![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Los Banos-Gates Transmission Project
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: December 20, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 65699-65702]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de01-46]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Los Banos-Gates Transmission Project
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), Western Area Power
Administration (Western), has decided to construct the Los Banos-Gates
Transmission Project (Project) through a public/private partnership.
Electric power transmission constraints along this path have
contributed to blackouts in California. The Project will relieve these
constraints.
This Record of Decision (ROD) is based on the information,
analysis, and public comment received on the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the California-Oregon Transmission Project (DOE/
EIS-0128, 1988) (Final EIS), its associated Draft EIS, and the
Supplement Analysis (SA) for the Project (DOE/EIS-0128-SA-01, August
24, 2001). Based on the findings on the SA, Western has determined that
further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation is not
required.
The Project, also known as Path 15, consists of approximately 84
miles of new 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line in California's
western San Joaquin Valley, starting at the existing Los Banos
Substation near Los Banos in Merced County and extending generally
south southeastward to the existing Gates Substation near Coalinga in
Fresno County. The Project will also require modifications to some
existing high-voltage transmission equipment.
Copies of the pertinent volumes of the Draft EIS (DOE/EIS-0128,
1986) and the SA can be reviewed on Western's Web site http://
www.wapa.gov/SN/path15links or obtained by calling toll free (866) 290-
9686. A Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) will be developed and when
completed, will be available on the Web site or by calling the same
toll free number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas R. Boyko, The Project
Manager, Sierra Nevada Customer Service Region, Western Area Power
Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630, telephone (866)
290-9686, E-mail Path15@wapa.gov. For information about the Department
of Energy NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, NEPA
Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-4600
or (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1985 (Pub. L 98-380)
authorized the Secretary of Energy (Secretary), through Western, to
construct or participate in the construction of additional facilities
as the Secretary deems necessary to allow mutually beneficial power
sales between the Pacific Northwest and California. In 1985, a group of
California public and private utilities and Western developed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provided a framework for the
proposed development of the California-Oregon Transmission Project
(COTP) and the Los Banos-Gates Transmission Project. The Final EIS for
the California-Oregon Transmission Project and the Los Banos-Gates
Transmission Project (DOE/EIS-0128, 1988) (Final EIS) was issued in
1988. A ROD for construction of the COTP was issued in 1988 (53 FR
17749, May 18, 1988), and the COTP was built and placed into service in
1993. The Project was not built at that time because, as stated in the
COTP ROD, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) could meet its
obligations in the MOU without construction of the Project. Now, due to
the need for additional operational flexibility and capacity between
Northern and Southern California, and with increasing energy demands in
Northern California, the Project has been reconsidered.
In May 2001, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham directed Western
to take the first steps, including the preparation of environmental
studies, toward developing the Project. This directive was issued based
on a recommendation in the National Energy Policy, issued on May 17,
2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy). 
Western issued a Request for
Statements of Interest in the Federal Register on June 13, 2001, to
solicit interest from parties to help finance, construct, and co-own
the system additions. Thirteen statements of interest were received by
the deadline established in the Federal Register notice and evaluated.
The Secretary announced on October 18, 2001, that Western would enter
into a MOU with qualified private and public parties to finance,
construct, and co-own the system additions. These companies are Kinder
Morgan Power Company, PG&E, PG&E National Energy Group, Inc.,
Transmission Agency of Northern California, Trans-Elect, Western's
Sierra Nevada Region Marketing function, and the Williams Energy
Marketing and Trading Company.
Western and PG&E have been exploring the construction of the
Project under separate processes. At the request of the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), PG&E submitted a conditional
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) application to
construct the Project on April 13, 2001. The CPCN process examines the
environmental impacts of the the Project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and will determine if it is economically
feasible for PG&E ratepayers to pay for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the Project. The Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) was released on October 5, 2001. A final decision
is expected by the CPUC in March 2002.
Since the Final EIS was prepared back in 1988, Western chose to
prepare an SA for the Project (DOE/EIS-0128-SA-01, August 24, 2001) to
determine whether a supplemental EIS was required. The purpose of the
SA was to determine if there are any substantial changes in the
proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or if there
are significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts (10 CFR 1021.314(c) and 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(1)(i) and (ii)). The
SA was based on a review of the Draft and Final EIS environmental
analysis and supporting documents, and an update of the information
using current data available for the Project, the Project area, and its
resources.
