Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County · Page 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FIBER TO THE PREMISE PROJECT Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County,

December 2010

Public Utility District No. 1 of

Pend Oreille County

Fiber to the Premise Project

The Next Generation of Light and Power

Prepared for: National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Public Utility District No. 1 of

Pend Oreille County

Fiber to the Premise Project

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

December 2010

Prepared for:

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program

PACE Engineers, Inc.

Tierra Right-of-Way Services CHR Solutions

(Page Intentionally Blank)

Page i

i

EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT RREEPPOORRTT

FFIIBBEERR TTOO TTHHEE PPRREEMMIISSEE PPRROOJJEECCTT Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington November 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 1 1. Purpose and Need .......................................................................................... 5 2. Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 7

2.1 Project Description .......................................................................................... 7 2.2 Construction Techniques ............................................................................... 11

2.2.1 Aerial Construction .................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Underground Construction ........................................................................ 13 2.2.3 Service Drops ............................................................................................ 13 2.2.4 Service Area Hubs ..................................................................................... 14

2.3 Project Alternatives ....................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................. 15 2.3.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................. 15 2.3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion ............. 15

3.1 Noise .............................................................................................................. 17 3.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 18 3.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 20

3.4.1 Surface Water Resources .......................................................................... 20 3.4.2 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................ 28 3.4.3 Coastal Zones ............................................................................................ 28 3.4.4 Floodplains ................................................................................................. 28 3.4.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................. 28

3.5 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 28 3.5.1 Wildlife and Plant life ................................................................................. 28 3.5.2 Ecoregions ................................................................................................. 30

3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................... 31 3.6.1 Kalispel Tribe of Indians ............................................................................. 32

3.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources .................................................................... 32 3.8 Land Use ........................................................................................................ 33 3.9 Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 34 3.10 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................. 34 3.11 Human Health and Safety .............................................................................. 36 3.12 Climate, Greenhouse Gases, and Global Warming ....................................... 37

4. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 39 4.1 Noise .............................................................................................................. 39 4.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 39

Public Utility District No. 1 NTIA BTOP Grant Pend Oreille County Environmental Assessment

Page ii

4.3 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 40 4.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 40

4.4.1 Surface Water Resources .......................................................................... 41 4.4.2 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................ 44 4.4.3 Coastal Zone ............................................................................................. 44 4.4.4 Floodplains ................................................................................................. 44 4.4.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers .............................................................................. 45

4.5 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 45 4.5.1 Wildlife and Plant life ................................................................................. 46 4.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................ 46 4.5.3 Ecoregions ................................................................................................. 47

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................... 50 4.6.1 Kalispel Tribe of Indians ............................................................................. 53

4.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources .................................................................... 53 4.8 Land Use ........................................................................................................ 54 4.9 Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 54 4.10 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................. 54 4.11 Human Health and Safety .............................................................................. 55 4.12 Climate, Greenhouse Gases, and Global Warming ....................................... 57 4.13 Cumulative Summary of Impacts ................................................................... 57

5. Permits and Regulatory Requirements ......................................................... 59 6. List of Preparers .......................................................................................... 61 7. References ................................................................................................... 62

NTIA BTOP Grant Public Utility District No. 1 Environmental Assessment Pend Oreille County

Page iii

LIST OF TABLES 2-1 Proposed Cable Installation Type .........................................................................................8 3-1 Soils Within 200 feet of Cable Routing ..............................................................................19 3-2 Water Bodies Within 200 feet of Fiber to the Premise Project Fiber Lines .......................20 3-3 Endangered Wildlife and Plant Life ....................................................................................29 3-4 Historic and Cultural Sites ..................................................................................................31 3-5 Land Use ............................................................................................................................33 3-6 Socioeconomic Resources ..................................................................................................35 3-7 Hazardous Waste Sites ......................................................................................................36 4-1 Best Management Practices (BMPs for Cable Installation ................................................42 4-2 Summary of Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species ............................................48 4-3 Potentially Impacted Archaeological Sites, Historic Properties, and Cemeteries ..............51 5-1 Summary of Federal, State, and Local Known Permits ......................................................54 7-1 Summary of References .....................................................................................................59 LIST OF FIGURES 2-1 Project Overview Map ..........................................................................................................9 2-2 Aerial Cable ........................................................................................................................11 2-3 Plowing Method of Installation ...........................................................................................13 2-4 Directional Bore Machine ...................................................................................................13 2-5 Service Area Hub ................................................................................................................14 3-1 Looking North at Herbs Drive.............................................................................................24 3-2 Looking East from Westshore Drive ...................................................................................24 3-3 Looking East from Westshore Drive ...................................................................................25 3-4 Indian Creek Fish Passage Culvert ....................................................................................25 3-5 Wetlands near Indian Creek and Pend Oreille River confluence ........................................26 3-6 Diamond Lake .....................................................................................................................27 3-7 Bull Trout ............................................................................................................................30 3-8 Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregion ...............................................................................30 3-9 Typical Roadway with Aerial Power Lines ..........................................................................34


Page iv


Page 1

1



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Environmental Assessment (EA) provides an evaluation of environmental, cultural and socio-economic resources for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as specifically outlined in the Environmental Assessment Guidance for BTOP Award Recipients Version 1.4 (August, 2010) produced by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). This document has been authorized and developed for BTOP Grant #NT10BIX5570059 recipient the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington (District) by a team of consultants that include PACE Engineers, Inc., CHR Solutions, Inc., and Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd.

The District is a consumer-owned and locally controlled municipality that brings electric, water, and wholesale broadband telecommunications services to the residents and businesses of Pend Oreille County, including those residents and businesses defined in the Proposed Funded Service Area (PFSA) of Pend Oreille County, Washington. The Fiber to the Premise Project will expand upon an existing open access network and will bring affordable, high-speed broadband services for county residents and critical healthcare, education, employment, and government centers. It will supplement the District’s existing fiber systems, add desired redundancy to the District's existing open access high-speed network, and serve primarily rural communities that are currently un-served or underserved. The project includes an estimated 556 miles of last-mile fiber optic broadband service, slightly greater than the length listed in the BTOP Grant Application #1854 submitted by the District due to approximations of line lengths. In accordance with the stated objectives associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and specifically the BTOP grant program, the project will improve access to education and healthcare services, and boost economic development for communities held back by limited or no access to broadband. The investments made in broadband infrastructure will:

▪ Provide job training to the unemployed or under-employed,

▪ Help schools access the materials they need to educate students,

▪ Allow rural doctors to connect to more specialized medical centers, and

▪ Give small businesses the opportunity to offer their services to national and international markets.


Page 2

This EA details the overall project development, alternatives and implementation and mitigation strategies anticipated to avoid impacts associated with construction of the FTTP network. Accompanying the analysis performed in this EA, is a set of grid maps at the back of this document that display various environmental resources located near the fiber network to be constructed. This information includes critical habitat areas, surface water features, wetlands and delineation of park and forest boundaries as well as protected wildlife areas. This information was gathered primarily from the most currently published Geographical Information Services (GIS) data available from national, state, and county sources. Section 7 of this EA puts forth a detailed listing of data sources used. In addition, field reconnaissance and visual surveys were conducted to verify published data and help delineate the alignment of the fiber network.

Because it is federally funded, this project is considered an undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as defined in 36 CFR Part 800. Compliance with the Section 106 process is an important element of the environmental assessment process to ensure that no cultural resources are adversely impacted during the course of this project. In accordance with direction from NTIA (as the lead agency) and as part of the overall EA process, a comprehensive records check of known archaeological and historic cultural properties within the project area has been accomplished. An overview of the potential archaeological, cultural and historic resources associated with each route is presented in Section 3. A summary of the procedures to be followed in the event that such resources are confirmed and/or encountered in the field is provided for in Section 4 of this Environmental Assessment Documentation of the SHPO concurrence with the Finding of No Adverse Effect is provided in Appendix B pertaining to the Section 106 compliance.

This Environmental Assessment provides a summary of the existing environment, anticipated potential impacts, avoidance and mitigation measures to be employed during project design and construction. Several alternatives were considered but as discussed in Section 2, were not pursued because they either did not meet the project objectives or could not do so in the most environmentally sensitive or cost effective means available. Alternatives considered include:

• Wireless Technology;

• All Aerial Installation;

• All Underground Placement of Fiber;

• A mixture of Aerial and Underground construction; and,

• The No Action Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative was identified as a mixture of aerial and underground fiber installation in existing easements and rights of way. In accordance with NEPA requirements and BTOP guidance documents, this assessment provides a complete evaluation of the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. Adverse impacts are improbable with the Preferred Alternative.


Page 3

Avoidance and mitigation strategies have been identified to allow for a determination of No Effect, as demonstrated and confirmed in Section 4. In defining the Preferred Alternative, the District has completed a thorough process of fiber network routing. Aerial fiber installations represent approximately 70% of the total project and the cable will be installed by attaching it to existing power poles. Underground installations make up the remaining 30% of the project and that cable will be installed within existing rights of way/easement of the power cable. All installed facilities will be placed in existing (primarily) or procured (rarely) easements. While the project generally follows the configuration of the existing power system, modifications will be made to ensure that construction activities will avoid contact with environmentally sensitive areas or other areas of concern. Development of this EA required coordination and/or consultation with multiple agencies to ensure that all aspects of regulatory compliance and best management practices have been identified and considered. A summary of the communications plan, including requisite consultations with various federal, state and local agencies, together with all relevant communication records, is provided in Appendix A. Section 5 provides an overview and listing of permits required for the project and Section 7 contains a list of agency contacts and reference data and materials used.

The District recognizes that additional best management practices and requirements may be identified in the permitting process. This EA, however, confirms that this FTTP Project, as put forth in the BTOP Grant for the project and described herein, can be completed in accordance with all regulatory requirements by using minimally invasive construction techniques and following existing utility corridors. The District will satisfy appropriate mitigation measures by following all relevant permitting and regulatory requirements. The project is in compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act and the National Historic and Preservation Act and will result in no additional Section 7 Consultations associated with federally listed species. No long term adverse impacts are associated with any of the other elements analyzed in this EA.

In summary, the FTTP Project will meet the overall objective of the BTOP program administered by the NTIA. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided NTIA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) with funding to expand access to broadband services in the United States. Those funds were allocated to support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, enhance and expand public computer centers, encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service, and develop and maintain a nationwide public map of broadband service capability and availability. As a grant recipient, and through implementation of the project outlined herein, the District meets the stated objectives of the ARRA and the BTOP grant program for rural Washington State.


Page 4


Page 5

5



1. Purpose and Need

The Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Washington (District) was awarded a Federal Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) Grant # NT10BIX5570059 on April 26, 2010. Administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Grant provides an opportunity for the District to bring predominantly last-mile fiber optic broadband service to underserved properties in Pend Oreille County. Located in the northeast corner of Washington State, Pend Oreille County is a rural area characterized by a frontier landscape, high country wilderness, recreational opportunities, historic Native American culture, and small town hospitality. The largest town and county seat, the City of Newport, is located on the Washington-Idaho border near the banks of the Pend Oreille River, which flows north to Canada through the County and the Kalispel Tribe of Indians reservation.

The Fiber to the Premise Project will expand upon an existing open access network and will bring affordable, high-speed broadband services for county residents and critical healthcare, education, employment, and government centers. The current terrestrial based broadband providers offer negligible tower-based wireless broadband in small geographic areas or minimal cable modem/DSL services in very limited areas of the PFSA. Satellite-based Internet access, while touted as broadband with ubiquitous coverage, has serious shortcomings when used for telecommuting, commerce and education. Most notably, the satellite providers often restrict the connection speed to dial-up equivalent rates. This project will enable all residents and businesses throughout the PFSA to enjoy the advantages of high speed broadband for employment, educational, healthcare and commerce opportunities without limitations.

The County’s unemployment rate of 13.9% was the highest in the State as of August, 2010. According to a telephone survey conducted in 2008, an estimated 41% of the population in the targeted service area currently has dial-up internet service, and 55% of respondents listed the high cost of broadband service as the reason for not subscribing to faster services. This project will provide expansion of high speed services and encourage greater competition amongst existing service providers, which should significantly lower broadband utility rates for all residents of Pend Oreille County. The specifics of the project include providing:

▪ Last mile service extensions to approximately 5,000 households, 360 businesses, and 24 anchor institutions in a 400 square mile area;

▪ An extension of middle-mile backbone which will bring desired redundancy to the existing high speed network infrastructure;


Page 6

▪ Improved broadband to amplify productivity for commerce, education, research and consumer health centers in the County by enabling affordable access to broadband services through local libraries, hospitals, schools, and direct residential and business connections;

▪ Upgraded broadband and computing capacity to residents, businesses, libraries, career and employment centers and work within those entities to ensure that education programs and employment opportunities are available to the unemployed and underemployed;

▪ Added broadband services into critical health, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and public safety agencies to enable collaboration, interconnection and more prompt and effective federal, state and local emergency response, including 9-1-1;

▪ Increased availability of broadband services to vulnerable populations in order to expand residents' access to on-line employment and job training resources;

▪ New jobs associated with planning, design, construction and long term maintenance of the expanded network.

