[Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 19)]
[Notices]
[Page 5184-5189]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja08-50]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the
Trinity Public Utilities District Direct Interconnection Project (DOE/
EIS-0389)
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) intends to
construct the Trinity Public Utilities District (PUD) Direct
Interconnection Project (Project) in Trinity County, California.
Consumers in the Trinity PUD service area routinely experience nearly
20,000 consumer hours per year in outages, according to the Trinity
PUD. In the winter, many of the outages last three to four days before
power can be restored. Western's Project would improve power system
reliability in the area by providing a direct interconnection between
Trinity PUD and Western's transmission system at the Trinity Power
Plant. Western proposes to remove about 5.3 miles of existing 12-
kilovolt (kV) distribution line, and construct, operate, and maintain
about 16 miles of new 60-kV transmission line, a three-way switching
structure and associated equipment, and a new switchyard. The Project
would connect to Trinity PUD's system at its Lewiston Substation and at
the new Weaverville Switchyard. Western is the lead Federal agency, and
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are cooperating agencies
that participated in the preparation of the environmental impact
statement (EIS). Full implementation of the decision to construct this
Project is contingent upon obtaining all applicable permits and
approvals.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Tuggle, Natural Resources
Manager, Sierra Nevada Customer Service Region N1400, Western Area
Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710;
telephone (916) 353-4549; e-mail tuggle@wapa.gov. Copies of the EIS are
available from Mr. Tuggle. For information about the DOE National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, contact Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-20, U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585, telephone (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western prepared an environmental impact
statement entitled ``Environmental Impact Statement; Trinity Public
Utilities District Direct Interconnection Project'' (DOE/EIS-0389) on
its proposal to construct, operate, and maintain power transmission
facilities in Trinity County, California. Portions of the proposed
Project would cross lands managed by the USFS, BLM, and Reclamation.
Western is the lead Federal agency, as defined by 40 CFR 1501.5; USFS,
BLM, and Reclamation are cooperating agencies that participated in the
preparation of the EIS. The EIS is intended to satisfy the requirements
of NEPA for each Federal agency's decision related to the siting,
construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed action. The
decisions to be made by Western, USFS, BLM, and Reclamation regarding
the proposed action, also referred to as the Project, are quite
different and specific to each agency's needs and requirements.
Therefore, each agency intends to issue a separate Record of Decision
(ROD) based on the information presented in the EIS.
The Trinity PUD is a small utility district in northern California
serving approximately 16,000 consumers. The Trinity PUD is connected to
the California Independent System Operator-controlled electrical grid
by 60-kV transmission facilities owned and maintained by Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E). Although transmitted through the PG&E
system, the Trinity PUD receives 100 percent of its power from Western.
The Trinity River Division (TRD) Act provides for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the TRD facilities of the Central Valley
Project, composed of the Trinity Dam, Lewiston Dam, and Clear Creek
Tunnel. 69 Stat. 719 (1955). The
[[Page 5185]]
TRD Act also authorizes Western to construct, operate, and maintain
transmission facilities to deliver Federal power and to furnish energy
in Trinity County. 69 Stat. 719 (1955).
Consumers in the Trinity PUD service area routinely experience
nearly 20,000 consumer hours per year in outages, according to the
Trinity PUD. In the winter, many of the outages last three to four days
before power can be restored. Restoring service is difficult because of
the remote location and rough terrain.
Western's proposed Project would improve power system reliability
in the area by providing a direct interconnection between Trinity PUD
and Western's transmission system at the Trinity Power Plant. Western
proposes to remove about 5.3 miles of existing 12-kV distribution line,
and construct, operate, and maintain about 16 miles of new 60-kV
transmission line, a three-way switching structure and associated
equipment, and a new switchyard. Trinity PUD will be partnering in
restoring this line during emergency outages.
