[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 161 (Monday, August 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43465-43468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20658]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration


Flatiron-Erie 115-kilovolt Transmission Line Project Record of 
Decision

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), Western Area Power 
Administration (Western) has prepared this Record of Decision (ROD) 
pursuant to regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 
Part 1505) and Implementing Procedures of the Department of Energy (10 
CFR Part 1021). This ROD is based upon the information contained in the 
``Final Environmental Impact Statement, Flatiron-Erie 115-kV 
Transmission Line, Larimer, Boulder & Weld Counties, Colorado'' (DOE/
EIS-0159). Western has considered all public and regulatory comments 
received on the final EIS in preparation of this ROD.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western has made the decision to uprate the 
existing Flatiron-Erie 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. The line is 
located in Larimer, Weld and Boulder Counties, Colorado, and passes 
through the City of Longmont. The line connects the existing Flatiron 
Substation and several other existing substations supplying Longmont. 
It is a single circuit 115-kV line, 31.5 miles long, and was built in 
1950-51, on a 750-foot wide right-of-way (ROW) using wood-pole-H-frame 
structures.
    Western proposes to build 27 new wood H-frame structures along the 
line, to replace or modify 45 of the existing structures and to remove 
11 of them. Many of these additions and changes would involve 
structures that are approximately 5 to 15 feet taller than the existing 
ones. The existing conductors and ground wires would remain in place. 
The purpose of these actions would be to allow the power carrying 
capability of the line to be increased and to replace deteriorating/
structural members. The line would continue to operate at 115-kV.

Background

    The proposed action evolved from an earlier project, the Flatiron-
Gunbarrel Transmission Line Project, that would have replaced most of 
the existing 115-kV Flatiron-Erie line with a double circuit 115/230-kV 
line. Partly because of public opposition to the project, Western 
conducted additional electrical systems planning studies and determined 
that it could be postponed, if various substation improvements and 

[[Page 43466]]
changes in procedure were made, and the Flatiron-Erie line uprated.
    The Flatiron-Erie line is currently operating at a rating or load 
capacity that is lower than the load its conductors are capable of 
carrying. Originally designed for a conductor rating of 109 megavolts-
amperes (MVA), systems studies and field measurements conducted by 
Western determined that the actual Flatiron-Erie transmission line 
ratings were significantly smaller. As conductors carry more power they 
become hotter, as they become hotter, they expand and sag closer to the 
ground. The National Electric Safety Code (NESC), in order to avoid 
risk of electrical shocks, stipulates a minimum clearance between power 
lines and the ground. For 115-kV transmission lines, this limit is 22 
feet. Western found that in some locations the Flatiron-Erie 
transmission line failed to meet current NESC requirements. The line 
was derated to prevent potential problems associated with ground 
clearances that do not meet current NESC guidelines. The lowered rating 
will cause it to overload when certain other local transmission 
facilities are out of service. The result of this could be loss of 
power to the City of Longmont. During the planning for this proposal, 
several public meetings were held, both in connection with the earlier 
Flatiron-Gunbarrel project and with the Flatiron-Erie project. Public 
meetings were held in Longmont, Colorado, in November 1989, at the 
beginning of the preparation of the draft EIS. Another meeting was held 
in December 1990 to review with the public the status of the 
environmental studies and the potential project alternatives. A public 
hearing on the Draft EIS was held in Longmont, Colorado on November 18, 
1993.
    Western also communicated throughout the EIS process with federal, 
state and local agencies interested in the project. Public comments 
throughout the EIS process focused on the preference of the public for 
underground burial of the transmission line, the effects of 
electromagnetic fields (EMF) on public health and safety, preferences 
for new routing away from residential areas, and the possibility that 
the transmission line could be operated at 230-kV some time in the 
future.
    Description of Alternatives: Western's preferred alternative 
proposes to uprate the 31.5 mile Flatiron-Erie 115-kV transmission line 
by adding, replacing, modifying, and removing structures. Eighty-three 
of the 216 existing structures would be modified. Some of the heights 
of the structures would be raised 5-15 feet. With changes in structure 
height the conductors might have to be resagged or reworked. The 
voltage of the transmission line would remain at 115-kV, the existing 
conductors would remain in place, and the majority of the existing 
structure locations would remain the same.
    Structural tests of the line conducted in 1990 revealed the need 
for replacement of approximately 25 wood poles which were structurally 
unsound because of internal rot. Replacement of these poles will be 
done along with the other structure modifications to uprate the line. 
In addition, improved grounding features would be installed on the 
structures.
    In summary, Western's proposed action is to:
     Build 27 new wood H-frame structures at new sites along 
the existing ROW.
     Replace or modify 45 existing structures, including:
     Replace 20 existing structures at existing sites. The 
structure heights would be increased by 5 feet in 6 cases, 10 feet in 9 
cases, and 15 feet in 5 cases.
     Replace 22 existing structures with structures of the same 
height, in the same locations.
     Modify 3 existing structures by raising their respective 
cross arms.
     Remove complete structures at 11 sites. (These structures 
would be replaced by adjacent structures along the ROW, accounting for 
some of the 27 new structures listed above).
    Numerous actions were considered as alternatives to the proposed 
action. These included the No-Action Alternative, energy conservation, 
alternative transmission technologies, alternative electrical 
transmission systems, alternative structure types and alternative 
methods of construction. From this wide range of alternatives, four 
primary alternatives were developed and given detailed and equal 
analysis in the EIS.
    Under the No-Action Alternative, Western would not uprate the 
existing 115-kV line, but would only perform essential maintenance 
activities as needed. Structures and hardware would be repaired and/or 
replaced as required during regular maintenance operations and in 
response to emergency outages on the line. These repairs would have to 
be made with increasing frequency in the future as the line increases 
in age. This alternative does not increase the rating of the Flatiron-
Erie line, nor does it resolve the electrical safety and human health 
issues.
    Western's proposed action, the uprating of the existing Flatiron-
Erie transmission line. This is Alternative B, the environmentally 
preferred alternative, that would best and most economically satisfy 
the project need.
    Alternative C would rebuild the existing Flatiron-Erie transmission 
line underground for 6.1 miles through Longmont and uprate the 
remainder of the existing transmission line. (Alternatives B and C 
would make no change to the existing electrical systems).
    Alternative D would remove two segments of the existing Flatiron-
Erie transmission line in Longmont, supply Longmont's substations using 
other existing transmission lines and a segment of new overhead 
transmission line, uprate the remainder of the existing transmission 
line, and build a new substation south of Longmont. It would make 
substantial changes to the existing electrical system.

