Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 65699

A copy of any motion to intervene must

also be served upon the representative

of the RAWA specified in item h, above.

p. Agency Comments—Federal, state,

and local agencies are invited to file

comments on the subject application for

surrender of exemption. If an agency

does not file comments within the time

specified for filing comments, it will be

presumed to have no comments. One

copy of an agency’s comments must also

be sent to the Applicant’s representative

listed in item h, above.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31311 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

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 highvoltage 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 BanosGates 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 coown 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

65700 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

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 BanosMidway 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-ofway 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices 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

65702 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Notices

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration

Havre-Rainbow Transmission Line

Rebuild Project

AGENCY: Western Area Power

Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of floodplain/wetlands

involvement.

SUMMARY: The Western Area Power

Administration (Western) intends to

rebuild the Havre-Rainbow 161 kilovolt

(kV) Transmission Line in central

Montana. This will initially require

replacement of structures. Eventually,

conductors will be replaced and

overhead groundwires and fiber optic

cable may be added. The line lies north

and west of the Missouri River and

crosses the Marias and Teton Rivers

near Loma, Montana, and the Big Sandy

Creek near Big Sandy, Montana.

In accordance with the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE)

Floodplain/Wetland Review

Requirements (10 CFR part 1022),

Western will prepare a floodplain

assessment and will perform the

proposed actions in a manner so as to

avoid or minimize potential harm to or

within the affected floodplain. The

floodplain assessment will be included

in the Environmental Assessment being

prepared by Western, in accordance

with the provisions of the DOE National

Environmental Policy Act Implementing

Procedures (10 CFR part 1021).

DATES: Comments on the proposed

floodplain action are due to the address

below no later than January 22, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Comments should be addressed to Mr.

Theodore Anderson, Environmental

Specialist, Upper Great Plains Customer

Service Region, Western Area Power

Administration, P.O. Box 35800,

Billings, Montana 59107–5800, e-mail

tanderso@wapa.gov. For further

information on DOE Floodplain/

Wetlands Environmental Review

Requirements, 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: The

existing Havre-Rainbow Transmission

Line is approximately 103 miles long

and approximately 60 years old. The

action will entail the removal of the

existing structures and reinstalling the

new structures. At some time in the

future Western may reconductor the line

to 230-kV and install overhead

groundwires and fiber optic cable. Most

ground disturbances will take place

where the structures are replaced, at the

splice points, and at pulling sites of the

possible future installation of

conductor, overhead groundwire, and

fiber optic cable. Access roads for the

line exist and may need to be improved.

There may also be a need for additional

access trails or roads to individual

structure locations. The work will take

place over a 10-year period by an inhouse workforce.

The line crosses the Marias and Teton

Rivers, at their confluence with the

Missouri River near Loma, Montana,

and Big Sandy Creek near Big Sandy,

Montana. The line will affect lands

mostly in private ownership (grazing

and cultivated lands), but will also cross

Indian allotted lands on the Rocky Boys

Indian Reservation. There may also be

lands managed by the Bureau of Land

Management and lands belonging to the

State of Montana along the route.

Issued: December 12, 2001.

Michael S. Hacskaylo,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–31352 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P