Alternatives Considered
Proposed Action
Western proposes to construct the Trinity PUD Direct
Interconnection Project in Trinity County, California, in portions of
Townships 33 and 34 North, and Ranges 8 and 9 West, Mt. Diablo
Meridian. The main component of the Project would be an approximately
16-mile-long, 60-kV overhead transmission line called the Trinity
County Direct Interconnection, which would connect Western's Trinity
Substation to a new Weaverville Switchyard and one mile of tap line to
connect to Trinity PUD's Lewiston Substation. The proposed action would
remove 5.3 miles of the existing Trinity-Lewiston 12-kV distribution
line and utilize the vacated right-of-way (ROW) for the new 60-kV
transmission line. New ROW would be needed for the rest of the line. At
about Mile 6.5 on the transmission line, a tap line would depart from a
three-way switching structure and proceed south to connect with Trinity
PUD's Lewiston Substation. The Project would terminate at a new small
switchyard near State Route 299 south of Weaverville, and would connect
to existing lines at that location. Use of existing access roads would
be maximized, with improvements made where needed, and a total of about
two miles of new short spurs would be constructed. A more detailed
description of the proposed action by segment follows.
For Segment 1, Western would remove the existing conductor and
poles for 5.3 miles of the Trinity-Lewiston 12-kV distribution line.
The existing cleared ROW for the Trinity PUD line would then be
expanded from about 20-feet wide to 80 feet to accommodate installation
of the new 60-kV transmission line. Segment 1 would follow the existing
ROW from Trinity Substation down river approximately 6.5 miles toward
Lewiston, terminating at a steel pole three-way switching structure
located about 1.5 miles west of Lewiston Dam. Segment 1 would cross the
Trinity River at two locations: below the Trinity Dam and below the
Lewiston Dam near the Trinity River Fish Hatchery. The existing ROW
runs through the steep and rugged terrain of the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest, crossing ridge tops and gullies. The land in Segment 1
is primarily National Forest System land administered by the USFS, and
portions of it are within the boundaries of the Shasta-Trinity National
Recreation Area. However, about one mile of Segment 1 is administered
by Reclamation, 0.5 mile is owned by Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI),
0.25 mile is privately owned, and a small portion of the Segment
crosses BLM land.
For Segment 2, Western would acquire an 80-foot ROW to build a new
60-kV transmission line, approximately one mile in length, south from
the three-way switching structure near Mile 6.5 to the existing Trinity
PUD Lewiston Substation. The switching structure would accommodate the
incoming line from Trinity Substation (Segment 1), the tap line down to
the Lewiston Substation (Segment 2), and the new transmission line
segment to the proposed Weaverville Switchyard (Segment 3). Segment 2
would parallel an existing Trinity PUD distribution line, which runs
south along Trinity Dam Boulevard and Rush Creek Road, and along the
Trinity River, to Lewiston Substation. Segment 2 crosses a mix of USFS,
BLM, SPI, and other privately-owned land. Existing access roads
associated with the distribution line would be used, with newly
constructed short spurs up to the new line from the existing access
roads. Trinity Dam Boulevard and Rush Creek Road follow the Trinity
River on the west side in this location, and the existing Trinity PUD
distribution line is west of the road. The proposed tap line would be
located further to the west, west of the Trinity PUD line. The Trinity
PUD line would thus be between the proposed line and these roads.
For Segment 3, Western would acquire an 80-foot wide ROW to build a
new 60-kV transmission line from the switching structure near Mile 6.5
near Lewiston to a new switchyard to be constructed near Weaverville.
Segment 3 would be approximately 8.5 miles long. Approximately one mile
of Segment 3 would parallel the existing PG&E Cottonwood-Humboldt 115-
kV Transmission Line. The Segment 3 corridor would also run through
steep and rugged terrain and would closely follow an existing logging
road. About 0.25 mile is owned by other private land owners. The land
in Segment 3 is owned primarily by SPI and managed for timber
production. The remaining land is managed by BLM. The proposed action
would require new ROW and use existing and upgraded existing access
roads and new, short spur roads.