This project will serve the low-income, the unemployed, and the underemployed and will bring increased reliability and redundancy to the backbone (middle mile) network, which will help keep libraries, medical centers and clinics, local education centers and government facilities online and productive. The network will connect or pass by thousands of rural residents (5,000 households) and 360 businesses, providing opportunities for employment, distance learning, and business expansion. Additionally, there will be 24 anchor institutions benefitting from affordable high-speed broadband service. These institutions include:

▪ Pend Oreille County healthcare providers;

▪ Pend Oreille County School Districts;

▪ Riverside School District buildings;

▪ Pend Oreille County Libraries;

▪ Pend Oreille County government buildings; and

▪ The Newport Community Hospital Doctor’s Network (fiber to doctors' homes)

The existing last mile of connectivity is outdated, copper-based cable connecting individual properties with limited capacity. Aside from providing last-mile service to local residents, businesses, and anchor institutions, this project will also address the need for the District to eliminate reliance on a single thread backbone system that extends from Spokane to near the Canadian border. The existing lack of system redundancy makes the network vulnerable to system-wide outages in the event of a cable break. A severed cable or fiber strand at a single location would interrupt service community wide and adversely affect emergency responders and area businesses. Given the health, safety, and public welfare interests that demand uninterrupted service of the District’s vital broadband communications network, this project will increase the long-term reliability of the network.


Page 7

2. Proposed Action

The proposed action is installation of approximately 556 miles of last mile fiber optic cable and middle mile infrastructure to a defined PFSA in southern Pend Oreille County. Equipment and ancillary infrastructure such as vaults, meters, hand holes, cabinetry and small storage structures across several sub-sections of the PFSA are part of the project.

2.1 Project Description

The project has been defined by the District and a consultant team to arrive at the most logical means of serving the residents and anchor institutions identified in the BTOP Grant Application. Placement of the new fiber optic cable will enhance public safety, education, and health care access for residents across the southern Pend Oreille County. Although the original BTOP Grant anticipated approximately 526 miles of fiber optic cable to accomplish the goals of the project, during the Environmental Assessment and conceptual design process, the routes have been refined from estimates. Consideration of environmental issues and potential archaeological resources have resulted in a corrected estimated total project length of 556 miles. This more accurate project length represents an approximate 30 mile or 5.7% increase from the original project estimate.

A preliminary determination of buried or aerial installations was accomplished using a combination of District electrical utility records, field reconnaissance, and existing GIS data. Through careful consideration of geographic characteristics, environmental features, habitat, socio-economic factors, available right-of-way, summary data on potential sites of historical or archaeological significance, and competitive cost data, a proposed combination of underground and aerial cable installations has been determined. The District maintains a system of utility poles that are numbered based on the geographic areas they serve. This pole numbering system was used to develop sub-area ID’s and will be used for reference as design and construction staking is performed. The total length of proposed fiber cable installation by construction type and project sub-area is presented in Table 2-1. During final design and staking, adjustments to the construction methods may be required to accommodate field conditions occasionally. Coordination with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and District consultants as detailed in Section 4.6 may warrant further minor adjustments in routing to avoid impacts on historic and cultural resources. Directional boring is only anticipated to be required at stream crossings where underground power already exists and fiber construction is proposed. Based on data from the National Hydrography Dataset maintained by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are 14 locations where underground cable will cross a perennial stream. Wherever possible, these stream crossings will be accomplished by attaching cable to existing bridges. If bridge attachment is not feasible, directional boring or a change from


Page 8

underground to aerial may be warranted. This will be determined during the final staking process.

Table 2-1: Proposed Cable Installation Type Mileage of Fiber Cable by Sub-Area

Project Sub-Area Aerial (mi) Underground (mi) Total (mi)

120 7.69 1.63 9.33

123 16.52 4.21 20.72

130 13.36 2.17 15.53

131 9.25 3.92 13.17

47 16.35 2.40 18.76

AA 22.73 7.16 29.89

AC 3.10 2.28 5.38

BC 4.42 3.06 7.48

BL 10.06 2.31 12.38

CC 29.53 6.11 35.65

CF 6.86 9.72 16.58

CS 24.74 5.40 30.14

DA 10.75 3.07 13.82

DF 23.15 10.80 33.95

DS 25.26 23.35 48.61

DV 32.79 10.35 43.14

DW 25.34 21.63 46.96

DX 9.72 4.03 13.75

FV 34.89 9.29 44.18

NW 49.97 22.34 72.31

SV 11.61 12.77 24.38

Total Mileage 388.09 168.01 556.11

Percent of Total Project 70% 30%

Figure 2-1 (Overview Map) on Page 9 provides an overview of the project and shows the Project Sub-areas established based on utility pole numbering clusters. Figure 2-1 shows two areas where the fiber network will cross the Pend Oreille River aerially using existing crossing structures. Please note that of these two crossings, one has been constructed and is currently in use. Only the northern most crossing shown on Figure 2-1 will be a newly constructed crossing under the Preferred Alternative. An index map and detailed PFSA maps are provided at the end of this document. Map 13 shows the one new aerial fiber crossing that will occur along an existing power crossing. Map 14 indicates that the aerial fiber crossing shown on the map is already in place. Section 3.4.1 provides additional details of the existing crossings and the one planned aerial crossing.


Page 9


Page 10



Page 11

2.2 Construction Techniques

A summary of underground (direct-bury or plow construction methods) and aerial cable methods of installation is presented in the following paragraphs. It is important to note that regardless of construction technique, new facilities will be located on existing utility poles or in previously disturbed right-of-way and/or construction easements. The District will use many approved Rural Utilities Service (RUS) standard procedures and follow state and local entity guidelines for permitting and construction practices to ensure very little impact to the landscape. The shallow depth of cable (estimated at 20-inch minimum depth) should eliminate the need for subsurface testing. The project will satisfy appropriate mitigation measures by following the usual permitting and regulatory requirements to minimize the impact to the environment. This includes Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and County road standards and other permit and regulatory requirements to eliminate the possibility of adverse effects. As discussed under Project Alternatives in Paragraph 2.3 of this Section, aerial construction is preferred to underground construction because of its lower installation costs and its higher avoidance of potential environmental or cultural impacts that can result from digging underground. However, aerial facilities will not be established in existing underground rights of way for aesthetic and public concerns.

2.2.1 Aerial Construction

The majority of the fiber optic cable (approximately 70%) will be placed on existing power poles in the communication space along existing power rights-of-way (see Figure 2.2). The placement of the cable will involve several methods ranging from physically climbing the structure to using a bucket truck. Although the design is in the initial phase, the District has determined that the fiber optic cable best suited for its system is either an All-Dielectric Self Supporting (ADSS) cable or a figure 8 style (molded messenger) flexible access cable. The cable is usually installed while the electric system remains energized in order to avoid disruptions of electrical service. To facilitate clearances when needed, existing aerial utilities will be adjusted when possible. If pole replacement is necessary, the new poles will be placed immediately adjacent to or simply replace the existing poles

Figure 2.2 Aerial Cable

Source: Pend Oreille County PUD


Page 12

to minimize impacts. In these instances, the existing pole hole will be backfilled with soil from the new pole hole. Aerial cable installation is best used in areas where unsuitable (rocky) soil conditions and/or wetlands exist, and where there is limited corridor space for installation or a proximity to rivers may cause complications. The single new aerial river crossing over navigable waterways will meet or exceed applicable Corps of Engineers and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) clearance requirements.

In limited circumstances, pole replacements may be necessary to accommodate clearance requirements. While this is not expected for crossing of navigable waters, it may be required for road or driveway clearances as predicated by the current edition of the National Electric Safety Code (NESC). In addition, construction crews may encounter poles that have deteriorated past their useful life and require replacement for safety reasons.

Pole replacements will typically occur to alter the height and/or class of the structure to safely accommodate the addition of the fiber optic cable. The District standard pole procurement is full treat Western Red Cedar (WRC) that are machine peeled, graded for physical properties in accordance with ANSI 05.1 specifications latest revision. All Poles are full length pressure treated with Penta preservative per REA Bulletin 1728F-700/702 dated September 93, and includes metal butt tags showing class and length.

Typically a pole replacement will displace the existing pole in the same location and erosion control measures will not be required. In certain circumstances, however, a pole replacement may occur by setting the pole next to the existing pole and then removing the displaced pole.

The District has not used creosote treated poles in decades, however, in the unlikely event that such a pole were discovered and required replacement, all appropriate disposal methods will be accomplished in accordance with WAC 173-303-071(3)(g). Pole replacements attributable to height or class issues would be reused in another part of the system. Poles that are deemed unsafe or unusable will be recycled. Pole recycling is a preferred method to disposal. Recycled poles are often reused for fences, pole buildings, gates, etc.


Page 13

2.2.2 Underground Construction

Approximately 30% of the fiber optic cable will be installed underground, either by the direct-bury method (no conduit installed) or by the plowing method of construction (See Figure 2.3), with directional boring used to avoid or mitigate specific instances where protection of the environment or existing facilities is required. All cable will be placed approximately 2 feet from the centerline of existing electric cable to a depth of 20 to 24 inches. By doing so, all underground cabling will be installed in previously disturbed soil located within rights-of-way, and construction contracts will require restoration to standards of pre-existing conditions. The need for directional boring will be determined during the design phase of the project. Figure 2.4 shows what a typical bore machine looks like during directional boring activities. The District has directed engineers to strive for finalizing routes that will minimize the need for directional boring. These factors might include: stream crossings, wetlands, sites of historic or cultural significance, or existing utility conflicts.

2.2.3 Service Drops

Construction will include service drops, which is defined as the final stretch of cable from the District’s infrastructure to a building fixture. Service drops will follow existing power drops. They will often require only a simple 40-foot piece of fiber from the nearest utility pole to a home’s overhead mast, but can become complicated in rural areas that contain dense forest or long distances. The District considers the electric transformer to be along the pathway for the backbone fiber network, with the transformer serving as the main point of entry or demarcation point for individual properties. The point of access is generally within 150 feet or less to the location of the Customer Premise Equipment (CPE), which is a small meter box mounted near the electric meter on the building being served. The CPE

Figure 2.3 Plowing Method of Installation

Source: The Fiber Optic Association

Figure 2.4 Directional Bore Machine

Source: The Fiber Optic Association


Page 14

will be connected to the existing electric meter for both access to power and future Smart Grid applications and communication.

2.2.4 Service Area Hubs

Service Area Hubs (SAHs) will be installed in locations that provide the best access for utility workers with limited impact on the environment, area aesthetics, and other critical infrastructure. In some instances, the District will procure easements or property to locate cabinetry and other needed facilities. The largest Service Area Hubs are standard sized at approximately 4 feet wide by 2 feet deep by 5 feet tall (see Figure 2.4).) Most cabinets would be smaller and stake mounted with the base buried 12” deep in previously disturbed soil. In urban areas, such as in Newport, and a few neighborhoods near the lakes and Pend Oreille River, a small parcel configuration will be sufficient for access by utility workers. In rural areas, cabinetry will be located on poles to facilitate off road, right-of-way installation, maintenance, and operation. This Project will ensure all SAHs and other facilities are installed in the most practical and cost-effective locations, and will be located in predisturbed existing right of way or on existing District property.

2.3 Project Alternatives

The three primary alternatives for construction available for the project include:

▪ Aerial Wires;

▪ Buried Cable (Direct-bury or Plow Method); and,

▪ Directional Boring.

During reconnaissance for this Environmental Assessment, a detailed evaluation of the of aerial and underground facilities that comprise the existing power network was combined with a visual survey of the PFSA. This analysis was used to determine the most cost-effective and least impacting method of serving the area and the Anchor Institutions indentified in the BTOP Grant. In addition, the three primary construction methods and combinations thereof were considered, again, with the objective of arriving at the most cost-effective and least impacting alternatives, Some minor adjustments to the proposed construction methods may be required to satisfy permit requirements or avoid

Figure 2.5 Service Area Hub

Source: Pend Oreille PUD


Page 15

environmental or other issues. Final determination of the exact installation method and the possible need for directional borings at stream crossings, areas of potential cultural significance, or other obstacles will be made during final design and staking of the project.

2.3.1 Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative is a combination of aerial placement and buried cable as described previously in this section and throughout this assessment. This alternative has been selected because it is the most efficient, with the least amount of impacts to the environment and archaeological/historical sites, disruption of traffic, and other socio-economic factors. This alternative follows the configuration of the existing power service network and includes approximately 556 miles of fiber optic cable located in the project area of southern Pend Oreille County. A mixture of aerial fiber optic cable (approximately 70%) and buried (approximately 30%) is anticipated.

