. The project would not
increase the risk of damage or injury due to seismic events. Therefore, the Energize Eastside project,
combined with past, present, and other foreseeable development in the area, would not result in a
cumulatively significant impact related to geologic hazards, soils, or seismic conditions.
Significant Unavoidable
Adverse Impacts
8
FINAL EIS PAGE 8‐1
CHAPTER 8 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MARCH 2018
CHAPTER 8. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
8.1 LAND USE AND HOUSING
Construction of the Energize Eastside project would not require significant excavation, inhibit access
to adjacent land uses, or create significant noise; therefore, any nuisance caused by the construction
activities of PSE’s Proposed Alignment would be less-than-significant. Long-term impacts to land
use and housing would also be less-than-significant for PSE’s Proposed Alignment because all of the
segments and options and the proposed substation are land uses anticipated in city and subarea plans,
and the project would not adversely affect existing or future land use patterns. Therefore, the project
would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts to land use and housing.
The No Action Alternative would not be consistent with city comprehensive plan policies, as
discussed in the Phase 1 Draft EIS. The No Action Alternative could lead to unavoidable significant
adverse land use impacts in the long term if unreliable power supply were to outweigh the regional
factors amenable to growth and development, leading to development inconsistent with regional
growth plans and targets.
8.2 SCENIC VIEWS AND THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
The project could have significant unavoidable
adverse impacts to the aesthetic environment in
the Bellevue South Segment and the Newcastle
Segment, Option 1 (No Code Variance) and
Option 2 (Code Variance), as described below
(Figure 8-1). There would be no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts on scenic views.
Figure 8-1. Areas with Significant Impacts to the
Aesthetic Environment
FINAL EIS PAGE 8‐2
CHAPTER 8 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MARCH 2018
Significant aesthetic impacts associated with the Bellevue South Segment would occur where it
traverses the Somerset neighborhood. The Somerset neighborhood has neighborhood covenants that
restrict building and vegetation height to protect views (i.e., the View Guideline for Somerset). These
neighborhood covenants also result in increased viewer awareness of the impact. The increased pole
height associated with the Bellevue South Segment would contrast substantially with this unique
neighborhood of low buildings and vegetation. Impacts could be avoided by selecting a different
alignment option for this segment or if the Somerset portion were placed underground.
Significant aesthetic impacts associated with the Newcastle Segment would occur where the project
would be inconsistent with the Newcastle Comprehensive Plan, which protects the scale and
character of existing neighborhoods through policies that call for transmission lines to be sited and
designed to minimize visual impacts to adjacent land uses. North of the May Creek ravine, impacts
of the Newcastle Segment on the aesthetic environment would be significant because the new
transmission line would change the neighborhood character. It would introduce a taller transmission
line that would be less concealed by vegetation. In addition, its location on the ridge would make it a
defining feature that contrasts strongly with the existing built environment. Although impacts would
be less under the Code Variance Option, which introduces shorter poles than the No Code Variance
Option and creates less contrast due to the position of the poles more centrally within the corridor,
impacts under both options would be significant. Inconsistency with the Newcastle Comprehensive
Plan could be mitigated if the transmission line were placed underground.
8.3 WATER RESOURCES
Impacts from construction of PSE’s Proposed Alignment would be temporary and minor with the
implementation of BMPs, and all long-term impacts would be minor and could be fully mitigated
through compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of BMPs. Therefore, there
would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to water resources.
8.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Although the overall magnitude of impacts would vary by segment and option, PSE’s Proposed
Alignment would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts to plants and animals. The
primary impacts are related to the number of trees, including significant trees, that would be
removed. Protected species are not known to occupy the habitat within the study area, and the overall
urbanized settings throughout the study area are unlikely to provide suitable habitat for these species
in the future. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are expected, within any of the
segments or options.
8.5 GREENHOUSE GASES
Construction-related GHG emissions would be less-than-significant because they would be
temporary, would not represent a continuing burden on the statewide inventory, and would likely be
below state reporting thresholds. Although PSE’s Proposed Alignment would result in long-term
increases in fugitive SF6 emissions (from gas-insulated circuit breakers at substations) and CO2e
sequestration losses due to tree removal, the emissions would be substantially below the State of
Washington GHG reporting threshold. Therefore, there would be no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to greenhouse gas emissions.
FINAL EIS PAGE 8‐3
CHAPTER 8 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MARCH 2018
8.6 RECREATION
Construction of the Energize Eastside project would not require significant excavation, inhibit access
to adjacent recreation sites or facilities, or create significant noise; therefore, any nuisance to
recreation activities caused by the construction activities of PSE’s Proposed Alignment would be
less-than-significant. Long-term impacts to recreation would also be less-than-significant for PSE’s
Proposed Alignment because the project would not adversely affect recreation use or opportunities.
Some of the option routes in the Bellevue Central and Bellevue South Segments analyzed in the
Phase 2 Draft EIS would require easements in park property, which could result in significant
impacts on recreation resources; those option routes, however, are not part of PSE’s Proposed
Alignment.
8.7 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential operational impacts to belowground protected archaeological resources or aboveground
significant historic resources could be mitigated during the construction phase. Thus, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts to belowground archaeological resources or aboveground historic
resources are anticipated. Mitigation measures for historic and cultural resources would be developed
through consultation between PSE and DAHP, with involvement from KCHPP, affected Tribes, and
municipal governments as applicable. PSE will consult with DAHP to request an eligibility
determination for the Eastside Transmission System; if determined eligible, PSE will consult with
DAHP regarding potential mitigation measures.
8.8 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC
FIELDS
No adverse impacts are likely from power-frequency EMF at the levels of public exposure from the
Energize Eastside project. It follows that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts under SEPA
would occur.
8.9 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – PIPELINE SAFETY
A pipeline release or fire resulting from construction or operation of the Energize Eastside project
would result in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The specific impacts would
depend on the location and the nature of the incident. Section 4.9.1 of the Phase 2 Draft EIS explains
the legal requirements to prevent, prepare for, and respond to a pipeline incident. Even with worst-
case assumptions related to the increased risk during operation and construction, the likelihood of a
pipeline release and fire would remain low, and no substantial increase in risk compared to the
existing conditions was identified. It is likely that with the implementation of additional measures
included in Section 4.9.8 and Section 5.9.4, any increase in risks within the corridor can be fully
mitigated. As a result, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts for pipeline safety have been
identified.
FINAL EIS PAGE 8‐4
CHAPTER 8 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS MARCH 2018
8.10 ECONOMICS
The economic aspects of the Energize Eastside project that are evaluated in this Final EIS do not
relate to construction impacts. Long-term impacts to economics are expected to be less-than-
significant. As noted in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be
associated with a change in assessed property value.
As noted in the Phase 2 Draft EIS, undergrounding a portion of the transmission line could result in
significant economic impacts if the burden of paying for undergrounding is shared over a small
number of property owners, or a minor impact if shared by a large enough number. However, the EIS
does not determine whether or how much of the transmission line should go underground, or assess
how many people should share the costs.
PSE’s Proposed Alignment would require tree removal along the existing corridor; however, the
value of total ecosystem services lost as a result of tree removal would be minimal.
8.11 EARTH RESOURCES
Damage and potential injury or death from a significant seismic event are never completely
avoidable. The Energize Eastside project would not increase these risks. The project would meet the
most recent scientifically based seismic design standards. As a result, there would be no probable
significant adverse impacts related to earth resources from the Energize Eastside project.
