ML19321A840

Draft Suppl to Fes for Facility

ML19321A840
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	07/31/1976
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-0089, NUREG-0089-DRFT, NUREG-89, NUREG-89-DRFT, NUDOCS 8007240268
Download: ML19321A840 (66)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:; -.. 1 4 . c ->._< 4 ,W-: 4 ~ +, _ W>:S . s c. ~

t ;

r-NUREG-0089

^ --ee m '"y.*# w cs:. + I u. p a ~ I: DRAFT SUPPLEMENT 7 to the. ^ + ~ , + f. s

F'INAL ENVIRONMENTA'L STATEMENT

. related to construction of = 4 SKAGIT NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT ~ UNITS 1 and 2 l> ,I' /v l '? Puget Sound Power & Light Company, et al. ' Docket Nos.50-52::and 50-523 pi s July 1976 - t.- n,' r U' NIT'ED STATES NUC' EAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION - L OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION [ + 3 s x ll '; =THIS -DOCUM$NTlCONTAINS - E ~' P00R QUAOTYiPAGES w a f = O' y + 3 Y A, 'l ~ ~ n= .e 'J*. T.d: a

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS This Draft Supplement (DS) to the Skagit Nuclear Power Pro.iect Final Environmental Statement (FES) (issued May 1975) was prepared by the U.- S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor RIgulation, with assistance by the Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. The purpose of this-supplement is to identify and evaluate the potential effects of the proposed Skagit Nuclear Power Project on those values for which the Skagit River was named as a study river in the Wild and ' Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542). 1. This action is adninistrative. 2. The proposed action is the issuance of constructior. permits to the Puget Sound Power and Light Company, Pacific Power and Light Company, Washington Water Power Company and the Portland General Electric Company,* for the construction of Skagit Nuclear Power Projects Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-522 and 50-523) in Skagit County, Washington (about 64 miles North of Seattle and 6 miles ENE of Sedro Woolley). These units are scheduled for commercial service in 1983 and 1985, respectively. Each unit will employ a boiling-water nuclear reactor with a maximum expected thermal power level of 4100 MWt, which is considered in the assessments contained in this statement. At the 3800 MWt power level initially to be licensed, the net electrical capacity of each unit will be 1288 MWe. The exhaust steam from the turbine-generators will be cooled in condensers which will utilize one hyperbolic-type natural-draft cooling tower per unit to dissipate heat to the atmosphere. Water (106 cfs max.) for the cooling tower makeup (82.4 cfs) and other plant uses will be withdrawn from the Skagit River through Ranney Collectors embedded in the north bank of the river and pumped to the plant through a pipeline about 35,000 ft. long. Cooling tower blowdown (7 cfs max.) from the project and dilution water (20 cfs max.) will flow through a pipeline back to the river where it will be discharged through a diffuser. 3. Sumary of environmental impact and adverse effects: Approximately 1750 acres of forested and agricultural land will be removed from harvesting for the life of the power plant; 360 acres of this land will be diverted to industrial use. This will affect less than 0.5% of standing forest 4.1.1, git County and 16 acres in cultivated crops and pasturage. (FES Sections in Ska 4.1.2,5.1.1.) Increased siltation of onsite creeks and the Skagit River from construction work and the small amounts of heat and chemicals discharged to the river during plant operation will have insignificant impacts on water quality and aquatic biota due to erosion control efforts and dilution by the large river flow (16,200 cfs average; 4,740 cfs 7-day,10-yr low). (FES Sections 4.1.1,5.2.1,5.3.3.) The influx of construction workers will place minor stress upon housing and community services. (FES Section 4.5.) The'79 cfs (max.) consumptive use of river water for the cooling system will ' diminish the ~ average river flow by 0.5%, or 1.7% of the 7-day 10-yr low flow. (FES Section 5.2.1.) Diversion of 1600 meters of Black Creek will.cause a loss of cutthroat trout (1,600 max). This loss is not significant. (FES Section 4.4.2.2.) Losses of aquatic biota due to impingement and entrainment in the cooling water

ystem will be insignificant. (FES Section 5.5.3.1.).

Salts in drif t from the cooling towers'may cause spotting of tree foliage within one mile west of the towers. Infrequer.t fogging and icing may also occur, mainly on the high ground to the north of the towers. These effects are considered insignificant. (FESSection5.3.1.2.) IThe Portland General Electric Conpany has replaced the Washington Public Power Supply System as' an applicant fur this project. i

s x N Additio.1of 3,950 feet of riprap along the bank of the river to protect the Ranney Collector site and the barge slip site will increase the total amount of riprap in this 15.6 mile segment of the river from 2.1 miles to 2.8 miles. ( DS Sections"4.2 and 4.4.) Hydraulic conditicos created by temporary cofferdams in the river could dis-courage navigation past the construction sites for an extimated 90 days. (DS Section 4.3) Operation of Ranney Collector pumps on the river bank may introduce a continuous low-level hum that could be heard nearby. (DS Section 4.1) Water vapor plumes f.m the cooling towers will sometimes be visible at great distances, particularly in winter. The two 520-ft-high hyperbolic towers will also be prominent, but they'.will be dwarfed by the mountainous background. (FES Sections 5.1.4 and 5.3 l.2.) The risk associated with accidental radiation exposure is very low. (FES Section 7.) The cumulative estimated radiation dose to the offsite population resulting from the operation of Units 1 and 2 will be 7.1 man-rem per year. This is 0.013% of the 55,600 man-rem dose they receive annually from natural radiation. (FES Section 5.4.3.) 4. The following is a summary of major alternatives considered: Purchase of power. Reactivating or upgrading older plants. Alternative sites Alternative energy sources. Alternative cooling systems. Alternative transmission line routing. Alternative transportation procedures. 5. The following Federal, State and local agencies are being asked to comment on this Graft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 5011 Conservation Service, Forest Service Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Administration Federal Power Commission Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, State of Washington Washington State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Washington State Parks and Recreation Comission Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Game Washington State Highway Commission Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission Bcnnev111e Power Administration Stagit County Planning Comission Stohomish County Planning Department Comprehensive Health Planning Council of Whatcom, Skagit Island, and San Juan Counties Atomic Energy Control Board, Ottawa, Canada Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, State of Washington The Towns of Sedro Woolley, Lyman and Concrete (Copies of the Draft Supplement are also being sent to interested individuals on a Forest Service mailing list.) i 11

6. This Draft Supplement is being made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality, and to other specified agencies in July 1976. - 7. z On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of Skagit Nuclear Power Projects Units 1 and 2 against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives.-it is concluded that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51 is the issuance of construc-tion permits for the facilities subject to the following limitations for the protection ' of the environment: The applicant shall take the necessary mitigating actions, including those summarized in Section 4.7 of the FES, during construction of the station and associated transmission lines to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities. The applicant shall establish a control program which shall include written procedures and instructions to control all construction activities as prescribed herein and shall provide for periodic management audits to determine the adequacy of implementation of envir9nmental conditions. The applicant shall maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of compliance with all the environmental conditions herein. Before engaging in a construction activity not evaluated by the Commission, the applicant shall prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity. When the evaluation indicates that such activity may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated, or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this Environmental Statement, the applicant shall provide a written evaluation of such activities and obtain prior approval of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for the activities. If unexpected harmful effects or evidence of serious damage are detected during facility construction, the applicant shall provide to the staff an acceptable analysis of the problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage, l I i 111 t

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa28

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................... i FOREWORD.............................................................................. xi 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................... 1-1 1.1 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT................................................... 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENT.................................................. 1-2 2. THE SITE......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 TH E S KAG I T R I V ER BAS I N....................................................... 2-1 2.2 LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED NUCLEAR PLANT....................................... 2-1 3. THE PLANT....................................................................... 3-1 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.................... 4-1 4.1 RANNEY COLLECTORS............................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 D*s c ri p ti on o f th e S i te.............................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Description of the Collector Installation 4-1 4.1.3 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River.......................................................... 4-7 4.1.4 Im pa c t o n Wa t e r Qua l i ty............................................ 4-7 4.1.5 Impact on Fish........................................................ 4-7 4.1.6 Impact on Wildlife.................................................... 4-8 4.1.7 Impact on Vegetation.................................................. 4-8 4.1.8 Impact on Endangered and Threatened Species........................... 4-8 4.1.9 Impact on Visual Quality............................................. 4-8 4.1.10 Impact on Recreation.................................. 4-8 4.1.1 1 I mpa c t o n No i s e.................................................... 4-9 4.1.12 Impact on Public Safet) 4-9 4.2 RIPRAP....................................................................... 4-9 4.2.1 Description........................................................... 4-9 4.2.2 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River......................................................... 4-11 4.2.3 Imp a c t on Wa te r Qu a l i ty.............................................. 4-11 4.2.4 Impacts on Fish....................................................... 4-12 4.2.5 Impa c t o n Wi l d l i fe.................................................... 4-12 4.2.6 Impact on Vegetation.................................................. 4-12 4.2.7 Impact on Endangered and Threatened Speci es.......................... 4-12 4.2.8 Impacts on Visual Quality............................................. 4-12 4.2.9 Impact on Recreation.................................................. 4-12 4.2.10 Impact on Noise...................................................... 4-13

4. 2.11 Impa c t o n Publ i c Sa fe ty...............................................

4-13 4.3 PLANT DISCHARGE DIFFUSER PIPE................................................ 4-13 4.3.1 De s c r i p t i o n........................................................... 4-13 4.3.2 Impacts on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River........................................................ 4-17 4.3.3 Impacts on Water Quality.............................................. 4-18 4.3.4 Impacts on Fish...................................................... 4-19 4.3.5 Impacts on Wildlife................................................... 4-19 4.3.6 Impacts on Vegetation................................................. 4-19 4.3.7 Impacts on Endangered and Threatened Species.......................... 4-19 4.3.8-Impacts on Visual Quality............................................ 4-19 4.3.9 Impacts on Recreation................................................. 4-19 4.3.10 Impacts on Noise...................................................... 4-19

4. 3.11 Impa c ts on Publ i c Sa fe ty..............................................

4-20 4.4 BARGE OFF-LOADING FACILITY.................................................. 4-20 4.4.1 D e s c r i p ti o n........................................................... 4-20 4.4.2 Impacts on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River.......................................................... 4-22 4.4.3 Impact on Water Quality.............................................. 4-22 y

s .Page, 4.4.4 Impacts on Fish...................................................... 4-22 4.4.5 Impa c ts on Wi l d l i fe.................................................. 4-22 4.4.6 Impa c ts o n Veg e ta ti o n............................................... 4-22 4.4.7 Impacts on Endangered and Threatened Species......................... 4-22 4.4.8 Impa c t on Vi s ual Qu al i ty............................................ 4-23

4. 4.9. Impa c t o n Rec re a ti on.................................................

4-23 4.4.10 Impact on Noise...................................................... 4-23 ' 4.11 Impa ct on Publ i c Sa fe ty.............................................. 4-23 4.F JLING. TOWERS.............................................................. 4-23 ' 5.1 D e s c r i p ti o n........................................................... 4-23 4.5.2 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River......................................................... 4-24 4.5.3 Impa c t o n Wa te r Qu a l i ty.............................................. 4-24 4.5.4 Impact on Fish....................................................... 4-24 '4.5.5 Impact on Wildlife................................................... 4-24 4.5.6 Imp a c t o n Veg e ta ti on................................................. 4-24 4.3.7 Impact on Endangered or Threatened Species........................... 4-24 4.5.8 Impa c t on Vi s ual Qual i ty...................................... 4-24 4.5.9 Impact on Recreation...................................... 4-25 4.5.10 Impact on Noise............................................... 4-25 4.5.11 Impact on Public Safety.............................................. 4-25 4.6 POWER LINES................................................................. 4-25 5 4.6.1 Description.......................................................... 4-25 4.6.2 Impa c ts o f Powe r Li n e s............................................... 4-31 4.7 ONSITE CONSTRUCTION......................................................... 4-31 4.7.1 Description.......................................................... 4-31 4.7.2 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the SkagitRiver......................................................... 4-32 4.7.3 Impac t on Wa ter Qual i ty.............................................. 4-32 4.7.4 Impact on Fish....................................................... 4-32 4.7.5 Impact on Wildlife................................................... 4-32 4.7.6 Impa c t on Ve g e ta ti o n................................................. 4-32 4.7.7 Impa ct on Endangered and Threa tened Species.......................... 4-32 4.7.E Impa c t on V i s ua l Qu al i ty............................................ 4-32 4.7.9 Impa c t o n Rec re a ti on................................................. 4-32 4.7.10 Impact on Noise...................................................... 4-33

4. 7.11 Impa ct on Publ i c Sa fe ty..............................................

4-33 4.8 FISH REARING FACILITY....................................................... 4-33 4.8.1 De s c ri p ti o n.......................................................... 4-33 4.8.2 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River......................................................... 4-33 4.8.3 Impac t on Wa ter Qual i ty.............................................. 4-33 4.8.4 Impact on Fish'............................ 4-33 4.8.5 I mp a c t on Wi l d l i fe................................................... 4-34 ) 4.8.6 I mp a ct o n Veg e ta ti o n................................................. 4-34 4.8.7 Impact on Endangered and Threatened Species.......................... 4-34 4.8.8 Impa ct on Vi s u al Qu al i ty............................................ 4-34 4.8.9 Imp a c t o n R ec re a ti on................................................. 4-34 4. 8.10 Impa c t on Noi s e...................................................... 4-34

4. 8.11 Impact on Publ i c Sa fe ty.............................................

4-34 5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS........................................ 5-1 5.1 EFFECTS ON THE' FREE-FLOWING CHARACTER OF.THE SKAGIT RIVER 5-1 5.2 EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY.................................................... 5-1 5.3 EFFECTS ON FISH............................................................. 5-1 5.4 ~ EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE......................................................... 5-1 5.5 EFF ECT O N V EG ETATI ON........................................................ 5-1 5.6 EFFECT ON ENDANG ERED AND THREATENED SPEC IES................................. 5-1 5.7 EFFECT ON VISUAL' QUALITY.................................................... 5-1

5. 8 E F F ECT ON RECR EATI ON.......................................................

5-2 5.9 EFFECTS ON NOISE........................................................... 5-2 5.10 EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY.................................................... 5-2 6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT ANC' THE MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY........................................ 6-1 6.1 RANNEY COLLECTOR SITE....................................................... 6-1 vi

Page 6.2 RIPRAP....................................................................... 6-1 6.3 ADULT FISH COLLECTING POND................................................... 6 6.4 BARGE SLIP................................................................... 6-2 6.5 DIFFUSER..................................................................... 6-2 6.6 VISUAL IMP.af75............................................................... 6-3 6.7 F I S H R i5 0V R r S............................................................... 6-3 6.8 NOISE....................................................................... 6-3 6.9 FREE FLOWING CHARACTER OF THE RIVER.......................................... 6-3 6.10 RECREATION................................................................... 6-3 6.1 1 PU B L I C S AF E TY................................................................ 6-4 6.12 O N S I TE CO NSTRUCTI O!1.......................................................... 6-4 7. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES............................ 7-1 7.1 VISUAL IMPACT OF THE COOLING TOWERS.......................................... 7-1 7.2 PHYSICAL IMPACT OF RIPRAPPING................................................ 7-1 8. MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT IMPACTS............................................ 8-1 9. FUNCT I O NA L CO NSI D ERAT I O NS......................................................... 9-1

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RE-EVALUATED BENEFIT-COST BALANCE................................. 10-1 vli

LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES ' MAPS Page 1. Regi onal Ma p of the P roj ect Area................................................... 2-2 2. Local Map of the Projec t Area...................................................... 2-6 -3. Visual Impact Map.................................................................. 4-26 FIGURES i 1. Aeri al Pho tog raph o f Si te f rom Eas t................................................ 2-3 2. Aeri al Photograph of Si te f rom Southwes t........................................... 2-4 1-3. Plant Structures. Profile........................................................... 3-2 4 4. Project Structures and Facil i ti es.................................................. 3-3 5. Ranney Collector Location.......................................................... 4-2 6. Approximate Size and Location of Ranney Collectors (photo)......................... 4-4 7. River Bank and Terrain at the Primary Ranney Collector Site (photo)................ 4-5 8. Suppl emental Col l ector Si te........................................................ 4-6 9. Ups tream End of Exi s ti ng Ri prap a t Prima ry Ranney Si te (photo)..................... 4-10

10. Outfall Confi gurati on at Di f fuser.................................................. 4-14

'll. Barge Off-Loading Facility......................................................... 4-21

12. Es timated Cool i ng Tower Si lhouette -- 2. 7 Mi l es Eas t of Pl ant Si te................. 4-27

13. Estimated Cooling Tower Silhouette -- 2.2 Miles Southeast of Plant Site............ 4-28

14. Estimated Cooling Tower Silhouette -- 1.7 Miles Southwest of Plant Site............ 4-29

15. Estimated Cooling Tower Silhouette -- 3.0 Miles Southwest of Plant Site............ 4-30 l

1 4 ? ix

FOREWORD This Environmental Statement was prepared by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (staff), with assistance by the Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, in accordance with the Commission's regulation,10 CFR Part 51, which implements the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The purpose of this supplement is to identify and evaluate the potential effects of the proposed Skagit Nuclear Power Prcject on those values for which the Skagit River was named as a study river in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542). Furthermore, it is intended to provide infonnation in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Final Environmental Statement (FES) on which the Secretary of Agriculture may rely in making his determination as to whether the proposed Skagit Nuclear Power Project will have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which the Skagit River might be designated a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The infonnation presented is largely based upon an environmental analysis report 09 the project which was prepared by the U. S. Forest Service and submitted in June 1976 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for its use in preparing this supplement under the " lead-agency" concept. Copies of the draft supplement are being sent to Federal, State and local agencies for coment. Interested persons are also invited to coment. The period provided for receipt of such com-ments will conclude 45 days after publication in the Federal Register of a notice by the Council on Environmental Quality of the supplement's availability. The coments received will be considered by the NRC and the Forest Service in preparation of the final supplement. Single copies of this draf t supplement may be obtained from, and concents should be addressed to, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis. If there are any questions regarding the contents of this statement, the NRC Environmental Project Manager, Paul H. Leech, may be contacted on 301-443-6980. Copies of the Firal Environmental Statement related to construction of Skagit Nuclear Power Project Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-75/055) can be ordered from the National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161. Price per printed copy: $8.75. Copies of the Forest Service Skagit Nuclear Power Project Environmental Analysis Report are available for reviu at the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Headquarters,16012nd Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Reading copies will be loaned by mail on request. xi