As part of the proposed action, Western would also construct a
small 90-by-110-foot switchyard south of the town of Weaverville.
Weaverville Switchyard would be located at the southern terminus of the
transmission line and would be located approximately two miles south of
the center of Weaverville and just east of State Route 299. The new
switchyard would allow the Project to connect with the existing PG&E
radial Trinity-Douglas City 60-kV Transmission Line. The existing PG&E
line would be acquired by Trinity PUD. Permission to occupy the
proposed Weaverville Switchyard would be initially obtained through a
ROW grant from the BLM. Eventually, Western would request conveyance of
the site through sale, pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. 1713), as applicable.
Access to the proposed Weaverville Switchyard would be off State Route
299, using an abandoned section of that highway.
The 60-kV new transmission line would be constructed on single wood
poles ranging from 50 to 105-feet tall. The span between poles would
average 350 feet, ranging from a minimum of 100 feet to a maximum of
500 feet, with some longer or shorter spans depending on topography and
other factors. There would be an average of 16 pole locations per mile,
with an approximate total of 261 pole locations for the entire Project.
About 11 structures would be three-pole turning structures. The turning
structures and approximately 95 additional single poles would be guyed
with wire cable to anchors in the ground. The anchors would consist of
steel screw anchors in soil, an eight-foot anchor rod with plate in
fractured rock, or a grouted rod in solid rock. Anchors would be buried
approximately six feet in the ground.
In addition to the wood poles, up to 10 self-supporting self-
rusting steel structures, directly embedded or with
[[Page 5186]]
rectangular concrete foundations, may be required for large spans or
for increased stability. A steel three-way switch structure would be
installed near Mile 6.5, west of the Trinity River Fish Hatchery. The
switch and associated operating shafts and mechanism housing would be
installed on the structure. The switch structure would be constructed
of Cor-ten steel, which is self-rusting to a flat, dark brown surface,
resulting in a less visible structure.
Other Alternatives
Western considered alternatives during the Project planning
process. System and route alternatives, as described below, were
considered prior to defining the proposed action. Among Western's
planning objectives were to locate the new transmission line along the
shortest route with the fewest landowners and to utilize existing
transmission corridors and access roads to the maximum extent possible.
The proposed action met the purpose and need of Western and the
participating agencies.
Four main system alternatives were developed that could possibly
meet the objective of improving electric reliability by establishing a
new direct interconnection:
System Alternative 1 consisted of parallel Western and PG&E
transmission lines via a new 230- to 60-kV transmission interconnection
between Western's 230-kV transmission system at Trinity Dam and near
the Trinity PUD's Douglas City 60-kV Substation. This alternative would
result in an overloaded element because of the parallel connection
between Western and PG&E, as well as overloads due to contingency
conditions. The levels of overloading suggest that the current carrying
capacity of a 60-kV transmission line would be inadequate for a
configuration of this type. Increasing the equipment voltage would
greatly increase Project costs; therefore, this alternative would not
be feasible. This alternative would not improve the current operational
concerns.
System Alternative 2 was the same as Alternative 1, except that
Western's and PG&E's transmission lines would not be operated in
parallel. The two lines would be isolated via a set of disconnect
switches located between PG&E's Trinity Substation and Trinity PUD's
Mill Street Substation. This configuration would allow Trinity PUD to
operate as a radial load served solely by Western's transmission
system. This alternative would result in no overloads during normal or
contingency operations. However, should an outage occur on this
transmission line, Trinity PUD loads would be without power until
Western service could be restored or until PG&E could close the
switches between Trinity Substation and Mill Street Substation.
Under System Alternative 3, Western's and PG&E's transmission lines
would run in parallel via an interconnection near Western's 230-kV J.F.
Carr Substation. This design would consist of looping PG&E's
Cottonwood-Trinity 115-kV transmission line into a new 230/115-kV
substation in or adjacent to Western's Carr Substation. This
alternative would result in no overloads during normal operations, but
it would result in severe overloads during contingency operations,
suggesting that the 115-kV transmission line would have inadequate
current-carrying capacity for contingency situations. Increasing the
equipment voltage would greatly increase the Project costs; therefore,
this alternative was not found to be feasible.