2.3.2 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative, or not completing the project, does not fulfill the requirements of the NTIA BTOP Grant awarded for the project. If the No Action Alternative was implemented and the project was not constructed, the area would remain an unserved community with limited choices for higher speed broadband services. This project will enable residents and businesses to utilize the full data speed and volume capabilities of the existing fiber backbone network. The existing last mile is outdated, copper-based or coaxial cable connecting individual properties with limited capacity. Consideration of the No Action Alternative has been considered for each of the environmental and socio-economic elements evaluated in Section 4 of this EA.

2.3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion

Other alternatives considered but eliminated from further discussion include utilizing wireless technology or installing the entire project either aerially or underground.

Wireless Construction: Utilizing wireless technology is an interim potential solution in some areas of the country, where terrain is suitable for achieving line of site installation. In Pend Oreille County, the suitability and reliability of this method of service delivery is compromised by rolling terrain and tall evergreen trees. It is estimated that using wireless technology for this project would reduce bandwidth and speeds by orders of magnitude and all but eliminate the opportunity to achieve the stated project goal of extending reliable, high speed future-proof service to unserved and underserved populations in rural areas. Another reason


Page 16

for installing fiber optic cable instead of wireless service is that the District is primarily an electric services provider and has hundreds of miles of existing right of ways. Plus experience in maintaining and operating a wire network. This alternative does not take advantage of existing pole infrastructure or the vast array of District talent. It also has substantially lower bandwidth speeds compared to fiber bandwidth speeds.

All Aerial Installation: The project is being completed by Pend Oreille PUD, the electric service provider serving the project area. Existing power line configurations were used to identify the least environmentally disruptive and most cost effective means of accomplishing the project. The power line infrastructure is a mixture of aerial and underground cables that have been installed over a number of years to meet the needs of the utility in accordance with all local land use, view shed protection and environmental regulations. If the entire project were installed all aerially, the overall cost would be decreased significantly. However, the additional excavation for new poles would pose additional, unnecessary environmental threats and permitting difficulties. Pend Oreille County is an area of Washington State known for its rare natural beauty, frontier landscape, and abundant recreational opportunities. An all aerial installation would compromise those important elements of the community and would not be easily accomplished from a permitting or public acceptance perspective. Many residents substantially to have their power facilities placed underground and would reject even the suggestion of aerial installation with poles and wires.

All Underground Installation: An all underground installation would be cost prohibitive, environmentally challenging and unnecessarily disruptive to the natural landscape and the daily lives of residents in the area. Not taking advantage of existing poles would increase construction costs exponentially and would unnecessarily disrupt the many wetlands and surface water bodies in the project area. Another prohibitive disadvantage to this alternative is the increased risk of disturbing items of archaeological and historical significance. As discussed in Sections 3 and 4 of this report, the area is rich in Native American and pioneer heritage. Following existing aerial and underground routes in predisturbed soils provides a level of protection of these resources that simply could not be achieved if an all underground alternative were implemented.

In summary, Pend Oreille PUD has selected the Preferred Alternative that includes approximately 388 miles (70%) of aerial installation and 168 miles (30%) of underground cable installed almost exclusively by plowing and limited use of directional drilling when required for protection of environmental resources or where required by transportation agencies for pavement crossings.


Page 17

3. Existing Environment

The following paragraphs provide an overview of the existing environment, summarizing characteristics for the region and describing the unique features of Pend Oreille County. A complete analysis of the potential impacts and measures for mitigating the effects of the project is provided in Section 4.

3.1 Noise

Noise throughout the entire project is typical of rural areas where the installations are proposed. These noises include traffic along roadways, and noises resulting from natural wildlife and inclement weather. Additional noises caused by construction such as small gas/diesel powered trucks, compressors, and tools will be minimal and temporary only. The noise at a particular site will last from a few hours to a maximum of approximately two days.

3.2 Air Quality

The air quality in Pend Oreille County meets federal Clean Air Act standards. Without a strong presence of power generation and other industrial uses, typical levels of human produced pollution are low. There is a paper mill located outside of the project area in Usk, Washington that is currently being regulated by the EPA for its emissions, but this is the only facility in all of Pend Oreille County that has had past violations for one of the six regulated air pollutants. The six currently regulated air pollutants are: carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

It is noted that the EPA has declared Greenhouse Gases (GSG) such as carbon dioxide as a pollutant that endangers health and human safety and a majority of CSG emitted throughout the region are from mobile sources such as automobiles. Section 3.12 discusses climate, GSG and global warming in more detail. Other activities affecting air quality included road dust lifted from unpaved surfaces by wind gusts, livestock operations, non-road equipment, and residential wood-burning. Primary concerns with air quality are related to dust issues and tailpipe emissions from construction equipment. Impacts and mitigation associated with air quality, including commitment to rapid cleanup, daily monitoring and the use of water trucks, are discussed in Section 4.

Fugitive dust is described in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey as eroded soil particles that are suspended in the air during and after windstorms or various human activities, including many types of construction.

Fugitive dust is a source of PM10, one of the seven air pollutants regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards


Page 18

(NAAQS). The suspended dust can easily be inhaled deep into the lungs which could result in premature death or disease if exposed over long periods.

The Soil Survey rates the soil features that can form the dust as follows:

• Low resistance - very favorable for the formation of dust

• Moderate resistance - favorable for the formation of dust

• High resistance - unfavorable for the formation of dust

Examining a 200 foot buffer of the soils located around the fiber cable distribution network shows that greater than 70% of the soils contain a “low resistance” rating for fugitive dust. Pend Oreille County has many soil types that can contribute to the formation of dust, including stony silt loam, loamy sand, and rocky. Table 3-1 in Section 3.3 shows the soil type makeup of the project area. Fugitive dust is more prevalent in areas where unpaved roadways exist, and there are several unpaved roads that parallel the utility poles that will be used to install fiber optic cabling. Impacts and mitigation measures associated with air quality during construction including commitments to rapid cleanup, daily monitoring, and are discussed in Section 4.

3.3 Geology and Soils

The Okanogan Highlands is a province in northeast Washington that contains the oldest sedimentary and metamorphic rocks in the state. The metamorphic rock was uplifted over 500 million years ago from the floor of the Precambrian Sea. Glaciers thousands of feet thick melted away and carved lakes and a river valley that contains the Pend Oreille River. Layered on top of the metamorphic rock that makeup the Selkirk Mountain Range are silts and volcanic sediment driven by wind and rain. Mining was a dominant industry in the northern part of Pend Oreille County in an area referred to as the Metaline area starting in the late 1850s, and the timber harvesting industry experienced significant growth shortly after the arrival of the Northern Pacific Railroad in the late 1800s.

Nearly 78% of the soils in this project area within Pend Oreille county fall into one of three categories: silt loam, sandy loam, or rock outcrop. The remaining soils are mostly variants of loam, including a small portion of clay, organic or peat soils, sand, river wash, and water. Table 3-1 lists the total surface area acreage by soil type for soils located within 200 feet of the fiber cable route. The data provided based on U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Data from 2009. The top five soil types (rock outcrop, silt loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, and loamy fine sand) located nearby cable routing all offer a low resistance to fugitive dust.

Prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance exist in the area near the fiber cable network to be installed. Of the 328 miles of fiber cable that passes


Page 19

through farmlands of statewide importance, in most cases (65%), cables will be installed aerially on existing utility poles. Approximately 40 miles of fiber cable enters areas of prime farmland, and less than 12 miles will be installed underground. Most stretches of underground installation are adjacent to existing underground power lines owned and operated by the District. Installation of underground lines is limited to existing rights-of-way that contain pre-disturbed soils, or within driveways to access individual homes and businesses.

Table 3-1: Soils Within 200 feet of Cable Routing

Soil Type Total Acreage % Makeup of Project Area

Rock Outcrop 5,707 23.59%

Silt Loam 4,720 19.51%

Fine Sandy Loam 2,796 11.56%

Sandy Loam 2,520 10.42%

Loamy Fine Sand 1,717 7.10%

Loam 1,444 5.97%

Organic / Peat 1,319 5.45%

Gravelly Silt Loam 1,029 4.25%

Stony Silt Loam 969 4.01%

Water 812 3.36%

Xerorthents 661 2.73%

Channery Loam 147 0.61%

Stony Loam 146 0.60%

Silty Clay Loam 96 0.40%

Pits 62 0.26%

Bouldery Silt Loam 33 0.14%

Stony Sandy Loam 10 0.04%

Riverwash 7 0.03%

Total 24,195

Source: USDA Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Data, 2009.


Page 20

The slope of certain soil types can contain erosion hazards, but in general the project area does not contain slopes that pose significant risk to erosion.

3.4 Water Resources

Water resources in Pend Oreille County include rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, groundwater, and floodplains. This section includes subsections that will discuss the existing water resources in the County and the proximity to the proposed fiber cable installation throughout the various sub-areas of the project.

3.4.1 Surface Water Resources

A major navigable river, and some streams, wetlands, and surface water channels will be crossed during the course of the project. Table 3-2 lists all water bodies that may be expected to be encountered in the course of construction, and includes 303(d) listing parameters, whether it is considered navigable water, and the corresponding map it can be located on. The water bodies listed in Table 3-2 are located within a 200 foot buffer of the fiber optic cabling to be installed. The table is a compilation of streams, rivers, creeks, and lakes from the National Hydrography Dataset maintained by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that have been assigned a name. In addition to the water bodies listed in Table 3-2, there are numerous unnamed perennial and intermittent streams located throughout the project area. A discussion of avoidance, protective, and mitigation measures for surface water resources, including best management practices (BMPs) for stream and river crossings is presented in Section 4.

Table 3-2: Water Bodies Within 200 feet of Fiber to Premise Project Fiber Lines

Water Body Name Water Body Type

Stream Reach Code(s)

303(d) Listed

Parameter

Critical Habitat Map ID

Bead Lake Lake 17010216001014 TCDD - 17

Black Lake Lake 17010308001361 - - 5

Bracket Creek Perennial Creek 17010216000909 - - 13

Buck Creek Perennial Creek 17010308000142 17010308001840

- - 5

Calispell Creek Perennial Creek 17010216000201 - - 12,15

Cedar Creek Intermittent Creek 17010308000211 17010308000195

- - 9


Page 21




303(d) Listed

Parameter


Chain Lake Lake 17010308000668 - - 3

Conklin Lake Lake 17010216001029 - - 16

Davis Creek Perennial Creek 17010216000896 17010216009389

- - 12,15

Davis Lake Lake 17010216001038 - - 12

Decie Lake Lake 17010308001452 - - 3,4

Deer Creek Perennial Creek 17010216009356 17010216000931 17010216000932

- - 9,12

Diamond Lake Lake 17010308000657 - - 7

Elmer Creek Perennial Creek 17010214000737 - - 4

Exposure Creek Perennial Creek 17010216001785 Dissolved Oxygen

- 14

Fan Lake Lake 17010308000667 - - 1

Heel Creek Perennial Creek 17010308000165 - - 5

Horseshoe Lake Lake 17010216001032 - - 5

Horseshoe Lake Lake 17010308000662 - - 16

Indian Creek Perennial Creek 17010216000241 - Bull Trout 13,14,16,17

Isabelle Lake Lake 17010308001463 - - 4

Kent Creek Perennial Creek

17010216000230 17010216000228 17010216000229 17010216009357

- -

10,13

Lake of the Woods Lake 17010308007138 - - 3

Little Spokane River Perennial River

17010308000083 17010308001859 17010308001893 17010308001890 17010308001897 17010308001898 17010308001899

- -

3,7,8, 11

Lost Lake Lake 17010308000660 - - 5

Lynda Lake Lake 17010308001471 - - 4

Marshall Creek Perennial Creek 17010216009348 17010216009374

- - 14,17


Page 22




303(d) Listed

Parameter


Marshall Lake Lake 17010216001030 - - 14,17

McCloud Creek Perennial Creek 17010216000925 17010216009387 17010216000903

- - 10,13

Moon Creek Perennial Creek

17010308000097 17010308000250 17010308000099 17010308001832

- -

6,9

Mountain Meadows Lake

Lake 17010216001047 - - 10

Otter Creek Perennial Creek

17010308000868 17010308000248 17010308000238 17010308000246 17010308000253

- -

2,6

Pend Oreille River1 Major River 17010216000238 17010216000234 17010216000226

PCBs, Aldrin, Temperature

Bull Trout 11,13-16

Ponderosa Lake Lake 17010308000664 - - 5

Sacheen Lake Lake 17010308000653 - - 6,9

Shearer Lake Lake 17010216001037 - - 14

South Fork Calispell Creek

Perennial Creek 17010216000403 17010216000401 17010216000402

- - 9,12

South Fork Skookum Creek

Perennial Creek 17010216000244 Fecal Coliform - 16

Spring Heel Creek Perennial Creek 17010308000096 17010308000095

- - 5,6

Trask Pond Pond 17010214131432 - - 4

West Branch Little Spokane River

Perennial River 17010308006689 17010308000088

- - 1,5,6

Williams Pond Pond 17010308001359 - - 6

Willy-O Lake Lake 17010216001041 - - 14

Notes: 1 – Pend Oreille River is the only river listed on the Navigable Waters of the United States List in the Project Service Area


Page 23

Pend Oreille River

The Pend Oreille River is the largest river in the project area and one crossing for fiber optic cabling installation is scheduled. The river is listed on the state’s 303d list and is assessed as a Category 5 water body for containing high levels of Aldrin, unsuitable temperatures, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A 303(d) listed water means that monitoring data has indicated water quality standards have exceeded Clean Water Act standards for one or more pollutants and there is no Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or pollution control plan. The Pend Oreille River is also on the Navigable Waters of the United States List. New river crossings will be installed to meet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements.