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT The Skagit River in the State of Washington and three of its major tributaries are among the rivers which were designated in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542,1968) for study as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The sections to be studied were: the Skagit, from Mount Vernon upstream to Bacon Creek, 67.3 miles; the Cascade, from its mouth upstream to the junction of its North and South Forks, and up the' South Fork to the Glacier Peak Wilderness, 20.8 miles; the Sauk, from its mouth upstream to Eliott Creek, and up its North Fork from its mouth to the Glacer Peak Wilderness, 50.8 miles; and the Suiattle, from its mouth upstream to the Glacier Peak Wilderness, 27.4 miles. In all, a total of 166.3 miles of rivers and their adjacent shorelines was designated for study. The purpose of the Act was succinctly stated in section 1(b): The Congress declares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States need to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. Three possible classifications for rivers and their adjacent shorelines were set up by the Act: Wild River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primi-tive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. Scenic River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely prirritive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. Recreational River Areas - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. In February 1970, the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior jointly signed a document setting down criteria for evaluating rivers to be studied. These guidelines supplement the criteria listed in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and define minimum standards for classification and management of areas proposed for inclusion in the National System. The Skagit River study began in July 1970. Under Section 5(c) of the Act, the State of Washington requested a joint study, and a state representative was added to the study team. 3ecause approximately 30 percent of the rivers involved lie within National Forest boundaries, the U.S. Forest Service was designated to be the lead agency for the study. The study team found that all of the rivers under consideration (166.8 miles) qualified for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Skagit was found suitable for a " recreational" classification, and its three tributaries--the Cascade Sauk and Suiattle Rivers--for a " scenic" classification. The Forest Service recomended that the three tributary streams be made part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System for their entire study lengths, and it recommended that the Skagit be included from the pipeline-Jtility corridor at Sedro Woolley upstream to Bacon Creek. The Skagit River Study Report has undergone the 90-day review by concerned Federal departments and agencies required by section 4(b) of the Act. A draft environmental statement on the pro-posed action was sent to the Council on Environmental Quality on June 16, 1975.1 Comments received on both documents are being analyzed, and where appropriate, will be used by the Forest Service to revise the study report and prepare its final environmental statement. ' The Skagit Draft Environmental Statemert, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Region. Forest Service, June 16, 1975. 1-1

r6. 1-2 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENT While the Skagit River is under study Section 7(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or any other Federal agency, from issuing any license for the proposed nuclear facility unless and until the Secretary of Agriculture has detemined that the project will not have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which the Skagit River might be n.*wted as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The NRC's FES contains a ic.Je amount of infomation which it p:rtinent to such a consideration;* however, the Forest Service believes that additional details--pirticularly with regard to the plant cooling water intake and discharge structures and the barge off-loading facility--are necessary so that the NRC's FES can serve as the basis for the Secretary of Agriculture's determination. Accordingly, the Forest Service has conducted its own review of the Skagit - Project and has provided the NRC with an environmental analysis report 2 for use as the basis of this supplement. ~ The following sections consist primarily of excerpts from the Forest Service report, with NRC comments inserted [in brackets] where necessary for clarification. Much of the descriptive information is duplicative to that which is presented in the FES in greater detail; however, it is included so that most readers will not need either the FES or the Forest Service report for an understanding of the,ubject. The final section (Section 10) provides NRC's conclusions regarding this material an','its reevaluation of the benefit-cost balance for this project. In Section 2.3 ' f the NRC's FES, recognition is given to the study being made of the Skagit o i River by the Forest Service and its expected classification as " recreational" in that portion of the river which might be affected by the plant construction and operation. Other pertinent i parts of the FES are the following: Section Subject 3.1 External appearance of the plant 3.3.5 Description of cooling water intake system t ~3.3.6 Description of water discharge system 4.1.2 Discussion of barge off-loading facility 4.2.2.1 Land use impacts of constructing the water intake and discharge systems 4.3.1 Construction impacts on fishing 4.4 1 Terrestrial ecology impacts of construction 5.1.4 Visual impact of structures and cooling tower plume 5.2.1 Operating impacts on surface water use j 5.3.1 Cooling tower effects 5.3.2 Thermal discharge to river i 5.3.3 Water quality ~~ 5.4 Radiological impacts-5.5.1 Terrestrial impacts of plant operation 5.5.3 Aquatic impacts of plant operation - 9.3

Alternative plant system designs

'10 Evaluation of the proposed action Further discussions related to the wild and. scenic values of the river are found in NRC's responses to comments from various agencies, particularly to those of the Department of L Agriculture (FES Section 11.2), the Department of Commerce (FES Section 11.4), the Department of. the Interior (FES Secuon 11.7), and the Environmental Protection Agency (FES Section 11.8.5). a' 1 l Skagit Nuclear Power Project Environmental Analysis Report, Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National . Forest May 1976. n s.-. n.

2. THE SITE 2.1 THE SKAGIT RIVER BASIN The Skagit River drains an area of 3.105 square miles, including 400 square miles in Canada. The Skagit flows through the northwest corner of Washington, in the area between Puget Sound and the Cascade Mountains, emptying into Skagit Bay, which is part of Puget Sound. Map 1 shows the proposed nuclear plant location in the region. There is a wide range of topographic features to be found. Elevations in the western part of the basin range from sea level to 3,500 feet. East of Mount Vernon, the terrain becomes extremely rugged. The eastern boundary of the basin is formed by the crest of the Cascades, where elevaticns range to over 8,000 feet. The mountains in the western part of the basin are steep and covered with timber. As the mountains increase in elevation, moving to the east, timber becomes concentrated on the lower slopes, and is frequently interspersed with rock outcrops and talus. The highest elevations are dominated by rock, mountain meadows, talus and perpetual snow. This portion of the area is famed for its alpine beauty. About 53,000 of the 1.78 million surface acres in the Skagit basin are devoted to rangeland and crops. Most of the farms are found in the fertile Skagit River delta, although some are fuund upstream, along the north bank of the river to within six miles of Concrete. About 75 percent of the land in the basin is forested. The basin supports 12 sawmills, two plywood plants and a paper mill, but still is able to export raw forest materials to outside processors. Current projections forecast that 17 percent of the commercial forest land in the basin will be converted to other uses within the next 50 years. About 75 percent of the land in the Skagit basin is in public ownership. Approximately 84 percent of the basin's land is available for public use. This incisdes 542 campsites, 250 picnic units,1,621 parking spaces, 25 boat launches and seven acres of swiming beaches. Within the basin there are 350,000 acres of National Forest Wilderness, 483,000 acres of National Park and 107,000 acres of National Pecreation Area. In 1970, Skagit County had a population of 52,000. Over half of the population lived in rural areas. The projected county population for 1985 is 67,000. The largest town on the Skagit River is Mount Vernon, the county seat, whose 1970 population was 8,532. This segment of the river is the most developed by man. Other towns along the Skagit are Sedro Woolley, Burlington, Lyman, Hamilton, Concrete, Rockport and Marblemount. Air masses which reach the Skagit basin originate over the Pacific Ocean, giving the area a mid-latitude, West Coast, marine climate. There is a definite rainy season during the winter and a short, dry summer. The area is protected from cold, northern air by the Cascade and Rocky Mountains and from intense Pacific storms by the Olympics and the Coast Range. At Sedro Woolley, approximately six miles from the project site, the average annual high temperature is 60*F, the average low is 41'F and the mean length of the growing season is 193 days. 2.2 LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED NUCLEAR PLANT The industrial zone occupies approximately 1,500. acres in the Skagit River Basin in Skagit County. The proposed industrial site has clear cut areas, open meadows and stands of alder, maple and Douglas fir. The plant site itself would encompass about 300 acres. It would be about six miles northeast of Sedro Woolley and 1.5 miles north of the Skagit River, at approximately river mile 32.5. The plant site is approximately 420 feet above mean sea level and 300 feet above the Skagit River flood plain, for floods of one-in-100 year intensity. Bacus Hill, in the southwest portion of the proposed plant site, is approximately 570 feet above mean sea level and is forested with trees from 60-100 feet tall. Two aerial photographs, Figures 1 and 2 show the proposed plant site in relation to the surrounding countryside. 2-1 l

am _ _.. - - - _ _ _ - ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ _ _ _ - ~. ~ ~.. ~ ~.. _. _ - _ _.. _ - ~ ~. - - _ ~ - _ _ _ ~. ""~ ~ ~ D / ~Q,,, N N ~=r en. x / / N pg ?, s + %*\\ Q . ~

• r.

i-a.' 't:: -. */6,. f-$..! ie-

saans, s

w ( & x

i

,} / -l '--4pr-N ,M,.M %$~ ...,, e (, n-?~m,e. c. ~s ' ' - ~ ~ - ./w %., :;%m&.se,44g SKAGly s x / A ~..

• "#. ' + 4 E'

,r ~ NUCLEAg 1.a6 2: e . /cm y Powyg ),. ~

,~9,.

m., 4.;I j'i.f. ?c2 " ~J ],_ PROJECT s '**c en rp w% ~g, '%r,,, ) ,/ -l y v' j'

~

j \\ l O' u, / LOCATION MAP 2 '5,,,., R, i m V l j 's L% f ~ ~ ~, .,y.; / k j3 s f ^ * ~, %,, j, iDAw-~_(/ au d ~ ~. $a, 0'llll' 5 r s h m s w%.q n 7 w ~~x- 'x 1/76

I r l l l Pt. ANT SITE 4 i i i

~-

s. ;

.,;> v.

s h.. _. ~... \\ .m. ~ ~ r -

w. ~..

s :e. . & n... . a n,~. ~w ~- y y + y : ~. n. a.; y. ~. w _n-. ..- ~. -~g~A.y, ;.3-.

• y.-,.,._.~.

x

y _

~ y _.~ g.z : .p n.. t s-,,, ::--~~,cav.. m'. -= s l s,,. ees,% ~,' l .mW y . >..m w l . Ww i ^ Ng w,._ 3

h...y,:n; S.&_

q. j 4 ~ ~ ~ w*.. ~*..e- ' - ~ .. r. ~ G<_ .h. %g ~ ,.c - f, w% =- ) i ..,(,,g' N s%... % ^,. _,.... . }..., s _r

• f *;

~ ~ - - _ r., s, l .-h r. W ll. l i r. I , *. ~ ~ .y '. ..;.s e. e e . ~. I .c ', ' v,.e' .. s.. i ,/, p' b 1 .~ + 'r .., ~., / Figure 1 ., - 2 :- t.. /. 'f s i w% I .p P,,v 9. s Photo used by permission of Puget Sound Power and Light Co. l AERIAL PnOTOO."JP." OF $1TE FROM EAST SHOWING SITE IN CENTER AND LYMAN 4 'l RIGHT FOREGROUND ( JAN. 3,1974 )

l .I' t j m.~. ..-ma-- -e

r ~

i s ( PLANT SITE - l l 4 ,, g. .,,.y-'*,1,.., . g&poy,_ ; 6,, i '4. f,,t ~ ~* *'3 g,, s. g.s i q ,c t ~ g,, M g.,.,

• e s.v?@ a, -g j g y,3 4 7

..gidiv, - v

9.,.

.v ~ m,.. p - w . +,: p I

• y%

1?, ? Y q~'7l f - M Aang'y w ycaey9'7n @:.@L, },}y., g. w . n.A, ;. pct g +: p 1 w. - -.., k, t' .~%'...', + - r y 4

4., -

..g..- ,a.e._. y, ; 3. .m. w ~.) .. - [4 4 m.t,4. n. g_. I 7 - er. , W $~~~~' _ - N _

- l j; & r,f l

e. assd p...

x-r ' - ~ %24 % . p~r _ ~% ~. = w - Q' - ~ ,g a b . gW's,.., M." ;.. ' ~ ~ s f "- mr O. s w-... A. _. . ~. -N A-J,;%." ~ f. y&p-p y,, w 1 ~ , _w.. ~ s

• p,.

w D w 4 8 -i - e -e+ r ' =W ~ J, _. *f ~ e e

• g W '

s fa.., 4 ft,', g.f

• - J W

i w g l = w g 1 O. .-? Figure 2 .-.4 Photo used by permission of 2 7-Puget Sound Power and Light Co. ~ AERIAL PHOTOCRAPH OF SITE FROM SOUTHWEST SHOWING SITE IN l CENTER AND SEDRO WOOLLEY IN LEFT FOREGROUND ( JAN. 3,1974 ) il 4

2-5 The proposed site for the nuclear plant is outside the Wild and Scenic River study area, as shown on Map 2. However, the project proposes to use water from the Skagit River for cooling and other purposes in the plant. As planned, the project would physically affect the river in three areas: the water intake site, the effluent discharge site and the barge off-loading site. These effects, and those of possible alternative actions, would occur within the 14-mile segment of the Skagit River between Sedro Woolley and Hamilton. In this segment, the river meanders through a three-mile-wide flood plain. The geology of the area consists of alluvial deposits over (Quarternary) unconsolidated glacial outwash. All of the project-related sites arc on fine, loamy soils. Surface drainage of the sites is usually slow, Out internal drainage is moderate to extreme. The water tables are shallow in the con-struction areas, which are classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as "more productive" lowland groundwater aquifers. The project phases which would affect the river would all be located within 100 feet of the bank, well within the flood plain. (These are discussed in detail in Section 4.) There are two flood seasons annually in the Skagit Basin, late fall /early winter and late spring /early summer. Winter storms are usually more intense, and they produce great volumes of surface runoff in a short period of time. Such storms characteristically produce higher peak volume floods than do spring / summer stonns. Spring storms generally last longer, produce greater total volumes, but reach lower peaks. Annual floods vary in intensity, dependent upon a number of interrelated factors. Over 150,000 acres in the Skagit River basin are subject to flood damage. Of this amount, about 90,000 acres are classified as cropland or potential cropland. The greatest potential for flooding occurs on those lands west (seaward) of Sedro Woolley. Dependent upon the intensity of a given flood, overflow channels, sloughs, agricultural land, roads and residential / business areas may all be inundated to a depth of several feet. Average annual flood damages were estimated 1 to be $3,020,000 in 1966 prices and conditions. Extensive development has occurred in the flood plan since this figure was published. so that the actual average annual figure may be substantially higher. Puget Sound Task Force, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, "Puget Sound and Adjacent Water," Appendix XII, " Flood Control." 1970.

[ ij ..m i8 i8 + 4130 <G, ^ f SKAGIT NUCLEAR l ~ POWER ks PROJECT l s i N e \\ =f%_ _sR,o = = - 6==" " " ' = = }l n k 2* " * *~ ' 11 "c^o""Q,o, AN \\ g BURLI N NORTHERN RR MIN KL'E R LARE AREA% j /, 1 R.M. m o, j! - go,a,xt,wie RevtR V \\ j ,f /q*4 s m - -- RO.ER t, E Supc,; l ,,r oRO =utv --R L E u 7 i s . R MM I AGIT W 0 1% g i,',t,,it - uik/gv ' RIVE R MIL .MJ 30 pORRIDOR- - SCALE OF MILES r GAIN RE SE RVOI, lA ' t i i I,il p JUDY RESERVOIR li I I l T ALC MT a il \\. 3200 l CLEAR il l gpg ,g LAKE I,l l g

3. THE PLANT The Skagit Nuclear Power Project would consist of two generating units, each with a boiling water nuclear reactor. The first unit would begin commercial operation in 1983, and the second auout three years later. Each unit would have a maximum net electrical output of 1,288 megawatts, as initially licensed. The most prominent structures of each generating unit would be the reactor and turbine buildirgs and the cooling tower. The reactor building would be cylindrical and have a domed top. It would be approximately 200 feet tall and 150 feet in diameter at its base. Its exterior surfaces would be of smooth-fomed concrete. The turbine building would be east of the reactor and approximately 300 feet long,150 feet wide and 145 feet high. The concrete cooling towers would be approximately 520 feet tall and 580 feet in diameter at their bases. They would be 900 feet apart, center to center,and located northeast of the reactor and turbine buildings. Other, smaller structures for each unit would be the auxiliary, control, diesel generator, radwaste (radiation waste treatment) and fuel buildings. The project substation would consist of three switchyards and transfomers and occupy 20 acres approximately 1.500 feet north of the principal project buildings. Power lines to the substation would originate at the turbine buildings and terminate on self-supporting, steel, dead-end structures in the substation. The transmission lines would terminate on similar structures. A fish propagation facility, including a hatchery building and rearing ponds, would be construc-ted on the site and an upstream adult migrant fish collection pond would be located adjacent to the Skagit River at its junction with Minkler Slough. The plant structures profile figure (Figure 3) shows the relative heights of the buildings in relation to the trees currently found on Bacus Hill. The following figure (Figure 4) shows a sketch of the plant from above. Ster for cooling and other uses would be supplied by four Ranney wells located at river mile 39 on the Skagit. A Ranney well is a cylindrical concrete caisson, with radiating lateral pipes which collect water from pemeable sands and gravels. Each collector would be about 13 feet in diameter and 55 feet deep. Sixteen laterais--each between 100 and 180 feet long-- would extend from each collector. The laterals would be about 15 feet below the river bottom, 28 feet below the mean river level, and 40 feet below ground level. Collected water would be pumped from each well and piped underground to the plant site. The pipeline would be about 35,000 feet long and 48 inches 'n diameter. Each Ranney well would be located about 100 feet back from the river bank. The laterals would extend to, but would not run underneath, the river bed. Water infiltration velocity into the laterals would be about.5 feet per second. Approximately 8.300 feet of river bank in the collector site area would be riprapped or reriprapped to stabilize the bank. All non-radioactive plant effluent water would be discharged into the Skagit River, through a diffuser pipe, at approximately river mile 25.5. The discharge pipeline to the diffuser pipe would be 37,000 feet long and 30 inches in diameter. A temporary cofferdam would be ;' laced in the river channel to facilitate placement of the diffuser pipe. The diffuser itself would be half-buried in the river bottom, secured in cement, with bottom riprap both upstream and down-stream to stabilize the river bed. The diffuser would be about 65 feet long, with 44 four-inch ports spaced about 1.5 feet apart, angled upward at 60 degrees from the horizontal. Pipelines and powerlines would follow existing rights-of-way, as much as possible, according to the applicant. Another offsite installation which would be located on the river would be a temporary barge off-loading facility. The applicant would barge each of two reactor vessels up the Skagit River to about river mile 24, and then move the vessels overland to the plant site. A barge slip to unload the vessels would be excavated into the shoreline, disturbing approximately 250 feet of river bank. A temporary cofferdam would be built to facilitate construction of the barge slip. When no longer needed, the barge slip would either be removed and the river bank restored, or the slip would be turned over to an appropriate government agency for use as a public boat launch. 3-1

...m._.__._.______._______________.___._._._..____m___..m.m_ ..___..__...._._m_... l RM man i ato ann 1M SfM1 sta m 'M 200 N 12 REACTQst BLDG. 3 J FT .g L L Tunguet BultDING g M I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I I I I I l DIESEL GENERATOsl SLDG. I PLANT STRUCTURES PROFILE VEGETATION TO SCALE figure 3

l 3-3 l I I h,,,

• 5 I

z C EN b I g 1 - a .I o .9 ) I' l s t3: ..t., E. <-' ' - j t. - .\\

• Is

~::lgv:4.3,)., c t. . 9. h.,::re. 1,< r-5:f 4.';;l'.:k. y 9 -A. 6F p.li f.- t* ..s;lf' ? 5f('{'. .. ?:y * = .-i tf p

<.

ji*

Vgg[r-?g.:g:yggy .O.h"- l:5.%,;.:isud,, }7 d ,- l'.'\\ *t :s?fM a, ~,. 6.:.::- y i e ete j s g\\.1, \\ 't'd'pq c 2, ..f.

s.