The SA did not identify any significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns identified in the Final
EIS. Based on the findings of the SA, Western has determined that
further NEPA documentation is not required before making a decision on
the Project. Full implementation of this ROD is contingent upon: (1)
Completion of
[[Page 65700]]
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, (2) completion of National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 consultation with the California Historic Preservation
Office, and (3) consultation with Native American tribes.
Completion of these processes may result in additional conditions
or restrictions on the Project, and/or additional binding mitigation
measures. Once the Section 106 and Section 7 processes and Native
American consultations are completed, Western will issue an amended ROD
if it changes its selected alternative or makes additional mitigation
commitments as a result of the above processes. This ROD has been
prepared under the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for
Implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and DOE Procedures for
Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021).
Western has adopted the mitigation measures for the Project
identified in the Final EIS and the SA, and will prepare a MAP that
will ensure that the measures are integrated into the Project. The MAP
will also include additional mitigation required after the completion
of consultations with Federal, State, and local agencies and will be
made available to the public when issued. It may also include specific
mitigation measures as agreed upon with landowners. In addition,
Western will coordinate with the appropriate Federal, State, and local
land management and resource agencies on any unforeseen site-specific
mitigation requirements identified during the Project construction
phase.
Selected and Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The EIS analyzed two alternative corridors for the Project, the
East and the West. The West corridor was identified as being
environmentally preferred. The Supplement Analysis reconfirmed that the
West corridor is still environmentally preferred. Western selected the
West corridor as its preferred alternative, and a detailed description
of the Project follows.
Los Banos-Gates 500-kV Transmission Line (new)
Construct approximately 84 miles of single-circuit, overhead 500-kV
transmission line from Los Banos Substation, near Los Banos and three
miles south of Santa Nella Village in Merced County generally south
southeastward to Gates Substation, 12 miles east of Coalinga in Fresno
County. The West corridor lies between Interstate 5 and the foothills
of the Coastal Mountains in the western San Joaquin Valley. The
corridor can be generally described as non-cultivated and non-irrigated
hilly land used primarily for livestock grazing. Only a small amount of
agricultural land (approximately 15 percent) is crossed by the
corridor. Vegetation within the corridor is nearly all grassland or
shrub. Other than the Los Banos Reservoir and intermittent streams, no
surface water is crossed. The corridor, which comes near oil fields,
will cross California Highway 198 about 10 miles northeast of Coalinga
and Interstate 5 about 8 miles east of Coalinga. The corridor roughly
parallels two existing PG&E 500-kV transmission lines that are a
portion of the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie. The
transmission line will be installed on self-supporting square or
rectangular lattice steel structures that will vary in height from
approximately 100 to 160 feet. An average of only five structures per
mile will be necessary, supporting bundled or triple conductors.
Contracts for the new right-of-way (ROW) within the corridor will
be negotiated with individual landowners. A new 200-foot ROW or
easement will be needed for construction, operation, and maintenance of
the new 84-mile transmission line. New 15-30 foot-wide access road
easements will also be needed for construction and permanent access to
the transmission line structures for maintenance purposes. Additional
temporary construction easements will be needed for construction sites
such as staging areas and conductor pulling sites.
Connected Actions
The Final EIS discussed additional system modifications that will
be needed to incorporate the Project into the integrated power system.
As these system components belong to others, Western will not be making
decisions about conducting this work, but these actions will have to be
closely coordinated with the construction of the Los Banos-Gates
Transmission Line. This additional work is not related to the selection
of a corridor for the Los Banos-Gates Transmission Line. These
connected actions include the following:
Los Banos Substation
Modify the existing PG&E Los Banos 500-kV Substation by adding a
new bay, two new circuit breakers, shunt capacitors, miscellaneous
electrical equipment, and possibly a new capacitor bank. Construction
will be within the existing boundaries of the substation.
Gates Substation
Modify the existing PG&E Gates 500-kV Substation by adding a new
bay, two new circuit breakers, new series capacitor bank, shunt
capacitors, and miscellaneous electrical equipment. Construction will
be within the existing boundaries of the substation.
Midway Substation
Modify the existing PG&E Midway 500-kV Substation, located in Kern
County, by adding new shunt capacitors, and miscellaneous electrical
equipment. Construction will be within the existing boundaries of the
substation.
Los Banos-Midway No. 2 500-kV Transmission Line
Realign the existing PG&E Los Banos-Midway 500-kV No. 2
Transmission Line to loop into the Gates Substation. This realignment
of 7,000 feet of existing line will result in the removal of seven
towers and the construction of six towers adjacent to the existing Los
Banos-Midway 500-kV No. 1 Transmission Line. The realignment will be
done within PG&E's existing right-of-way.