System Alternative 4 would be a pair of parallel Western and PG&E
transmission lines. It would involve looping PG&E's Cascade-Lewiston
60-kV transmission line into a new 230/60-kV substation in or adjacent
to Western's J.F. Carr 230-kV Substation. This alternative would result
in overloads for both normal and contingency operations, in some cases
in excess of 500 percent, suggesting that the 115-kV transmission line
would have inadequate current-carrying capacity for contingency
situations. Increasing the equipment voltage would also greatly
increase Project costs; for these reasons this alternative would not be
feasible.
The system design selected for the Project was the only system
alternative found to be technically viable and economically feasible.
Other alternatives considered included several different routings
for the Project. Four main routing alternatives were considered, which
are summarized below:
Routing Alternative 1 was an alternative alignment of Segment 1,
from the Trinity Power Plant to the Lewiston Substation. With this
alternative alignment, the line would follow along County Road 105, on
the west side of the Trinity River from Trinity Dam to Lewiston Lake.
There is an existing 12-kV distribution line along this route, the
``Westside'' line. However, this line is being used to serve existing
residential customers in the vicinity and cannot be overbuilt with the
proposed line. Overbuilding this line would cause problems for the
existing customers, including a long outage time during replacement of
the line. The existing 12-kV line passes over mobile home residences
along its route. This situation is allowed for distribution-level
lines, but buildings under transmission lines are not allowed by code.
The existing line is already closer to County Road 105 than the
standards in the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area
(36 CFR 292.13(c)(1)). A transmission line on the existing ROW or
adjacent to it would not be consistent with the 150-foot buffer zone
established by this regulation. Additionally, a 60-kV line would
require more ground clearance and would have to be built higher,
requiring new ROW. This alignment would also disturb a larger amount of
residential, recreational, and wildlife habitat lands than would the
proposed action, and it would require additional rerouting of the line.
The USFS also preferred a location of the transmission line on the east
side of the Trinity River within the existing distribution line ROW,
which would place it within a previously disturbed area; create less
impacts to residential, recreational, and wildlife habitat lands;
create less new visual resource elements; and be more consistent with
USFS land management guidelines. The ``Westside'' routing option was
found to be associated with a number of serious issues at the concept
level, and since it offered no offsetting advantages, it was dropped
from further consideration.
Routing Alternative 2 is an alternative alignment of Segment 2, the
tap line from Lewiston Tap to Lewiston Substation. With this
alternative alignment, the tap line would follow a similar path to
Segment 2 of the Project, but it would be located further west of
Trinity Dam Boulevard. This option was briefly considered to
potentially reduce visual impacts from Trinity Dam Boulevard. This
alignment would require more clearing and access road construction and
a longer tap line than would the proposed action, and would result in
more impact to undisturbed and recreational land.
Segment 2, as described above for the proposed action, would
parallel an existing Trinity PUD distribution line along Trinity Dam
Boulevard. Existing access roads would be used, thereby limiting the
need for additional clearing and access road construction. The route
would also be shorter than for Routing Alternative 2. The USFS
preferred a more eastern location of the tap line adjacent to an
existing Trinity PUD line, which would place it within a previously
disturbed area with existing access roads; create less impact to
recreational lands; and be more consistent with USFS land management
guidelines. Since field investigation
[[Page 5187]]
determined that the routing option did not offer improved visual
screening sufficient to warrant incurring the increased disturbance
impacts, this alignment alternative was not pursued further.