Basis for Decision

    The environmental impact statement (EIS) first defined the 
potential theoretical impact levels for all possible project 
construction actions affecting all sensitive environmental components 
in the study area. Then it quantified the actual impacts for the 
proposed system of primary alternative routes. There were no 
significant adverse impacts identified from any of the primary 
alternatives. The alternatives were therefore compared using ``moderate 
adverse impacts'' and ``beneficial effects''.
    There would be no impacts to earth resources from Alternatives B 
and D, and very small amounts of short-term moderate impacts from 
Alternative C. Alternatives B and D would have no substantial adverse 
impact on water resources. Alternative C would cause a small amount of 
short-term moderate impacts on water resources and, in addition, 
moderate long-term impacts on streams. Alternative B would cause 
moderate amounts of short-term moderate impacts to land uses. 
Alternative C would cause substantial amounts of short-term moderate 
impacts to land uses, but would also have substantial amounts of long-
term beneficial effects from the removal of segments of the existing 
line and their replacement by underground construction. Alternative D 
would also cause substantial amounts of impacts on land uses, but it 
would also have long-term beneficial effects from the removal of 
segments of the line. Alternative B would have the least impacts on 
existing land use, and Alternative D the most.
    Alternative B would cause relatively small amounts of short-term 
moderate impacts to biological resources (wetlands) from construction 