As discussed later in Section 3.5.1, the Pend Oreille River is included in a Critical Habitat for the Federally ESA-listed Bull Trout, which is currently listed as “Threatened”. Minimizing and mitigating impacts on the Bull Trout by using best management practices is discussed in Section 4.

Figure 2-1 shows two areas where the fiber cable routes cross the Pend Oreille River aerially. As noted in Section 2.1, one of these two crossings is already in place. These aerial crossings are shown again on Maps 13 and 14 of the detailed service area maps to demonstrate how broadband service on the north and east side of the River will connect with the entire network. The existing crossing shown on Map 14 located in the back of this document and is an aerial crossing through private property easements from Herbs Drive across the river to Leclerc Road South. Looking north, Figure 3-1 shows the utility poles that carry fiber cabling through and above private property to cross the river from Herbs Drive. There will be no underground crossings of the Pend Oreille River.

Figures 3-2 and 3-3 are photographs that were taken from Westshore Drive looking east towards the Pend Oreille River. The existing utility poles shown in these figures will be used for the one new fiber cable crossing of the Pend Oreille River proposed in the Preferred Alternative (see Section 27, Township 32N, Range 44E, W.M. on Map 13). Because the Pend Oreille River is on the list of Navigable Waters in the U.S., the new fiber crossing will be installed to meet all required height clearances.


Page 24

Figure 3-1 Looking North at Herbs Drive

Photograph by: J. Rubenkonig Date: August 16, 2010

Figure 3-2 Looking East from Westshore Drive



Page 25

Figure 3-3 Looking East from Westshore Drive


Figure 3-4 Indian Creek Fish Passage Culvert



Page 26

Figure 3-5 Wetlands near Indian Creek and Pend Oreille River confluence


Indian Creek

Maps 13, 14 and 17 show the Pend Oreille River and Indian Creek habitats for the Bull Trout. As indicated on Map 17, the fiber cable routing in the vicinity of Bergman Lane (Section 17, Township 32N, Range 45E, W.M.) crosses Indian Creek. Further downstream another crossing occurs just upstream of where Indian Creek meets the Pend Oreille River on Map 13 (Section 29, Township 32N, Range 45E, W.M.). Figure 3-4 is a photograph of a culvert that allows for fish passage on Indian Creek near the Pend Oreille River.

As indicated on Maps 13, 14 and 17, all Indian Creek river crossings will be aerial. The area near the Indian Creek crossing also contains several wetlands, as depicted in Figure 3-5.


Page 27

Lakes

Major lakes located near the fiber cable distribution network include Bead Lake, Davis Lake, Diamond Lake, Horseshoe Lake, Marshall Lake, Mountain Meadows Lake, Sacheen Lake, and Trout Lake. Both Diamond and Sacheen Lakes have many developed lots along its shoreline and provide recreation for residents in the area. The community surrounding the lake will all be served by the FTTP Project. Most lakes in the region were formed through natural glaciations and provide recreation activities and habitat for fish, birds, insects, and mammals. Figure 3-6 shows a picture of Diamond Lake, and shows typical vegetation located near the shore of many of the lakes in the region.

Wetlands

Wetlands are located throughout the project area and provide necessary natural treatment of stormwater runoff while also enhancing the natural habitat for wildlife such as migratory birds, amphibians, insects, and fisheries. Examples of wetlands in the project area range from those shown in Figure 3-5 to those located adjacent to larger water bodies, such as those shown in Figure 3-6. Potential impacts to wetlands as a result of the FTTP Project are discussed in Section 4.

Figure 3-6 Diamond Lake



Page 28

3.4.2 Groundwater Resources

There are multiple groundwater supply wells providing both potable water supply and irrigation for residents and businesses within the project service area. Groundwater aquifers in the area are typically located well below the area of influence associated with installation of fiber optic cable.

3.4.3 Coastal Zones

There are no coastal zones in Pend Oreille County. Coastal zones exist only in counties located in close proximity to saltwater bodies in the western half of the state.

3.4.4 Floodplains

There are floodplains located throughout the project area, many of which are adjacent to lakes, rivers and streams. Of the 2.1 million feet of cable being installed above ground, only 130,000 feet will be installed within 200 feet of a floodplain. Of the 800,000 lineal feet of cable to be installed underground, less than 29,000 feet of it will be within 200 feet of a floodplain.

3.4.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no federally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers located within Pend Oreille County or the FTTP Project service area.

3.5 Biological Resources

This section includes subsections on wildlife, vegetation, threatened and endangered species, and wetland habitat that will be within the project area.

3.5.1 Wildlife and Plant life

Areas near the public right-of-way where fiber cable will be installed provide deer foraging and cover, habitat for raptors and songbirds, and habitat for wildlife such as raccoons and opossums. The project area is a stopover for water fowl and neotropic songbirds. In the northern portion of the fiber cable routing (shown on Maps 13-17) is the Colville National Forest, which provides old growth forest and habitat for grizzly and black bears, wolves, cougars, bald eagles, lynx, and caribou. The Colville National Forest is bordered on the north by the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. Also nearby, but not within the project area is the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge, located northwest of the Town of Usk on the west slope of the Selkirk Mountain Range. It provides habitat for 206 species of birds,


Page 29

58 mammals, 8 reptiles, and 6 amphibian species. Pend Oreille County contains many important areas for birds, particularly migratory songbirds.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Table 3-3 lists all the endangered and threatened wildlife and plant life in Pend Oreille County including their common name, scientific name, type, state status, and federal status. Additional species and requirements may be identified as a result of the requisite Environmental Consultation process performed for this project. Response to requests for Environmental Consultations are presented in Appendix A.

Table 3-3: Endangered Wildlife and Plant Life Pend Oreille County

Common Name Scientific Name Type State Status

Federal Status

Bull Trout Salvelinus Confluentus Fish - Threatened

Grizzly Bear Ursus Arctos Horribilis Mammal - Threatened

Canada Lynx Lynx Canadensis Mammal - Threatened

Woodland Caribou Rangifer Tarandus Caribou Mammal - Endangered

Chaffweed Anagallis Minima Plant Threatened -

Meadow Pussy-Toes Antennaria Corymbosa Plant Threatened -

Western Moonwort Botrychium Hesperium Plant Threatened -

Two-Spiked Moonwort Botrychium Paradoxum Plant Threatened

Species of Concern

Quill Sedge Carex Tenera Var. Tenera Plant Threatened -

Sandberg's Desert-Parsley

Lomatium Sandbergii Plant Threatened -

Adder's-Tongue Ophioglossum Pusillum Plant Threatened -

Hoary Willow Salix Candida Plant Threatened -

Strict Blue-Eyed-Grass

Sisyrinchium Montanum Plant Threatened -

Rush Aster Symphyotrichum Boreale Plant Threatened -

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and WA State Department of Natural Resources


Page 30

Although the endangered and threatened species listed in Table 3-3 can be spotted and/or may inhabit areas within Pend Oreille County, most of the species listed are not known to inhabit areas within 200 feet the fiber cable routing in the FTTP Project area. The Bull Trout (Figure 3-7) has a designated Critical Habitat that includes the Pend Oreille River and Indian Creek, and fiber cable routing will cross these waterways twice at the previously discussed locations in the project area.

All other mammals and fish that are ESA-listed either do not have critical habitats established, or their critical habitats are located outside the FTTP Project area. Most endangered and threatened plants are also located outside of a 200 foot buffer from the fiber cable routing. Only one plant listed, the Rush Aster, is currently listed on the State of Washington Threatened Species list and may be found within 200 feet of the cable routing, as shown on Map 7 at the end of this document. Aside from the Rush Aster, all other plant life areas shown on the Maps included at the end of this document are not listed as endangered or threatened.

3.5.2 Ecoregions

The high, rugged Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregion is mountainous and lies east of the Cascades. The sparsely populated ecoregion contains Douglas fir, subalpine fir, Englemann spruce, ponderosa pine, western red cedar, western hemlock, and grand fir. Alpine meadows, dense coniferous forests, riparian woodlands, and rolling grasslands provide important habitat for a wide range of wildlife. Additionally, herbaceous wetlands are common in river and stream valleys and adjacent to lakes. Black cottonwood and willows are commonplace in the riparian zones along the Pend Oreille River. The Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregion is not as high or as covered by snow and

Figure 3.8 Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregion

Source: Washington Biodiversity Project

Figure 3-7 Bull Trout

Illustration by J. Tomelleri Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service


Page 31

glaciers as the neighboring Middle Rockies Ecoregion, but alpine characteristics such as glacial lakes and meadows are found at high elevations.

3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

As this is a federally funded project, it is considered an undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as defined in 36 CFR Part 800. This EA has included complete evaluation of cultural resources to comply with Section 106 and ensure that resources of historic and cultural significance are not negatively impacted during the course of this project.

As the lead federal agency, the NTIA has instructed the District to check records of known archaeological and historic cultural properties within the project area. A complete analysis of the project area was accomplished in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Research and analysis was performed by registered archaeologists (Tierra) and included a records check of the project area(s) using the State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's web-based database (WISAARD) in September, 2010.

Table 3-4 shows the number of sites of historical or cultural significance that are located within 0.5-mile radius of the fiber lines within the project area, as well as the number that are within the 200-foot Area of Potential Impact (APE). Details on the various sites are provided in the Records Review of Archaeological Sites and Historic Properties within the Pend Oreille Public Utility District’s BTOP Grant Project Area Report (Tierra Report) provided in Appendix B.

Table 3-4: Historic and Cultural Sites Near Project Area’s Fiber Distribution Network

Resource Category Within 0.5 Miles Within 200-ft

Archeological Sites 55 37

Previous Cultural Surveys 14 -

Cemeteries 2 2

Registered Historic Properties 4 4

Other Historic Properties 5 3

Total 80 46

Source: Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2010-162. September, 2010.


Page 32

Sites within the 200-foot APE are considered within close enough proximity to the construction zone to merit further investigation. Section 4 provides a preliminary summary of mitigation measures to be employed during design and construction that will avoid archaeological sites wherever possible and protect any archaeological, historical or cultural resources that may be inadvertently encountered during construction. In addition, subsequent communications with NTIA and the State of Washington DAHP are summarized in Section 4, with documentation provided in Appendix B.

3.6.1 Kalispel Tribe of Indians

The Kalispel Tribe of Indians Reservation is located in Pend Oreille County generally along the East shore of the Pend Oreille River North of the town of Usk, which is located approximately 55 miles north of the City of Spokane. The 4,654 acre reservation is located predominantly along a 10-mile stretch of the Pend Oreille River. A small portion of the Kalispel Reservation can be seen in the upper corners of Maps 15 and 16 located at the end of this document. The FTTP Project will not enter Kalispel Reservation lands; however, since the Tribe was known as semi-nomadic hunters, diggers, and fisherman, cultural resources may be discovered in the areas outside of the reservation and within the project area. Section 4, as well as the Tierra Report provided in Appendix B, contains discussion on mitigation measures that will ensure Kalispel Tribe cultural resources are either avoided or protected. Also, the District wanted to include the tribe from the beginning of the EA process, and conducted a meeting with a Mr. Kevin Lyons, Cultural Resources Program Manager for the Kalispel Tribe. The Tribe was an original supporter of the District’s application and included a letter of support with Application 1854 submittal.

3.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources

Pend Oreille County is a rural county located in the northeastern corner of Washington. This high country has a vast amount of aesthetic and visual resources that make it a draw for city folk looking to escape to a quieter, frontier style landscape. Pend Oreille contains scenic roadways that wind along with the Pend Oreille River west and north to Colville National Forest, in fact SR 20 and SR 31 are part of the International Selkirk Loop (http://www.selkirkloop.org/). It is designated as one of only 27 All-American Road National Scenic Byways in the U.S. and connects two nations with two states. The area is characterized by rolling hills, forested mountains, agricultural lands, livestock operations, and small town country charm. The tallest buildings and structures are water towers and grain silos, and the proposed fiber cable routing, although located primarily on overhead on utility poles, will blend in with the existing power lines.