References
9
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐1
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
CHAPTER 9. REFERENCES
Chapters 1, 2, and 3
City of Bellevue, 2016a. Scoping Comment Summary Report, Part 1 (April 14 – May 31, 2016
Scoping Period). Energize Eastside Project, Phase 2. Prepared for the City of Bellevue by
ESA Consultant Team, Seattle, WA. June 30, 2016.
City of Bellevue, 2016b. Scoping Comment Summary Report, Part 2 (June 30 – August 1, 2016
Scoping Period). Energize Eastside Project, Phase 2. Prepared for the City of Bellevue by
ESA, Seattle, WA. August 30, 2016.
City of Redmond. 2013. Transportation Master Plan. Available: http://www.redmond.gov/
PlansProjects/Transportation/TransportationMasterPlan. Accessed September 1, 2016.
City of Renton. 2010. City of Renton Hazard Mitigation Plan. April 2010. 183 pp.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and Washington Military Department Emergency
Management Division. 2005. Scenario for a Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake on the Seattle Fault.
First Edition, June 2005. Available: https://www.washington.edu/uwem/files/2014/11/
seattscen_full_book.pdf.
Gentile, T.J., D.J. Morrow, Z.A. Gill Sanford, C.O. Jaeger, and J.V. Nedrud. 2014. Puget Sound
Energy and Quanta Technology. Eastside Transmission Solutions Report, King County Area.
October 2013. Updated February 2014.
Gentile, T.J., D.J. Morrow, E.M. Ewry, and C.O. Jaeger. 2015. Puget Sound Energy and Quanta
Technology. Supplemental Eastside Needs Assessment Report, Transmission System, King
County. April 2015.
Nexant. 2015. Puget Sound Energy Energize Eastside Outage Cost Study. Prepared for Puget Sound
Energy. October 30, 2015.
Olympic (Olympic Pipe Line Company). 2016. Letter to Rich Crispo, Mayor of City of Newcastle
(via Email) from Marc Horn, President of Olympic Pipe Line Company. July 19, 2016.
Olympic (Olympic Pipe Line Company). 2017. Olympic Pipe Line Operations Fact Sheet. Olympic
Pipe Line Company. Downloaded from http://www.workingwaterfrontportland.org/profiles/
olympic_pipeline.pdf on April 24, 2017.
Power Engineers, Inc. 2017. Photo Simulations for the Energize Eastside Transmission Line Project.
Prepared January and February 2017. Meridian, ID.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2017a. Email from Brad Strauch, PSE, to Heidi Bedwell, City of
Bellevue, regarding CAPS with Load Shedding – Timing. February 1, 2017.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐2
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2017b. Permit submittal package to the City of Bellevue for PSE’s
Energize Eastside Project. Includes forms, reports, and design plans. Submitted September 8,
2017, File No. CUP - 17-120556-LB, File No. Critical Areas Permit - 17-120557-LO.
Available: https://development.bellevuewa.gov/zoning-and-land-use/public-notices-and-
participation/energize-eastside-updates/. (Cited throughout the Final EIS).
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2017c. Permit submittal package to the City of Newcastle for PSE’s
Energize Eastside Project. Includes forms, reports, and design plans. Submitted November 9,
2017 (determined incomplete); resubmitted January 18, 2018, as Conditional Use Permit #17-
002, Critical Areas Review #17-013, and Variance application #17-004. Available:
http://newcastlewa.gov/departments/community_development/energize_eastside/. (Cited
throughout the Final EIS).
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2017d. Puget Sound Energy 2017 Integrated Resource Plan. Available at
https://pse.com/aboutpse/EnergySupply/Pages/Resource-Planning.aspx. Accessed December
15, 2075.
Stantec. 2015. Energize Eastside Project Memorandum from Keith DeClerck to Mark Johnson, dated
July 31, 2015. Available at http://www.energizeeastsideeis.org/library.html.
Land Use and Housing
City of Bellevue. 1993. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive Plan. Volume 2: Subarea
Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project List. Includes BelRed Subarea Plan, Bridle
Trails Subarea Plan, Crossroads Subarea Plan, Eastgate Subarea Plan, Factoria Subarea Plan,
Newport Hills Subarea Plan, Wilburton/NE 8th St Subarea Plan, Adopted December 6, 1993,
Updated August 2015.
City of Bellevue. 2015. City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element. August 2015.
Available: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/pdf/PCD/03_Land_Use_FINAL_20150727.pdf.
City of Newcastle. 2016. City of Newcastle: 2035 Newcastle Comprehensive Plan. Adopted March
2016.
City of Redmond. 2011. Redmond 2030: City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan. 2011. Adopted
December 6, 2011. Available: http://user-6418068785.cld.bz/Redmond-20305#1.
City of Renton. 2015. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted June 22, 2015. Available:
http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/CED/planning/2015/Comprehensive%20Plan1.p
df.
FCS Group. 2016. Economic Considerations, Supplemental Analysis – Energize Eastside Phase 2
Draft EIS. Draft, September 15, 2016.
Henning, J. 2017. Personal communication. Email from Jennifer Henning, AICP, Planning Director,
City of Renton, to multiple recipients; dated November 6, 2017.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐3
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
Scenic Views and Aesthetic Environment
City of Bellevue. 2015. Bridle Trials Subarea Plan. City of Bellevue, Washington Comprehensive
Plan. Volume 2: Subarea Plans and Comprehensive Transportation Project List. Originally
adopted December 6, 1993 and includes major Comprehensive Plan updates through August
2015 (Ordinance 6251).
City of Newcastle. 2016. City of Newcastle: 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Adopted March 2016.
City of Renton. 2015. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Updated July 2015.
Power Engineers. 2014. Eastside 230 kV Project Underground Feasibility Study. Prepared for PSE,
Bellevue, WA; prepared by Power Engineers, Kent, WA; provided to ESA, Seattle, WA.
March 2014.
Power Engineers. 2017. Visual simulations of the Energize Eastside project. Prepared for PSE,
Bellevue, WA; prepared by Power Engineers, Kent, WA; provided to ESA, Seattle, WA.
Various dates, July through December 2017.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, Energize Eastside Project Manager,
PSE, to Reema Shakra and Mark Johnson, ESA. August 23, 2017, and December 1, 2017.
Somerset. 2016. View Guideline for Somerset. Last updated 12/21/2016. 7 pages. Available:
https://www.somerset98006.org/uploads/4/7/5/8/47585659/view_guidelines_12-21-
16_tc__final.pdf.
The Watershed Company. 2016. GIS Dataset Labeled as twc_ee_veg_impact_results_20160914.
September 14, 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2017. GIS Dataset Labeled as 2017-12-15 Data for EIS Consultant.
December 15, 2017.
Water Resources
City of Bellevue. 2016a. Storm and Surface Water System Plan. Available:
http://www.bellevuewa.gov/storm-surface-water-plan.htm. Accessed: October 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2016b. Water System Supply Plan. June 2016.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State
- Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication # 06-06-011a. March 2016.
Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0606011a.html.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2014. 2012 Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington, as amended December 2014. Ecology Publication Number 14-10-
055.
GeoEngineers. 2016. Geotechnical Engineers Services for the Energize Eastside Project, Redmond to
Renton, Washington. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy. June to August 2016.
Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. August 2004.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐4
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
(Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. October 2014.
King County. 2016. Map of Groundwater Management Areas in King County. Available:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/water-and-land/groundwater/maps-reports/
maps.aspx. Accessed: August 26, 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016. City of Bellevue Critical Areas Delineation Report. Prepared for
Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project. May 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2017. Richards Creek Substation Property, Wetland and Stream
Delineation Report. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 111103.6. Submitted to
Molly Reed, PSE. June 22, 2017.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. SalmonScape. Available:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/. Accessed: August 2016.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) –
PHS on the Web. Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/.
Plants and Animals
Armson, D., P. Stringer, and A.E. Ennos. 2013. The effect of street trees and amenity grass o urban
surface water runoff in Manchester, UK. Urban Forest & Urban Greening. Vol. 12(3).
City of Bellevue. 2016a. Storm and Surface Water System Plan. Available:
http://www.bellevuewa.gov/storm-surface-water-plan.htm. Accessed: October 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2016b. Storm and Surface Water, Drainage Basins webpage. Available:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/drainage-basins.htm. Accessed: August 2016.
Dwyer, J.F., R.E. Harness, and K. Donohue. 2013. Predictive Model of Avian Electrocution Risk on
Overhead Power Lines. Conservation Biology 28(1):159-168.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2011. Waters requiring supplemental spawning
and incubation protection for salmonid species. Washington State Department of Ecology
publication 06-10-038. Revised January 2011.
Fernie, K.J. and S.J. Reynolds. 2005. The effects of electromagnetic fields from power lines on avian
reproductive biology and physiology: A review. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health, Part B. 8:127-140.
Inkilainen, E.N.M, M.R. McHale, G.B. Blani, A.L. James, and E. Nikinmaa. 2013. The role of the
residential urban forest in regulating throughfall: A case study in Raleigh, North Carolina,
USA. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 119.
King County. 2016. Watersheds and Rivers, Streams Data webpage. Including Stream report-Coal
Creek-0442. Available: http://green2.kingcounty.gov/streamsdata/Default.aspx. Accessed:
August, 2016.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐5
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2014. Puget Sound Energy – Vegetation Management. Available:
http://pse.com/safety/Tree-Trimming/Pages/Tree-Maintenance.aspx. Accessed: September
13, 2016.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2015. GIS, CAD, and static map data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by PSE, Bellevue, WA.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016a. Puget Sound Energy Noxious Weed Management Program.
Available: http://pse.com/aboutpse/Environment/Pages/Wildlife-Habitat.aspx. Accessed:
September 29, 2016.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016b. Puget Sound Energy Avian Protection Program. Available:
http://www.pse.com/aboutpse/Environment/Pages/Bird-Protection.aspx. Accessed:
September 13, 2016.
SCL (Seattle City Light). 2014. Avian Protection Plan: Seattle City Light, Version 1. Environmental
Affairs and Real Estate Division, Seattle, Washington. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/
light/enviro/avian/. Accessed: August 31, 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2009. Bellevue Urban Wildlife Habitat, Literature Review. Report
prepared for the City of Bellevue Development Services Department, Bellevue, Washington.
The Watershed Company. 2016a. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project. Includes the following
separate reports: City of Bellevue Tree Inventory Report; King County Tree Inventory
Report; City of Newcastle Tree Inventory Report; City of Redmond Tree Inventory Report;
City of Renton Tree Inventory Report; Richards Creek Parcel Tree Inventory Report;
Segment O Tree Inventory Report; Segment P Tree Inventory Report; and Bypass Routes 1
and 2 Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA.
Prepared by The Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016b. Critical Areas Delineation and Analysis: Energize Eastside Project.
Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue Critical Areas Delineation Report;
King County Critical Areas Delineation Report; City of Newcastle Critical Areas Delineation
Report; City of Redmond Critical Areas Delineation Report; and City of Renton Critical
Areas Delineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by The
Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset Labeled as twc_ee_veg_impact_results_20160914.
September 14, 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2017. GIS Dataset Labeled as 2017-12-15 Data for EIS Consultant.
December 15, 2017.
Tyler, N., K. Stokkan, C. Hogg, C. Nellemann, A. Vistnes, and G. Jeffery. 2014. Ultraviolet Vision
and Avoidance of Power Lines in Birds and Mammals. Conservation Biology. Vol 28(3)
630-631.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016a. Priority Habitat and Species
Database. Available: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. Accessed: August 2016.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐6
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016b. SalmonScape Database. Available:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html. Accessed: August 2016.
WDNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2016. Washington Natural Heritage
Program database. Available: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/gis/wnhpgis.html.
Accessed: October 2016.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2005. Electromagnetic fields and public health, Effects of EMF
on the environment. International EMF Project Information Sheet. February, 2005. Available:
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/fact_english.htm.
Greenhouse Gases
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/
ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. May 2017.
Blackman, J., M. Averyt, and Z. Taylor. 2006. SF6 Leak Rates from High Voltage Circuit Breakers -
U.S. EPA Investigates Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2016-02/documents/leakrates_circuitbreakers.pdf. Accessed: September 14, 2016.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers). 2013. Association. California Emissions
Estimator Model, Appendix A, page 48, 2013. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/
Accessed: September 22, 2016.
Cary, S.M. 2013. High Voltage Circuit Breaker Standards – Comparative Guide. White Paper
WP012001EN. Eaton, Cleveland, OH (www.eaton.com).
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and
Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effect of Climate Change
in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews. August 2016, Available:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance.
Accessed: September 22, 2016.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Electric Power Systems Partnership. Emission
Sources. Last updated October 16, 2017. Available: https://www.epa.gov/f-gas-partnership-
programs/electric-power-systems-partnership. Accessed: October 23, 2017.
IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science
Basis, Working Group 1 Contribution to the 5th Assessment Report.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2017. i-Tree. Public domain software suite developed by the USDA
Forest Service. Available: https://www.itreetools.org/. Accessed: January 2018.
King County. 2015. Strategic Climate Action Plan. June 2015.
Kjellsen, K.O., M. Guimaraes, and A. Nilsson. 2005. CO2 Uptake During the Concrete Lifecycle:
The CO2 Balance of Concrete in a Lifecycle Perspective.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐7
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
Sandlin, Gail. 2016. Report to the Legislature on Washington Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory:
2010–2013. Department of Ecology. December 2016.
Seattle OSE (Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment). 2012. Drive Clean Seattle FAQ’s,
Available: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/DCS_FAQ_Final.pdf.
Accessed September 20, 2016.
Stephenson, N.L. et al. 2014. Rate of Tree Carbon Accumulation Increases Continuously with Tree
Size. Nature 507: 90-93. Contributions by N.L. Stephenson, A.J. Das, R. Condit, S.E. Russo,
P.J. Baker, N.G. Beckman, D.A. Coomes, E.R. Lines, W.K. Morris, N. Rüger, E. Álvarez, C.
Blundo, S. Bunyavejchewin, G. Chuyong, S. J. Davies, Á. Duque, C. N. Ewango, O. Flores,
J.F. Franklin, H.R. Grau, Z. Hao, M.E. Harmon, S.P. Hubbell, D. Kenfack, Y. Lin, J.-R.
Makana, A. Malizia, L.R. Malizia, R.J. Pabst, N. Pongpattananurak, S.-H. Su, I-F. Sun, S.
