[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65699-65702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31346]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f2f1e0b174e4a3f081e0f1e51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f0f3e2b376e6a1f283e2f3e71383029">[email protected]</span></a>. 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>