Routing Alternative 3 is an alternative alignment of the western
terminus of the line (Segment 3) that would cross further north than
described for the proposed action. This alignment was initially part of
the proposed action, as it would parallel the PG&E Cottonwood-Humboldt
115-kV transmission line, consolidate ROWs, and utilize existing PG&E
access roads. However, for the past several years, Trinity County has
been considering replacing the existing Weaverville Airport with a new
airport at a new location. This alternative alignment would pass
through the new airport location favored by Trinity County. To avoid
compromising this possible airport location, Routing Alternative 3 was
dropped from further consideration.
Western continued to investigate possible alternatives to the
proposed action even as the Draft EIS was published. Routing
Alternative 4, an underwater cable alternative that would replace
Segment 1, was identified and evaluated for viability. Under this
alternative, the 60-kV line would exit the Trinity Substation and
immediately change into an underwater cable as it entered the Trinity
River next to the substation. The underwater cable would continue
downstream in the river (actually the upper reaches of Lewiston Lake),
extend through most of Lewiston Lake, and exit the lake at a point
nearest to the three-way switch location west of the fish hatchery.
This alternative would end at the three-way switch location.
Advantages of this alternative would include the elimination of
both Trinity River crossings, avoidance of all the rugged terrain
through the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and avoidance of impacts to
terrestrial species in Segment 1. However, a number of technical issues
related to laying and maintaining an underwater cable were identified.
Preliminary estimates of the costs of materials indicated that
underwater cable would be prohibitively expensive for small projects
like the proposed action, even before the additional costs of resolving
the technical issues were known. Since power system reliability is a
key component of Western's purpose and need, and the costs of this
alternative were not economically feasible, the underwater alternative
was determined not to be viable, and it was eliminated from further
consideration.
No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, no upgrades or rebuilds to the
existing transmission line system would be constructed in the Trinity
area, and the existing 12-kV distribution line would be left in place.
For the PG&E lines currently serving the Trinity PUD load, structures
and hardware would be maintained, repaired, and/or replaced as required
during routine maintenance activities or in the event of emergency
outages of the transmission lines. Repairs and maintenance would
increase in frequency as the transmission lines aged.
Implementing the no action alternative would preclude most of the
anticipated effects to the environment that would be associated with
the Project. Long-term adverse socioeconomic impacts might occur as a
result of the no action alternative, because regional electric demands
would not be met and unreliable delivery and shortages would continue
to occur.
Under the no action alternative, other actions and construction
activities with associated adverse environmental effects could be
required to improve the electric system and provide reliable electric
power in the area. Ongoing maintenance activities related to the
existing transmission lines, including vegetation management, would
have continuing visual and environmental effects on a periodic basis.
Agency Preferred Alternative
After reviewing potential environmental impacts, Western identified
the proposed action as the Agency Preferred Alternative. The proposed
action would result in more environmental impact than the no action
alternative but, with committed mitigation, no impacts were found to be
significant.
Public Involvement
A Notice of Intent (NOI) describing the proposed action was
published in the Federal Register (FR) on June 19, 2006 (71 FR 35266).
The NOI announced the intent to prepare an EIS on the proposed Project,
described the proposal, provided scoping meeting locations and dates,
started a 30-day scoping comment period, and provided contacts for
further information about the proposed Project and for submitting
scoping comments. In addition to the NOI published in the FR, a local
NOI newsletter was sent to everyone on the Project mailing list, which
included agencies, groups, tribes, and local landowners. Advertisements
were also published in local newspapers to announce the upcoming public
scoping period and meetings and provide contacts for comments.
The FR notice, the local NOI, and the newspaper ads announced a 30-
day comment period for scoping the EIS. During the 30-day comment
period, Western held two public scoping meetings: on July 10, 2006, at
the Best Western Victorian Inn, Weaverville, California, and on July
11, 2006, at the Oxford Suites, Redding, California. Two comments were
received from one commenter during the scoping period. The Project was
also listed in the USFS Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning
in April 2005. The SOPA is available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/
.