Tan, D. Thomas, P.J. van Mantgem, X. Wang, S.K. Wiser & M.A. Zavala. March 6, 2014.
The Climate Registry. 2016. GHG Emissions General Reporting Protocol, version 2.1. January 2016.
Available: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/tools-resources/reporting-protocols/general-
reporting-protocol/.
The Watershed Company. 2016. Tree Inventory Excel Database titled Willow, Oak, Richards,
Bypass_EIS Segments w VIA Result. Dated September 9, 2016.
TWC (The Watershed Company). 2017. Energize Eastside Vegetation Impact Analysis. Prepared for
Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by The Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA.
November 2017.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2011. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values, Los
Angeles’ Urban Forest. March 2011.
Recreation
City of Bellevue. 2015. Comprehensive Plan. Available: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/
comprehensive_plan.htm. Accessed August 19, 2016.
City of Bellevue. 2016. Bellevue Parks & Open Space System Plan. City Council Approved Draft.
Available: https://www.bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Parks/parks-open-space-plan_draft_5-2-16.pdf.
Accessed July 6, 2016.
City of Newcastle. 2016. 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Available:
http://www.ci.newcastle.wa.us/community_development/Plans/Newcastle%202015%20Com
prehensive%20Plan%20FINAL%20DRAFT%202016-07-29.pdf. Accessed September 1,
2016.
City of Redmond. 2013. Transportation Master Plan. Available: http://www.redmond.gov/
PlansProjects/Transportation/TransportationMasterPlan. Accessed September 1, 2016.
City of Redmond. 2015. 2030 City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan. Amended May 30, 2015.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐8
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
City of Renton. 2011. Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan. November. Available:
http://www.rentonwa.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=7922741&pageId=8838909. Accessed:
February 2, 2018.
King County. 2016. King County Parks List. Available: http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/ParkFinder/.
Accessed July 14, 2016.
Historic and Cultural Resources
DAHP (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2016. Washington
Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD)
[restricted access database]. Last updated 2016. Accessed: July 22, 2016.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/
FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Accessed: July 20, 2016.
King County Assessor. 2016. King County iMap. Available: http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/
gis/Maps/imap.aspx. Accessed: July 22, 2016.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2016. Web Soil Survey. Available:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: August 24,
2016.
Troost, Kathy G., and Derek B. Booth. 2008. Geology of Seattle and the Seattle Area, Washington.
Reviews in Engineering Geology XX:1-35.
Environmental Health - Electric and Magnetic Fields
ACGIH (American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists). 2009. Threshold Limit Values
for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati,
ACGIH.
DNV GL. 2016. A Detailed Approach to Assess AC Interference Levels Between the Energize
Eastside Transmission Line Project and the Existing Olympic Pipelines, OLP16 & OPL20.
Memo to: Puget Sound Energy. September 9, 2016.
Enertech Consultants. 2017. Technical Review Memorandum Regarding the Power Engineers 230
kV Eastside Line Project, EMF Calculations and Report - Revision 2. March 23, 2017.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2005. EPRI AC Transmission Line Reference Book—200
kV and Above, Third Edition, 1011974, page 7-25. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA.
ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection). 2010. Guidelines for
Limiting Exposure to Time-varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Healthy
Phys 99(6): 818-836. Available at: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/LFgdl.pdf.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐9
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). 2002. IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with
Respect to Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, 0 – 3 kHz. IEEE Std C95.6-2002.
Available at: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/
Final-EIR-Files/references/rtcref/ch9.0/RTCrefappx/2014-12-19_IEEE2002.pdf.
Kothapalli, Sunitha. 2017. Personal communication. Email communication between Reema Shakra
of ESA, Sunitha Kothapalli, Consulting Engineer, Electric Transmission Planning of Puget
Sound Energy, and Brad Strauch, Energize Eastside Project Manager of Puget Sound Energy,
March 29, 2017.
Power Engineers. 2017a. 230 kV Energize Eastside Project, EMF Calculations and Report –
Revision 2. Power Engineers. March 7, 2017.
Power Engineers. 2017b. 230 kV Energize Eastside Project, Addendum to EMF Calculations and
Report – Revision 0. Power Engineers. March 31, 2017.
Severson R.K., R.G. Stevens, W.T. Kaune, D.B. Thomas, L. Heuser S. Davis, and L.E. Sever. 1988.
Acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and residential exposure to power frequency magnetic
fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128(1):10-20. Available at:
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-
Files/references/rtcref/ch9.0/RTCrefappx/2014-12-19_Severson1988.pdf.
Silva, J.M., N. Hummon, D. Rutter, and C. Hooper. 1988. Power frequency magnetic fields in the
home. Piscataway (NJ): Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 88 WM 101-8.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2002. Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic
Fields. Radiation and Environmental Health Department of Protection of the Human
Environment World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. Available:
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/en/EMF_Risk_Chpt3.pdf.
Zaffanella, L. 1993. Survey of residential magnetic field sources. Volume 1: Goals, results and
conclusions (Final Report). Palo Alto, CA: EPRI. TR-102759-V1.
Environmental Health - Pipeline Safety
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2009. ASCE Manual No. 74: Guidelines for Electrical
Transmission Line Structural Loading. Edited by C. Jerry Wong and Michael D. Miller. 3rd
Edition. 204 pp. Available: http://www.asce.org/templates/publications-book-
detail.aspx?id=8072.
Bellevue Fire Department. Undated. Bellevue Fire Department Standards of Response Coverage.
Prepared by Michael Eisner, Fire Chief, with Eric Keenan, Bruce Kroon, Babette Bechtold,
William Lie, Kieron Gillmore, and Midge Tarvid. 91 pages.
BP and Olympic (Olympic Pipe Line Company). 2016. Olympic Pipe Line Company/BP Pipelines
NA Inc. General Construction and Right-of-Way Requirements. Revision date: 03/11/2016.
Available:
http://www.energizeeastsideeis.org/uploads/4/7/3/1/47314045/olympic_pipe_line_constructio
n_requirements_rev_03_11_2016.pdf.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐10
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
CDE (California Department of Education). 2007. Guidance Protocol for School Site Pipeline Risk
Analysis. February 2007.
City of Bellevue. 2013. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Available at
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/fire_emergency_response.htm. Access on March 27, 2017.
City of Newcastle. 2008. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Available at
http://www.ci.newcastle.wa.us/emergency_preparedness.htm. Accessed on March 27, 2017.
City of Redmond. 2015. 2015 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Update. Available at
http://www.redmond.gov/PublicSafety/DisasterPreparedness/plans/comprehensive/.
Accessed on March 27, 2017.
City of Renton. 2012. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Available at
http://rentonwa.gov/emergencies/default.aspx?id=2084. Accessed on March 27, 2017.
DNV GL. 2016. A Detailed Approach to Assess AC Interference Levels Between the Energize
Eastside Transmission Line Project and the Existing Olympic Pipelines, OLP16 & OPL20.
Memo to: Puget Sound Energy. September 9, 2016.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2016. Focus on Environmental Harm from Oil
Spills. Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program. Pamphlet prepared by
Ecology. Publication Number: 10-08-001 (Rev. 02/16). Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/
ecy/publications/documents/1008001.pdf. February 2016.
EDM Services. 2017. Pipeline Safety Technical Report (Technical Report, Pipeline Safety and Risk
of Upset). Prepared for Environmental Science Associates, Seattle, WA. Prepared by EDM
Services, Inc., Simi Valley, WA. April 2017.