? lhe. \\,';A; p.. . y 4,..: - -R i.' ta s.y y- .'. :Mk, r. rp,.. A:.9,.,:is . 9 s, '~;..@.; yl 97 x[y-ps ;4.f:a*.,J

r

.5'hi:4 -. '; ; * %.u. -Y. A ..,;.*. ^c M. 7 y ~ :,. s

sh*,%.d.

m,. 3.,* ; * ' f, 4 i it,' 1-y;. 's;.;...u. :,.q\\ s ,f,y s...,f. : u+

• q-i;w..,.,g. y

.,. s.. 0.&y' 4.:. ; - Ti 4. 4.;,,,>. 1s.. .y. d. ;;.;i i.k.1,, i .s. e ?. . ? ;'.;?? ::4 ) . ys- :f.H,, .,;* p :$ ' ~ 'l . a..s '.1 .;r

1.,. ::.4 :.

@og;l j%w :Ub. . :i. cu i e ...aq. p".g}Appp@'#y.a

.. A ' tY.. )

.V J

• N.i a.p '&-

b \\ s .#T'* '4 I L e s P

• p

1. , a /,a 1

e c ~ N ji{.*b,e?! ' l ~1 I' . i

.&u...fs. fi.C

\\ '. 84. n. ; 1 T; a y.a

v:

.t c- '...;n..g, . m.,p<: a:m.- 5;:.s .c r. +- D?.. 8

• *: T..y

+.. 4, -r

2 y

., ' + .f 4 8 r .(* h a s...... -O.e[Y,g., +h5k' .\\ ,I, .,% J *,')' i

• • ~jt4'lT!

5' N i .-,e h'.. ' ,, i.; f. 1 ( e.g p_ y.

3-4 Because of the magnitude of the total project. it would be necessary for erosion control l activities to parallel closely with construction. Most erosion control would be done at the plant site. l l Approximately 5.200 feet of Black Creek would be diverted to permit construction of the sub-station. The creek would be rechanneled, and the new section would be approximately 2.800 feet long. A new access road to the plant site has been proposed which would require rechanneling approxi-j mately 550 feet of Wiseman Creek. There would be no loss of channel length. The plant site itself lies in a saddle between Bacus Hill and a higher mountain to the north. l The applicant has proposed to build siltation ponds at the east and west ends of the plant site in order to reduce siltation in adjacent water bodies resulting from soil erosion. Pipeline crossing of streams would be constructed during periods of low flows. The pipelines would be cemented into the stream bottoms and there might be local riprapping of the banks to protect the pipelines. These activities could cause some local siltation and interruption of flow, but they would be temporary in nature. ( (More detailed descriptions of the plant features which are considered by the Forest Service to have potential impacts on the river are included in Section 4.) l l I l l t I i l l l l l l 1 l l t

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section describes the various environmental impacts the Forest Service has identified which would occur as a result of the proposed nuclear project. Impacts are assessed for eight different components of the plant: (1) Ranney collectors; (2) riprap; (3) diffuser pipe and discharge; (4) reactor pressure vessel transportation; (5) cooling towers, exhaust plume and drift; (6) power lines; (O onsite construction; and (8) fish rearing facility. Each of these eight components has been reviewed for its potential effect on ten Wild and Scenic River values during construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed plant. The ter. Wild and Scenic River values considered by the Forest Service are: (1) free-flowing characteristics; (2) water quality; (3) fish; (4) wildlife; (5) vegetation; (6) endangered and threatened species; (7) visual quality; (8) recreation; (9) noise; and (10) public safety. 4.1 RANNEY COLLECTORS 4.1.1 Description of the Site The 42-acre collector site would include about a mile of shoreline on the outside of the bend at river mile 39 (t igure 5). Approximately 5,000 feet of this shoreline is stabilized by a riprapped dike. The dike itself is about 20 feet wide and rises three to eight feet above the land behind it. The river bank side of the dike is steep, a 1:1 slope, and some of the rock face. slumps down into the river. With its shaped profile and rock face, the dike contrasts visually with more natural banks, some of which are riprapped, along the river. This dike is not part of a flood control district and is presently maintained by local fanners, whose land it protects. Portions of the dike washed out in January of 1974 and in December of 1975. A maintenance road runs along the top of the dike. Vegetation consists mostly of grasses, forbs, blackberries, a few small willow trees and wild roses. A tree line varies from between 30 to 100 feet back from the top of the dike. This timber is primarily pole sized alder--30 to 40 feet tall--with a few scattered cecar trees. The mean river flow at this location is about 16,000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs). At flood flows of 160,000 cfs, about three feet of water tops the dike; a flood of this magnitude is a one-in-20 year floed. The river flows swiftly with little turbulence past the site. The current flows toward the outside of the bend, where the ins *allations would be located. The tree line screens the background view and would provide a middleground backdrop for site construction. Although fencing now surrounds the collector property, there is easy access to the surrounding area for both people and wildlife. A series of test wells was drilled by the applicant to test the water-bearing capacity of the groundwater aquifer at this site. None of the capped well casings, three feet above ground, is visible from the river. An overhead power line terminates at a transformer pole, which is about 75 feet from the riverbank and visible from the river. An old wooden structure, approxi-mately 10' x 8' x 3', is built on a small flat between the dike and the river at one point. 4.1.2 Description of the Collector Installation Water needed during the operation of the plant for cooling and other onsite purposes is called "make-up" water, which the applicant proposes to take from the Skagit River by means of Ranney Collectors. Ranney Collectors are a water collection system designed to draw water from a river by filtering it through the previous water bearing gravels on which the river lies. Four collectors would be constructed. Each would be a cylindriaal caisson of reinforced con-crete about 55 feet from top to bottom and about 13 feet inside diameter. The caissons would be sunk into the water-bearing strata about 100 feet back from the edge of the river. Near the bottom of each caisson,16 slotted pipe laterals would radiate out into the gravels to collect water into the well. Each caisson would extend about eight feet above ground, which is about two feet above the high water level for a one-in-100 year flood. A concrete slab would cover the well with the water pumps mounted on the slab. The top of this slab would be about 10 feet off the ground. Thrn main pumps and one back-up would be on collectors 1 and 2, while one main pump and one bac' ~up would be on collectors 3 and 4. Each pump would be a 6000 gpm electrically powered unit. All the pumps on each well would feed into one water line from each collector. 4-1

4-2 l 4 R.6 E. l S R - 20 { 'w 1 l l . HAMILT N RD. 4 l UY l l f BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR Col'octor No 2 g-- -Collector No.1 COLLECTOR AREA Cone e N 3 I 4 mi!e 39 f A9 Collector No.4 1 l C l d e d I! (D 8 1615 15 14 27 22 22 23 ~ h i +#' \\ \\ J A) , n s-I RANNEY l l 1( COLLECTOR ) LOCATION ) figure 5

4-3 As of April 1976, it has not been determined how high the tops of the pumps would be, whether any noise baffling would be installed, or the estimated total height of each collector. [ Figure 6 indicates the approximate size of the collectors to be 16 fett diameter by 20 feet high.] However, the applicant has made a formal commitment to the Forest Service to adapt final design so as to minimize impacts to the Wild and Scenic River Study Area. The caissons would be constructed of reinforced concrete, tuoular sections, either placed one on top of another or fomed on top of the previous one as the whole unit is sunk into the ground. The bottom edge of the first unit constitutes a cutting shoe. It is placed on the ground where the well is to be installed, and earth is excavated from inside the caisson section with a clamshell bucket. As the material is removed, the section sinks under its own weight. The excavation process continues and additional sections are placed on top of the unit at ground level until the full caisson is sunk, with the top about eight feet above the ground. Material dredged from within the caisson would be removed from the site and used for fill away from the river. The construction would occur behind the old dike. Approximate loca-tions are shown in Figure 5. Underwater cement would be used to seal the bottom of the caisson. It would then be pumped dry so the laterals could be jacked out into the water-bearing strata. The applicant has said a system that does not use backwater flushing would be used to remove silt and other fines from the gravel in the imediate vicinity of the lateral, ilthough it has not specified a system. None of the laterals would extend under the bed of the rSer. Buried water lines from each collector would be made of welded steel or reinforced concrete and joined into one 48-inch water line leavi,; the collector site for the plant. An electrical substation, transf emers and individual pump control equipment would be con-structed on the site. Fluctuating water needs with the plant in operation would be handled by varying the number of pumps in operation at one time. Discussion during an onsite inspection with representatives of both Puget Power and the Forest Service present produced statements that power to the purps from the Ranney substation would be underground. There would be no further disturbance of the site once the collection system is in place. Figures 6 and 7 show u 9 collector site. Each collector would have about 1,800 feet of radiating laterals. The applicant states that the velocity of water flow through the aquifer would be about 0.1 to 0.5 feet pe second. About 90 percent of this water will come from the Skagit River and about 10 percent from ground water. The velocity for water flowing into the gravel from the river is said by the applicant to be less than the minimum sustainable cruising speed for coho and sockeye salmon fry (En E.1.1). No plan for decomissioning the plant is required by the NRC at this time. Plans for decommis-sioning are unknown as a consequence. Should the Ranney wells be used to provide water for other uses, the low v00 city withdrawal of water would continue. Should the wells be shut down with the plant, physical changes on the site should not impact the river because of the distance from the shoreline. The envi onmental report prepared by the applicant also includes two alternatives for removing water from the river. One of the alternatives is a backup in case of reduced productivity of the proposed system, and the other is an alternate main water source for the plant. The primary proposal would draw water from gravelly substrata that are mostly free of silt and sands. Should a decline in productivity occur in one of the collectors, it would be dewatered and cleaned. Each of the laterals would be backwashed. A chemical solution may be injected into the backwash water should the decline result from bacterial growth. A decline in water I yield--at the proposed collection site--th.t could not be corrected by cleaning would probably not occur. However, should a water yielt decline occur, the applicant proposes that three more collectors be installed at river mile 32.5 and tied into the make-up water line. The method of construction would be the same. The site is e flat field visible from the river (Figure 8). An alternative to the Ranney Collectors primary proposal is an intake structure and pump station at river mile 26. The power substation and pumping facility would be along the north shore of the Skagit River. The pumping facility would be in a concrete and steel structure rising about 64 feet above 7-day,10-year low flow in the river. The substation would be directly behind the pump bays, away from the river. It would be able to function with water flows up to and including the one-in-100 year flood on the river.

l l J l Si ..+ ~ 9., F^,' ' Eg... [... .,/*P' pc4 ~+; +.g -sw> a g 4 e ,f 9 *g ry / ;QQhce. -,, 4 s

e. N 4mg.

' % %.W gy w"Q%p.{$(b

~.+ .,1,5 gg g'?g 5.g n w .a... CL-my.

• • • s Aut %

w Y p'j*f

• Q[,$..%*-

N'C.'. e 6;) Q !L. % % ;;rp b y ;l's _(/ 1..l,h_y h? $y$p$$yy4?Y$hfQ$h&*R L G'?lY e. M ~ NW D GjfidQ4$MM7

• N@kw%:w;Q;W<.

f' ~.,:, ,..,h t A = dNp,djNN . *Rg#y '

• O..v.

3 e gT,?dyp.gg,* r 3.,, w n

g. w %j t ayy>x?~

w c wp;;.A q p.d,~cc*.M -y ~. a i; g ) F y;,, * ? If.TpWM@Mifsjirj$35%gM@* - e Qg e.&y.S 'lk g 6.(<%yiyY %MfEf$1 h 4:W 'k hi J 'k?p;%. & p $w$ R &e h,?ge % sQ W* &,11,(r-B' fmY~Mg':. y $.2,', atyc.r,e. Q -,y f;e -t .v h n vy wq.~ $+. : A. f%&myW,Q w

41,,&sw ;y.,. f $, l I k 7,

,.Ai.- m.epp,p - ;$t - g wg@u 1 4 w o ?, e.%e v M 6ff,?h%]Q(;.Qp4-. - lm sD. Qg.; a .-- q ;. sg =%s [. i' r-6 %fhhD@AEbk'$NhNYlki hhkhk:eNNfNN, h k i 4 N % % > n-1A %

• ,?

- sy-' lth [l[v.y'W Y'&g QL%,&Q<?ff'Q%^n:N t.;Q %ff, 4' . g fr g.+v. Q w:< cf;& 3" " Q [ G L " Q Q@y }M % %:_ l*G w;;lyl[ Q f, _ %: g:l,L q

b

• p r

.g 7 Q ht : \\ p, W = ry d %%W Miy15 - n%RY1W & Vd%gje w C klp y y @etrei;#e% n-Q, hS. W " J M Ce*E N sth d % : s wm cMJ SA 1 t 44 ^ Effd a Figure 6: Approximate size and location of Ranney Collectors -100 teet from top of bank, --16 feet external diameter, --20 feet high.

1 4-5 1 e' j ?- ~ >; y j remw,; f.o I .>);j?g,. g .9,.. L l w -,$p., .. \\..,.. .nJ l. p :n(. r-- ';..eg-- 9 ... + 4 .,f... e e p:(' e w a. 4 (y :jr ',4 g'.- // '[.'* /- .. / Q,j ' t fy' 'i, '4< M G, e$p..

• 5.

A 4.% q,f .'S,.y) h,/ ?.j '- f %.y c . #p,,i s.a o ^,.,e.. y> .o 7A s y, d ;. ^ 'N 9 ( o = ff b, *' (. ~ ~ 9 _, - - s'. t3 Q& r v's-v, $4 3 f H. e, y-s mu4 ; g y_ m e 3

e.,;

- 4.. s - -t s, s o g-s.;- ' ,.e e y )~ ~ C,) D 'Qy y 8 ~ 3 2: ~~y.- 6 %,. y.. x + c F. ,a ph%.. C , w <g g g " k) h k g I. , f:: -[n .. ~g './1 e k y<. y. y g o b, [- ,. 5 '., w.s w m u q m

m

~- o. ~ w =+'- ....,; : q;.. r y ' _.y. r.. p f. 8 4~ ..m-t ("'. ~ h m ^* c

1. ~

) ,.s m... g y t: y t- - w y* ,g , R l,' Q. o e C ' ~ ' ~ s C 'f t c t.. n p N -Q (, in L 9 E-fjt.i .? g R? # 3[f e. a v,. 3 .~ ul g- ,e ol ,C, l~ H Wa e er y <fy ^0'; 1 f.~., \\ n s n,.. u . y ;!' v _~ p

• g.~'g,...