Page 33

3.8 Land Use

Of the developed land within the FTTP Project area in Pend Oreille County, land uses are primarily listed as forested (51%), low density (i.e. rural) residential (6%), and agricultural (3.5%). Approximately 20% of the total rural residential acreage in the project area has not been developed as of August 2010. Some medium density residential, commercial, and industrial uses exist in the City of Newport, which serves as the County seat for Pend Oreille County. Most residential and commercial lots, even in the town of Newport, are considered low density. Many of the area’s lakes also contain a higher than typical level of density as compared to the FTTP Project service area as a whole. Table 3-5 shows a generalized breakdown of land use by acreage for the FTTP Project area.

Table 3-5: Land Use Acreage within the FTTP Project Area

Land Use Type Total Acreage % Makeup of Project Area

Forest Land 94,057 50.77%

Undeveloped 64,277 34.69%

Low Density Residential 11,340 6.12%

Agriculture 6,415 3.46%

Medium Density Residential 4,327 2.34%

Roads/Other 2,955 1.59%

Commercial 1,539 0.83%

Industrial 144 0.08%

Designated Parks and Open Space 106 0.06%

Government / Institutional 86 0.05%

Mining 23 0.01%

Grand Total 185,269

Source: USDA Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Data, 2009.


Page 34

3.9 Infrastructure

Pend Oreille County Public Utility District No. 1 is authorized to provide wholesale telecommunications, electrical, and water services throughout Pend Oreille County. Where potable water is not supplied, private water wells are used in rural areas. Wastewater collection is provided by sewer districts, City of Newport, and septic tanks throughout the county. Cities and towns have curbside garbage collection. Solid waste transfer stations are available for disposal of solid waste for the unincorporated areas of the county.

Urban growth areas in the State of Washington are banned from outdoor burning. Outside urban areas, natural vegetation is allowed to be burned. Garbage burning and burn barrels are illegal everywhere in Washington.

Major and minor highways and local roadways are easily accessible throughout the county. The major highways through Pend Oreille County are U.S. Highway 2 (US-2) which runs from Newport to Spokane, State Route 20 (SR-20) that connects Newport with SR-31 in the northern half of the County, and SR 211, which connects US-2 with SR-20 and passes by Sacheen Lake. The highways are easily accessible in case of emergencies. No roadways will be blocked during construction. School buses, fire trucks, police and sheriff vehicles, and ambulances will be provided accessibility at all times.

3.10 Socioeconomic Resources

The Fiber to the Premise Project will create an open access network that will bring affordable, high-speed broadband internet service to low income populations within Pend Oreille County. As of August 2010, the county’s unemployment rate of 13.9 percent was the highest in Washington State.

Socioeconomic information for all of Pend Oreille County is presented in Table 3-6. It is assumed that with a majority of the population living in the southern portion of the county, the Census 2000 data for the county is reflective of the socioeconomic conditions of the FTTP Project service area.

Figure 3-9 Typical Roadway with Aerial Power Lines



Page 35

Table 3-6: Socioeconomic Resources Pend Oreille County Census 2000 Data

Social Characteristics Estimate Percent

Total population 11,732 100%

Male 5,881 50%

Female 5,851 50%

Median age (years) 41.9 -

Under 5 years 637 5%

18 years and over 8,648 74%

65 years and over 1,750 15%

One race 11,493 98%

White 10,973 94%

Black or African American 17 0.1%

American Indian/Alaska Native 338 3%

Asian 74 0.6%

Hawaiian & other Pacific Islander 24 0.2%

Some other race 67 0.6%

Two or more races 239 2%

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 241 2%

Economic Characteristics Estimate Percent

In labor force (16 years and over) 4,511 50%

Median Household Income (dollars) $ 31,677 -

Median Family Income (dollars) $ 36,977 -

Per Capita Income (dollars) $ 15,531 -

Families below poverty level 445 14%

Individuals below poverty level 2,095 18%

Source: Data from 2000 Census. Income levels are in 1999 dollars


Page 36

3.11 Human Health and Safety

This sub-section describes any potentially hazardous waste sites within the vicinity of the FTTP Project service area and fiber cable routing. Potentially hazardous waste sites include brownfields and general hazardous waste facilities. No superfund sites are located within the vicinity of the service area. Potential hazardous waste sites for Pend Oreille County are shown in Table 3-7. Waste site information was obtained from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) website.

Table 3-7: Hazardous Waste Sites Pend Oreille County

Facility Name Location

Brownfields

Newport Industrial Park Development Newport

Hazardous Waste Sites

Ponderay Valley Fibre, Inc Usk

Ponderay Newsprint Company Usk

Colville National Forest East Section Newport

Muzzy Oil Company Newport

Washington Department of Transportation Parcel 603420 Newport

Laidlaw Transit Division 228 Newport Newport

Pend Oreille Company Hazardous Waste Facility Newport

Littles Wood Specialty Plant Newport

Reference: USEPA website www.epa.gov

USEPA defines brownfields as:

Real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off green spaces and working lands.

Hazardous waste is waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to our health or environment. Waste comes in liquid, solid, gas, or sludge form, and can be discarded commercial products such as cleaning fluids or pesticides, or by-products of manufacturing


Page 37

processes. These facilities handle hazardous waste either by generating, storing, transporting, disposing, or recycling them.

Human Safety

Human safety is another element examined as part of this Environmental Assessment. Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC), Traffic Research and Data Center provide a comparison of factors involved in traffic fatalities in each county of the State of Washington. This fiber optic conduit installation is being coordinated with public safety entities to improve public safety services through the use of highly reliable, high capacity advanced telecom services.

Based on WTSC revision on March 18, 2007, Pend Oreille County had two traffic fatalities on state routes and no fatalities on county or city roadways. During the construction period, a traffic plan will be prepared to keep the public and construction workers safe, as discussed in more detail in Section 4.

3.12 Climate, Greenhouse Gases, and Global Warming

The proposed project area is located within Pend Oreille County in Washington State. According to the Pend Oreille County website (http://www.pendoreilleco.org/cities/), the climate in the project area is characterized by temperatures ranging as low as negative 20 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter to 90 degrees in the summer, with anywhere between 24 and 41 inches of precipitation per year. In Pend Oreille County, in the Selkirk Mountain Range, and in the Colville National Forest, snowfall is common and snowpack can be found all winter. While the Pend Oreille River valley was carved by glaciers several hundred years ago, there are no remaining glaciers in the County today.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are components of the atmosphere that trap heat relatively near the surface of the earth, and therefore, contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Most GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, but increases in their concentration result from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Global temperatures are expected to continue to rise as human activities continue to add carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse (or heattrapping) gases to the atmosphere. Since 1900, the Earth's average surface air temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 10 years, with the warmest year being 2005 (USEPA, 2007b). Most of the U.S. is expected to experience an increase in average temperature. Precipitation changes, which are also very important to consider when assessing climate change effects, are more difficult to predict. Whether or not rainfall will increase or decrease remains difficult to project for specific regions (USEPA, 2010a; IPCC, 2007). The extent of climate change effects, and whether these effects prove harmful or beneficial, will vary by region, over time, and with the ability of different societal and


Page 38

environmental systems to adapt to or cope with the change. Human health, agriculture, natural ecosystems, coastal areas and heating and cooling requirements are examples of climate-sensitive systems. Rising average temperatures are already affecting the environment. Some observed changes include shrinking of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, later freezing and earlier break-up of ice on rivers and lakes, lengthening of growing seasons, shifts in plant and animal ranges and earlier flowering of trees (USEPA, 2010a; IPCC, 2007).


Page 39

4. Environmental Consequences

Section 4 presents a summary of the analyses of environmental consequences of the Preferred and No Action Alternatives. This analysis includes avoidance and mitigation strategies that, when implemented, will allow for a determination of No Effect. This determination is arrived at as a result of these analyses, design diligence, and performing Best Management Practices (BMP) by the personnel and contractors of the District. In general, it is important to note that the service area identified for the FTTP Project has been adjusted and refined during the Environmental Assessment process and as a result of visual surveys, data research, and evaluation of potential environmental impacts. Pend Oreille PUD will follow the avoidance and mitigation measures identified herein and follow all permitting and regulatory requirements associated with the project.

4.1 Noise

For the Preferred Alternative there will not be any long-term impacts on noise levels. During construction, minor short-term noise impacts will be incurred. Standard mitigation measures to be employed include requiring appropriate mufflers and limiting construction times to comply with the requirements of local ordinances.

Under the No Action Alternative, noise levels would not be altered either in the short or long term.

4.2 Air Quality

Impacts to air quality associated with the Preferred Alternative are limited to temporary and incidental increases in particulate matter (dust) during construction and GSG emissions from construction equipment. Section 4.12 discusses climate, GSG and global warming in detail.

Although the majority of the project will be installed aerially, the limited amount of underground construction will be accomplished using minimally invasive plowing construction technique. The narrow blade used for cable installation causes soils to be cut and not tumbled and limits the vegetative clearing and disruption of soils to a small trench approximately 3 inches in width.

The soils located within a 200 foot buffer of the fiber cabling have a low to moderate resistance to fugitive dust. Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions can impact air quality. Construction equipment will create short-term exhaust emissions in excess of normal levels and potentially create additional dust. In accordance with information obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology:

▪ Dust suppression, including use of water trucks, will be employed as required.


Page 40

▪ There will be no burning of debris or scrub organic material, and composting and/or chipping with appropriate disposal will be used.

▪ All construction equipment will be equipped with appropriate air filters.

The Preferred Alternative would constitute a short-term minor increase in the use of fossil fuel and GHG emissions into the air during construction. As detailed in Section 4.12, the Preferred Alternative would result in the release of approximately 5,697 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the air. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with Federal policies and EPA guidelines will be accomplished through use of modern construction equipment and prohibiting excessive idling of equipment when not in use.

With these typical mitigation measures, construction will have no long-term impacts to air quality and short-term impacts will be minimized. It is expected that the District will satisfy appropriate mitigation measures by following permitting and regulatory requirements to ensure that no impact to the environment will occur.

Under the No Action Alternative, air quality would remain unchanged.

4.3 Geology and Soils

There is a small amount of trenching proposed for the Preferred Alternative, and impacts on the soil will be insignificant. The trench machine blade is no wider than three inches and will not have any long term impacts on soils in the project area. Hydric soils and floodplains have been identified during the Environmental Assessment (EA) process and consultation. The purpose of Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 1977 is:

“to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.”

To meet this purpose, the Executive Order requires federal agencies to consider alternatives to wetland sites where wetlands cannot be avoided. FEMA’s Regulations at 44 CFR Part 9: Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands implementing procedures require that a determination be made of whether or not the proposed project affects wetlands in floodplains. All field work will satisfy appropriate mitigation measures by following permitting and regulatory requirements. Discussion of potential impacts, avoidance, and mitigation measures associated with wetlands and surface water and erosion control are presented in presented in Table 4-1.

Under the No Action Alternative, soils and geology would not be impacted.

4.4 Water Resources

This section demonstrates the protection measures to be used to avoid impacts to surface waters encountered in the Preferred Alternative. As noted in Section 3, there are more


Page 41

than 40 streams, rivers, and surface water bodies, and many more unnamed intermittent streams, that will be encountered along the proposed 556 miles of cable installation. In addition, there are wetlands occurring along the various project routes. As demonstrated in the following paragraphs, the Preferred Alternative will not impact surface waters or the aquatic life that may reside in them. This will be achieved by avoidance of streams and wetlands as described below.

4.4.1 Surface Water Resources

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, Federal agencies ”are required to take action to avoid adversely impacting wetlands wherever possible, to minimize wetlands destruction and to preserve the values of wetlands, and to prescribe procedures to implement the policies and procedures of this Executive Order.” All existing wetlands and/or water bodies will be either avoided or will be directionally bored under to eliminate any impact from the Preferred Alternative. In most instances, avoiding impact to surface waters will be accomplished by aerial installations on existing poles. In areas where fiber optic cable will be installed underground, all rivers, creeks, and streams will be avoided either by attaching cable conduit on bridges in accordance with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) or local permit requirements, or if necessary, by directional drilling at a minimum of 10 feet below the stream bed. To avoid wetlands on underground routes, the fiber can also be constructed within the road prism or shoulder.