Gates-Arco-Midway 230-kV Transmission Line
Reconductor/reconfigure 24.4 miles of the existing PG&E 70-mile
transmission lines between Gates Substation and Midway Substation,
which presently consists of one 230-kV and one 115-kV transmission
line. The 115-kV transmission line could be reconfigured to a 230-kV
line to establish two 230-kV circuits between these substations. The
reconductoring will be done by bucket truck within PG&E's existing
right-of-way on existing access roads.
Mitigation
The mitigation measures adopted are listed in the Draft EIS issued
in 1986 and the SA. They are too extensive to be listed here in their
entirety, but can be reviewed on the web site provided above, or
obtained from the contact given above. In general, many mitigation
measures take the form of avoidance through careful siting of the
Project centerline and individual structures and access roads. Some
mitigation measures identify specific potential impacts and provide
strategies for minimizing or eliminating the potential for impact.
Others commit to coordination with resource agencies or landowners to
site structures and access roads away from sensitive resources.
Construction activities will be excluded from some sensitive resource
locations to prevent any disturbance.
[[Page 65701]]
Another set of specific mitigation measures address construction
practices designed to minimize potential impacts. These measures detail
culvert installation, wetting of disturbed areas for dust abatement,
re-seeding, soil compaction, debris removal, and similar topics. A
final set of measures addresses potential long-term impacts like
closing access roads and correcting any radio or television
interference problems.
These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Project
through a MAP that Western will develop prior to construction. Western
will prepare the MAP during the project design phase so as to include
engineering designs and construction plans. It will be developed
through additional consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies. Western will utilize best construction practices and
applicable industry standards.
Implementation of the MAP will be assured through several measures.
First, Western will ensure that the applicable mitigation measures are
included in all construction contracts. The construction inspectors
will verify that mitigation measures are implemented and inspectors
will have the authority to enforce the measures by redirecting
activities of the construction contractor to the extent necessary to
meet the mitigation requirements included in the construction
specifications. Second, Western will monitor the implementation of the
mitigation measures. Third, cooperating and responsible Federal, State,
Tribal, and local agencies may also monitor the implementation of the
mitigation measures under their jurisdiction. Details of the
coordination and reporting mechanisms for this monitoring will be
included in the MAP. When completed, the MAP will be available on
Western's web site or by calling the toll free number provided above.
Alternatives Considered But Not Selected
1. No Action
Selection of the no-action alternative would mean that the Project
would not be constructed. The no-action alternative would have fewer
environmental impacts than the selected alternative in the short term.
By not constructing the Project, the short-term impacts would be
continued congestion on Path 15, which could lead to additional
blackouts in Northern California. The State of California has licensed
several peaking generation plants that would operate to help meet the
electrical demands in Northern California. Longer-term impacts of not
constructing the Project include primarily air quality impacts from
operating these peaking plants once built, and direct impacts to other
resources such as vegetation, wildlife, visual, or archaeological due
to the construction of these plants. Selecting the no-action
alternative would mean that 1,500 MW of generation resources and
associated transmission facilities would need to be constructed in
Northern California to meet electrical load, resulting in negative
environmental impacts.
The no-action alternative was not selected because it does not meet
the recommendations in the National Energy Policy and the directive
from the Secretary to relieve the transmission bottleneck on Path 15
and may impact California's ability to meet growing electrical demands
in Northern California.
2. Transmission Alternatives
Selection of the West corridor for the Project was part of a
systematic siting process that began in 1985. The process reduced a
large geographic study area to alternative transmission corridors (2 to
5 miles wide) to alternative routes within these corridors
(approximately 1,500 feet wide) to a preferred route made up of
selected route segments. Because the SA focused on verifying and
updating existing information at the project level, this ROD discusses
corridors, but it is important to note that the original work to
develop the overall impact levels for the two corridors involved
collecting data at a much finer detail. The process included public
workshops, agency coordination, and field studies over a 12-month
period. The primary objective in refining the alternatives was to
avoid, to the extent possible, environmental and land use impacts and
constraints during the planning phases of the Project.
The Final EIS considered East and West corridors for the Project.
The West corridor runs to the west of Interstate 5 and is primarily in
grazing lands, with about 15 percent of the corridor crossing irrigated
cropland or orchards. While approximately 3 percent of the West
corridor has been converted to agriculture and crops since 1988, the
predominant land uses remain the same as when the Final EIS was issued.