4., g c.,

4-6 -, _r-BURLINGTON NORTHERN R.R. h e i g4Re K NO. 2 i 1g ,y

yg a

r gyg., {PI .s [ t ' W,.Q. -- l* yn x R 5 E. R.6 E. SUPPLEMENTAL COLLECTOR SITE h COLLECTOR 1 IN.: 1000 FT. figure 8

4-7 Six pumps would be used, each in a separate bay. The bays would be protected by trash racks and traveling screens designed to minimize entrapment or entrainment of organisms by the pump-ing system. Plans would include portals in the concrete walls between the bays to allow a lateral fish escape route in front of the traveling screens. Puget's ER Figure 10.2-1 is unclear as to how the portals would be incorporated into the bay walls but apparently they will be blocked against entrainment of organisms by stop logs and bar racks. The pumping facility would extend about 50 feet into the river. 4.1.3 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River For the period 1928-1972 the United States Gaological Survey (USGS) reported that the Skagit River had an average low monthly discharge of 3,370 cfs (November) and an average monthly high discharge of 43,900 cfs (June). The 100-year instantaneous low flow is estimated (E.R. p. 2.5-6) to be 2,330 cfs. The proposed Ranney well site would have a total withdrawal capacity of 124.9 cfs. Plant requirements will be about 106 cfs. Thus, even during periods of lowest projected fluw, water withdrawal for plant uses would leave a flow of over 2,200 cfs downstream from the plant site. This would lower the water level of the river an estimated 0.02 feet. Such a reduction does not appear to significantly affect the flow of the Skagit River for other needs and uses. During the more common periods of higher flow, the impact of this withdrawal would be even less; a drop in water level of 0.01 feet during average flow of 16,000cfs(FESp.5-2). Other downstream uses of water are reported to consume 55.4 cfs, with a projected consumption by 2020 of about 181 cfs. Given these rates, total consumption of Skagit River water would equal about 161.4 cfs following plant construction. Such a use rate would still leave a net flow of 2168.6 cf s during extreme low flow, an amount adequate for in-stream uses and needs. Since the installation of Ranney wells at the secondary site would occur only if necessary to suppleme1t diminishing withdrawal volumes from i.he primary site, no net increase in withdrawal volume would occur; hence no additional impacts to the free-flowing character of the river would be caused by the construction of additional wells on this site. The intake structure and pump station which has been suggested as an alternative to the Ranney wells would constitute an impingement on the free-flowing character of the river, due to its in-stream location and concrete design. 4.1.4 Impact on Water Quality Construction and operation of the Ranney wells would have no impact on water quality. Exca-vated material would be removed from the site and used for fill away from the river. There is a possibility that chemical treatment of lateral screens to remove bacterial growth could have some effect on water quality. The common practice for removing bacterial growth, which reduces intake capacity by clogging the lateral screens, is treatment with a chlorine solution for 24 hours. It is improbable that any residual cMorine, much less toxic concentra-tions of chlorine, would reach the Skagit River as a result of such treatment.1 This conclusion is based on four factors: (1) most of the chlorine would be utilized in killing bacteria; (2) amounts of chlorine which migrated beyond the caisson laterals would be diluted by groundwater; 4 (3) other wells would still be in operation and would attract the chlorine, along witn local groundwater, toward the wells and away from the river; and (4) as the chlorine moved toward the other pumping centers, it would be fwther diminished through dilution and reaction with ';.. ground water. chlorinc-d ecadi..; subs G..ce; n 4.1.5 Impact on Fish Laterals from the Ranney collectors would not physically contact the river. However, the flow of water from the bed of the river, through penr.eable soils in the river channel and into the laterals of the collectors, would create a weak current flow into the river bank and bottom. This inflow is estimated by the applicant to be no greater than 0.5 feet per second, which is less than the swiming rate of salmon fry. This effect would be more pronounced for non-mobile Hikels, Frederick C., Oral testimony before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board in the matter i of Puget Sound Power and Light et al., Skagit Nuclear Project Units 1 and 2, Seattle, Wash., 31 July 1975. Pages 3037-3065.

4-8 organisms such'as plankton. But since the Ranney collector site is located on the outside of a river bend with a consistently strong current. It is believed that the scouring effect of the river current would be strong enough to offset the weak inflow, aiding both mobile and 'non-mobile organisms in moving downstream unimpaired. This weak hydraulic inflow should have no effect on adult fish. 4.1.6 Impact on Wildlife Security fencing would be installed around each well site and around the power substation. This fencing would prevent the use of these sites by larger fonns of wildlife which will be unable to pass through the mesh of the fence. Total area affected would be less than one acre and no discernible effect is anticipated. Additional habitat and forage could be provided by the establishment of a vegetative screen along the riverbank which would conceal the wells and pumphouses from river travelers. The applicant has agreed to plant such a screen. 4.1.7 Impact on Vegetation Construction at the Ranney collector site would necessitate the permanent eradication of a very small amount of vegetation, probably less than one-tenth acre in total. Additional vegetative cover would be temporarily removed to facilitate access. Within two or three growing seasons the temporary clearing would be reestablished in native cover by natural processes. No serious effect to vegetative cover would occur as a result of these activities. As noted in the previous segment on wildlife, additional vegetative cover would be established in the form of a screen along the top of the riverbank. This screen may result in a net vegetative gain on the site. 4.1.8 Impact on Endangered and Threatened Species Environmental surveys conducted to date have produced no evidence of endangered or threatened species using this site, 4.1.9 Impact on Visual Quality Construction could produce visual impacts during installation and operation. A crane of some type would be needed to excavate the wells. The construction activity would also include associated truck traffic as the spoil material was hauled off-site for disposal. The tops of . the wells, capped by concrete slabs, would ris.e about 10 feet off the ground to stay above the flood level for a one-in-100 year flood. The pumps and associated control equipment would be on top of the wells. The top of the pumphouse covering all of this would probably be 20 feet off the ground, visible to river travelers. At least one of the wells would be within the forest cover that follows the shoreline at the well site. All Ranney wells would be located at least '100 feet back from the river. The wells, pumphouses and substation would be at least partially obscured from the river traveller's view by the existing dike. The establishment of a vegetative screen along the top of the dike would further aid in mitigating the visual obtrusion of these structures. Additional mitigation could be achieved by design of the pumphouse structure, selection of siding and roofing mate-rials, and choice of exterior colors. It is concluded that, through these diverse mitigative measures, the wells,'pumphouses and substation could be constructed so as to be less visible to river travelers than the occasional house, barn, fence and similar structures already Utsible in this segment of the river. l [ 4.1.10 ~ Impact on Recreation Uhile' security fencing around the Ranney wells and substation would preclude public access to ,z these small individual sites, neither access to the river nor along the river would be affected. Those persons wishing to walk the shoreline, or reach it from the nearby road, could still do i 'so Mth no inconvenience. People on the river could still disembark along the entire riverbank cith no increase in difficulty. l -The suitability of the site for those kinds of recreation experiences which it now provides j tould not be diminished. r l , +. - - - -a+

4-9 4.1.11 Impact on Noise Construction activities associated with the installation of the Ranney wells would have an obtrusive, temporary effect on ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity of construction. These levels would be appreciably greater than those generated on nearby roads and agricultural lands. Construction would be distracting to people using the river or shoreline, and might temporarily disrupt nonnal wildlife activity in the immediate locale. No significant or permanent effects are anticipated. The one possibly significant source of noise during plant operations would be the electric motors that would pump water from the Ranney wells. The motors would be very large. Collectors one and two could have up to three motors going at once. Factors that would affect the obtrusiveness of this noise would be the noise level of each motor, the amount of baffling the pump house would provide, and the amount of vegetative screening between the wells and the river. i Since the applicant has not yet selected the motor to be employed for pumping, no quantitative data are available on noise levels. Any motor selected would meet the nuise crite,ria estab-lished by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. It is believed that pump houses can be designed to adequately muffle motor noises, so that river travelers would be unable to hear the motors over the natural sound of the river. 4.1.12 Impact on Public Safety The use of heavy equipment for the construction of the Ranney wells poses a minor threat to those members of the public who choose to use the riverbank in the immediate vicinity during the construction phase. However, it is felt that the use of such safety measures as are norr: ally employed in these activities would adequately safeguard those persons who may visit the area during this period. During operation, public safety in the immediate vicinity of each well and the substation would be adequately safeguarded by the security fencing which would be erected around each of these facilities. No change in the hydraulics of the river is anticipated which would threaten public safety. While a weak inflow of about 0.5 feet per second would be created when the wells are in operation, this current is well below the swimming speed of a salmon fry and should have no effect on boats, rifts or canoes operated in this stretch of the river. Upon decomissioning of the plant, two options would be open to the applicant: continue operation of the wells for use by an irrigation or water district, or close them down. If the wells are closed down, all constructions above ground level should be removed, and the cavities filled with earth to prevent cave-ins as the caissons decay. 4.2 RIPRAP 4.2.1 Description The major riprap on the river associated with the project would be about 8,300 feet installed to protect the Ranney Collector site. About 40 percent of this would be new riprap, and the remainder would be improvement of existing riprap. Existing riprap has been previously described. (Section 4.1.1) The bank to be riprapped would be graded back to a 2:1 slope. This grading would continue down the bank to include the toe of the rock work. The bottom of the toe would extend at least three feet below the deepest part of the river channel. Any portion of the riprap that 4 would not lay over gravel material would require 12 inches of bedding material under the rock. Placement of the rock would include dumping at the top of the slope and pushing it down over the prepared surface. The interstices in the riprap would probably be filled in with vegeta-tive material comon to the area. Riprap on this project would not be measurably different from several older sections instclled on the Skagit River upstream from Sedro Woolley. (Figure 9 depicts existing riprap at tr.e proposed Ranney collector site.) Once the riprap is in place, activity around the stabilized banks would include periodic inspection and maintenance work. Maintenance might include grading, backfilling, and place-ment of new rock, especially following flood flows of the river.

l l l 4-10 l t l l ,[ l I, ~ f I )h" I,? 4 ..,R-. [ I 'J, - f, 9 - ') r S '.. ~D.. ~S.', (

c. n3,.,

>L,';f . :.r y

g....

i m m ~ l, 4l c. - 2'. c 4 g $1 p ,y, o g r,- s -.," e Q,J. / Y J k C s s a ( q + .8,. 3 d_ y f J)b *k,,. i f;';>'g<%( i i <b-

1. c e}-

3 i

4-11 It is anticipated that the riprap would be left in place following decomissioning of the plant. No further maintenance would be performed by the applicant. 4.2.2 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River In the 15.6 mile segment of the Skagit River extending from Sedro Woolley to Hamilton -which encompasses the Ranney collector site--there are presently 1.0 miles of dikes and 2.1 miles of riprap.! Installation of the proposed riprap would increase the total mileage of riprapped banks in this segment to 2.7 miles in 15.6 miles of river. The proposed riprap would not alter the flow of the river at this point, but rather would stabilize the river channel in its present location. This stabilization of the river channel would, however, be a further impingenent en the free-flowing character of the river. The placement of rock riprap is not totally disallowed in order to preserve the free-f",owing character of the river. The draf t environmental statement 2 in which the classification pro-posal for the Skagit is presented, states in section I.E. 4, " Study Findings": "The practice of a bank stabilization in the fonn of rock riprap, placed at those points on the riverbank where valuable agricultural land or existing developed property would otherwise be avulsed by river currents, is an establisted and sometimes necessary practice on these rivers. As historically practiced by Skagit County, the placement of rock riprap along short stretches of river for the protection of developed property or croplands

• is not compatible with either Rec-reational or Scenic classification on these rivers. The placerent of artifical stabilization devices such as car bodies, concrete bur;kers, t,in walls, revetments and similar objects is incompatible with both Scenic and Recreational classification."

4.2.3 Impact on Water Quality Installation of riprap to protect the Ranney site, and subsequent maintenance could affect the quality of river water. Installation would require earth-moving work to slope the river bank into final form. The sloping would extend into the river bed. A river stabilization consultant hired by the applicant recommended annual maintenance on the rock work to prevent. structural failure. Additional maintenance may be required following periods of exceptionally high river flows. Such work might include earthwork on the riprap face. Most impacts to water quality would occur during and imediately following construction. There would be considerable increase in sedimentation as raw earth was exposed during the slope work. But sedimentation itself may not be too critical, since the Skagit carries a bedload of 10 million tons annually. In veiw of this bedload and the large volumes of water available for dispersion, turbidity increases in the river would probably be minor. (Thisis also stated in FES Sect. 4.4.2, page 4-8.) Periodic maintenance of the riprap, as proposed by the applicant, would probably result in similar impacts on turbidity, but of a more limited nature. '"The Skagit," Wild and Scenic River Study Report U.S. Forest Service,1975, p. 20. The Skagit Draft Environmental Statement. A Proposal for River Classification under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act U.S. Forest Service, June 16, 1975.

• Class I, II, III or IV agricultural lands, as defined by the Washington State Office, Soil Conservation Service.

i ( 4-12 l t 4.2.4 Impacts on Fish l Impacts from installation and maintenance of the riprap protecting the Ranney site would primarily be periodic siltation from earth work. Such silt could cause problems by silting over fish eggs in gravel interstices, by making it difficult for fry to feed and can cause l scouring on gill structures of adult fish. Damage to the gill structures can produce avenues for infection. A significant problem in ameliorating impacts from temporary siltation is that the Skagit River is important for several species of fish. Thus, the river tends to be "in use" by some stage of one species or another most of the time. Temporary siltation could cause reduction of acceptable spawning habitat by deposition. i However, the history of the Skagit is that it seasonally has carried heavy loads of suspended l solids during floods, yet the river has remained useable by laige fish populations. The river l should have flushing capability sufficient to negate siltation from project-associated construction. The State Department of Fisheries and Game jointly issue permits for construction in the beds of rivers. In the case of the Skagit River, construction is normally limited to those periods during which the least number of fish are present in the river, minimizing the potential damage of such operations. It is believed that the conditions of this permit, coupled with the construction methods detailed by the applicant in Supplement 1 and Amendment I to the applicant's Environmental Report would adequately safeguard the fishery resource. (The applicant's construction methods are also discussed in FES Seco 4.7.) 4.2.5 Impact on Wildlife Installation and maintenance of the riprap should have no appreciable effect on wildlife. The 3 FJ feet of new riprap might destroy some habitat for bank-burrowing creatures. Habitat for l ie additional small birds and animals might be created in the vegetative screen to be estab- .ished along the top of this riprap. 4.2.6 Impact on Vegetation l Construction of the 3,700 feet of new riprap would necessitate the temporary displacement of established vegetation along the innediate.-iver bank. Other vegetation would undoubtedly be destroyed in the existing riprap, which would be improved. However, in the climate of the Skagit basin, riprap tends to revegetate quickly, and no vegetative loss of any significance is foreseen. l i 4.2.7 Impact on Endangered and Threatened Species l l Environmental surveys conducted to date have produced no evidence of endangered or threatened species using this site. l 4.2.8 Impacts on Visual Quality The riprap protecting this site would be quite obvious ta anyone using the river or its environs. The bank would be worked to a 4:1 slope and then rock covered. Vegetative cover would reduce the visual impact of the rock in contrast with the other vegetation back from the shore. It would still have the shaped profile, however. The amount of new riprap would increase the total amount of obvious modification in the river's immediate foreground by about'70% in the inrediate vicinity of the Ranney Well site. Riprap dating from the 1890's to the present is already visible at various points along the Skagit and is an established element in the river setting. Consequently, this new work would not appear incongruous in the overall. context of the river and its immediate shoreline. 4.2.9 Impact on Recreation Public access for lateral movement along the riverbank and down to the water is at present limited to the stretch which is presently diked and riprapped. Above and below this stretch,

4-13 steep banks and dense vegetation make access virtually impossible. Construction of the new riprap would consequently enhance public access for recreational purposes. Improvements of the existing riprap would similarly improve public access since the 1:1 slope of the existing riprap would be laid back to a gentler and more easily negotiated 2:1 slope. g 4.2.10 Impact on Noise t Some increase in unnatural noises would occur at the site during construction and periodic maintenance. Although noise levels may be fairly intense while such heavy equipment as dump trucks and tractors are in operation, these activities would be temporary and short-lived. No permanent change in ambient noise levels would occur as a result of this construction. 4.2.11 Impact on Public Safety Public safety would not be impaired during construction and periodic maintenance, since the public would undoubtedly be barred from affected areas at these times. Long tenn pdlic safety would be enhanced due to the introduction of the 2:1 slope. In the area of existing riprap, this gentler slupe would provide a bank down which the public could safely walk. The existing 1:1 slope, combined with the unstable small rocks used for facing material, presents a bank which is steep, siispery, and conducive to falls. In the area of new construction the existing precipitous, undercut banks would also be replaced by the safer 2:1 slope. 4.3 PLANT DISCHARGE O!FFUSER PIPE 4.3.1 Description Although the exact location for the diffuser pipe has not been determined, it would probably be in the utility corridor, near the pipeline crossing at river mile 24.5. The riverbank at this point is a steep, natural slope, vegetated largely with grasses, forbs and thick growths of sapling size alder and cottonwood. A few large scattered cottonwoods are found along the bank. The bank shows signs of slumping in several places. Some riprap is evident, but it is in poor condittoa c.a heavily silted over. I The river bottom is gravelly with many cobbles and 12-inch rocks. There may be some deposition of sand and silt, since the site is a half-mile downstream from a bend in the river, but river velocities generally keep the bedload moving. An unsurfaced access road runs along the top of the bank, The field north of the river is flat with fine silty soil. Drainage for surface water is poor, but internal drainage is good. Three gas pipelines and three elect-ic power lines cross the river at this point. A private fishing club has made improvements and developed access a half-mile downstream from the site. Adjacent fields are fenced, whicn restrict the movement of wildlife in the area, but access by people is not restricted. The site is on the edge of Sedro Woolley proper. The diffuser would be a 65-f t. long 30-in. pipe laid in the bottom of the river. It would be on the end of the plant discharge pipeline, which would extend 100 feet into the river to the diffuser. The diffurer would have 44 four-inch ports spaced on 1.5 ft. centers and pointing downstream at a 60* angle from the horizontal (Figure 10). A temporary cofferdam would be co".=i:Ncted out from the river bank to allow excavation of the 5-ft. wide trench for the discha?ge pipdine. About one-quarter of an acre of river bottom would be de-watered during installation of the facility. The trench would be ackfilled after the pipe was bedded in and excens dredge material disposed of in an approved landfill. When completed, the cofferdam would te removed and the shoreline restored to its original shape and revegetated. . Effluent water would be discharged through the diff ser during plant operation. The diffuser is designed to facilitate upward discharge and mixing of the effluent with the river water.