Directional drilling for this project refers to a minimally disruptive technique that does not require the jacking or boring pits that rigid or larger diameter pipe construction may dictate. The directional drilling technique for cable installation will result in a surface disturbance of less than one foot in diameter. Drilling of the 3-inch conduit is accomplished using acoustic or other ground sensing techniques that allows for more precise placement both horizontally and vertically. Drilling equipment will be located outside of the stream and wetland buffers (typically 20 feet)

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires a Section 404 Nationwide 12 Permit (NWP-12) for all construction occurring in or over surface water, including wetlands, discharges of dredged or fill material associated with excavation, backfill, or bedding for utility lines including intake and outfall structures. The NWP-12 authorizes mechanized land clearing necessary for the installation of utility lines including any pipe or pipeline, but does not authorize changes in pre-construction contours. No changes to contours will occur with this project. This will be achieved by the use of a minimally invasive plow blade that is less than 3-inches in width. The Army Corps has indicated any river crossings of the Pend


Page 42

Oreille River would require authorization from the Corps under the Nationwide Permit 12 process, but they do not anticipate any issues with the plowing or directional boring for this project. The full correspondence with the Army Corps of Engineers is provided in the Communications Plan contained in Appendix A.

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the key Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be utilized to eliminate or mitigate the potential for impacts on the environment. In addition, erosion control and water pollution control measures will be in accordance with the County and US Army Corps of Engineers requirements and/or the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. The following erosion and sediment control inspection and maintenance practices will be used to protect surface waters and presents the general requirements of specific BMPs identified in Table 4-1.

Under the No Action Alternative, surface water resources will not be impacted.

Table 4-1: Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Cable Installation1 Surface Water Impact Mitigation

Purpose: To protect beneficial uses of water resources through the reduction of pollutant loads and concentrations and through reduction of discharges causing stream channel erosion.

BMPs from U.S. Fish and Wildlife (2)

1 Where stream crossings would include excavation or other activities that would result in suspended sediment, disturbance or modification of stream banks and beds, and/or removal of native riparian vegetation. Protection, avoidance and mitigation measures will be employed to avoid or reduce the effect of these impacts.

2 Where suspended sediments or the potential for "frac-out" exists, monitoring for elevated turbidity levels will be planned, with contingencies in place to avoid elevated levels of suspended sediment that could result in adverse effect to bull trout, where these fish are present. Similar measures may be advised for other fish-bearing streams.

3 Removal of mature native riparian vegetation will be avoided, where avoidance is not possible, as few trees as possible will be removed to support the construction.

4 Where restoration of the stream banks or other impacts are needed, FWS recommends that sufficient site-specific information to design and implement long-term site restoration measures at each water body crossing be collected, and the project proponent (or other representative) monitor success and immediately ameliorate any problems.

5 Where placement of cable or other infrastructure would result in removal of nest trees for migratory birds, surveys for all species of concern will be performed, and survey findings will be applied to include protective timing measures or other protections that ensure compliance with ESA and/ or MBTA, as applicable.

6 Removal of trees may need to be avoided where such activities would result in mortality of eggs or nestlings or abandonment of eggs or nestlings by the adult for birds protected under the MBTA.

Additional BMPs are listed as follows(3):

7 When water or sediments are removed from electric or communication vaults inspect for the presence of oil or sheen. If oil or sheen is present, the liquid will be pumped out and disposed of properly via the sanitary sewer or directly at a wastewater plant.

8 To prevent storm water from accumulating and draining across and/or onto roadways, grassy roadside ditches discharge to surface waters will be maintained.


Page 43


9 Ditches and culverts will be maintained to ensure that plugging and flooding across the roadbed, with resulting overflow erosion, does not occur.

10 Fueling is not to be done in close proximity to sensitive aquifers designated wetlands, wetland buffers, or other waters of the State and will be directed to occur a minimum of 200’ away.

11 Directional Drilling equipment will be located outside of stream buffers - typically 20 feet or more from stream shore.

12 During directional boring operations the following mitigation if seeping or "frac-out" occurs: A. Containment and cleanup equipment will be present for use at the site, as needed B. If boring under stream crossings, a qualified hydrological monitor will be present at all bore sites to monitor construction activities for prompt detection of any releases. C. Releases will be immediately controlled and the drilling fluid will be contained and removed D. A remediation plan will be developed based on the site-specific conditions.

13 Upon completion of a directional bore, all slurry will be removed from the construction site and deposited at an approved site.

14 Safety netting will be installed under aerial and bridge attachment installations over water bodies to avoid equipment, tools, or workers from falling into the water body.

15 Storm Drain Inlet Protection Storm drain inlets will be protected to prevent coarse sediment from entering drainage systems prior to permanent stabilization of the disturbed areas. It may be necessary to build a temporary dike, use a block and gravel filter around the inlet using standard concrete blocks and gravel. An alternative design may include a gravel donut. Other methods recommended are gravel and wire mesh filters, catch basin filters, curb inlet protection with wooden weir, block and gravel curb inlet protection, or curb and gutter sediment barrier.

16 The presence and constant observation/monitoring of the driver/operator at the fuel transfer location at all times will be implemented. Fueling will be located at least 25 feet from the nearest storm drain or inside on impervious containment with a volumetric holding capacity equal to or greater that 110 percent of the fueling tank volume or covering the storm drain to ensure no inflow of spilled or leaked fuel.

17 Minimum spill clean-up materials will be in all fueling vehicles: non-water absorbents, storm drain plug or cover kit, non-water absorbent containment boom of minimum 10 feet in length with a 12-gallon absorbent capacity, non-metallic shovel, and two five-gallon buckets with lids.

18 The local fire department (911) and the appropriate regional office of the Department of Ecology contact names and numbers will be on-site in case of any spill entering the surface or ground waters.

19 Contractor Erosion and Spill Control Lead The Contractor will designate at least one person to be responsible for erosion and spill control. This person, the Contractor Erosion and Spill Control Lead (CESCFL) will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all local, State, and Federal erosion and sediment control requirements.

Archeological Avoidance and Mitigation Best Management Practices(4)

20 In all areas of the project, the general approach will be to avoid archaeological sites whenever possible. This is simplified by the fact that the limited amount of underground installation will occur in predisturbed areas adjacent to existing power lines. If required, avoidance may also be accomplished by: A) aerial installation or B) modification of the fiber alignment.

21 Installation equipment and vehicles will remain on road surfaces while working in the vicinity of a site that extends into the right-of-way. In the unlikely event that avoidance cannot be achieved or unexpected material is found, further investigation would be required. If a site is thought to be within the Area of Potential Impact (APE) and cannot be avoided, it is recommended that the site be relocated in the field, and the site form updated as necessary to include information such as current site condition, NRHP eligibility status, and a current map of the site.

22 If the site is found to be within the APE, directional boring, monitoring, or further archaeological work is recommended and will be determined on a case-by-case basis. This approach will necessitate a report series subsequent to the September 2010 report prepared for this Environmental


Page 44


Assessment, which include exact construction details of the project, results of site reconnaissance, sites to be avoided, NRHP eligibility recommendations, etc. Once these details have been determined and construction takes place, a final monitoring report will be completed and submitted to NTIA and the Washington SHPO.

23 For cemeteries, flagging and/or monitoring for those with boundaries within 200’ of the APE will be accomplished. In some instances, cemeteries date prior to the 20th century and their original boundaries may not be consistent with those delineated today. Results of any additional monitoring performed would be included in a final monitoring report.

24 Buildings and contributing properties to historic districts are outside of the road right-of-way and therefore will not be directly impacted. It is recommended for these properties that the use of high vibration construction equipment be discontinued while in their vicinity, if their structural integrity is in question.

25 Any additional monitoring required for the project will be accomplished in accordance with monitoring plans established and agreed to by NTIA, the State SHPO and

26 Should the proposed construction inadvertently encounter buried cultural deposits, the District and its contractor will halt construction in that vicinity and the on-site archaeological monitor (or construction manager, in the absence of a monitor) immediately contact the staff at the State Historical Preservation Office in Olympia, WA to discuss and assess the significance of the discovery.

Notes: (1) The BMPS are for protection of surface water and general design and construction. Mitigation measures associated with Section 106 compliance (Historic and Cultural Preservation are outlined in Section 4.6.

(2) Source U.S. Fish and Wildlife (3) Source: Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington dated September 2004. (4) Please refer to Section 4.6 and Appendix B for additional information on preservation of sites of historic and Cultural Significance.

4.4.2 Groundwater Resources

Groundwater supply wells exist throughout the project area. Approximately 70% of the fiber cabling will be installed aerially on existing utility poles. These overhead cables will have no impacts to the existing groundwater. The rest of the cabling will be buried at a depth above the existing water table, therefore eliminating any potential for impacting groundwater supplies. No impacts will occur for the Preferred Alternative or the No Action Alternative.

4.4.3 Coastal Zone

There are no Coastal Zones within the project service area; therefore, they will not be impacted by any of the Alternatives.

4.4.4 Floodplains

For the Preferred Alternative, Section 3.4.4 of this report identifies the total lineal feet of fiber cable that will be installed within a floodplain. This project will not modify flow paths or cause soil erosion that could lead to a change in contours or


Page 45

flood patterns. There will be no dredging, filling, dumping or backfilling of the floodplain areas, and no impervious surfaces will be altered or added as a part of the Preferred Alternative. Most of the cable routes encroaching existing floodplains will be aerial installations where the fiber optic cable will be hung on existing poles. The natural ground cover will be protected during the construction phase and all permit requirements will be adhered to. Any potential ground disturbance will be restored to preconstruction condition.

Neither the placement of the fiber optic cable nor the operation of the cable to provide data transmission would alter any floodplains as they are currently delineated. The Preferred Alternative will not have an adverse impact on floodplains.

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to floodplains would occur.

4.4.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the PFSA; therefore, they will not be impacted by any of the Alternatives presented in this EA.

4.5 Biological Resources

The following discussion identifies the potential impacts, along with avoidance protection and mitigation measures associated with wildlife, vegetation, and threatened and endangered species in the FTTP project area. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the habitat for all federally listed species, and lists the avoidance measures to be employed to avoid impact or effect on the species. The result of the analyses is a determination of no effect and clear indication that additional consultation or consideration under the Endangered Species Act is not required. Table 4-2 was developed using detailed information collected and mapped from a variety of state and federal sources. A bibliography of resources is provided in Section 7.

As demonstrated in Section 7 of this document and within the Communications Plan included in Appendix A, the District has contacted and collaborated with a variety of agencies to ensure that biological resources of significance are protected. Endangered and threatened species and other areas of concern have been identified and will be sufficiently protected against adverse impact.

This EA has been developed using information from communications with USFWS, NMFS, Washington State DOE, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine appropriate measures for avoidance of adverse impacts. It is important to note that the District has, and is always committed to continuing to work with these agencies through project permitting and construction. After the USFWS reviewed the most current


Page 46

project information and discussed the project with the District and its consultants, they found no reason to disagree with the “No Effect” determination for the proposed action. A copy of the November 15, 2010 e-mail from USFWS Eastern Washington Field office is included in Appendix A, along with preceding correspondence and notes.

Although no specific instances of habitat disturbance are known or anticipated, construction equipment used would not typically impact any nesting, migratory, or other wildlife activities. The project will not exceed normal construction noise levels associated with excavation equipment and will be well within the limits of all right-of-way permits. The District will satisfy appropriate mitigation measures by following permitting and regulatory requirements.

4.5.1 Wildlife and Plant life

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will have minimal impacts to wildlife and vegetation as all work will be performed within previously disturbed public right-of-way or existing utility corridor easements. Impacts that might occur due to elevated construction noise would be limited to songbirds, rodents, deer, etc. Minimal clearing of vegetation will be required for the project, which is primarily along existing road right-of-ways and established utility corridors. In combination with the plow method of construction, disturbance to vegetative habitat will be minimal. Grasses and small scrub vegetation removed within the right of way will be re-vegetated with seed in accordance with WSDOT and/or County specifications. There are no potential impacts beyond the construction period.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when authorized by the Department of the Interior. The Preferred Alternative is not expected to result in the taking or killing of any migratory birds because fiber optic cabling will be installed in close proximity to existing power lines (on the same existing poles) or underground.

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to wildlife or plant life would occur.

4.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, critical species are protected from extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development. This Act is administered by two federal agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (UWFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Section 3 summarizes documented plant, fish, or wildlife species that are federally or state-listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, monitor, or species of concern along or in the immediate vicinity of the project area.


Page 47

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife were contacted to determine if any federally or state-listed species have been documented in the immediate vicinity of the project area’s fiber distribution network. Thorough research of available information regarding threatened and endangered species has been accomplished as documented in Section 3 and summarized in Table 4-2. Based on this information and the construction methods to be employed, the BMPs outlined in Table 4-1, all field work will satisfy appropriate mitigation measures by following all relevant permitting and regulatory requirements. It is highly unlikely that the Preferred Alternative will have any impact on the listed species.

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to wildlife or plant life would occur.

4.5.3 Ecoregions

As discussed in Section 3.5.2, this project lies within the Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregion. The unique characteristics that define the ecoregion will not be impacted by either the Preferred Alternative or the No Action Alternative.