Fieltsch, W., and B. Winget. 2014. Mitigation of Arcing Risks to Pipelines Due to Phase-to-Ground
Faults at Adjacent Transmission Powerline Structures. Paper No. 4389 from Corrosion 2014
Conference. NACE International, Houston, TX.
Hoffman D., B.A. Rattner, G.A. Burton Jr., and J Cairns Jr. (eds.). 2003. Handbook of
Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers. Washington, DC.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2016. Oil Types. Developed by NOAA,
Office of Response and Restoration. Available: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-
chemical-spills/oil-spills/oil-types.html. Revised September 19, 2016.
Olympic (Olympic Pipe Line Company). 2017a. Olympic Pipe Line Operations Fact Sheet. Olympic
Pipe Line Company. Downloaded from http://www.workingwaterfrontportland.org/profiles/
olympic_pipeline.pdf on April 24, 2017.
Olympic (Olympic Pipe Line Company). 2017b. Responses to Phase 2 Energize Eastside Draft EIS
Questions for BP/Olympic. August 11, 2017.
PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration). 2016. Pipeline Incident 20 Year
Trends. Accessed October 12, 2016. Available at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/
library/data-stats/pipelineincidenttrends.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐11
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
Stantec. 2017. Technical Review: Energize Eastside AC Interference Analysis. Prepared for ESA,
Seattle, WA; prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Markham, ON. May 2, 2017
(Rev 0).
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems. Effects of Fire on
Fauna. USDA Forest Service, rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report
RMRS-GTR-42 Volume 1. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_1.pdf.
January 2000.
UTC (Utilities and Transportation Commission). 2017. Olympic Pipe Line Inspection Reports.
Available online at https://www.utc.wa.gov/regulatedIndustries/transportation/pipeline/
Pages/InspectionReports-OlympicPipeline.aspx.
West, Kim. 2016. Personal communication. Email from Kim West, Project Engineer (Olympic Pipe
Line Company) to Karmen Martin (ESA). August 5, 2016 at 4:32 PM with attachment.
Economics
American Forests. 2008. Urban Ecosystem Analysis, City of Bellevue, WA. Calculating the Value of
Nature. Available: https://www.google.com/
?gws_rd=ssl#q=Urban+Ecosystem+Analysis%2C+City+of+Bellevue%2C+WA.+Calculating
+teh+Value+of+Nature. Accessed: September 2016.
ACTrees (Alliance for Community Trees). 2011. Benefits of Trees and Urban Forests: A Research
List. Available: http://www.actrees.org/files/Research/benefits_of_trees.pdf. Accessed:
September 2016.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. The social cost of carbon. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html. As cited in i-Tree,
2016.
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2015. Technical Support Document:
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf. As cited in i-Tree, 2016.
i-Tree. 2016. i-Tree Ecosystem Analysis, Eastside Energize. Urban Forest Effects and Values.
October 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016a. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project. Includes the following
separate reports: City of Bellevue Tree Inventory Report; King County Tree Inventory
Report; City of Newcastle Tree Inventory Report; City of Redmond Tree Inventory Report;
City of Renton Tree Inventory Report; Richards Creek Parcel Tree Inventory Report;
Segment O Tree Inventory Report; Segment P Tree Inventory Report; and Bypass Routes 1
and 2 Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA.
Prepared by The Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016.
The Watershed Company. 2016b. Tree Inventory Excel Database titled Willow, Oak, Richards,
Bypass_EIS Segments w VIA Result. Dated September 9, 2016.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐12
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
TWC (The Watershed Company). 2017. Energize Eastside Vegetation Impact Analysis. Prepared for
Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by The Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA.
November 2017.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2017. i-Tree. Public domain software suite developed by the USDA
Forest Service. Available: https://www.itreetools.org/. Accessed: January 2018.
Earth Resources
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2009. ASCE Manual No. 74: Guidelines for Electrical
Transmission Line Structural Loading. Edited by C. Jerry Wong and Michael D. Miller. 3rd
Edition. 204 pp. Available: http://www.asce.org/templates/publications-book-
detail.aspx?id=8072.
City of Seattle. 2017. Emergency Management, Earthquakes. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/
emergency-management/hazards/earthquake. Accessed October 3, 2017.
City of Seattle. 2015. Emergency Management, Earthquake Risks. Available: http://www.seattle.gov/
emergency-management/what-if/hazards/earthquake. Accessed August 24, 2015.
CREW (Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup). 2013. Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes: A
magnitude 9.0 earthquake scenario, Update.
DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 2017. Modeling a Magnitude 7.2 Earthquake on the Seattle
Fault Zone in Central Puget Sound. 2012–2013. Available: http://file.dnr.wa.gov/
publications/ger_seismic_scenario_seattle.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2017.
GeoEngineers. 2016. Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for Energize Eastside Project. June
8, 2016.
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). 2017. The National Electrical Safety Code.
Available: https://www.techstreet.com/ieee/standards/ieee-c2-2017?product_id=1914980.
PNSN (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network). 2017. Cascadia Subduction Zone. Available:
https://pnsn.org/outreach/earthquakesources/csz. Accessed October 3, 2017.
Cumulative Impacts
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and
Agencies on Consideration of Greenhous Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change
in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews. Memorandum from Christina Goldfuss,
CEQ. August 1, 2016. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/
initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance.
Sound Transit. 2011. East Link Project Final EIS July 2011. Available at
http://www.soundtransit.org/Projects-and-Plans/East-Link-Extension/East-Link-Extension-
document-archive/East-Link-Documents/East-Link-document-collections/East-Link-Final-
EIS-document-collection. Accessed September 24, 2015.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐13
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Sources (for Maps and
Analyses)
City of Bellevue. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA,
by the City of Bellevue.
City of Issaquah. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA,
by the City of Issaquah.
City of Kirkland. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA,
by the City of Kirkland.
City of Newcastle. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle,
WA, by the City of Newcastle.
City of Redmond. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle,
WA, by the City of Redmond.
City of Renton. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA,
by the City of Renton.
City of Sammamish. 2015. GIS data provided to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Seattle,
WA, by the City of Sammamish.
DAHP (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). 2015. WISAARD
(Washington Information System for Architectural & Archaeological Records Data) on-line
database. Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaardp3/.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2014. National Hydrology Dataset (NHD)
watercourse layer. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/data/inlandWaters/NHD/
NHDmajor.htm.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2016. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL).
Available: https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/NFHLWMS. Accessed November
2016.
HRA (Historical Research Associates). 2016. GIS data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by HRA, Seattle, WA, regarding parcel construction dates.
King County. 2015. King County GIS Data Portal. Available: http://www5.kingcounty.gov/
gisdataportal/.
NAIP (National Agriculture Imagery Program). 2015. NAIP Imagery website. Available:
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/aerial-photography/imagery-programs/naip-
imagery/.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. C-CAP Land Cover Atlas
website. Office for Costal Management, Digitalcoast. Available: https://coast.noaa.gov/
digitalcoast/tools/lca.