4-14 SECTION THROUGH DIFFUSER N weeme Surfmem A \\ l' g, h o wi f ts j( NOT TO SCALE g x a 3 3 PROJECT w DISCHARGE s m.72 LINE " * f h ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ 100' Mez. Ambient River Temperature e 64 F _ g f_ w Jf Id JL 65' - x ;i ~

JL M

Skagit River ~ t N ~ w_ OUTFALL CONFIGURATION ~ 100 200 Scale in Feet 8 Coordinates of Stations N3 cod N4 based on Washington State Plane Coordinate M. Zone, Washington State Highway Monuments 29 35 + 29-36

4-15 The Washington Department of Ecology has classified the Skagit River as a Class A (excellent) stream at the point of discharge. Plant effluent must not be such as to affect the (tate classification. The effluent from the plant would reach a maximum flow of 12.200 gpm or 27.2 cfs with both generating units operating. The rate of flow for effluent leaving the diffuser pipe would be 6.5 fps for one unit and 13.0 fps for two units operating. The discharge would be: 25.8 percent cooling tower blowdown, including that routed through the fish rearing facility for temperature control; 73.7 percent dilution water from the river and waste water from the fish r rearing facility; and 0.5 percent treated waste water from the plant--demineralizer regeneration water, clarifer blowdown, filter backwash, and facility floor drainage. Chemicals would be used in the plant to control water quality, scale build-up corrosion, biological fouling and for regenerating demineralizers. The principal chemicals which would be utilized and their major uses are: 1. Aluminum sulfate and a coagulant would be added to raw water for makeup and domestic purposes. This would precipitate suspended solids out of the water. 2. Sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide would be used for make-up water demineralizer regeneration. 3. Sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid would be added to the circulating water system to control biological fouling, pH and scaling. 4. Sodium hypochlorite would be added to disinfect the domestic water supply. 5. Sodium hypochlorite would be added to the service water system to prevent biological fouling. 6. Sodium nitrite and sodium hydroxide might be added to the reactor component cooling water system to prevent corrosion. This would not enter the river discharge effluent. Should the system be drained, the treated water would either the reused or put into the liquid radwaste system. 7. Borax and boric acid would be used to produce sodium pentaborate in the standby liquid control system and would be stored to provide a backup for reactivity control in the event of an emergency. This chemical would not enter the river discharge effluent. The sodium hypochlorite would be used as biocide for water taken from the wells. A small amount would be needed to purify water destined for culinary use. That which wasn't consumed would go into the sanitary waste system. Sodium hypochlorite would also be used to control algal growth in the cooling water system. It would be fed into the cooling water for 30 minutes at a time, not to exceed two hours per day for each unit. Only one unit would be treated at a time. The residual free available chlorine in the blowdown water discharged from cne of the units could reach a maximum of 0.5 This chlorine level would be diluted by the river water (about 175 times)g/l during operation. It would average less than 0.2 m mg/1, while chlorination was occurring. The applicant predicts that the total residual chlorine in the Skagit River would not exceed 0.0004 mg/l after full mixing.* The river discharge effluent, after all treatments, would have maximum total dissolved solids of 280 mg/1, a maximum cemperature of 70*F in the summer and 50'F in the winter. The low volume waste water included in the discharge would contain a maximum suspended solids of 100 mg/l with a 30-day average of 20 mg/1. It would also go through an oil treatment process, so maximum oil concentrations would be about 20 mg/l and the 30-day average would be 15 mg/1.* l The dissolved solids in the discharge water would result from concentration of the river water ) in the cooling system and from water treatment. [The dissolved solids in the water would be i concentrated by a factor of 12 in the cooling tower.] The dissolved solids j l

• [These concentrations are the maximum allowed by EPA; see NRC's estimated discharge concentrations in FES Table 5.11, p. 5-20.]

6-16 concentration in the discharge [to the river) would be four times greater than in the original intake water. The exceptions would be sodium, sulfates and chlorites. The concentration of these chemicals could reach maximums of 15.8,106.8 and 16.2 mg/1, respectively, compared to 2.0, 6.0 and 1.5 mg/l in the original river water. (These levels would be part of the maximum TDS for discharge water of 280 mg/1.) The greatest impact of the discharge water to the river would occur when the discharge flow was at its highest 27.2 cfs, and the river at its lowest, 4,740 cfs (10-year, 7-day low flow). At these flows, dilution of the maximum TDS would result in an increase of less than 1.2 mg/l of dissolved solids in the river. The maximum of 20 mg/l of oil in the treated low volume waste water would be diluted to 0.02 mg/l in the discharge and would increase oil in the Skagit River by less than 0.0001 mg/1. Heavy metals in the effluent would result from concentration of natural constituents of the makeup water. There would be no heavy metals from the cooling water system, as it would be constructed of stainless steel. The applicant has stated that synergistic or antagonistic reactiens between copper and zinc in the discharge water would depend on the properties of the metals, the water temperature and the hardness of the water. Most of this would not be significantly different from those processes occurring in the river water now. The applicant predicts the following concentrations to occur (ER, pg. 5.4-4): In Makeup In Discharge After River Metal (mg/1) Water Water Mix copper 0.07 0.27 0.071 toc 0.05 0.20 0.051 chromium 0.01 0.04 0.0102 arsenic 0.01

0. 04 0.0102 The plant discharge would include hot water extracted from the cooling tower blowdown. The hot water would be mixed with makeup water by about three-to-one to lower the temperature.

Some of this wann water would be routed through the fish rearing facility to maintain proper hatching and growth temperatures. The maximum temperature difference between the discharge water and river water would be 16'F. The applicant anticipates that 100 feet downstream from the discharge pipe--with the Skagit River at 10-year, seven-day low flow--the surface temperature would be 0.5'F over ambient river temperature for each unit operating. At this point the discharge would be fully mixed with river water. The l' isothenn would be 70-f t. wide and 10-ft. long downstream from the diffuser, according to the applicant. Other possible effects on water would be those chemicals entrained by the Ranney wells and carried in the water used to dilute the fischarge. All plant waste water would pass through the sedimentation system and be treated to remove possible contaminants. About 0.5 percent of the discharge would be liquid wastes generated in the plant, not including sanitary wastes or water containing radioactive wastes. The sanitary wastes would be piced to the Sedro Wooley sewage treatment plant. Fish facility wastes would primarily be solids that would settle out of the water in the ponds. Fish carcasses and settled solid wastes would be removed from the ponds and disposed of in an approved disposal site. Floor drain wastes would come primarN from non-radioactive areas: laborato'ies, the water treatment plant, and startup and clean ag operations. Water from drains that could contain contaminated materials, such as in the service buildings and turbine buildings, would be held in large sumps and monitored. If these waters were found to be non-radioactive, they would be processed through tne waste water treatment system. 011 skinried and sludge removed from the waste treatment system would be removed by a contractor to an approved landfill. Adjustment of the pH in the discharge water would be automatic to keep it in a range from 6 to 8. Chemical monitoring of the discharge would be accomplished by periodic sampling of water in the pipeline and in the discharge plume. Thermal monitoring would be continuous in the pipe-line, in the plume--to check for seasonal variations--and two miles downstream at the USGS hydrograph station. Temperature would be measured at all water sampling sites whenever the samples were taken. The project proposal includes an alternative waste water disposal system. It would consist of a 2,000-f t. long pipeline to an outfall on Tank Creek. The water would greatly increase the colume of the creek and would flow into Minkler Lake, Minkler Creek, Minkler Slough and into the Skagit River (a class AA stream at this point), i

} 4-17 Waste water treatment would be the same as under the proposed disposal system. In the summer, effluent in the pipeline would pick up about 5'F from the environment to reach an outfall temperature of 75'F. (Maximum summer river temperature is 64'F.) The effluent would lose one or two degrees ir the winter and reach the river at about 50*F. (Maximum river temperature would be about 44*F.) The temperature of Hinkler Lake is normally higher than that of Tank Creek, so there would be less thennal impact on the lake. The greater volume and velocity of water flows would probably cause increased scouring of the creek and lake beds, removal of silty deposits and result in a loss of flora and fauna associated with slower moving, more silty water. Most of the chemical levels, the same as under the proposed disposal system, would not have significant impact upon this aquatic system. The only except uns would be the impact of the nitrates and phosphates. Concentrations of these chemicals in de effluent would be higher than those found in the lake and, with less mixing water, would require extra treatment to avoid possible algal blooms. Tank Creek would need to be enlarged to handle the increased water volume. Some erosion control would be needed along the entire aquatic system for the increased flows. 4.3.2 Impacts on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River Installation of the plant discharge diffuser pipe in the river bed would cause some turbulence in the water at that point. The pipe would have effects similar to those of boulders in the river bed or a sunken 109 Installation of the pipe would require construction of a temporary cofferdam, creating a channel blockage extending one-third of the way across the river. The temporary obstruction would last the 90 days it is expected to take to complete the job. 4.3.3 Impacts on Water Quality The water quality of the Skagit is one of its most significant characteristics. Using criteria from the Federal Water Polluticn Control Act, P.L. 84-660 (1956), the Washington Department of Ecology has labeled the Skagit a Class AA, Extraordinary, stream above river mile 26 and a Class A, Excellent, stream downstream from that point. The water is low in hardness, low in dissolved solids, moderate to high in suspended solids--mostly from precipitation or glacial flour from glacier melt--and the incidence of coliform bacteria is variable but generally low. Most of the current water uses are instream uses that are non-consumptive. These include habitat considerations for fish and wildlife, recreational boating or fishing, and the river's contribution to the scenic oualities of the upper valley. The construction of the effluent diffuser pipe would result in alterations to the water quality through silting. A temporary cofferdam would be used so the trench excavation and setting of the pipe would not take place in the flowing river. Silting would occur when the dam is placed and removed. Discharge of the plant effluent water would result in a chemical impact on river water quality. The sources of the effluent components, their chemical constituents and water treatments are all detailed in section 4.3.1 of this supplement. Many of the chemical constitutents of the effluent would resuh from concentration of the chemicals naturally present in the river water. Most of the mer water run through the cooling system would be evaporated in the cooling towers into the atmosphere, which would increase the chemical concentrations in the condensed water up to 12 times original levels. This " blowdown" water would be diluted by a factor of four with raw river water in the dis-charge pipeline. The final effluent discharged thrcugh the diffuser would be diluted by approximately 175 to one in the river. The critical consideration is the actual dilution rate. The mixing ratios were calculated using all the water flowing in the river at its 7-day,10-year low flow. However, only about one-fourth to one-third of the river volume would flow over the diffuser. The points of concern then become tha distance needed to achieve full dilution, and the concentrations in the effluent plume before it is fully diluted. The applicant's design consultant has calculated that the cheraical concentrations in the effluent would not reach toxic levels in the discharge [NRC agrees.- see FES Section 5.5.3.2, p.5-19.].

4-18 A possible increase in toxicity of existing chemicals in the river water could come from interaction with other components of the effluent, or through synergistic action with them. These potential impacts must be pointed out. However, decisions relating to the project's potential effects upon water quality are not within the purview of this agency [ Forest Service]. The agency responsible with enforcing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act on this proposed project is the State's Themal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council (TPPSEC1.* On January 27. 1976 TPPSEC issued certification pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to the applicant. That certification states, in part: "Any discharge from the construction or operatior, of the Project undertaken in compliance with the NPDES Permit issued for the Project will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301. 302, 306, and 307 of the FWPCA and will not violate the applicable Water Quality Standards of the State of Washington as approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the FWPCA, and the conditions and limitations of the NPDES Permit issued for the Project assure such compliance and nonviolation." In view of this endorsement.'it must be concluded that there will be no adverse impacts to water quality in the Skagit River. 4.3.4 Impacts on Fish Part of the evaluation of effluent impacts on river biota is an assessment of the potential for the chemicals to become biologically concentrated through the several steps of the food chain. This is difficult to forecast, because there is no study baseline for this river system. Most of the chemicals in the effluent would be indigenous to the Skagit River. If there would be a problem with biological amplification of these chemicals. it should already be occurring with biota that live in these waters. If there is no deleterious amplification now, there should be none during plant operation. The discharge diffuser pipe has the potential to cause the greatest project impact on the fisherfes of the river. Installation would require burying the discharge line in the river bed, half-burying the diffuser, putting a cement stabilizer around the two pipes. and riprap work on the bottom to stabilize the river bed upstream and downstream from the diffuser. All of this manipulation would produce temporary siltation and some minor loss of habitat. The operation of the diffuser installation could produce impdcts on the fish population. Hast f of these would be manifest in the plume of discharge water as it existed in the flowing river. The most detailed analysis of the plume is recorded in the record of the hearings before the l NRC.** in which the applicant's project designer discussed the rates of dilution for the effluent. The constituents of the discharge water would be below toxic levels upon leaving the diffuser and would be further diluted by the river water. The chemical concentrations l should not be sufficient to cause a toxic zone within the river. l The other concern relating to effluent is temperature. The mixing zone would be such that the difference between effluent and river temperatures would be one degree Fahrenheit or more within an area 70 ft by 10 ft by 10 ft on the downstream side of the diffuser. It is doubtful if this thermal plume, even if it were too hot for fish habitation, would cause a thermal block to fish migration on the river. The diffuser would occupy less than one-fourth of the river width, which should leave room for migration around either side. -Fish exposure to the plume contents would probably be a problem only for fish moving downstream. l Fish could enter the plume unknowingly but they should also be carried on through it. Fish [ moving upstream should be able to tell if they enter the plume and move away into raw river i water. There might be a problem with fish being attracted into the wamer plume during the I winter and being exposed to the effects of the effluent. However, it is unlikely the fish could maintain themselves in the current in this part of the river. Another problem could i occur with quick shutdown of either or both of the generating units, which would reduce or eliminate the flow of warm water from the diffuser into the river. This could result in cold shock to fish in the plume area. Such a shutdown would produce a temperature drop varying I from 16'F to l'F or less in the plume area. l l

• [TPPSEC has been renamed the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.]

"[The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board]

4-19 High temperatures 1 in themselves, be fatal. Thus, too great a temperature increase in the Skagit River cousd cause luss of a segment;>f its biotic system as it became unusable to the native biota. An unacceptable increase could also result in the establishment of organisms different from, and possibly dangerous to, the native life forms. These questions must be raised because of th? 1mportance of the Skagit River system to many comercially and recreationally important species of fish. One sizeable discharge of hot cater or chlorine compound could have a devastating effect on a fish population. But here again, the TPPSEC in its certification of tne proposed project concludes that the project can meet established FWPCA standards, which relate to both chemical and themal effluents. Similarly, other federal and state agencies responsible for the protection of fish resources have found no significant adverse effects arising from this project proposal. It must therefore be concluded that the impacts of this proposal upon the fishery resource are anticipated to be negligible. (As stated in FES Section 5.5.3.2, p.5-19, NRC concluded that "the potential for any substantial impact to aquatic biota is small.") 4.3.5 Impacts on Wildlife Any effects from the project that cause changes in the river system could also result in adverse impacts to other systems or organisms that come in contact with the river. An example can be made on the Skagit with the bald eagle populatior. which feeds on dead, spawned-out salmon. A reduction in fish populations would lower the availability of food for the eagles. Biological amplification of hazardous chemicals in the fcod chains of the river could also be hamful to the birds. Since such impacts are not anticipated as a result of this proposal, no impacts to wildlife are anticipated from construction of the discharge pipe and the discharge of effluent through it. 4.3.6 Impacts on Vegetation Installation of the diffuser pipe would result in temporary displacement of a minor amount of shoreline vegetation. Operation of the diffuser should have little subsequent impact on plant life. 4.3.7 Impacts on Endangered and Threatened Species Environmental surveys conducted to date have produced no evidence of endangered or threatened species in this area. 4.3.8 Impacts on Visual Quality Installation of the diffuser pipe would be noticeable to river users. The discharge pipeline would be trenched into the bank and the river bed. Once in place, it should.ot be too noticeable, particularly af ter bank restoration is completed and the site has been revegetated. 4.3.9 Impacts on Recreation No permanent impacts to recreation are anticipated from the diffuser pipe and effluent dis-charge. However, a temporary impact may be experienced by boaters during the time in which the temporary cofferdam is in the river. Hydraulic conditions created by this dam may be so dynamic as to discourage or prevent navigation past this spot. Since a private boat launch and marina is just downstream from this site, the temporary effect could be great, depending upon the actual hydraulic disturbance created. 4.3.10 Impacts on Noise Some temporary, intemittent impacts would occur to ambient noise levels during the construc-tion period. No impacts are foreseen once construction was completed and discharge had comenced.

4-20 4.3.11 Impacts on Public Safety The temporary cofferdam which would be placed in the river during the installation of the diffuser pipe would constrict the river channel and possibly cause a zone of unsafe hydraulic condition. Public notices, warning signs and other mitigating measures may have to be employed to safeguard boaters using the immediate area. Once in operation, the discharge of the diffuser pipe may create a minor surface disturbance, but no threat to navigation is anticipated. The effect would probably be similar to that encountered when passing over a submerged log at a comparable depth. 4.4 BARGE OFF-LOADING FACILITY 4.4.1 Description The reactor pressure vessel would be delivered by shallow draft--6 foot--barge from Tennessee. It would be brought to Anacortes, from which three tugs would bring it up the Skagit River to the vicinity of Sedro Woolley. The applicant's consultant for transportation of the vessels has sounded the river and, with cross sections from the USGS, determined that a minimum flow of 12,000 cfs at Mt. Vernon would be necessary. At this minimum flow level. there would be no need for dredging to get the barge load to the offloading site. It is possible the barge might bottom or drag across the sand bars at Sterling Bend,nd at Hart Island during low flows of 12,000 cfs.. The supplier proposes that barging of the vessels would be timed to meet flow requirements needed to avoid dredging. 1 Two offloading sites are possible, one above Sedro Woolley and one below the town. The site' up river at the utility corridor would probably be used, because the vessel would not have to be transported through town. The largest single components delivered to the site would be the containment vessel for each - reactor core. Each vessel would be about 20 feet in diameter 80 ft long (tall) and weigh i approximately 1.100 tons. The vessels wuuld probably be barged as close to the site as possible. then transported by road the rest of the way. The barge slip would need to be constructed well enough to offload cargo of this size. It would be angled into the bank, so the barge would be out of the river current for the operation (Fig.11). The specific location for this aspect of the project has not been determined, although it would probably be between river mile 23 and river mile 25. The whole area is quite similar to the diffuser pipe site. It is c' 'acterized by a steep, slumping bank covered with dense growths of grasses, forbs, shruba and sapling-size cottonwood and alder. Access to the water's edge is difficult. The river bottom is mainly cobbles and gravel. The background along this stretch of the river is one of developed farmland. The utility overhead stream crossings are quite noticeable. Vegetation, which is over 15 feet tall, along the bank effectively screens the background from the river traveler. It is proposed to construct a temporary cofferdam about 20 feet out from shore. This would pemit dredging of the slip without continual washing of the operation with river wakr. About 250 feet of shoreline would be affected by construction of the slip. Aggregate would te placed to stabilize the sides and the bottom. A paved access road would run to the water and a platform would be installed for moving the vessels off the barge. Excavated material would be disposed of at an approved land fill site. Water pumped from the excavation during construction would be discharged on land back from the river to prevent muddy water from flowing into the river. The barge slip would be used twice, each time a vessel is delivered for installation. Two options are available to the applicant after the second delivery. The whole site could be restored to its natural condition, or it could be deeded to a public agency for maintenance and use as a public access site for recreational activities on the river.