The Draft EIS was circulated to Federal, State, regional, and local
agencies, tribes, and interested individuals and organizations that may
have wished to review and comment on it. Publication of the Draft EIS
marked the beginning of a 45-day public review period that ended March
26, 2007. Western held public hearings during the Draft EIS review
period on March 6, 2007, at the Best Western Victorian Inn in
Weaverville, California, and on March 7, 2007, at the LaQuinta Inn in
Redding California. These hearings were also announced by newspaper ads
and direct mailings to the Project mailing list. The hearings were part
of the Western's continuing efforts to provide opportunities for public
participation in the decision-making process. Western received 18
written comment letters that represented 16 different individuals, and
public and private organizations. Two individuals also provided
comments orally at the public hearing in Weaverville. No members of the
public attended the hearing in Redding.
A number of issues pertaining to the analyses in the Draft EIS were
raised in public comments. Among these issues were: (1) Concerns
regarding erosion control to prevent the sedimentation of streams as a
result of construction traffic going over stream crossings, (2)
Specific permitting and mitigation measures addressing such erosion,
(3) Estimation of the extent of direct and cumulative impacts from the
proposed Project, and (4) Analysis of impacts to the northern spotted
owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). These issues, along with other
comments, were addressed in the Final EIS. No additional comments were
received during the Final EIS waiting period.
Environmental Impacts
The analysis in the EIS demonstrated that the Project would have no
[[Page 5188]]
environmental impact or minor impacts on geology, land use,
paleontological resources, public health and safety, socioeconomics,
environmental justice, and wilderness. Temporary and less-than-
significant environmental impacts associated with construction
activities were identified for air quality, noise, hazardous materials,
traffic and transportation, and recreation. Potentially long-term
significant environmental impacts were described for biological
resources, cultural resources, soils, and water resources.
For biological resources, the principal concern is for potential
impacts to the northern spotted owl and its habitat, and anadromous
fish species below Lewiston Dam. The USFS conducted section 7
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
received a Biological Opinion on November 5, 2007. The Biological
Opinion concluded that, compliance with the stipulated terms and
conditions, the proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, and
may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the northern spotted
owl and bald eagle. Western conducted section 7 consultation with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on listed anadromous fish
species. With a July 11, 2007, letter, NMFS concurred with a ``may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect'' determination for the
federally threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho
salmon or its habitat, and for delineated Essential Fish Habitat for
Pacific Coast salmon, which includes both coho and Chinook salmon.
Cultural resources Class III surveys were conducted on the area of
potential effect defined for the Project. No prehistoric sites were
found, but 21 historical sites mostly associated with historic mining
activities were recorded. Western intends to avoid all of these sites
to the extent possible, but two sites may be impacted by the Project.
Western will mitigate impacts on any historic properties that may be
adversely affected in consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) and affected land management agencies. A signed
Programmatic Agreement among Western, the Federal land management
agencies, and the SHPO will govern any remaining section 106
consultation activities, including any change in anticipated Project
impacts or new cultural resources discoveries made during construction.
For soils, the main concern is sedimentation from disturbed areas.
The Project has been designed to minimize ground disturbance by using
existing ROW, using existing access roads, locating new ROW adjacent to
existing access roads, and by limiting the need for new temporary
access roads. The Federal land management agencies have extensive
experience with erosion control, and have developed standard
environmental protection measures found to be effective in minimizing
erosion in the local area. These measures are described and committed
to in the EIS, and would prevent significant erosion from occurring. In
addition, a cumulative watershed analysis was conducted and is included
in the EIS. Access road improvements on existing access roads, such as
grading ruts and installing water bars to Federal land management
agency standards, may actually reduce current levels of erosion and
sedimentation from this source.
Water resources concerns are directly related to erosion and
sedimentation. Limiting erosion and sedimentation as discussed above
will minimize the risk of sediment input into water bodies. Crossings
of drainages and streams will be coordinated with and permitted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and Western will comply with any conditions specified in those
permits. In addition, the Federal land management agencies have
drainage crossing requirements and best management practices that will
govern crossings in their respective jurisdictions. In general,
Western's approach will be to limit any disturbance in drainage
crossings to the minimum necessary for safe equipment passage. In most
cases, access will be via existing access roads that have low water
crossings.