FINAL EIS PAGE 9‐14
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES MARCH 2018
Open Street Maps. 2016. Open Street Maps Washington Excerpt. Available:
https://www.geofabrik.de/data/download.html.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2015. GIS, CAD, and static map data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by PSE, Bellevue, WA.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2016. GIS, CAD, and static map data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by PSE, Bellevue, WA.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2017. GIS, CAD, and static map data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by PSE, Bellevue, WA. Included files titled North_8-3-
17.dxf and South_8-3-17.dxf (sent on August 3, 2017), geodatabase titled
AccessRoutes_StringSite (sent on August 11, 2017), and file titled energize eastside non-
variance (4-1 to RIC)_plan strs only_rev p (sent on December 27, 2017).
SCL (Seattle City Light). 2015. GIS, CAD, and static map data provided to Environmental Science
Associates (ESA), Seattle, WA, by SCL, Seattle, WA.
The Watershed Company. 2017. GIS Dataset Labeled as 2017-12-15 Data for EIS Consultant.
December 15, 2017.
UTC (Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission). 2015. Pipeline Maps on UTC’s
Pipeline Safety Map Viewer. Available: https://www.utc.wa.gov/regulatedIndustries/
transportation/pipeline/Pages/pipelineMaps.aspx.
Distribution
10
FINAL EIS PAGE 10‐1
CHAPTER 10 DISTRIBUTION LIST MARCH 2018
CHAPTER 10. DISTRIBUTION LIST
The following parties have received the Final EIS by digital or printed copy:
Federal Agencies
Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
Postal Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tribal Governments
Duwamish Tribe
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Snoqualmie Nation
Stillaguamish Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Tulalip Tribes
Regional
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Puget Sound Regional Council
Sound Transit
Washington State
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Agriculture
Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation
Department of Commerce
Department of Community Development
Department of Corrections
Department of Ecology SEPA Unit
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Health
Regional Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Social and Health Services
Department of Transportation
Parks & Recreation Commission
Recreation Conservation Office
Utilities and Transportation Commission
Local
City of Bellevue Fire Department
City of Bothell
City of Issaquah
City of Kenmore
City of Kent
City of Renton Fire Department
City of Sammamish
City of Tukwila
City of Woodinville
East Bellevue Community Council
Houghton Community Council
King County Boundary Review Board
King County Department of Permitting &
Environmental Review
King County Department of Transportation
King County Executive Office
King County Historic Preservation Program
FINAL EIS PAGE 10‐2
CHAPTER 10 DISTRIBUTION LIST MARCH 2018
King County Metro Transit
King County Department of Natural
Resources & Parks
King County Parks Department
King County Wastewater Treatment Division
King County Water and Land Resources
Division
King Eastside Community Services Office
Seattle and King County Public Health
Seattle City Light
Seattle Public Utilities
Libraries
Bellevue Library
Fairwood Library
Lake Hills Library
Newcastle Library
Newport Way Library
Redmond Library
Renton Highlands Library
Renton Library
Seattle Public Library
University of Washington, College of
Architecture & Urban Planning Library
Other
Bellevue Chamber of Commerce
Bellevue Downtown Association
Bellevue School District #405
Cascade Water Alliance
CenturyLink
Coal Creek Utility District
Comcast
Eastgate Public Health Center
Eastside Audubon Society
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
Evergreen Health
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Lake Washington School District #414
Meydenbauer Bay Neighbors Association
Northshore Utility District
Olympic Pipe Line Company
Puget Sound Energy
Puget Sound Partnership
Renton Chamber of Commerce
West Bellevue Community Club
Woodinville Water District
Acronyms and Glossary
11
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐1
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
CHAPTER 11. Acronyms and Glossary
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC alternating current
ACGIH American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BCC Bellevue City Code
BMPs Best Management Practices
BP BP Pipelines-North America
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
Btu British thermal unit
CAP Corrective Action Plan
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalent
COA Certificate of Appropriateness
DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
DC direct current
EBCC East Bellevue Community Council
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ELF extremely low-frequency
EMF electric and magnetic fields
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPF Essential Public Facility
ERC Eastside Rail Corridor
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐2
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographic information system
GMA Growth Management Act
HB House Bill
Hz hertz
I-90 Interstate 90
ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
JARPA Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application
KC Landmarks King County and Local Landmarks List
KCHPP King County Historic Preservation Program
kV kilovolt
KVP key viewpoint
LUC City of Bellevue Land Use Code
mG milligauss
MW Megawatt
N2O nitrous oxide
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NESC National Electric Safety Code
NMC City of Newcastle Municipal Code
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
Olympic Olympic Pipe Line Company
OPGW optical ground wire
PGA peak ground acceleration
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐3
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
PSE Puget Sound Energy
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RMC City of Renton Municipal Code
RZC City of Redmond Zoning Code
SCL Seattle City Light
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SMP Shoreline Master Program
SPU Seattle Public Utilities
SR 520 State Route 520
USC United States Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UTC Utilities and Transportation Commission
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
WHBR Washington Heritage Barn Register
WHR Washington Heritage Register
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐4
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
GLOSSARY
Term Description
303(d) List A state’s list of impaired and threatened waters (e.g., stream/river
segments, lakes).
AC Density A measure of electrical interference adjacent to the pipeline.
AC Interference Co-located pipelines, sharing, paralleling, or crossing high voltage
transmission lines, may be subject to AC (electrical) interference. If
the interference effects are high enough, they may compromise the
integrity of the pipeline. High voltage interference can occur during
normal operations, generally referred to as steady state, or during a
power line fault.
Aesthetic Environment The physical influences of human perception of the world.
Alternating Current (AC) An electric current that periodically reverses direction. Alternating
current is the form in which electric power is delivered to businesses
and residences.
Ancillary Providing necessary support to the primary activities or operation of
an organization, institution, industry, or system.
Arc Distances The distance a fault current can travel to or through the ground, such
as between a power pole and a buried pipeline.
Arcing An electric current that is brief and strong between two points of
contact, usually associated with a short circuit or current interruption.
Auger A tool with a large helical bit for boring holes in the ground.
Auxiliary Rubber Tire Vehicle A vehicle with spare rubber tires.
Backfill To refill an excavated hole with the material dug out of it.
Backhoe A mechanical excavator that draws toward itself a bucket attached to
a hinged boom.
Best Management Practices
(BMPs)
Measures developed on a project-specific basis to minimize potential
construction-related impacts. BMPs vary depending on the activities
involved.
Block Load The expected increase in energy demand from a specific customer or
group of customers.
Bucket Truck A truck equipped with an extendable, hydraulic boom carrying a
large bucket for raising workers to elevated, inaccessible areas.
Carbon Sink A natural environment that absorbs more carbon dioxide than it
releases.
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐5
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
Term Description
Cathodic Protection System Cathodic protection systems prevent corrosion from occurring on the
exterior of pipelines by substituting a new source of electrons,
commonly referred to as an anode. The anode is designed as the
sacrificial material installed to purposely corrode and protect the
pipeline. There are two basic types of anodes: the galvanic type and
the impressed current type.
Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA)
The entitlement required to alter an individual landmark and any
property within a landmark district.
Climate Change The changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations
and human activities that alter the composition of the global
atmosphere.
Coating Stress Pipelines typically have an exterior coating to protect from corrosion.
The susceptibility of this coating to breakdown is based on the type
and thickness of the coating and the voltage the pipeline is subject
to.
Coating Stress Voltage During fault conditions, damage to a pipeline’s coating can occur if
the voltage between the pipeline and surrounding soil becomes
excessive (see coating stress).
Collisions When birds fly directly into conductors, resulting in injury or mortality
from impact.