3 iNe. V T t L ICA F 1 G 1 N I e D r A u O F fig L-F O EG RAS N ow odpR e E A O N oF I t.T L E yA R ~ D rL A oP O O H d R e S EO S TT S AT E G0 CC E8 A R T GA E GL G L AF P E OV A TE B E N I R L F DD O AA E RO N GR L ~ E T U V I O R l-T s,f. SG AK S N / /,,,*<, 7l* .,y OE 8 T 4 T I .iN [/ SS / E, IL) ~ Ef G ~ , R,, AV s Le f I s EL S M A E Es T, i R / A ST 6 W,, 1S 1 I E s 1 1K T l s 0 E A \\ T 0 2 If O 0 g' 8 G R E s E E G R se T S T R L S U R U C E B T G E E R e i sa f i'neOl GPI O R M eum g Av E R E s e he cR T OvT S A saS Aex v t .DTlj E R K R E PsE h L Get S V G [pI i D'k't GE I F s R G dn O T A S [ c e A ND l g2 e5i K I / INS S I 8 = I AH s-O = .J T T T = EO 88 l's A I T = I8 RS e F = r SBf O S, f U Y NiL k IC ,l E OI L T E L . A N A O I W F 6 C I T ) O _l OG L s Ise E I E O DD t N f E R EA O I ( D F S O H E O L E S P S L OF A L Rf C PO J. e ]k

4-22 4.4.2 Impacts on Free-flowing Characteristics of th? Skagit River The barge slip should cause no impact on the flow characteristics of the river, as this facility would be built into the river bank. Its greatest impact would be the temporary cofferdam used to control silting while excavating the slip. The cofferdam would produce a small amount of cnannel constriction at this point, of short term duration. If eradicated after it is no longer needed, the barge slip would have no permanent impacts on the free-flowing character of the river. If, as this report recomends, the barge slip were deeded to a public agency for use as a public boat launch, about 250 feet of the river bank would be pemanently stabilized. While this is a somewhat greater distance than the amount of shoreline offected by other public boat launches on the river, it would not significantly affect the river's overall free-flowing cha racte". 4.4.3 Impact on Water Quality Impacts from construction of the barge slip would be of short duration. A temporary cofferdam would be erected to separate slip excavation from the river. This would result in minor siltation when the dam is installed and removed. However, the purpose of the cofferdam is to minimize siltation during construction. In view of the controls exercised by the State of Washington over construction in the river channel, sumarized in section 4.3.3. it is believed that no adverse effects to water quality will occur as a result of this activity. Some additional turbidity would result if the applicant elects to restore this section of shoreline to its original state. This impact would not be experienced if the slip were deeded to a public agency for future use as a boat launch. 4.4.4 Impacts on Fish Impacts by the barge slip upon fish populations in the river would consist of turbidity during construction and restoration. These conditions would be minor and temporary, however. A secondary impact to fish populations may occur if the slip were converted to use as a public boat launch. These impacts would be in the fom of increased fishing pressure in the vicinity of Sedro Woolley, Should fishing pressure increase to the point that the fishery is endan-gered mitigation could be accomplished by the State through changes in fishing seasons or limits in this portion of the river. 4.4.5 Impacts on Wildlife No significant impacts to wildlife are anticipated as a result of the construction of this facility. 4.4.6 Impacts on Vegetation Construction of tha barge slip could result in permanent di?pluement of some riparian growth, if the slip is retained for public use. The area affected would be less than one acre in size. If the slip were not retained for public use, the area would be restored to its origina7 condition. 4.4.7 Impact on Endangered and Threatened Species Environmental surveys conducted to date have produced no evidence of endangered or threatened species in this area.

4-23 4.4.8 Impact on Visual Quality The barge slip would be an obvious change in the river shoreline. Its construction would occur immediately adjacent to the river. When finished, it would remain a symmetrical intrusion into the river bank. The banks of the slip would probably be riprapped and a surfaced driving lane would extend down into the water. The slip would be located in a reach of the river which is extensively developed. Powerlines, pipelines, and bridge crossings are present in the immediate area, as are parallel roads, houses and other developments. Consequently, it is felt that the barge slip would be far fmm dominant in its setting, despite its location in the immediate foreground. 4.4.9 Impact on Recreation If retained for public use as a boat launch, the barge slip could prove an asset to the public. + The only boat launch present in the area is one operated by a private club. The slip would be the only public boat launch for several miles upstream and downstream, and could encourage increased use of the river by the boating public in this stretch of the river. 4.4.10 Impact on Noise Some increase in noise above ambient levels would occur as a result of construction activities, and if the site is restored, from those activities. This noise would be intemittent, and temporary, with no lasting effects. If the slip is retained for public use, some additional noise would be generated by autoinobiles and outboard motors daring the launching and loading activities. Again, such noises would be short term in duration. Since intemittent sounds of a similar nature are already being experienced at the site, from both the highway on the opposite bank and the private boat launch downstream, no significant change is anticipated. 4.4.11 Impact on Public Safety Impacts of construction and the erection of the temporary cofferdam are expected to be similar to those previously outlined for the diffuser pipe. No pemanent impacts to public safety in this segment of the river are anticipated. 4.5 COOLING TOWERS 4.5.1 Description The cooling towers would be natural finish, natural color concrete towers rising about 520 feet above plant site. the top of Bacus Hill, to the south, would hide about 200 feet of the towers. Most of the year, a plume of condensed moisture would be visible at the towers. The size of the plume would depend on current meteorological conditions. The greater the difference 4 tietween the temperature and relative humidity of the ambient air and the air from the towers, the morter the plume length. The range would probably be from 4,300 feet at maximum differ-ences to 12,500 feet at minimum differences. The two towers would be quite large and, because of their difference in color and texture from the surrounding area, would present a considerable visual contrast on the site. Looking at the plant from the southeast, a person would see the towers silhouetted against the sky on the horizon line. Looking at the site from the southwest, the towers would be visible, but they would be seen against the hill to the north, not the sky. Wind directions in this part of the Skagit valley are normally easterly or westerly, up or down the valley. Hence, the exhaust plume would extend east or west of the plant site most of .the time. -The applicant predicts that the plume would make a negligible contribution to local precipita-tion, because it would have little moisture to add to the atmosphere, compared to moisture from the acean and the many acres of forest land adjacent to the plant site. Ground fogging or icing would not occur often, because the towers would disperse the moisture-laden plume

=.. _. ~ _ - 24 into higher air currents. Downwash behind the towers would be negligible. When wind condi-tions sufficient to cause downwash do occur, they would also cause swift dispersal of the plume. Approximately 0.005 percent of the cooling tower water--of same chemical content as blowdown water--would escape as minute water droplets. fiost of these droplets, called drift, would fall to earth within the property limits. Some mineral deposition from the drift would occur off the property. Winds from the northwest, north or northeast would blow the drift over the river. Mineral deposition from local rainfall is about 84 pounds per acre per year. Plume desposition would add a maximum of 59 pounds per year within 1 mile of the tower. Therefore, mineral deposition could approach 143 pounds per acre per year. It is not known what impact this would have on the groundwater which is connected by aquifer to the river. The diluting effect of both rain and the river's high volume wauld probably negate any effects, since the affected area is small. 4.5.2 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River The towers would be located on the plant site, about 1.5 miles from the river, and would have no inpact on the free-flowing character of the river. 4.5.3 Impact on Water Quality The possible impacts of construction of the cooling towers is addressed in the discussion dealing with onsite construction (sect. 4.7.3). Approximately 0.005% of the cooling tower water would escape as drift in the vapor. This vapor (drift) would deposit a maximum of 59 pounds of minerals per acre per year to the immediate plant site. This deposition is less than the amount deposited by natural conditions (rain). No adverse effects have been identifiec in association with this deposition. l 4.5.4 Impact on Fish No impact on fish is anticipated. 4.5.5 Impact on Wildlife Drift deposition would be maximum within one mile of the plant. Due to prevailing winds most drift would be deposited due east or west of the plant. Deposition within the boundaries of the Skagit River Study Area is expected to be so minor and infrequent as to have no effect on wildlife within the area. 4.5.6 Impact on Vegetation The potential for lesions or " salt burn" on vegetation subject to drift deposition during periods of infrequent rainfall has been identified in the FES (sect. 5.3.1.2). Since the major deposition of drift would occur to the east and west, within one mile of the proposed plant, no significant. impacts to vegetation within the Skagit River Study Area are anticipated. 4.5.7 Impact on Endangered or Threatened Species Environmental surveys conducted to date have produced no evidence of endangered or threatened species in this area. I l 4.5.8 Impact on Visual Quality l - The two. cooling towers would be readily visible from the river at severas points from Lyman downstream to the study area boundary. Above river mile 33, between 260 and 300 feet of the towers would extend above the horizon line at a distance of one and one-half to three miles from the river. Downstream from river mile 33 the towers and reactor buildings would be visible on the saddle between Bacus Hill and the higher slope behind them. The structures-would not. extend above the horizon line, but would produce a marked visual contrast between

~4-25 the symmetrical concrete structures and the wooded slopes around them. These structures would be in the background whenever visible from the river; middleground and foreground would not be affected by them. The following maps and photographs graphically display the visibility and obtrusiveness of these proposed structures from different vantage points on the river (Map 3, Figures 12-15). During most of the year, there would be significant vapor plumes visible, emitting from both towers. The plumes would be most obvious when viewed against blue sky or the forested slope behind the plant. They would be much less obvious when viewed against overcast skies. Each plume would be between 4,300 and 12,500 feet long, dependent upon meteorological conditions. In assessing the impact of these structures upon visual values along the river, it must be cMeded that the scenic quality of the background will be impinged from Lyman downstream. The cooling tcwers would visually dominate the background from wherever they are visible, due to their size, symetry and constrasting color. While the cooling towers and their drift plumes may nct directly effect the visual quality of the lower Skagit River and its immediate shoreline, the quality of the view out from the river would be affected; this relates to the quality of the recreation experience which is addressed next. 4.5.9 Impact on Recreation The cooling towers and their drift plumes would have no direct impact on the recreation potential of the Skagit River. The towers would have a secondary impact on the quality of the recreation experience available on this lower portion of the river. This impact is psychological. For those persons prepared to accept nuclear power as a necessary facet of modern techological society, the recreation experience in that stretch of the river from which the towers would be visible would be unaffected. However, to those persons who either oppose or are frightened by nuclear power, the visible presence of the cooling towers and all they symbolize could prove so disturbing that recreational activities in this arw. would be avoided. It is frankly impossible to effectively evalutte this aspect of the proposed facility. It can be surmised that, for some people, the quality of the recreation experience available on the lower Skagit River would be seriously diminished; for others it would not be affected. 4.5.10 Impact on Noise No impacts upon ambient noise levels are anticipated from the cooling towers or their drif t plumes. 4.5.11 Impact on public Safety No impacts upon public safety within the study area are anticipated from the towers on their drif t plumes. 4.6 POWER LINES 4.6.1 Description There are already several overhead transmission lines in the vicinity of Sedro Woolley and the nuclear plant site. Map 2 [p. 2-6] indicates the locations of both existing and proposed lines. Two 500-kV lines would be constructed west from the plant substation to connect with two Bonneville Power Administration 500-kV lines. The new lines from the plant would go through a corridor at the foot of the mountains to the north of the river. They would not be visible from SR-20 or the river. Two 230-kV lines would originate at the plant site substation, cross SR-20 just to the west and run through an existing corridce to the substation West of Sedro Woolley.

{ I' VISUAL n .y -\\ ji SKAGIT N IMPACT l NUCLEAR t i8 POWER "" #' U " # l' . uso PROJECT S M R: U sible but not i damnant stao to screenine \\ . ired filter views caJsed by 4+4 streamside hardwood ve.Je-0 4 tation.

1. ,O l
2. o O

WINTER: Visible, tendinq g to co-dominate the land-1 O scape; vegetation leaflew l p$ allowing filtered views with little to no screenints. I N e l \\ RM 32 to RM 35 E k SUMME R: Co-dominant with l landscape. Very slight y .u,, m, I screening.1/4 to II3 of ro. l I I I the tower visible. O t, t 3,n% 4R -20 = = = #,, = = 'D screening instansficant due c=-w = = f I .,m-A

• H WINTER: Strcnoly co-dominant; Rd Mo2 3 r L

PSI l [ -'N NORTHERN RY MINKLlR jf we w-8 * %

• e RANND gr to the lack of leaves.

g ggy N = r' COLLECTOR V IJV g f } (3) LAKE AREA N BURLI /. R.M. 35 RM 35 to_RM 4,0 $U!PER: Will not be notice-i f [ able due to low silhouette g g 3 / on horizon and screeninq Y (4) I ,f 4 y M SKAcer h N*g$$o ' ""^""#' fl ORO WOOL L EY g g,, o i !k O 4 F. WINilR: Visible but will not g j '(g { } dominate the landscape. Views pr ma r i l y filtered end inter-l E l 4ff W mit tent l y sc reened t y twe-g e r4,,, h..a ....r t.i t ion PIPELINE - l foRRnooR:, TV i l I:g gHAIN RFSERVDIRx i l RM 35 40 - Euov'aYE." "'**" i 'Ung i I. p JuoY reservoir 'll . - - POWER LINE ' $'g s RM 25 32 RM 32 35 i ALC ui 3 o 3 3200 is .,,o,os,o,,,,, t,,, f CLEAR Il l LAKE il l SCALE OF MILES ITiap 3 um -~

w. g .wy, 5 ? ??wd. @, v ~. "-. i. f. "j.,, cp:

~ ',.

s 4 g get s JE I W .; t - x j is ae e - ', k g..p' a.s 8.,, gg. [+y:,' > ^ q' '; ? :.4?f, % t y .m. y

w,,

., o _ 'm 94 ..,.wg" ' % :v - a y, ',.3. 3,9 - Q* % >.. %,. ; t 47,k;,' .s,.? - 2 .'s n. t t p' s 4 - -)f, q;is+Cf. c,

...'Q g't' q?

j e~* - * %v G L ' l;%:a f:. n m,*,.. '. 7; .c', - -

m. -..,_

+ .,.V," .,,9' s 3 r

s. 2

,.( .1 g 3.v :r %;;)js, p 3 ~, -%' '- wp): '..w a., yW -.f._,.,. . V,n-m%y:L.geb; 1~ s ,ee, 44 "<-7, .a %"3. ' h ,s 4:hha.r.y;,~;?[li,Ni? I' Y ~ . ^ ', ',n s 1 . p. ~q q. _ w n ' ' c,,,.,, ~ ,n ~;s n p. g. , 'h 3, c.. w' ;"c ; b pd,s ,,p c n ti.- . ;+p or 's, ,* ~ 9.:f.# -1 %.q'3 f. g, .MEq ( 1 v r, : w. +,. - s + < - w " q Wi,: ' ; M, __ % ;g - )* 't T ,-? 'gW ~ ?;:am,..ffi.l../,, .v%,.. @q.. _.,m, a.,4' $,,f ? 1 u w<.,,,ga. .2 N.,3,. - Ub. %.rwr hf; Mn... ~, # 3 s

. m..

"k2 e 1: %] 'A. T. - W 1:. ? , e

3

, M,,e, (l' r e W 7*, rc-(% g s

.4

'N.. r. ,, l ' f s^d f ^ *, :e ') *

l-zg.

se, +p. .g A, o , ~~ ',- a 4 m _ 1 i N .,. Ml : n ,, y,:v' x t .~:.I. , p :.. y .m -.A q ,s+ c. y y vg p M S. s N' s .q,R,s, d, h ns x fm/W . d y,,. ; q M.,W. ;n. -p4sp?gm, l ~?

• g

,., p;y v:&~ < n3 <,-. 4: - e.,. s.. v..,, . a, v e + w - . f3, - W ' ' ' + ~ ..1.st % l 'M, 0. 1 .,A,, s 4 w. l \\ l l l l l \\ l l l l Finure 1J l's t i ma t e(1 coolinn tower silhour<te from 2.7 miles east of the plant site - photo point ! on m ip 4 (courtesy Puget Power & Light). l

? N D E.. @.yp m ;ywemms m'A.:SE m,m~mmy-wmmmeymvmm--~~-mm.:~~m~wwmm-m ~ m ~~3 e \\ 's

n. t

'v" t -a .w ..}

. wl... "

5 fsw" T '; p, , (j [ec t.e s ,J .fM.. s re J^ yz I#i .. :n + .4. ~ .i1 -j so, s i - l 8,y s 3 J g. I ,y i i e -, -2, o. ..w,.,:., +.,# -.c -. 9 . a.;. ,.c ...1 e-. 1 r y- .f %,.. ....:g m.w. ; - t

e

,a g ^ [

.~

n ~. e, ,+ 7 y,,. v-f ') A } ?- ?

y. ' ~ -

,... u. g'i, . c... I ..{_ _.l L ) 3j 7 - :q/ ~ p:. - ;d ,n ..C. s- ) :.,g;r.Qa.~/- ~ i g(.f" 8 " a. <r

m..

p{ I, s. %,\\l .t, { .'.4 l s -., ~ p',g;.. g.,g,', ' (l... < e i w ,y . a p,, ;_, .y .+, i.- s u + ,.y,, 7-s, .,em 6_ n., p.y n - .m-r ..7 s s +g%.# 4 E_, ,q.; 2 ., q: e' 3 4- , ). i . : W.* + t, s, o q.c.-7.... W. ( j. <s t f

.- t.;

-m - 1 m s. s . t' s e r. ....y gn,

p

"J? e ' " pi 4 i,

o

^", + ~ e ifa~ .i i' h'u a -.. cl A e i .,4 v y l co h[ ~ ~ W Q &.4 m [;. .(yp

g. -

.a g e. [ ~ 1 \\ 1 Figure 13: Estimated cooling tower silhouette from 2.2 miles southeast of the plant site - photo point 2 on map 3. (courtesy of Puget Power & Light). i 1i )

i,

,t \\

\\

\\,\\ ll f* .g ;s .@} tigs3sk 3 j

, n*

+x J' 1 4 %f;", s ~~

• '3

._,i . $m s t e,}. 3 a.c :v I ,ym t n e @y-k ^ io ? p ,.gm, I o + y.y. t

4. '

h o -l jl~ ^ p e '+;. y r '( -.f e ~ '( [ t ~. m_#:nc t is y' t I n ':.,. ~,~ ',, f a .v-e ~ l ? ?'< p

g. '

~ ' f[, -n . m e t' ^ h ,E t c 3 ~ , m1 4 ^ s f ~ s V. ~ . 'v; o F~'

"v

%v .x. w R' w ts S e 'g g*... t y~ }a yn h a ~ g . 'ch u os f,

+

I..Vh s g s

f..

m'? Y e p:.