Page 48

Table 4-2: Summary of Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species Pend Oreille County PUD Fiber to the Premise Project

Common Name

Scientific Name Type Federal

Status Description / Habitat Location, Avoidance, or Protection Measure

Anticipated Effect

Bull Trout Salvelinus Confluentus

Fish Threatened Bull Trout is a threatened species that occurs throughout streams in the Pacific Northwest. The primary concern related to this species is avoidance of any increase in the levels of suspended sediment and/or any discharge of foreign material into the stream. Bull Trout spawn from August to November, during which time, it is imperative that special precautions be taken when working in the vicinity of streams and surface waters that support this species. Construction is often limited during the spawning system to limit the potential for increasing suspended solids or otherwise disrupting habitat.

The Bull Trout Critical Habitat includes the Pend Oreille River and Indian Creek in the project service area. Avoidance will be accomplished by aerial installation of all fiber optic cabling near these water bodies. It is noted that additional care will be taken during spawning season (August-November). A variety of protective measures will be taken when working in the vicinity of all stream crossings associated with the project including erosion control and protection of riparian vegetation. BMPs to be employed are listed in Table 4-1.

No Effect

Grizzly Bear

Ursus Arctos Horribilis

Mammal Threatened Grizzly bear habitat is typically extremely rugged and remote. There are an estimated 40-50 grizzly bear inhabiting the Selkirk Mountains recovery zone designated by USFWS. The recovery zone is located just north of the project service area, north and east of Bead Lake. A 5-year review of the Selkirk Range grizzly bears is underway to determine the bear’s status in the Selkirk Range.

No presence of the Grizzly Bear is anticipated in the established rights-of-way or easements used for the FTTP Project area. Field staff will be provided with a field guide to endangered species prior to construction and instructed on work stoppage procedures in the unlikely event that the species is encountered.

No Effect

Canada Lynx

Lynx Canadensis

Mammal Threatened Habitat for the Canada Lynx characterized by dense cover of a brushy forest understory. Snag-rich older forests are needed for covers for hunting and large holes in fallen trunks for shelter. The desired habitat is not present in the vicinity of the project, which will occur in pre-disturbed rights-of-way and easements that contain frequent human activity.

No presence of Canada Lynx is anticipated in the established rights-of-way used for the FTTP Project area. Field staff will be provided with a field guide to endangered species prior to construction and instructed on work stoppage procedures in the unlikely event that the species is encountered.

No Effect


49

Table 4-2: Summary of Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species Pend Oreille County PUD Fiber to the Premise Project

Common Name

Scientific Name Type Federal

Status Description / Habitat Location, Avoidance, or Protection Measure

Anticipated Effect

Woodland Caribou

Rangifer Tarandus Caribou

Mammal Endangered Only one population of caribou is left in the lower 48 states – the Selkirk Mountain herd. Canada and the State of Idaho cooperatively manage the Selkirk Mountain herd, which feed on sedges, grasses, fungi, lichens, mosses, and leaves in the Selkirk Range. Most caribou inhabit the cold tundra most of the year.

No presence of Caribou is anticipated in the established rights-of-way or easements of the project area. Field staff will be provided with a field guide to endangered species prior to construction and instructed on work stoppage procedures in the unlikely event that the species is encountered.

No Effect

Two-Spiked Moonwort

Botrychium Paradoxum

Plant Species of Concern

The two-spiked moonwort plant is a leafy plant that stands 4-inches tall and contains two fertile segments that extend unequally between 1/4” and 1” from the top of the stem. The plant can be found in western red cedar forests on floodplains, stream terraces near perennial or intermittent streams, compacted vacant roadbeds, and in moist, grazed old homestead meadows. Elevation ranges from 2400 to 6400 ft.

No presence of the Two-Spiked Moonwort is anticipated in the established rights-of-way or easements of the project area. This plant is known to be found in Pend Oreille County, but not within the project service area.

No Effect

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and WA State Department of Natural Resources


Page 50

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

As noted in Section 3, Project Archaeologists (Tierra) found numerous documented archaeological sites within the general proximity of the project area. Known archaeological sites, cemeteries, and historic properties along the fiber distribution cables (within a half-mile on either side) were identified. Tierra then identified which of those are within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). These are listed in Table 4-2 The APE is defined as the area along the project line and any other area needed for staging, construction equipment, etc. In this instance, the APE is considered to be within approximately 200 feet of the line as visible on maps.

Appendix B provides Tierra’s No Adverse Effect determination summary for the FTTP Project area. Additionally, it documents communications regarding protection of sites of archaeological and historical significance and compliance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act. Through this correspondence, the District and its consultants, the Washington State Department of Historic Preservation (through the State Historic Preservation Officer) and NTIA developed a template for archaeological monitoring and procedures to be followed in the event of a discovery for areas of concern in the project. The following documentation is included:

▪ Tierra Right of Way letter to Frank Monteferrante, September 15, 2010, RE: Records Review of Archaeological Sites and Historic Properties within the Pend Oreille Public Utility District’s BTOP Grant Project Area. The report indicating areas of particular concern, where on-site monitoring is likely to be required.

▪ Two letters dated November 5, 2010 from Jill Dowling, NTIA, to both Washington State Historic Preservation Office and the Kalispel Tribe of Indians indicating that the Broadband Technology Opportunities (BTOP) Grant for the Fiber To The Premise Project (Pend Oreille County Public Utility District) will have No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties.

▪ A letter dated December 13, 2010 from Pend Oreille Public Utility District to Kevin Lyons of the Kalispel Tribe of Indians with a signed agreement to adhere to protocol established for construction monitoring and other impact mitigation efforts.

▪ Letter from Rob Whitlam PhD, Washington State Historic Preservation Officer to Jill Dowling, NTIA indicating SHPO concurrence with determination of No Adverse Effect. This letter will document Section 106 compliance by the SHPO.

▪ Additional coordination with the US Forest Service will occur during permitting for any work on Forest Service land. Coordination with the Coleville Forest has begun as documented in Appendix A. No issues with obtaining the required permits, including Section 106 compliance are anticipated.


Page 51

Best Management Practices associated with preservation of Archeological and Historical sites of potential significance are outlined in Table 4-1. The proposed action will not have an adverse impact on historic and cultural resources. The District will satisfy appropriate mitigation measures by following all relevant permitting and regulatory requirements and adhering to the requirements established by the SHPO and those documented in Appendix B.

Table 4-3: Potentially Impacted Archaeological Sites, Historic Properties, and Cemeteries

Property Designation

Property Type Description NRHP Status

CF00360 arch site Bead Lake Trail #127 determined not eligible

PO00536 arch site Bead Lake Dump 1 - historic refuse dump potentially eligible

PO00348 arch site precontact camp site not evaluated



PO00444 arch site precontact camp site, historic sawmill not evaluated




PO00394 arch site precontact village not evaluated


PO00558 arch site precontact lithic material, Yates Farmstead -

historic structures and debris scatter not evaluated

PO00543 arch site Largest Dump Yet - historic refuse dump not evaluated

PO00128 register property

Calispel Trail Road Listed on Washington

Heritage Register, 1972


PO00349 arch site precontact and historic component site not evaluated

PO00568

register property

Dalkena Lumber Co. Barn Listed on Washington

Heritage Barn Register, 2007








Page 52





FS02074 arch site historic mining prospect/pit potentially eligible

PO00149 arch site precontact camp site determined eligible

PO00399 arch site precontact feature - circular depressions not evaluated

PO00400 arch site precontact talus pit not evaluated


PO00421 arch site precontact camp site, historic refuse

scatter/dump not evaluated

PO00480 arch site historic road bed and ditch w/ metal culvert potentially eligible

PO00481 arch site power pole w/ wooden foundation potentially eligible

PO00482 arch site historic logging property - historic log landing potentially eligible

PO00550 arch site Glass Mountain Mine/Sunday Noon/Snowstorm /Morning/East End/Cook's Mountain No. 1 and

No. 2 mining claims - historic mining feature determined not eligible

PO00420 arch site historic refuse scatter/dump potentially eligible

PO00533 arch site Upper Wolf Trail Dump - historic refuse dump not evaluated


Phillips, Dr. John & Viola, House and Office Listed on NRHP and Washington Heritage

Register, 2006


McIntosh, Harold, Barn Listed on Washington

Heritage Barn Register, 2008

no information available

historic property Hope Congregational Church no information available


historic property

Newport City Hall no information available


historic property

Roxy Theater recommended not eligible for

NRHP





Page 53




PO00620 cemetery Newport Cemetery not evaluated

PO00621 cemetery Spring Valley Mennonite Cemetery not evaluated

4.6.1 Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Section 3 describes how the project area is located outside of the Kalispel Indian Tribe Reservation but remains within the area of influence for the Tribe. Since the Tribe was known as semi-nomadic hunters, diggers, and fisherman, it is possible, that artifacts or other items of cultural or historical significance to the Tribe are within the project area. Pend Oreille PUD and its consultants have met with Kalispel Tribe representative Kevin Lyons, Cultural Resources Program Manager for the Kalispel Tribe of Indians to overview the project and discuss avoidance and mitigation measures. In addition, the Washington State SHPO and Department of Commerce have been in contact with Mr. Lyons regarding the project. A summary of this correspondence is provided in Appendix A and documents that continued coordination throughout construction is planned. On December 13, 2010, the Tribe and Pend Oreille PUD entered into an agreement for the purpose of specifying the measures that will be undertaken to address any archeological resources encountered during construction of the project. With this Letter of Agreement, the Tribe has indicated it’s concurrence with the determination of no adverse effect based on the proposed stipulations to ensure avoidance, development of Monitoring Implementation Plan and the hiring of a cultural resource firm knowledgeable in the cultural resources of the project area. A copy of the Letter of Agreement is included in Appendix A.

Other than communications with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, no other tribes responded to the District or its consultants based on TCNS notification.

Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to historic and cultural resources would occur.

4.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources

As discussed in Section 4.6, for historic properties and districts there will be no visual impacts, whether the line is to be placed aerially or buried. Aerial placement will take place on existing poles alongside existing lines, creating minimal, if any, impact on visual or aesthetic resources, and buried cable will not be visible.


Page 54

Service Area Hubs (SAH), as described in Section 2 of this Environmental Assessment will be installed throughout the project. These small structures will be located in existing right-of-way and will result in little to no impact on visual aesthetics in the locations chosen for the SAHs. No effect to visual resources will occur with the Preferred Alternative.

Under the No Action Alternative, aesthetic or visual resources would not be impacted.

4.8 Land Use

For both the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative, neither the placement of the cable nor the long term services provided by the cable will have an adverse affect on land use in the project area. Land use is dictated by zoning and this project will not have any impacts to the zoning requirements assigned to properties in the service area. The FTTP Project will bring fiber cabling from middle mile backbone infrastructure to communities and properties that have already been developed. No effect to land use will occur.

4.9 Infrastructure

The fiber cable installed as part of the FTTP Project will have no adverse affect on infrastructure within the project area. The Preferred Alternative will add redundant capabilities and new broadband service infrastructure throughout the project area which will lower the cost and increase access to broadband services. Fiber cable will be installed on existing utility infrastructure (poles) alongside existing power line easements and rights-of-ways. All other infrastructure located within the project area, including roads, highways, wireless cell towers, water, and wastewater infrastructure will not be impacted by this project.

Under the No Action Alternative, inconsistent or non-existent infrastructure will continue to exist. However, existing infrastructure remains susceptible to cable breaks which can negatively impact the response time for emergency services. Other infrastructure would not be impacted under the No Action Alternative.

4.10 Socioeconomic Resources

The Proposed Action will not have an adverse impact on socio-economic resources. The fiber optic cable to be installed and the residents and anchor institutions that will receive direct service will provide a significant positive impact to the rural area to be served. These impacts include providing disadvantaged and vulnerable populations with access to affordable broadband services in un-served and underserved areas of southern Pend Oreille County. As discussed in Section 1, Pend Oreille County currently has the highest unemployment rate in the State of Washington (13.9%). The positive impacts are


Page 55

improvement of educational opportunities, and access to information and data that can improve quality of life in a variety of ways. The project will connect to medical facilities and, in doing so, will become part of the community lifeline for medical services as well as emergency response. The District’s project also targets educational and job training facilities and creates improved access to job training.

This construction project is estimated to create approximately 370 jobs during the three year project period as stipulated in the Key Metrics Dashboard 03-19-10 v2 In Kind Proposal submitted during the due diligence process on behalf of NTIA BTOP Grant Application1854. This estimate is derived using the RIMS II Model, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and US Department of Commerce and represents the average of the multipliers for Construction and Broadcasting and Communication Equipment. Long term job growth is expected to improve and an increase in local job opportunities through the District and its sub-contractors. On-going operations and maintenance of the constructed network and technical support jobs will also increase in the county.

Under the No Action Alternative, the positive socio-economic impacts of the project will not be realized. The project service area will continue to be unserved which will result in limited opportunities for improved education, medical, employment and economic development.