The East corridor runs to the east of Interstate 5 and parallel to
PG&E's existing 230-kV transmission line for 68 miles. The Final EIS
identifies greater than 84 percent of the East corridor as crossing
irrigated cropland, which is of high economic value to the region. This
intensively managed cropland is less valuable as wildlife habitat since
it supports far less natural vegetation than is found further west.
The West corridor was selected over the East corridor because
crossing undeveloped grazing lands would have less impact than crossing
agricultural lands. The potential impact on the farming community is
reduced by minimizing the disruption to existing agricultural
practices, including loss of productive land, aerial seeding and
spraying, field irrigation, and soil cultivation and preparation.
Additionally, there are reduced visual impacts to residents and
travelers on Interstate 5 as compared with the more populated East
corridor. The CPUC examined the same corridors, and identified the West
corridor as the environmentally superior alternative in their SEIR.
None of the alternatives are expected to result in substantial
impacts to earth resources, water resources and fisheries,
socioeconomics, or corona, electric field, and safety considerations.
Western examined environmental justice concerns and found that
impacts are not disproportional to any minority or low-income
populations.
Economic impacts would be greatest where the most agriculture is
affected. Locating the Project in the East corridor would lead to loss
of productive farmland, restricted agricultural development in the ROW,
and interference with agricultural practices. In the West corridor,
development may also be somewhat restricted in the areas between the
transmission line and the existing Intertie lines. There is
significantly less agricultural land located in the West corridor.
Surveys have found threatened and endangered vegetation and
wildlife in the study area. Because there is less development in the
West corridor, more of these species are expected in the West corridor
than in the East corridor. The West corridor has, in general, a more
diverse collection of vegetation. However, the Final EIS and the SA
have found that most impacts can be avoided with careful placement of
structures and access roads, and further reduced by mitigation
measures. Up to 153 acres of vegetation are subject to disruption in
building the Project in either corridor. Wildlife may be temporarily
displaced during active construction, but will return to the corridor
area once construction activities cease. An average of only five
structures per mile helps to minimize long-term impacts.
Cultural resources have been identified in both corridors; however,
field inventories have not been conducted to identify specific cultural
[[Page 65702]]
resources that could potentially be impacted by construction of the
Project. These intensive surveys are undertaken once the initial
centerline location is determined, and can lead to adjustments in the
centerline to avoid potential impacts. More cultural sites have been
identified in the West corridor because of its more varied topography
and undeveloped nature. Western's Programmatic Agreement is under
review with the California Office of Historic Preservation and other
affected parties. The Agreement will address inventory strategies,
consultation, eligibility and effect, and treatment plans, and will be
referenced in the MAP.
Transmission structures located in either the East and West
corridors would be visible from Interstate 5; however, they would be
more visible in the East corridor. Structures in the West corridor
would be more visible from recreation areas in the foothills and at
reservoirs.
Transmission line construction in either corridor could affect
roadways during construction by causing congested traffic or by
damaging road surfaces.
Construction of the Project in either corridor would require
similar commitments of conductor wire, structure steel, concrete, and
energy resources. Locating the transmission line at least 2,000 feet
away from PG&E's two 500-kV Intertie lines is preferred since it
increases power system reliability by reducing the possibility of a
single event loss of all three lines (fire, aircraft crash, earthquake,
etc.). This separation of these important large transmission lines is
consistent with standard utility industry practice and Western Systems
Coordinating Council and North American Electric Reliability Council
criteria and guidelines.
Public Comment Summary
Western issued newsletters in June and August 2001 and conducted
two public workshops on the Project on August 27 and 28, 2001. The
landowners attending the public workshops voiced concerns over land
values, future land use restrictions, and agricultural impacts to
operations and productivity. Written comments were received from
several landowners and the CPUC during the public review period.
In their written comments, landowners expressed concerns about
locating the transmission line on their property and their desire to
reduce impacts to their land and farming operations. Other concerns
included potential impacts on the economic development of a proposed
housing development near the Los Banos Substation, San Joaquin kit fox
habitat and mitigation areas being evaluated within the Western
corridor, established habitat areas, and electromagnetic fields.
Western will work with landowners to address their concerns during the
transmission line siting and land acquisition processes.
Comments from the CPUC centered on including additional information
from its environmental analysis. The CPUC's major comments included
impacts to air quality, endangered species, water quality, increases in
agricultural and other land uses, visual resources, seismic activity,
socioeconomics, cultural resources, and mitigation measures. Western
will also work with the CPUC, PG&E, and other Federal, State, and local
agencies to assure that potential impacts are minimized.
Comments received and Western's specific responses are available on
Western's web site or by calling the toll free number.
Dated: December 7, 2001.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-31346 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P