[[Page 43467]]
disturbance. Alternative C would cause slightly more short-term 
moderate impacts, and Alternative D, very slightly more than 
Alternative C.
    However, Alternative C would also have short-term moderate impacts 
on two streams that are Colorado rare fish habitat and long-term 
moderate adverse impacts on the rare fish habitat. Alternative B would 
have the least impact on fish habitat, and Alternative C the most 
impact. Cultural resources would not be subject to other than low level 
impacts from any of the primary alternatives.
    There would be no substantial adverse effects on visual resources 
from Alternative B. Alternative C would have small amounts of short and 
long-term moderate visual impacts, but substantial amounts of 
beneficial visual effects from the removal of segments of the existing 
line and their replacement by underground construction. Alternative D 
would cause moderate amounts of short and long-term moderate visual 
impacts and substantial amounts of long-term visual benefits. 
Alternative B would have the least and D the most impacts on visual 
resources. In summary, overall comparison of moderate adverse 
environmental impacts, both long and short term, for each of the three 
primary alternatives, shows that Alternative B ranks the best for all 
environmental resource areas and, therefore, is the environmentally 
preferred alternative.
    Also considered in this decision was the estimated costs of each 
alternative, which are as follows:
     Alternative B $1,438,000.
     Alternative C $11,168,000.
     Alternative D $6,067,000.
    As related to the transmission of power, Western's Conservation and 
Renewable Energy Program (C&RE) encourages the development and 
implementation of energy efficiency measures. Western's C&RE Program 
has been applied effectively for more than a decade. However, the C&RE 
Program has not decreased or delayed the need for transmission line 
improvements.
    Several alternative transmission technologies were evaluated, 
including:
     Conventional overhead alternating current (AC) 
transmission;
     Overhead direct current (DC) transmission; and
     Under-ground construction.
    Western proposes to use conventional overhead AC transmission on 
the proposed action and for major portions of the proposed project 
alternatives.
    Overhead DC lines must include converter stations at either end of 
the line and at every point where it is interrupted to convert DC 
current to AC for consumer use. Only with line segment lengths far 
greater than those proposed here, and transmission of much larger 
amounts of power, would the economic advantages of DC transmission 
offset the high cost of the converter stations.
    The underground alternative (Alternative C) was considered by 
Western in response to public comments. It consists of reconstruction 
of the Flatiron-Erie line underground through Longmont. Underground 
construction of a 115-kV transmission line can cost five to ten times 
more per mile than a 115-kV transmission line installed overhead. 
Another disadvantage is the need for a continuous zone of disturbance 
along the ROW; the underground cable system must be installed in a 
continuous trench approximately 2 feet wide and 3 to 5 feet deep. At 
any given point where a transition is made from underground 
construction to overhead construction, a large overhead transmission 
line structure must be installed. If a high pressure oil-filled cable 
system is used, pumping and pressuring facilities would be required at 
intervals of several miles along the underground line.
    Several systems alternatives were studied. A systems alternative 
(Alternative D) was formulated in response to public comment to explore 
the feasibility of removing portions of the line from densely developed 
areas of Longmont.
    Six additional systems alternatives were considered and eventually 
rejected from further study because they did not meet electrical 
criteria, would be very expensive, and would be associated with greater 
environmental impacts.
    Considerations in the Implementation of the Decision: Western has 
decided to uprate the transmission line in compliance with the NESC 
standards. There are considerations to be followed that will minimize 
the potential environmental impacts of the decision. The following 
details the measures taken and to be taken to minimize impacts.
    Alternative B, the proposed action, will involve pole replacements 
near wetland habitat supporting a threatened species of orchid. The 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the ladies' tresses orchid 
(Spiranthes diluvialis) in 1992. The EIS required mitigation for 
potential effects to this species. A survey was required, prior to 
construction disturbance, in habitats along the transmission line route 
that have a wetlands hydrology and a prevalence of wetlands vegetation. 
The Flatiron-Erie transmission line spans several wetlands, including 
potential orchid habitat along Chimney Hollow, McIntosh Lake, St. Vrain 
Creek, Left Hand Canyon, Dry Creek, a wetlands complex near and along 
Boulder Creek, and Coal Creek. Field surveys for laddies' tresses 
orchid were concluded in all wetland areas spanned by the transmission 
line during the 1994 flowering season and no ladies' tresses orchids 
were found.
    Numerous prairie dog towns occur throughout the project area, 
providing potential habitat for the endangered black-foot ferret. Two 
small towns are located along the existing transmission line. In 
consultation with FWS, Western has determined that these towns are too 
small and isolated to provide habitat for black-footed ferret or to 
require survey for ferrets.
    Based on the consultations with the FWS concerning threatened and 
endangered species, they concurred with Western's determination that 
the project would not adversely effect such species in a letter dated 
March 21, 1995.
    Golden eagles are known to nest in the project study area. Five 
historical nesting territories are documented in the EIS. The EIS 
required survey of these nest sites to assess the potential impact of 
the project on golden eagles that may have returned to these nesting 
territories. A survey was conducted by Western and the Colorado 
Division of Wildlife in early April 1995. The nesting sites were 
located; however, no evidence of recent nesting activity was observed.
    No extraordinary mitigative measures will be required to reduce the 
moderately adverse impacts to the other resources, such as land uses, 
cultural resources, and visual resources. These impacts can be 
mitigated by following Western's standard construction mitigation 
measures that Western has already agreed to follow.
    At this time, it is not clear if exposure to EMF presents a health 
risk. The consensus opinion of the majority of researchers continues to 
center on the need for further research. Should science establish a 
significant risk to public health as a result of EMF exposure, it is 
Western's expectation that the issues of EMF standards, avoidance 
strategies, evaluation procedures, etc., would be addressed in Federal 
and State regulations after a careful, structured public debate that 
weighs risk against cost. Uprating the existing Flatiron-Erie 
transmission line will serve Longmont's electrical capacity needs into 
the 21st century, thus allowing time for further research into the 
relationship between EMF and human health.

[[Page 43468]]

    The preferred Alternative B is significantly less costly than 
Alternatives C and D, and still provides the same reliability and 
capacity benefits. Although Alternative C and Alternative D do reduce 
or eliminate EMF through the residential areas of Longmont, the 
uncertainty surrounding the EMF issue at the present time cannot 
justify expenditure of large sums of money, degradation of reliability 
and service, or greatly increased operating costs.
    In summary, an overall comparison of the moderate adverse 
environmental impacts, costs, and other issues of each of the three 
primary alternatives shows that Alternative B, the proposed action, 
ranks the best for all environmental resource areas. The 
environmentally preferred alternative is the best choice for satisfying 
the project need.

Conclusion

    Western has weighed the environmental impacts and costs associated 
with the proposal to uprate the Flatiron-Erie Transmission Line in 
reaching this decision. Through this analysis, Western has selected the 
environmentally preferred alternative, Alternative B, as described in 
the EIS. Western shall proceed to implement this decision.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 1995.
Joel K. Bladow,
Assistant Administrator for Washington Liaison.
[FR Doc. 95-20658 Filed 8-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M