Concrete Pump Truck A machine used for transferring liquid concrete via a pumping
motion.
Conductor An object or type of material that allows the flow of electrical
current in one or more directions. A transmission line is an electrical
conductor. Conductivity, in general, is the capacity to transmit
electricity.
Contrast The extent to which a viewer can distinguish between an object and
its background.
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) List of corrective actions that are to be made manually by local
electrical system dispatchers to control local electrical problems.
Critical Areas Areas identified by counties and local municipalities as needing to be
protected. Critical areas include geologic hazard areas, frequently
flooded areas, wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas (FWHCAs), and critical aquifer recharge areas.
Cultural Resource Collective evidence of the past activities and accomplishments of
people. Buildings, objects, features, locations, and structures with
scientific, historic, and cultural value are all examples of cultural
resources.
Dead-End Tower Structure used where the line ends, turns with a high angle, or at
major crossings (such as highways or rivers). Dead-end towers must
be stronger than other poles because they are under tension from
just one side. Often they have additional guy wires, are larger in
diameter, and/or have larger footings than other poles.
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐6
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
Term Description
Determined Eligible for Listing A property that has been determined by the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) or local preservation office to meet
required criteria for inclusion on a historic register.
Distribution System The final stage in the delivery of electric power; it carries electricity
from the transmission system to individual consumers.
Eastside An area of King County, Washington, roughly defined as extending
from Redmond in the north to Renton in the south, and between Lake
Washington and Lake Sammamish.
Ecosystem Services The benefits that the ecosystem provides to humankind.
Electric and Magnetic Fields
(EMF)
Invisible areas of energy often referred to as radiation that are
associated with the use of electrical power and various forms of
natural and man-made lighting. Also referred to as electromagnetic
fields.
Electrical Interference Any electrical disturbance on a metallic structure (e.g., pipeline) as a
result of a stray current.
Electrocution When birds directly contact energized and grounded conductors or
equipment.
Electromagnetic Of or relating to the interrelation of electric currents or fields and
magnetic fields.
Endangered Species A species of animal or plant that is seriously at risk of extinction.
These species are listed by state or federal agencies to implement
protection measures.
Excavator Large machine for removing soil from the ground, especially on a
building site.
External Corrosion Occurs when the metal of the pipeline reacts with the environment,
causing the pipeline to corrode (or rust) on the outside of the pipe.
Facility Response Plan (FRP) A plan prepared by certain facilities that store and use oil to
demonstrate the facility's preparedness to respond to a worst-case
oil discharge.
Fault Conditions Fault conditions, usually initiated by lightning, result in the transfer of
electrical power indirectly from one or more AC powerline conductors
(i.e., wire) via the metallic transmission line pole to the ground, or
directly to the ground as a result of an overhead conductor falling to
the ground.
Fault Currents Faults (or fault currents) are any abnormal current flow from the
standard intended operating conditions. These faults are typically
caused by lightning, insulator failure, mechanical failure, and
transformer failure.
Fixed Value The structural value + the carbon storage value.
Flash Fire Can occur when a vapor cloud is formed, with some portion of the
vapor cloud within the combustible range, and the ignition is delayed.
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐7
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
Term Description
Foreground The part of a view that is nearest to the observer.
Fossil Fuels Buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed
from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude
oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure
in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.
Geologic Hazard Areas Areas that are susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other
geologic events.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions
Any of the atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse
effect by absorbing infrared radiation produced by solar warming of
the Earth's surface. They include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2), and water vapor.
Hazardous Material Any substance or material that could adversely affect the safety of
the public, handlers, or carriers during transportation.
Hazardous Waste Waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the
environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or
sludges. They can be discarded commercial products, like cleaning
fluids or pesticides, or the byproducts of manufacturing processes.
Heat Flux Humans in the vicinity of a fire receive heat from the fire in the form
of thermal radiation. Radiant heat flux decreases with increasing
distance from a fire.
High Voltage Usually considered any voltage 69 kilovolts or higher.
Historic Archaeological
Resources
Material remains of human life or activities that are at least 100 years
of age, of archeological interest, and determined eligible for listing on
the NRHP.
Historic Register-listed
Resources
Resource within the study area that is included as a listed resource
on a register of importance.
Historic Resource A prehistoric or historic archaeological site, as well as historic sites,
buildings, structures, objects, districts, and landscapes.
Incident As used in pipeline safety regulations, an incident is an event
occurring on a natural gas pipeline for which the operator must make
a report to the Office of Pipeline Safety. Events of similar magnitude
affecting hazardous liquid pipelines are considered accidents.
Individual Risk The frequency that an individual may be expected to sustain a given
level of harm from the realization of exposure to specific hazards, at a
specific location. The individual risk results can be expressed as
likelihood (e.g., fatalities per year).
In-Line Inspection The inspection of a steel pipeline using an electronic instrument or
tool that travels along the interior of the pipeline.
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐8
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
Term Description
Insulator (electrical) A material whose internal electric charges do not flow freely, and
therefore make it nearly impossible to conduct an electric current
under the influence of an electric field. Insulators are used in
electrical equipment to support and separate electrical conductors
without allowing current through themselves. They are often used to
attach electric power distribution or transmission lines to utility poles
and transmission towers. They support the weight of the suspended
wires without allowing the current to flow through the tower to
ground.
Integrated Resource Plan A plan prepared by PSE and updated every 2 years, describing how
forecasted annual peak and energy demand will be met into the
future. The IRP process considers a full range of power sector
investments to meet new demand for electricity, not only in new
generation sources, but also in transmission, distribution, and
demand-side measures such as energy efficiency on an equal basis.
Integrity A term used to describe the condition of a pipeline. Pipeline integrity
ensures that the pipeline can safely carry out its function under the
conditions for which it was designed.
Integrity Management
Program
A documented set of policies, processes, and procedures that an
operator implements to ensure the integrity of a pipeline. Federal
pipeline safety regulations specify what an operator's integrity
management program must include.
Internal Corrosion Metal loss due to corrosion on the internal surfaces of a pipeline.
Lead Agency The agency responsible for all procedural aspects of SEPA
compliance.
Lifecycle Emissions Emissions associated with the creation and existence of a project,
including emissions from the manufacture, transportation of the
component materials, and from the manufacture of the machines
required to produce the component materials.
Line Truck (electrical) A truck used to transport personnel, tools, and material for electric
supply line work.
Liquefaction Occurs where saturated, loose granular soils are subjected to ground
shaking such that the soil loses strength and begins to behave more
like a liquid than a solid. Saturated loose soils within 50 feet of the
ground surface are at most risk of liquefaction.
Load Shedding Cutting off the electric current on certain lines when the demand for
electricity exceeds the power supply capability of the network. A last-
resort measure used by an electric utility company to avoid a total
blackout of the power system.
Magnetic Field Magnetic effect of electric currents and magnetic materials.
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐9
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
Term Description
Managed Right-of-Way 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.
Material Failure Defects in the pipeline as a result of the pipe manufacturing process,
stress on the pipeline handling during transport, or weld failures.
Nameplate Capacity The number registered with authorities for classifying the power
output of a power station usually expressed in megawatts (MW).
National Electric Safety Code The safety guidelines that PSE follows during the installation,
operation, and maintenance of transmission lines and associated
equipment. The NESC contains the basic provisions necessary for
worker and public safety under specific conditions, including
electrical grounding and protection from lightning strikes.