..'pYp[

l i M l, 7 m pp

3.,. > :q#)Q 1

1,y c W- -:vT8N Mf. Y m c vv c. ec [ . 3.-.g,R o~ o n~ Qyc>;w% x a r .yy}l pgp. s f T

Q d}/

Qf s M m7. p .r. ~ e 1

5 t

yfw, ~5, t eff ok ~ ue w' N r o pE .k 3 fVp / ~ h) l t j ih 4,E e sg e.h, p, %5 y d' f i rL ,M) Af'. e wI. w o .g [_ ew& i; W. yw ,dQ n t r .,h i j-no 4 gw ?'C, pk i P m s s' w"n,m W g_ gd,T f m 3

M

. b[ W A l c a, ot p:;w _. 4; ,4 p oe E y t cg u ..i g .,n-., F v dP

m. gp.hp. %;? f M

t e E,' w ~y= - }+p h. q ? t y a

4. o~M.

%. g.k c y' . s as me it ,M,hg -. 7 4, t r y-su 5 ,p= 6Q M[(1. n E o a.& c w e, m':a,, %g # c' + i.- ( .~ -e m~ ' n 4. M] ra 13 ~ ,u h. $&d in ep /[ v9 .y um ~. ~3 g n 3 g h f R Fo s ggb[n. 3g 4 +~ o n c N \\ 1, >1 .Ie i

... - _. _ _ _ _. _ i 4 ~, h I .~ 4 e 4.. > s i ... 3 r',.. m. 3 g .f * ~$ y, i% ? [ l . b I

?f!..

.Q,..,., ;' +ly,,. f.l 6 MWh, g. %&Q{?@&. %,..g?!.gg,,.s_gf[9';fY 9 P... k. ypfs@p%. ..f yu . % A g.' Q j.f7:Cd f. M,;7f.,sQ,sf,.n.;. qun.;@,i.,v[Y. ~ 1. P'c. ,a a ..-c. ., '%'QJ&*i7%1

jh cu u.

4.j$j$] y.. . - n. y:. .. x,, y g; g.@_.<r,m .e.~qn.c. 4.x yw;. r,s u,en.; &.:,p 2 s e: g.. - w a. m. v; m .u..e p.'$,.,,<".; g - ~-,... s.. w 3. y_.. .:. - ~ .y; 3g~ 7

y..

..N._.... 6 'a .i. " ? ..' } -' .. ~

3

-m'., g...

e..,_

...

.y. g'. t

m. a

. ; r. 4 s ,g 4,,.:+ ;., g.;+,4..p4.yg. 4 .g .g i m; g jp h,. . y l' p.. ....:.y,.'..'. .. ?. .'..Q g. [ gg6. 6.;q,x' e. (... l $:;k " w w) ; D N :)y.?$ f $c^ W t \\ l; _ ~ ' . A 3 [. j:f-W ?S mb -.R g ~r-w.e m, ~ y, Q, ' W. " , Q' _ 5-p.m - L. k.[yl.4 &9,.$ 6 f.. / ).p h O e, ' $2% N. 3* .} ',' - en .n g g g /. 5. -{ / 4= W , p + ~,.

4'

.y. s W a o a s s I s e A F' g s Q 4 1 cy a e ;-, ,en . q .,. :s . 3. wf.. r. +- ~ ,a:: e, ge,. '] I o y ,1 7 s ,. ~< ,q1 7., .t_ p3 _, y. +h ip; j, - y 3 g + vw j c .x. n ( .g N Figure 15: Estimated cooling tower silhouette from 3 niles southwest of plant site - photo point 4 on Map 3 (courtesy Puget Power & Light).

4-31 Power to the plant site for construction purposes would be supplied from one 115-kV line originating at a substation on two existing IIS-kV lines that parallel SR20 and run east and west. Neither the 230-kV nor llF-kV lines would be visible from the river. The primary substation on the plant site would not be visible from the river, as it would be located at the back of the site and screened by native vegetation. 4.6.2 Impacts of Power Lines No new power line construction would cross the Skagit River or take place within the study a rea. New lines constructed would not be visible from the river. Consequently, no impaccs to Wild and Scenic River values would occur. 4.7 ONSITE CONSTRUCTION 4.7.1 Description Onsite construction would occur on the main plant site, about 1.5 miles from the river (see Map 2, p. 2-6). This construction would impact the river in two prirary ways: there would be increases in both water temperature and silt in streams which drain the construction area. The water temperature of streams rises when riparian vegetation is removed from the shoreline, permitting more sunlight to reach the water and wam it. The amount of stremside vegetation to be removed from overhanging cover and waterfalls would offset the higher temperatures before the streams reach the Skagit River. Merchantible logs generated by the clearing process would be marketed, and the remaining material would be burned. It is doubtful that smoke would reach the river area, but it would probably be visible. Construction activities that would disturb the natural site cover and could lead to siltation would be clearing and grubbing of the site fo' lowed by excavation. Approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards of fill would be excavated for this project. As topscil is removed, it wwld be stockpiled for reuse. The stockpiled material would be sloped to minimize erosion. Most of the excavation material would be used on the site, as cut areas would about equal the fill areas. Excess fill would be disposed of on the plant site and graded and vegetated to minimize erosion. Erosion control methods would include shaping and vegetating raw earth surface to minimize silt in runoff. They would also include construction of settling ponds to remove suspended silt loads in the runoff water. The ponds would te periodically cleaned out to insure that they maintain sufficient capacity to catch and hold silt in runoff. Some short-term siltation would occur as a result of stream channel modification activities. Construction of the access road and the railroad spur would require disturbance of stream beds during placement of culverts. About 550 feet of Wiseman Creek would be rechanneled for the new access road. About 5,200 feet of Black Creek would be diverted into a new channel to control its drainage near the sutstation location. Portions of this stretch of Black Creek are dry in the summer. The new channel would be approximately 2,800 feet long. Construction activities would include excavations for foundations and footings. This could require pumping to remove water from runoff or from a perched table. Such water would Le spread over the ground above the siltation ponds to facilitate settling. The applicant proposes to monitor surface runoff during plant construction. Should excessive amounts of silt begin reaching the streams, steps would be taken to ameliorate the problem. Some blasting would be required to complete site excavation. Accompanying noise would probably reach the river, and it could be expected that dust raised would be visible to the river traveler. I' One portion of the construction process could produce an effluent that could impact the river. Af ter the equipment is installed, and before operation can comence, all water bearing systems would be washed. However, the washing solution would be processed through the low volume liquid waste treatment system prior to discharge into the river. Following this treat-ment the effluent would meet Environmental Protection Agency criteria for water discharged from a metal-washing process.

4-32 4.7.2 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River Due to its locativn 1.5 miles from the river, onsite construction vould have no impact on (.he free-flowing character of the river. 4.7.3 Impact on Water Quality No impact on water temperature is anticipated. Some siltation would enter the Skagit River, both from excavation activities at the site and from ccnstruction activities which would occur in streams tributary to the Skagit River. It appears that the applicant has developed prevention and mitigation measures which would minimize this effect. Effluent from the metal-washing process for water bearing systems in the completed plant could have a temporary adverse effect on water quality. Full compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit would avoid these potential effects. 4.7.4 Impact on Fish No significant impact on fish is anticipated, provided measures to minimize siltation and toxicity of the metal-working effluent are successful. 4.7.5 Impact on Wildlife Onsite construction would not directly affect wildlife within the study area. Cordtruction activities, and human a::tivity during operation might cause some species to relocate, increasing competition for food and territory within the study area. This impact is not anticipated to be significant. 4.7.6 Impact on Vegetation No impact on vegetation within the study area would occur as a result 0.f onsite construction. 4.7.7 Impact on Endangered and Threatened Species Environmental surveys conducted to date have produced no evidence of endangered or ti:eatened species in this area. 4.7.8 Impact on Visual Quality Merchantible logs generated by the clearing process would be marketed, and the remaining material would be burned. It is doubtful that smoke would reach the river area, but it would probably be visible. Some blasting would be required to complete site excavation. Accompanying no se would probably reach the river, and it could be expected that dust raised would be visible to the river traveler. Both of these effects would be temporary ald short-lived, and are of M real significance. Other effects to visual quality have been previously discussed in sections 4.5.8 and 4.e. 4.7.9 Impact on Recreation As previous t discussed in section 4.5.8, onsite construction--when completed--would have secondary adverse effects upon the recreation experience of a segment of the population, when viewed from this portion of the river.

4-33 4.7.10 Impact on Noise The only anticipatd impact on ambient noise levels associated with onsite construction would take place when blasting occurred. The intermittent sound of blasting would probably be audible throughout this portion of the study area, but would have no other impact. 4.7.11 Impact on Public Safety Onsite construction would have no impact on public safety within the study area. 4.8 F1.i REARING FACILITY 4.8.1 Description The applicant proposes to construct a fish-rearing facility as part of the plant installation. It would utilize warm water from the cooling towers to imp.ove yield. It would be managed as part of the power project, and fish releases would be coordinated through the Washington State Department of Fish. The fish facility would include a pond for collecting mature adults that have traveled upstream to spawn. The site for the adult upstream migrant fish collecting pond would be adjacent to the Skagit River at river mile 32.5, with the fish ladder entering Minkler Slough at its confluence with the river. The river bank is about ten feet high at this point with little or ao screening for the river traveler. The backdrop would Se a forested knob just northwest of the site. At least some of the fish released would be turned loose into the pond to " imprint" them for subsequent return. In this way, %e project hopes to insure a continuing supply of mature adults for eggs. The mature adult collecting pond would be a gravel-lined pond approximately 130 feet in diameter located at the junction of Minkler Slough and the Skagit River. Access between the pond and the slough would be via a multi-step fish ladder. A pump would be located at the foot of the ladder, and t' waterline would parallel the ladder to move water to the pond. The collectir.g pond won nelude a 20' x 30' x 10' work building at the head of the pond. The effluent from the fish-rearing facility would be pumped into the plant discharge line and would be composed of varying amounts of river water and wann blowdown water. Disposal of this effluent was discussed earlier. (Section 4.3) Since decommissioning plans are not yet set, it is not known whether the applicant would continue to operate the fish-rearing facilities after p: - - Qutdown. It might be possible to turn the facilities over to some government agency for operation. There would be no warm water after, plant shutdown, so the operation would, by necessity, become a cold water hatchery. 4.8.2 Impact on Free-flowing Characteristics of the Skagit River The mature fish collection pond would alter the free-flowing character of Minkler Slough by periodically requiring a fish diversion structure at the mouth of the fish ladder. A pump would be installed near the barrier to supply water to the pond and fish ladder. The main channel of the Skagit River would not be affected. 4.8.3 Impact on Water Quality The adult fish collection pond would probably have small effects on river quality. The facility would directly flow into Minkler Slough and thence into the river. Construction of this facility should be of short enough duration so as to cause minimal silt increment to the river. No holding and feeding of fish would occur in the pond, so it should not alter the river's chemical quality. 4.8.4 Impact on Fish Impacts from the adult fish collection facility would probably occur only during construction. Some temporary turbidity could be expected. The collection pond would utilize water pumped

F 4-34 from Minkler Slough, 50 it would te water natural to the existing system. An impact on fish populations would be incurred while adults were being collected to obtain enough eggs to operate the fish rearing facility. 4.8.5 Mact on Wildlife The adult fish collecting pond should not greatly affect wildlife populations, either terrestrial or avian. It is possible that species feeding on spawned salmon could find sustenance in the fish, but these numbers would be small. 4.8.6 Impact on Vegetation No significant impact upon riparian vegetation is anticipated. 4.8.7 Impact on Endangered and Threatened Species Environmental surveys conducted to date have produced no evidence of endangered or threatened species in this area. 4.8.8 Impact on Visual Quclity The plans for the adult fish collector do not indicate whether any vegetation occurs naturally along the bank to hide the pond and its associated structures--por,1, fish ladder, work shed, pump shelter. It is possible that they would be visible from the surface of the river if there is no vegetative screening. However, it is anticipated that such impacts could be successfully mitigated by planting vegetative screens and employing other standard techniques. 4.8.9 Impact on Recreation No adverse effects to public recreation opportunities are anticipated. Fisherman success ratios might be increased as a result of additional fish using the lower river. 4.8.10 Impact on N31se The adult fish collector would produce noise during the time the pump would be in operation or whenever fish were being released or collected. The project plans do not indicate the size or noise level of the pump. It is anticipated that noise generated in this operation would be minor, with no real effect beyond the immediate area of operations. 4.8.11 Impact on Public Safety No impacts to public safety are anticipated as a result of this operation.

5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS [This section summarizes the adverse environmental effects of the proposcd nuclear plant on the river which the Forest Service has identified as unavoidable]. 5.1 EFFECTS ON THE FREE-FLOWING CHARACTER OF THE SKAGIT RIVER The free-flowing character of the Skagit River would be impinged by the construction of about 3,700 feet of new riprap in the vicinity of the Ranney collectors. This would increase the total amount of riprtp in this 15.6 mile segment of the lower Skagit River from 2.1 miles to 2.8 miles. The erection of temporary cofferdams in the river channel would be necessary for construction of the barge slip and placement of the diffuser pipe. The cofferdams would temporarily constrict the river channel and would interfere with the free-flowing character of the river for the duration of their use. The free-flowing character of the 'emanently impinged for about 250 feet, should

• Na the proposed barge slip be deeded tt

.y for operation as a boat launch. 5.2 EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY A minor tenporary increase in turbidity would occur as a result of sedimentation caused by construction work in or near the channel of the Skagit River and some of its tributaries. 5.3 EFFECTS ON FISH Temporary increases in sedimentation caused by construction work may have a minor effect on incubating fish eggs, fish fry, and the gill structures of adult fish subject to contact with the sedimentation. Increased fishing pressure may result if the barge slip is converted to future public use as a boat launch. Adult anadromous fish returning to the fish collection facility may compete with native fish for space in the river during migration. 5.4 EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE Small tracts of land totalling one acre or less would be enclosed by security fencing, denying access to most forms of wildlife. Habitat for creatJres which inhabit river banks would be altered along about 3,950 feet. 5.5 EFFECT ON VEGETATION Permanent displacement of vegetation would occur at several small 31tes within the study area. The total acreage affected would be one acre or less in size. Temporary displacement of riparian vegetation would occur on an area of 5 acres or less in total size, located at several sites along the river. 5.6 EFFECT ON ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES None 5.7 EFFECT ON VISUAL QUALITY About 3,700 feet of natural river bank would be shaped and riprapped, increasing the amount of obvious shoreline radification by 0.7 miles. 5-1

5-2 The qJality of the view out from the river and its shorelines--looking north--would be seriously affected by the introduction of highly visible massive concrete forms and steam plumes. The:e disharmonious elements would be intermittently visible from Lyman (river mile 35) downstream to the study area terminus at Mount Vernon (river mile 16). These structures would be located in the background element of the scene where they would be dominant features due to their symmetry, mass and color. 5.8 EFFECT ON RECREATION Hydraulic conditions created by the placement of coffordams in the river channel could temporarily discourage or prevent navigation past the construction site for an estimated 90 days. This effect is dependent upon the magnitude of the hydraulic disturbances created, for which there is no projection. The quality of the recreation experience on the Skagit River downstream from Lyman would be diminished for some persons due to the visibility of the cooling towers, drift plumes, and other site structures from this segment of the river. 5.9 EFFECTS ON NOISE Various construction activities along the river would have minor, temporary adverse effects upon ambient noise levels. Dep.... ant upon the type of electric motors selected and the amount of roise mitigation employed, operation of the Ranney collector pumps could introduce a continual electrical hum into the audio setting in tne vicinity of the Ranney site. If the proposed barge slip were to be retained as a public boat launch, some additional noise from automobile engines and outboard motors would be generated on an intermittent basis. Blasting activities occurring on the plant site would be audible throughout the study area. 5.10 EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY Constriction of the river channel while cofferdams are in place could create hydraulic conditions of such a magnitude as to impede boats attempting to navigate past the construction site. Hydraulic conditions which would create an actual hazard to normal rivir traffic are not anticipated. l

6-1 6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE OF LONb TERM PRODUCTIVITY INTRODUCTION The nuclear project is designed for a specific period of time--a short-term o rating 11fe of about 35 years. This section concerns the nossibility of returning the river facility sites to their original conditions upon expiration rf the project. It also considers whether plant operation would induce environmental changes that might preclude the opportunity to return the sites to original conditions. 6.1 RANNEY COLLECTOR SITE Presently the collector site produces vegetation, provides wildlife habitat, provides the opportunity for shoreline recreation, and provides a middleground scenic backdrop for river travelers. The area to be removed from production of at least some of these benefits would be a small portion of the whole site, about one acre of the 42 icre site. This land would be within security fencing for the four collectors and their substation. Most of the imorovements could be removed later and leave little or no evidence of previous existence. Disposition plans for the collector have not been developed. If, after decommissioning, they could not be used for some other purpose-- such as irrigation or culinary water for one of the towns--they should be filled in to avoid becoming a safety hazard or attractive nuisance as the caissons deteriorated. Some reduction in forest cover would occur with installation of the collectors and substation. Most of this is alder, cedar and cottonwood with little commercial value. Its greatest values are soil stabilization and its contribution to the scenic quality of the river. Subsequent rehabilitation of the site would permit reforestation of the area. The development plans for this site should include an extensive plan for screening of the collectors from the river with vegetation. Screening would offset the vegetation lost during construction. It may augment site production of small creature habitat. Any plantings made should be with species native to or in common distribution along this portion of the river. Power service to the collectors from the substation would be underground. The existing overhead line to the temporary pumping site, for well production testing, should be removed. If this is done, there should be no impact upon the site from distribution lines. Roads would be maintained to the collectors during construction and operation. The roads should be natural or gravel surfaced to limit impact upon the land. They would impact the land during the project, but could be easily obliterated upon plant decorrnissioning. 6.2 RIPRAP The major riprap would be along 8,300 feet of bank to protect the collector site along the outside of the river bend. Other parts of the project would probably also require riprap on rive banks to stabilize and protect the site. The banks of the barge slip would require rock work as would the shore where the discharge pipeline is buried. The major impact from this operation is from construction, since it would involve ea ehwork down to and below the water level. The installation of the rock face, designed for long tenn use, stabilizes a river bank that is highly susceptible to hydraulic erosion (avulsion) and reduces subsequent channel movement that would naturally occur over time.