4.11 Human Health and Safety

The Preferred Alternative will not have an adverse impact on human health and safety. As has been discussed throughout this Environmental Assessment, the District will satisfy appropriate mitigation measures by following all relevant permitting and regulatory requirements to minimize the impact to the environment. Human health and safety will be improved by the project through the provision of improved broadband service to rural communities, including direct connection to medical facilities and emergency services providers.

Section 3 identifies a variety of potentially hazardous sites and material in the vicinity of the project service area. The following is a summary of the general practices that will be used to protect the general population, wildlife, and the environment from the risks associated with hazardous materials.

▪ Petroleum products will be stored in tightly sealed containers which are clearly marked.

▪ All onsite vehicles will be checked for leaks and receive regular preventive maintenance to reduce the chance of leakage.

▪ Original Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) will be retained.


Page 56

▪ Manufacturer or local and state recommendations will be followed if surplus material needs disposal.

▪ Any asphalt substances used onsite will be applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

▪ Concrete trucks will not be allowed to wash out or discharge surplus concrete or drum wash water when constructing bases for the Service Area Hubs.

In addition to the good housekeeping and material management practices discussed above, the following practices will be followed for spill prevention and cleanup:

▪ Manufacturer-recommended methods, materials, and equipment for spill cleanup will be available on site, and personnel will be made aware of the procedures and the location of the information and cleanup supplies.

▪ All spills will be cleaned up immediately after discovery. Personnel will wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent contact with hazardous substances.

▪ Spills of toxic or hazardous material will be reported to the appropriate state or local government agencies, regardless of the size.

▪ The Spill Prevention Plan will be adjusted to include a description of the spill, what caused it, cleanup procedures, and measures to prevent this type of spill from recurring.

▪ The project representative will be responsible for day-to-day site operations, spill prevention, and cleanup. Additional personnel will be trained on spill prevention and cleanup to assist the project representative.

Protection of health and safety will be an integral part of the contract documents developed for the Preferred Alternative and include a detailed Traffic Safety Plan in accordance with local permits and construction requirements.

The construction activities under the Preferred Alternative will have minimal impact on human health and safety. Due to the construction activities taking place in ditches and utility corridors along highways and roads, construction will not be located directly in the path of traffic. This will also reduce impacts on vehicles traveling on the highways and roads since there is no need to close or re-route traffic lanes. The contractors will comply with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to promote highway safety and efficiency by providing warning and guidance to all elements of traffic. The contractors working within the public right-of-way who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel that is clearly visible at all times and meeting the Performance Class 2 or 3 requirements of the ANSI/ISEA 107-2004 publication entitled “American National Standard for High-Visibility


Page 57

Safety Apparel and Headwear.” This applies to all projects subject to the provisions of the WSDOT Standard Specifications and all other work performed along federal-aid highways. All contractors will comply with OSHA Regulation 29 CFR 1926, which requires the contractor to have in place an accident prevention program that provides regular inspections of job sites, materials and equipment by competent persons.

Under the No Action Alternative, health and human safety will be negatively impacted due to the lack of telemedicine and health education opportunities that require high speed broadband, Broadband services being temporarily disabled by a cable break to the existing fiber backbone remains a possibility. Should the existing network be temporarily disrupted, the ability of emergency responders to respond quickly and effectively would be impacted.

4.12 Climate, Greenhouse Gases, and Global Warming

The Preferred Alternative would constitute a short-term minor increase in the use of fossil fuel and GHG emissions into the air during construction. Overall, the Preferred Alternative would result in the release of approximately 5,697 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the air. This figure is based on an estimated 300 gallons of gasoline and over 520 gallons of diesel fuel being consumed during construction per day for approximately 720 days.

The Preferred Alternative will have higher GHG emissions than the wireless or all aerial alternatives and lower GHG emissions than the all buried alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, GHG emissions would be zero. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued draft guidance on when and how federal agencies should consider GHG emissions and climate change in NEPA. The draft guidance includes a presumptive effects threshold of 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions from an action (CEQ, 2010). The GHG emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative are well below the CEQ threshold. Therefore, GHG emissions from the Preferred Alternative would not contribute appreciably to climate change or global warming. The No Action Alternative would cause zero GHG emissions.

4.13 Cumulative Summary of Impacts

As detailed throughout Section 4 and especially in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, the consultant team for the District has concluded that installation of broadband fiber cable will not have any lasting adverse environmental impacts on the project area under the Preferred Alternative. This determination of no effect is the result of careful analysis during the finalization of route alignments, coupled with comprehensive environmental consultations, development of reasonable avoidance and mitigation strategies implemented through carefully crafted BMPs. The District is committed to ensure that no lasting adverse environmental impacts will occur. Diligent implementation of the project’s staking processes, permitting


Page 58

activities, and prudent construction techniques will prevent lasting adverse environmental impacts.

Although there are no known projects by other agencies planned within the project areas, during design and permitting of the project, every attempt will be made to coordinate efforts to minimize disruptions and potential cumulative impacts. These positive impacts could include minimizing disruption within the project area(s) and all opportunities for collaboration will be explored. This includes coordinating with road widening projects, utility service projects, and other similar proposals that might also reduce overall project costs. Otherwise, there are no known potential cumulative impacts with other projects.

The No Action Alternative would have no negative impacts on the existing environmental and social resources in the service area, however, the positive socio-economic and infrastructure impacts would be lost.


Page 59

5. Permits and Regulatory Requirements

A summary of the known permits may be required for the project is summarized in Table 5-1.

All requirements will be adhered to and appropriate permits and permissions attained prior to construction. Identification of permits has included consultation with the State of Washington Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) and their permit handbook. Further coordination is anticipated as the project progresses to maximize coordination between agencies.

Table 5-1: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Known Permits

Agency Permit Name Purpose

Federal Permits

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Ensure evaluation of the probable environmental consequences of a proposal. Application of categorical exclusions is determined by the federal agency

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Section 404: Nationwide 12 Permit (NWP 12)

Required if construction occurs in or over water including wetlands. NWP 12 required for utility line construction in or over water or through wetlands. Discharges of dredged or fill material associated with excavation, backfill, or bedding for utility lines including intake and outfall structures.

NOAA Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Section 7 Endangered Species Act Consultation

Necessary if project has federal nexus* or listed species. Triggered by Corps permit (wetland fill) or if the project has federal funding. A Biological Assessment ** is required.

US Forest Service, Coleville National Forest

Special Use Permit

This permit is required for work on National Forest Service Land. Section 106 compliance will be required. Initial conversations indicate that the information prepared for NTIA Section 106 compliance will be sufficient.

State Permits

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Aquatic Use Authorization (Aquatic Lease)

Most activities taking place on state-owned aquatic lands may require a lease or other form of use authorization (easement or right-of-way)

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Uplands Use Authorization (Uplands Lease)

Most activities taking place on state-owned lands may require a lease or other form of use authorization (easement or right-of-way)

Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation

Section 106 Review

The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and affected tribes must be consulted when projects are subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). This act requires that all federal agencies take into account the affect of its actions on historic properties. Requirements of Section 106 review apply to any federal undertaking, funding, license, or permit.

Department of Ecology 401 Water Quality Applying for a federal permit or license to conduct any


Page 60

Table 5-1: Summary of Federal, State, and Local Known Permits

Agency Permit Name Purpose

Certification activity that might result in a discharge of dredge or fill material into water or non-isolated wetlands or excavation in water or non-isolated wetlands. USACE Nationwide permits will need 401 Certification. Application is part of the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA).

Department of Ecology Shoreline Conditional Use Permit

Determined by local government and specified in the County’s Shoreline Master Program

Department of Ecology NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit

Any construction activity which disturbs one acre or more and which may result in a discharge of stormwater to surface waters of the state

Local Permits

County Shoreline Exemption Determined by local government and specified in their Shoreline Master Program. JARPA application will need to be submitted

County Right of Way Any activity in County right of way

County Planning Commission

Mitigation Plan Any activity that impacts a wetland or wetland buffer triggers a Mitigation Plan.

*A federal nexus exists where projects require work in federally controlled properties, work requiring federally issued permits (i.e. USACE Section 404) and /or projects that will use federal funding (regardless of area) ** A Biological Assessment (BA) addressing fish and potentially other listed species. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance, Publication No. 90-29 Revised July 2010


Page 61

6. List of Preparers

This document was prepared with considerable assistance from the staff of Pend Oreille County PUD and the cooperation of Pend Oreille County personnel and its citizens.

The following is a list of key researchers and authors retained for the purpose of assembling the Environmental Assessments (EA) presented herein. Additional assistance was provided by a team of engineers from CHR Solutions, Inc., PACE Engineers, Inc. and Tierra Right-of-way Services. These individuals performed field reconnaissance of the entire project, including a complete field survey, identified key environmental elements and provided information for verification of route alignments to minimize potential impacts. Information from the reconnaissance team was instrumental in developing this Environmental Assessment and will also be used as the basis for design of the project, right-of-way acquisition, permitting and coordination with local governments.

The following EA Development Team reviewed the information from the reconnaissance team, researched environmental impacts, and authored the EA document.

EA Development Team, PACE Engineers

Susan Boyd, Environmental Assessment Project Manager

Jean Cutter, Senior Project Engineer and Editor

Beau Schilz, Senior Planner and Primary Author

Additional support and review was required and provided by the following individuals:

PACE Engineers, Inc.

Marty Penhallegon, P.E. CEO, Project Oversight and EA Reviewer

Harold Peterson, P.E., Project Manager, Route Identification and Map Coordinator

Mike Sullivan, GIS Data Management and Map Production

Blane Moore, GIS Mapping

April Cook, Project Administrator and Document Editor

Tierra Right-of-Way Services

Jennifer Hushour, Archaeological Assessment / Section 106 Compliance

Dave Parry, Right of Way Specialist

CHR Solutions

Peter Rasmusson, Project Executive, EA Reviewer

Renee Adair, PMP, Program Manager, EA Reviewer

Ray Streu, Background Data and EA Reviewer

Ched Johnson, EA Reviewer


Page 62

7. References

The following references were used in the development of the Environment Assessment (EA). The references include the agency source, information gathered, and website link. Contact names and titles are provided and additional information regarding communication, coordination and consultations are shown in the Communications Plan included in Appendix A.

Table 7-1: Summary of References Pend Oreille County Fiber to the Premise Project Environmental Assessment

Organization Contact Person Element / Category Website

Pend Oreille County Joe Onley All elements http://www.pendoreilleco.org/

National Marine Fisheries Service

Barry Thom, Acting Regional Administrator

Endangered Species http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Field Office Endangered Species http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

WA Dept of Natural Resources

Zoanne Thomas, Aquatics Dan Walters, Uplands Patricia Betts, SEPA Program

Endangered Plant life http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantsxco/pacific.html

NRCS – USDA Roylene Rides at the Door, State Conservationist

Soils http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/wa_reports.html

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Roylene Rides at the Door, State Conservationist

Farmlands, Air Quality http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

WA Dept of Natural Resources

Zoanne Thomas, Aquatics Dan Walters, Uplands Patricia Betts, SEPA Program

Ecoregions http://www.biodiversity.wa.gov/ecoregions/

US EPA N/A Hazardous waste sites http://www.epa.gov/myenv/

US EPA - Clean Air Act

N/A Air Quality http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.air

NOAA N/A Annual Rainfall Data http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/images/pqr/prec_WA.gif

Zoning – Pend Oreille County

Mike Lithgow, Director of Community Development

Land Use http://www.pendoreilleco.org/


Page 63

Table 7-1: Summary of References Pend Oreille County Fiber to the Premise Project Environmental Assessment

Organization Contact Person Element / Category Website

Coastal Zone N/A WA State Coastal Zones

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/viewer.htm

WA Dept of Ecology N/A Coastal Atlas http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/atlashome.html

Washington Traffic Safety Commission

N/A Traffic Collisions Data hhtp://www.wtsc.wa.gov/statistics-reports/crash-data

Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Phil Anderson, Director Wildlife Areas http://wdfw.wa.gov/

U.S. Forest Service

Laura Jo West, Forest Supervisor Dale Him, Forest Supervisor Claire Lavendel, Forest Supervisor Steve Kramer, Forest Archaeologist

Colville National Forest http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/colville/

Kalispel Tribe Kevin Lyons Kalispel Tribe http://www.ohwy.com/wa/k/kalinres.htm

Pend Oreille Conservation District

N/A http://www.pocd.org/

WA Dept of Ecology Loree’L Randall

Land Management, Water Quality 303(d), Land Use/Cover, Population Density, Salmonid Stock Inventory, Anadromous Fish Distribution

WA Dept. of Ecology’s WRIA Maps

State of WA Office of Financial Management

Fran Sant Socioeconomics Pend Oreille County

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/localdata/spok.asp


Page 64


Documents

Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County · Page 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FIBER TO THE PREMISE PROJECT Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County,