Construction, operation, and maintenance would be in compliance
with the requirements of the USFS, BLM, Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board. All of these
agencies have specific requirements as part of their respective
approval and permitting processes. In addition, the EIS identified
extensive best management practices and mitigation measures, all of
which are committed to with this ROD and Western's Mitigation Action
Plan (MAP). With implementation of these requirements and measures, all
identified potential impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels.
Mitigation Measures
All measures identified in the EIS to minimize impacts from the
transmission system additions have been adopted. Table 2-2 in section
2.6.1 of the EIS includes an extensive listing of specific mitigation
measures by resource. In addition, sections 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, and
2.6.5 of the EIS list the environmental protection measures of Western,
USFS, BLM, and Reclamation, respectively. Many of these mitigation
measures and environmental protection measures are related to the four
most sensitive resources discussed above. All of these measures have
been consolidated into Western's MAP, which assigns responsibility for
and tracks the implementation of these commitments. The MAP also
includes expected terms and conditions for the various permits
necessary for the Project, such as the 28 general conditions for a
Nationwide 12 section 404 permit.
Western is the lead Federal agency for compliance with section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act. Western's preferred form of
mitigation is to avoid all identified sites. To the extent possible,
cultural sites determined eligible for the National Register in
consultation with the California SHPO and interested tribes will be
avoided by Project activities. Cultural sites that cannot be avoided
will be mitigated in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement
developed for the proposed Project, which will govern all remaining
activities necessary for section 106 compliance.
The USFS is the lead Federal agency for compliance with section 7
of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. A biological assessment was
prepared and submitted to the USFWS with a determination that the
Project ``may affect but is not likely to adversely affect'' any
candidate, proposed, or listed species. The USFWS Biological Opinion of
November 5, 2007, includes terms and conditions which will be complied
with as additional mitigation to avoid impacts to threatened,
endangered, candidate, or proposed species.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
In accordance with 10 CFR part 1022, Western considered the
potential impacts of the Project on floodplains and wetlands. The
Project area is located in a mountainous region with incised drainage
channels and some permanent streams. The transmission line in Segment 2
would span the 100-year floodplain of Rush Creek. Rush Creek at this
location is considered Zone A, a special flood hazard area inundated by
100-year floods. No base flood elevations have been determined for this
location. The 500-year floodplain areas are located south of the
[[Page 5189]]
Project ROW, also along Rush Creek. All remaining portions of the
Project ROW are located in Zone X, areas determined to be outside the
500-year floodplain. Construction of the Project would not
substantially alter the normal drainage patterns or affect runoff rates
because drainage patterns would not be altered, use of existing roads
would be maximized, and the line would span the floodplains. Even if
poles were to be located in a floodplain area, they would not
contribute to the impedance of flood flows in this heavily forested
area. No wetlands would be affected by the construction or operation of
the Project.
Mitigation Action Plan
A MAP will be developed in accordance with 10 CFR 1021.331 that
addresses mitigation commitments described above. The MAP will explain
how the mitigation will be planned and implemented and will be
available upon request.
Decision
Western's decision is to construct the Trinity PUD Direct
Interconnection Project as described above and in the EIS. Western will
construct, own, operate, and maintain the transmission line and
associated facilities.
This decision is based on the information contained in the
``Environmental Impact Statement; Trinity Public Utilities District
Direct Interconnection Project'' (DOE/EIS-0389); (Draft EIS issued
February 2007, and Final issued November 2007). This ROD has been
prepared in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
parts 1500-1508) and DOE Procedures for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part
1021), and DOE's Floodplain/Wetland Review Requirements (10 CFR 1022).
Full implementation of this decision is contingent upon the Project
obtaining all applicable permits and approvals.
Dated: January 15, 2008.
Timothy J. Meeks,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-1505 Filed 1-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P