6-2 It also produces a visual inp: ct, since the bank would be laid back on a 2:1 slope and faced with large, unifom rock. The pro'.le is not natural and tre rock face would be in visual contrast with the rest of the scenic '.etting. The major impact to the ecos. ' tem of the river would be the loss of habitat for water animals that nonnally burrow into the bank for shelter. It is doubtful that interstices in the rock face would provide opportunities to allow such activity. Maintenance of the riprap at the collector site would also mean maintenance of the dike upon which the rock is installed. Since the dike is already built, further work or maintenance on it should not greatly alter long tem productivity for the site. Improvement and maintenance of this entire river stabilization complex at river mile 39 would be beneficial to the farmers who now maintain it with no help from a flood control' district. huch of the work in and around this area would be accomplished by using the dirt-surface road on the top of the dike. It is anticipated that it would be surfaced with gravel for use by heavy equipment. This should be an insignificant impact upon site capabilities in either the short run or the long run. Siltation produced by installation and maintenance of the riprao could lead to reductions in production capacity within the river for fish or other aquatic life, at least until the silt was flushed out. However, this one-time, temporary amount of siltation is considered to be less damaging than the regular, periodic siltation which would take place if the river bank were not stabilized with riprap. 6.3 ADULT FISH COLLECTING POND ' Installation of the adult fish collecting pond would probably not produce s ;nificant impacts upon productive capacity for either the land or the aquatic environs affected by the site. Its development would appreciably increase the fish production capacity of that small portion of the river system. Upon completion of the effective life of the plant, the pond complex wuld continue to be operated as a fish collector. The prcject hatchery would be a cold water facility after plant clnsure. If this wmld not be done, the site could be returned to its original state with no loss in long tem productivity. 6.4 BARGE SLIP Construction of this facility would alter the shoreline from its original condition to a significant extent. It would reduce the capability of producing the same type of shoreline scene, recreation access and bank habitat that would be possible with the shore in its original state. The visual impact would be that of a definitely constructed, riprapped alteration of the bank. Recreation access would be improved as the site is now in thick brush, making access difficult. Removal of this thick brush would produce a re action in habitat for small creatures i and birds. The site could be returned to its original condition after use. This would be done at the same 1 high, temporary environmental cost experienced with construction--silting the river. Such i reconstruction of original conditions would be possible, so that the short tem use of the site would have no impact upon long tem productivity. ( The site could also be turned into a public water access site. This would continue the alteratipn l in pruduction capacity for the site, but also continue the increased recreation production i capacity of the installation. A high standard access road would have to be built for the reactor vessels. This construction i would have the same impact on long tem productivity as the rest of the site--temporary if the site is returned to its original state, long term if access use is established. 6.5 DIFFUSER Construction of the discharge pipeline and the diffuser would produce no short term impacts on the productive capacity of either the terrestrial or aquatic sites at the point of installation. i l i

6-3 ~ Changes that would occur with operatio, ' the diffuser would be associated with the effluent. It does not appear that the compositio. Af the effluent plume or its themal and chemical components would produce significant changes in the productive capacity of the river. Changes that might occur would be reversible if the effluent were eliminated. A monitoring program below the diffuser would be estahlished by the applicant to check for unanticipated reaction to the effluent. This program would identify slow, subtle impacts which could reduce the capacity of the river over the long run by eliminating some species from the river ecosystem. Effluent discharge which meets the design and licensing criteria should not impact the river. 6.6 VISUAL IMPACTS. The construction of facilities rear the river--the Ranney site and the adult fish collector site--would be done in a manner to minimize impact upon the scenic setting of the river. These i facilities would probably be removed and t. sites restored to their original condition after the life span of the project, if they were not continued in use for other purposes. The short term utilization of the sites would not cause any change in their long term productivity. 4 The greatest change in the long tem visual resources in or near the river would be the intrusion upon the scene of the cooling towers and other plant structures visible from the river. F 'ce no decommissioning plan has been developed, it is not known what disposition may be made of these structures. They may be long term impacts upon the visual resources of the area. 1 The barge slip, if retained for public use, would be a minor change in the visual setting of the river near Sedro Woolley. i 6.7 FISH RESOURCES l There would be no short run or long tem alteration of fish populations in the Skagit River if l construction 6ctivities were timed for minimal impacts and operation of the plant meets design i specifications for the effluent. Under the operating license, operation or equipment modifications j would ',e required if ongoing sampling detected potentially toxic trends within biota in the river. Any change that might occur to make tne river an unsuitable habitat would produce long term reductions in fish production. i 6.8 NOISE Most of the noise impact for the river associated facilities would occur during installation. The only probable source of noise during the operation of the project would be the Ranney collector pump motors. Noise associated with these facilities would aly occur when the pumps are in operation. They would not have significant long tem impact upn wildlife use of the area 4 if properly mitigated. ] 6.9 FREE FLOWING CHARACTER U THE RIVER Proposed facilities along the /iver would have little impact upon the present flow character of the Skagit River once construction is completed. The greatest impact would be the reduction in natural channel shifting resulting from the bank riprapping of the Ranney site. This would constitute a minor additional. impingement on the overall free-flowing character of the river. 6.10 RECREATION This project would not produce long tem adverse impacts of any significance upon the recreational use of the Skagit River or its imediate environs. A long run increase in recreational use of i the river would result if the barge slip were converted to a boat launch site, making public access to the river easier.

6-4 6.11 PUBLIC SAFETY There would be no significant increase in public hazards during the operation of the river l associated facilities. A possible hazard could exist after the plant is shut down if the R,inney caissons, half-filled with ground water, were not secured from accioe.7tal entry or caving. 6.12 ONSITE CONSTRUCTION Construction at the plant site could produce short term changes in the river environment and the environment of streams near the plant which flow into the Skagit by introducing silt into aquatic ecc;fstems. The greatest possible impact from this condition sould be upon the habitat of fish species which might be using the river during periods of siltation. Site runoff will be required by construction permits to meet state standards for sedimentation.

7-1 7. IRREVERS1BLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Many aspects of the proposed nuclear project have been discussed in the previous sections of this supplement, and their possible impacts have been considered and analyzed in great detail. Based upon this material, the Forest Service has identified two areas of the project which might con-stitute irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. These are the visual impact associated with the cooling towers and the physical impact from riprapping in or near the river. 7.1 VISUAL IMPACT OF THE COOLING TOWERS The hill on which the cooling towers would sit is approximately 415 feet above sea level, and the towers themselves would be 520 feet tall. Bacus Hill, which would partially screen the towers from the river, is about 570 feet above sea level at its highest point, and the trees on it are between 60 and 10013et tall. This would mean that approximately 260-300 feet of the cooling towers would be visible from the river, which would present a striking visual impact to the river traveler. The towers would be natural concrete color, which would heighten their contrast with the surrounding terrain. This impact would last for at least the 35 years of anticipated plant operation. No plan for decommissioning the plant has been developed. The towers and their appurtenant structures could be left standing, in which case their impingsent upon scenir values would be permanent. The structures could also be demolished, negating their visual impact once the plant's productive life was over. 7.2 PHYSICAL IMPACT OF RIPRAPPING There would be riprap in three areas--the collector site, the barge slip and the diffuser pipe site. In each case, it is reasonable to assume that the riprap is there pemanently. At the collestor site, there would be approximately 8,300 feet of rigrap installed. This would include both new riprap and improvement of riprap already in place. The applicant would maintain this for the life of the plant; the rock would undoubtedly be left, but not maintained by the applicant, upon decommissioning. There would be no visual impact--vegetation and weathering would have removed any stark contrast between the riprap and the more natural banks--and the installed riprep would help to stabilize the river bank. If left unmaintained, the river could eventually erode the riprap away, reestablishing the free-flowing character of this short stretch. Approximately 250 feet of shoreline would be needed for installation Qthe barge s'ip. It is likely that riprapping of the bank both upstream and downstream from the slip site would be necessary to stabilize the area. Should the barge slip be turned over to a public agency for use as a river access site, this riprap would be retained to help maintain the access which the slip would provide. Should the area be returned to its natural state, this riprap could be buried or it could be allowed merely to weather and decay. Either way, riprap associated with the barge slip would be so minor in scope and scale that it would have no significant adverse effect upon the Skagit River. The final site where riprapping would be necessary is at the diffuser pipe. The pipe itself would be buried in the bank, but it would be necessary to protect the pipe from bank erosion with localized riprap. There would also be some riprapping of the river bank, both upstream and downstream from the diffuser, which would be half-buried in the bottom of the river. As with the other areas to be riprapped, the rock work would be essentially pemanent, but of minor overall adverse effect upon the river's character. In no area with which this report is concerned would there be a completely irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. All sites which would be impacted could either be restored to their natural state or would return to their pre-project condition if mairtenance work ceased.

8-1 8. MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT IMPACTS The measures and controls suggested below by the Forest Service would mitigate many of the potential adverse effects which could be caused by the nuclear project. Many of the measures and controls listed here are already imposed by the Federal or State laws, license requirecents, or by other regulations; if these are known, they are cross-referenced. 1. Public access to the Skagit River and its immediate shoreline should not be diminished by any facility constructed. 2. Security fencing should be limited to facilities and equipment, and should not enclose large tracts of undeveloped land. (FES 4.7.2., p. 4-15) 3. A public safety plan should be developed to control all construction activities occurring - along or in the Skagit River. Whenever feasible, public use and enjoyment of the river and-its innediate shoreline should not be interrupted by construction activities. 4. Adequate warning signs should be posted on the river bank and public notices should be printed in area newspapers when changes in river hydraulics are anticipated as a result of construction or associated activities in the river channel. 5. Earthwork accomplished in the vicinity of the Skagit River and its tributary streams should be reve & 4-7) getated as soen as possible to minimize erosion and siltation. (FES 4.7.2., p. 4-15 6. Installation and removal of cofferdams shculd be approved by the State Departments of Game and Fisheries so as to avoid significant impacts to fish. Other construction in or along the river should be similarly controlled in the interest of the fish resource. (Provided for by State law) 7. Construction in and along the river should be timed to minimize impacts upon the Skagit River and its biosystems; if this results in additional impact on recreational use of the river, decisions should favor the preservation of the river and its systems. 8. Before onsite construction commences, maximum acceptable levels should be established by appropriate State agencies for sedimentation entering the Skagit River from the plant site. Adequate monitors should be instal?ad before construction begins. Contingency plans should be developed by the applicant and approved by the State to insure that excessive siltation would be quickly controlled. (Provided for by State law, and in FES 4.7.2., p. 4-15) 9. Shoreline construction should be designed to minimize damage to riparian vegetation, particularly if that vegetation might serve to screen developments from the river. (FES 4.7.2., p. 4-15) l

10. To the extent possible, facilities visible from the river should be screened by natural or

-. planted vegetation to reduce both visual and noise impacts. (FES 4.7.2) i I p - 11. The visual effect of riprap should be mitigated with the random planting of trees or shrubs i under the direction of a landscape architect. t 112. - All planting and seeding should be done with native species. (FES 4.7.2) ~13. Structures built within the Study Area (shown on Map 1) which would be visible from the river should be finished with rough-textured wood, painted or stained in non-reflective earth colors selected to minimize contrast with their background. f i.~ L. l _~ __,.

8-2

14. N11se mitigation for the Ranney well pump motors should be applied to insure that there would be no undue increase in snbient noise levels at shoreline.

15. Primary goals of the water quality and discharge control program should be to protect the water of the Skagit River, and to avoid adverse effects upon its ecosystems, and the rec-reational and commercial values of its fisheries. (NPDES Permit)

16. The effluent monitoring system, along with the controls and equipment involved, should be such that any unusual or large discharge of thermal, chemical or radioactive material into the effluent system could be detected and stopped. (NPDES Permit)

17. Studies should be planned to determine the extent, effect and impacts of the effluent plumt upon the river and its biota under varying conditions of flow rates, temperature, season, and other similar factors. (Provided for in FES 6.2)

18. A baseline chemical study should be completed on the Skagit to determine all chemicals now present and their potential for toxicity upon concentration in the effluent. (Done, FES 6.1)

19. On-going surveys should be conducted to insure that no endangered or threatened species, whether plant or animal, would be affected in either aquatic or terrestrial environments which would be affected by construction or operation of the proposed facility. (FES 6.1, 6.2)

l 9-1 9. FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The specific items listed below are recomended by the forest Service to serve as guidance to the applicant during construction, operation and decommissioning of project-related fac'lities along the river to ensure that no significant impacts Will occw. 1. The collector pump stations should be as unobtrusive as possible. They should have the lowest possible profile, a rough non-refbetive finish and be colored in dark earth tones. The objective is to get them to blend into the forested backdrop along the bank. 2. Vegetative plantings should be established to conceal the manipulated nature of the bank and to hide the pump buildings. The plantings should be randomly scattered, rnt put in neat patterns or rows. The species planted should be native or in common distribu*. ion in the area. 3. The substation at the collectors should be located away from and hidden from the river. Neither it nor the powerlines in to it should be visible from the river bank. Power service to the wells should be underground. The corridors that w)old be needed to bury the lines should be located so as to not be noticeable from the river. 4. Vegetative plantings might be required at the adult fish collecting pond to screen possibb visual and noise impacts from the river. 5. Construction impnts from the installation of the diffuser pipeline should be made as light as possible so revegetation would completely hide the work done. The pipeline should be buried such that the bank profile is not altered from its preconstruction shape. Revegetation should meet the same criteria already listed above for other parts of the project. 6. Examination of the impact of the diffuser on the river and its flow would be required arter installation. A determination should be made as to whether signs would be needed to warn river travelers of the buried pipe. It is hard to visualize warning signs that would be unobtrusive. 7. The barge slip should be retained as a public water access facility. It would need to be revegetated so as to soften the manipulated look. Power lines for service needed on the site should be underground. Restoration of the site after unloading is completed would require that the river shoreline be returned to its original condition, including fill to original contours. 8. Any Ranney collector installation at the supplemental site, river mile 33, would require extensive vegetative plantings to screen the developments. The site now is devoid of such vegetation. 9. There are no functional considerations for the alternative surface water intake at river mile 26, since this facility is entirely unacceptable on the Skagit River.

10. Security fencing should be limited to the smallest possible area so as to not limit public access to the river bank.

11. Construction that would generate silt in the river should be coordinated with the Washington Departments of Game and Fish to time the work for least possible..wt upon fish resources of the river.

12. All bank stabilization work should minimize the look of manipulation as much as possible.

Such structures as bin walls, concrete bunkers or other obviously man-made structures would be direct and adverse impacts on the character of the Skagit. Riprap should be limited to natural or shot rock up to 24" diameter.

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RE-EVALUATED BENEFIT-COST BALANCE The Forest Service assessment properly placed its emphasis on evaluation of ;,otential impacts of the proposed Skagit Nuclear Power Project on recreational values of the Skagit River, whereas the NRC FES evaluated the project impacts on the environment more broadly. Consequently, the Forest Service assessment, and this supplement which is based upo1 it, provides more detailed information on project components which would be in or near the r!ver - notably the increase -

in amount of riprap from the existing 2.1 miles to 2.8 miles in the affected 15.6 mile segment o' the river, inconvenience to boaters due to hydraulic conditions around the temporary coffer dams during construction of the discharge diffuser pipe and the barge unloading facility, and operating noise from electric motors driving the Ranney collector pumps. The Forest Service also noted that tne large natural-draft cooling towers and their plumes would be prominent an. unnatural features which could be seen in some degree from many locations along the river. However, the primary recreational use of this Uction of the river is for fishing and the presence of the cooling towers and their plumes is unlikely to have any effect on this use of the river. In the opinion of the NRC staff, the Forest Service assessment does not identify any adverse impacts that would significantly impair those values for which the Skagit River might be designated a " recreational" component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, provided the applicant observes and abides by the " measures and controls to limit impacts" and the " functional con-siderations" set forth in Sections 8 and 9 of this supplement. The staff therefore concludes that the items listed in these sections, to the extent they are not identified as already required by State law or would not more properly be considered in the operating license technical specifications for this project, should be included in FES Section 4.7 (measures and controls to limit adverse effects during construction). By including them in FES Section 4.7, the Forest Service recommendations become proposed limitations on the construction permits, as indicated in item 7 of the Summary and Conclusions at the beginning of this supplen,ent. The staff has re-evaluated the overall environmental cost of the proposed project, including the impacts identified by the Forest Service, and finds the initial conclusion in the FES remdns unaltered; i.e., that the benefits of increased availability of electrical energy in the applicant's service areas and in the Pacific horthwest region would outweigh the environmental and economic costs of the project when it is constructed and operated in accordance with the conditions listed in the Summary and Conclusions. 10-1}}