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
A program authorized by the Clean Water Act to control water
pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States.
Olympic Pipeline System Two steel pipeline systems, 16 inches and 20 inches in diameter, that
transport gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel (petroleum products) from
Blaine, Washington to Portland, Oregon. The pipelines are buried
approximately 3 to 4 feet below the ground surface.
Overlapping Impressed
Current Systems
Systems that consist of an array of metallic anodes buried in the
ground along the pipeline with a connection to a source of direct
current (DC) electric current to help drive the protective
electrochemical reaction.
Partner Cities The Eastside jurisdictions working together to prepare this SEPA EIS,
including Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue (as Lead Agency), Newcastle,
and Renton.
Pool Fire Occurs when flammable liquid pools on the ground and comes in
contact with an outside ignition source.
Power Grid A system of synchronized power providers and consumers
connected by transmission and distribution lines and operated by
one or more control centers.
Precontact Cultural
Resources
Dating prior to the point of contact between European-American
peoples (including explorers, fur traders, and military personnel) with
Native American peoples. In Seattle, the Precontact period is
considered to have ended with the arrival of the Denny Party in 1851.
Probabilistic Pipeline Risk
Assessment
A type of risk assessment used to estimate event frequencies or
probabilities, for a specified time period, associated with specific,
measurable consequences.
Probability A measure of the likelihood that an event will occur within some unit
of time.
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐10
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
Term Description
Programmatic EIS An environmental impact statement (EIS) that addresses in general
terms the environmental effects of long-term, multi-step programs.
Puller A device for separating two components that are secured by press
fitting them.
Recommended Eligible for
Listing Historic or cultural resource that is recommended eligible for listing.
Right-of-Way (electric) A corridor of land on which electric lines may be located. The
transmission owner may own the land in fee, own an easement, or
have certain franchise, prescription, or license rights to construct and
maintain lines.
Risk A measure of the likelihood that an adverse event could occur, and
the magnitude of the expected consequences should it occur.
Scenic Views Views of visual resources that are considered special attributes of the
study area and region.
Scoping An initial step in the SEPA and NEPA environmental review process,
where agencies, tribes, and the public learn about the proposed
project and provide comments on the content that should be covered
in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Often, comments on
the scope describe potential environmental impacts or suggest
alternatives that should be evaluated.
Seismic Hazards Include the primary effects of earthquakes, such as ground
displacement from fault rupture and ground shaking and secondary
effects such as liquefaction, landslides, tsunamis, and seiche waves.
Sequestration Long-term storage of carbon dioxide or other forms of carbon.
Settlement Increase in vertical strain on the soil causes the soil to compact.
Significant Historic Resources A resource that is either register-listed, recommended eligible for
listing, or determined eligible for listing.
Significant Tree Trees that are specifically defined and protected for their unique
ecological and aesthetic value.
Societal Risk The annual probability that a specified number of people will be
affected by a given pipeline release event.
Spill Prevention and Control
Plan
A plan to prevent the discharge of oil or other substances into water
bodies.
Stepped Down To reduce or decrease voltage.
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
A plan describing best management practices (BMPs) to control and
treat stormwater.
Study Area Communities Redmond, Bellevue, Newcastle, and Renton.
Substation Facility with equipment that switches, changes, or regulates electric
voltage.
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐11
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
Term Description
Surcharge Loading The presence of equipment and other loads on the soil surface.
Tangent Poles Poles that are in a straight line with other poles.
Telecommunications Line A pipe, cable, or an arrangement of lines of wire or other conductors,
by which telephone or other kinds of communications are transmitted
and received.
Tensioner A device that applies a force to create or maintain tension. The force
may be applied parallel to, or perpendicular to, the tension it creates.
Third-Party Damage Damage to pipelines that can occur during excavation, digging, or
other activities by persons not affiliated with the pipeline operator or
their contractors.
Threatened Species Any species (including animals, plants, fungi, etc.) that are vulnerable
to endangerment in the near future.
Trackhoe A hydraulic excavator that is used in construction to dig holes or
trenches for infrastructure.
Traditional Cultural Property A property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) based on its associations with the cultural
practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social
institutions of a living community.
Transformed The byproduct of a process through which energy is changed from
one form to another. Oftentimes, this refers to the change in voltage
of an electrical current.
Transformer A device used to change the voltage of an alternating current in one
circuit to a different voltage in a second circuit, or to partially isolate
two circuits from each other. Transformers consist of two or more
coils of conducting material, such as wire, wrapped around a core
(often made of iron). The magnetic field produced by an alternating
current in one coil induces a similar current in the other coils. If there
are fewer turns on the coil that carries the source of the power than
there are on a second coil, the second coil will provide the same
power but at a higher voltage. This is called a step-up transformer. If
there are fewer turns on the second coil than on the source coil, the
outgoing power will have a lower voltage. This is called a step-down
transformer.
Transmission The bulk transfer of electrical energy from generating power plants to
electrical substations located near demand centers.
Transmission Lines A system of structures, wires, insulators, and associated hardware
that carry electric energy from one point to another in an electric
power system. Lines are operated at relatively high voltages varying
from 69 kV up to 765 kV, and are capable of transmitting large
quantities of electricity over long distances.
Trench(ing) To dig a long cut or trench into the ground.
FINAL EIS PAGE 11‐12
CHAPTER 11 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY MARCH 2018
Term Description
Turbidity A measure of water clarity indicating how much materials suspended
in the water reduce the passage of light through the water.
Suspended materials could include soil particles, algae, plankton,
microbes, or other substances.
Underbuild To place transmission and distribution lines on the same poles.
Unevaluated Historic
Resource
Meets the minimum age threshold for listing but has not been
evaluated for its historic significance.
Utility Locater The process of identifying and labeling underground utility lines.
Excavating without knowing the location of underground utilities can
result in damage, which can lead to service disruptions.
Vapor Cloud Explosion Occurs when there is a sudden release of flammable vapor, it mixes
with air, and is ignited by an outside source.
Vault An underground room providing access to subterranean public utility
equipment, such as switchgear for electrical equipment. Utility vaults
are commonly constructed of reinforced concrete boxes, poured
concrete, or brick. They are placed at regular intervals along an
underground transmission or distribution line to allow access to the
line for installation and maintenance of the line.
Viewer Awareness Considers viewers’ attention and focus and whether affected views
are protected by policy, regulation, or custom.
Viewpoints Locations from which visual resources can be viewed. Typically
associated with residential properties or publicly accessible
recreation areas, such as parks, trails, and open spaces.
Visual Character The aggregate of the visible attributes of a scene or object, including
natural features (topography, water bodies, vegetation) and built
features (building height and form, types of infrastructure).
Visual Resources Natural and constructed features of a landscape that are viewed by
the public and contribute to the overall visual quality and character of
an area. Such features include distinctive landforms, water bodies,
vegetation, or components of the built environment that provide a
sense of place, such as city skylines.
Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA)
Requires state and local governments to manage Washington’s
growth by identifying and protecting critical areas and natural
resource lands, designating urban growth areas, preparing
comprehensive plans, and implementing those plans through capital
investments and development regulations.
Wellhead Protection Area A surface and subsurface land area regulated to prevent
contamination of a well or well-field supplying a public water system.
This program, established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 330f-300j), is implemented through state governments.