[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 198 (Friday, October 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53360-53364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25360]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision; Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 
Facilities Improvements Project and Geysers Effluent Pipeline Project

AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Utility 
Technologies, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: Today's notice is issuing the United States Department of 
Energy (the Department) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy's Record of Decision on the Southeast Regional Wastewater 
Treatment Plant Facilities Improvements Project and Geysers Effluent 
Pipeline Project Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 
Report prepared by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of 
Land Management (the Bureau) and the Lake County California Sanitation 
District. The Department, as a cooperating agency, adopted the 
Environmental Impact Statement as DOE/EIS-0224 on January 11, 1995 
after independent review. This Record of Decision is pursuant to the 
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal 
Regulations Parts 1500-1508), which implement the procedural provisions 
of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Department's National 
Environmental Policy Act regulations (10 Code of Federal Regulations 
Part 1021). The document was also prepared to comply with the 
California Environmental Quality Act, hence the impacts; the proposed 
project will be beneficial to the public by extending the life of the 
Southeast Geysers Geothermal Field providing more electricity for 
consumption, and the proposed project will be beneficial to the public 
by bringing the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant into 
compliance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste 
Discharge Requirements and enable lifting of the Board's 1991 Cease and 
Desist Order and associated moratorium. The final Environmental Impact 
Statement was published August 25, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The Final Environmental Impact Statement is available for 
public review at the following locations:

Bureau of Land Management - 2550 N. State St., Ukiah, California
Lake County Sanitation District - 230A Main St., Lakeport, 
California
Lake County Planning Department - 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport, 
California
Lakeport Public Library - 1425 N. High St., Lakeport, California
Redbud Public Library - 4700 Golf Ave., Lakeport, California
City of Clearlake Offices - 14360 Lakeshore Dr., Clearlake, 
California
Lower Lake Water District - 16175 Main St., Lower Lake, California
South Lake Water District - 21095 State Hwy. 175, Middletown, 
California
Sonoma County Public Library - 3rd & E Sts., Santa Rosa, California
Sonoma County Planning Dept. - 575 Administration Dr., Santa Rosa, 
California
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Office - 575 Administration Dr., 
Santa Rosa, California
Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - 34274 
State Hwy. 16, Woodland, California
U. S. Department of Energy Public Reading Room, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
Department's involvement in this project and for copies of this Record 
of Decision please contact the Southeast Geysers Environmental Impact 
Statement Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 850 Energy 
Drive, Mail Stop-1146, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401-1563, (208) 526-1483.
    For information regarding the National Environmental Policy Act 
process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of National 
Environmental Policy Act Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
4600 or (800) 472-2756. To receive a copy of the final Environmental 
Impact Statement and the Bureau Record of Decision please contact Mr. 
Richard Estabrook, Project Manager, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
Ukiah District, 2550 North State Street, Ukiah, CA, 95482, (707) 468-
4052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since early 1992, the Lake County Sanitation District has pursued a 
joint venture with the geothermal industry, specifically the Northern 
California Power Agency, Calpine Corporation (Calpine), and Pacific Gas 
and Electric Company, to develop a plan for disposal of secondary-
treated effluent from the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 
(the Plant) near the City of Clearlake, California, in the Southeast 
Geysers Geothermal Steam Field. In early 1994, Union Oil Company also 
became a partner in the joint venture. That plan includes upgrades to 
treatment facilities at the Plant, construction of a pipeline to divert 
raw lake water from Clear Lake to be added to the effluent, 
construction of a 26-mile 24-inch diameter pipeline to the Southeast 
Geysers, addition of effluent from the Middletown Wastewater Treatment 
Plant, pump stations, secondary distribution lines for conveying the 
effluent to injection wells in the steam field, and construction of 
storage regulating tanks. The project is located primarily in Lake 
County, California, and also in part of Sonoma County, California.
    The project is intended to alleviate two circumstances. (1) It 
would resolve treatment and disposal deficiencies and would provide 
additional capacity at 

[[Page 53361]]
the Plant, thereby bringing the Southeast Regional Wastewater System 
into compliance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board 
Waste Discharge Requirements and enable lifting of the Board's 1991 
Cease and Desist Order and associated moratorium. Prior to development 
of this plan, a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable means of 
disposing treated wastewater effluent could not be identified. (2) The 
project would also provide a dependable source of water for injection 
into the Southeast Geysers steam field to support steam reservoir 
pressure that is used to generate electric power. Since about 1987, 
declines in steam production have occurred because of lower steam 
pressure throughout the Southeast Geysers Geothermal Field. The 
wastewater effluent, combined with diverted lake water, would mitigate 
the decline and allow continued geothermal energy production in this 
area for 25 or more years at higher production levels than would occur 
otherwise.
    Implementation of the plan involves multiple federal, state and 
local agencies. Federal participation includes permitting by the 
Bureau, as portions of the project in the Southeast Geysers require 
granting of Rights of Ways on federal lands managed by the Bureau. The 
Department will provide financial assistance grants to the Lake County 
Sanitation District for construction of the project. The Department has 
provided funding for the project in the past for early engineering 
design work and for preparation of environmental documentation. 
Additional funding may be provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development 
Administration, and the Department of Commerce Economic Development 
Administration. Other federal agencies with permitting or consultation 
requirements include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Environmental Considerations

    The Bureau serves as the lead federal agency under the National 
Environmental Policy Act for the Environmental Impact Statement. The 
Department is a cooperating agency. The Lake County Sanitation District 
is the lead agency representing local authorities and assuming 
responsibility for compliance with or coordination of State of 
California requirements for the project including preparation of a 
joint Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to requirements of the 
California Environmental Quality Act. The following summarizes the 
specific key actions taken to comply with the National Environmental 
Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act.

Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register--March 11, 1993 (58 
FR 13499)
Public scoping meetings in Sacramento and Lakeport, CA--March 25 & 26, 
1993
Supplemental Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register--
September 9, 1993 (58 FR 47469)
Public scoping meeting in Lakeport on the Supplemental Notice of 
Intent--August 23, 1993
Second Supplemental Notice of Intent--March 31, 1994
Public scoping meeting in Lakeport on the Second Supplemental Notice of 
Intent--April 13, 1994
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report on the 
Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Improvements Project 
and Geysers Effluent Pipeline Project--May 26, 1994
Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report published in the Federal Register--June 10, 
1994 (59 FR 30000)
Public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report in Lakeport--June 30 and July 14, 1994
Close of Public Comment Period on Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report--July 26, 1994
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report on the 
Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Improvements Project 
and Geysers Effluent Pipeline Project--August 25, 1994
Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report published in the Federal Register--August 
26, 1994 (59 FR 44144)
Public Hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report before the Lake County Planning Commission 
in Lakeport (Environmental Impact Report certification) and before the 
Lake County Sanitation District Board of Directors in Lakeport 
(Environmental Impact Report re-certification and project approval)--
August 25, 1994 and September 20, 1994, respectively.
Close of Public Comment Period on the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement--September 26, 1994
Department of Energy Adopts the Environmental Impact Statement January 
11, 1995
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision--February 16, 1995

    Certification of the Environmental Impact Report by the Lake County 
Planning Commission included recommendations for implementation of a 
Mitigation, Monitoring and Operation Plan, pursuant to requirements of 
the California Environmental Quality Act, and drawn from mitigation 
measures identified in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact 
Statement/Environmental Impact Report. The re-certification of the 
Environmental Impact Report by the Lake County Sanitation District 
Board of Directors includes the Mitigation, Monitoring and Operation 
Plan, which establishes enforceable conditions of the County Use 
Permit. Sonoma County also adopted mitigation measures which are 
included in the Union Oil Company general use permit. The Environmental 
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report did not distinguish 
between mitigation and monitoring responsibilities of the Bureau of 
Land Management and Lake and Sonoma Counties so the Bureau appended the 
Mitigation, Monitoring and Operation Plans to their Record of Decision. 
The Bureau Record of Decision is included here as Appendix A. 
Mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report and designated mitigation measure 
enforcement authorities are included in the Bureau Record of Decision. 
Therefore, the Department will not prepare a separate mitigation action 
plan.
    The Bureau signed a Record of Decision for the project which 
specifies that the right-of-way grants which implement the decision 
would be issued only upon completion of the section 106 process under 
the National Historic Preservation Act, and completion of conference 
procedures with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the project. The 
Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the California State 
Water Resources Control Board, and the Lake County Sanitation District 
entered into a Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation and the California State Historic Preservation 
Office for protection of cultural resources on all parts of the project 
according to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 
Programmatic Agreement requires identification and 

[[Page 53362]]
evaluation of cultural resources that may be disturbed by the action 
and mitigation where significant resources would be disturbed in 
consultation with historic preservation officials. Implementation of 
this agreement completes the consultation requirements of sections 106 
and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the project. 
Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts are listed in the final 
Environmental Impact Statement and the attached Bureau Record of 
Decision. The Bureau has formally requested a conference with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to the California 
red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). This species is proposed for 
listing as endangered and was scheduled to be listed early in 1995. 
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires conferencing but not 
formal consultation for proposed species. A proposed species is one 
that has been proposed for listing as an endangered species. A 
candidate species is under evaluation to determine whether to propose 
it for listing as an endangered species. If the evaluation is in the 
early stages it would be a candidate 2 species, when enough information 
is available to propose the species for listing it would be called a 
candidate 1 species. A biological assessment is not required for 
proposed or candidate species. However, the Bureau prepared a 
biological assessment of potential impacts to a number of species 
including the California red-legged frog as well as federal candidate 1 
plant species including the Lake County dwarf flax (Hesperolinon 
didymocarpum), the Socrates Mine jewelflower (Streptanthus brachiatus 
ssp. brachiatus), and the Freed's jewelflower (Streptanthus brachiatus 
ssp. hoffmanii). The project impacts were determined to be ``not likely 
to adversely affect'' the plant species listed above. Additional plant 
and animal species are evaluated in the biological assessment resulting 
in ``no effect'' determinations. Surveys for the red-legged frog have 
discovered no specimens in the project impact area. If the species is 
discovered in the impact area during construction, a number of 
mitigation measures would be instituted to lessen the impact. Only one 
potential habitat area, a stream crossing at Bear Creek, has the 
potential to result in permanent loss of habitat. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service concurred with the Bureau determination that the 
project is not likely to adversely affect the red-legged frog. 
Mitigation measures reducing the project's potential impact to the red-
legged frog and other special status plant and animal species and their 
habitats to less than significant levels are included in the final 
Environmental Impact Statement and the Bureau Record of Decision. 
Additional mitigation measures such as alterations to the pipeline 
route or pipeline design to avoid or reduce impacts to the species or 
their habitat may be implemented based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service requirements if new information reveals effects of the proposed 
action that may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not 
considered.

Alternatives Considered in the Decision-Making Process

Preferred Alternative and Supporting Rationale and Trade-offs

    The preferred alternative is the proposed project identified in the 
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report with 
mitigation measures. This alternative was selected: (1) Because it will 
provide a means for the Lake County Sanitation District to resolve its 
treatment and effluent disposal deficiencies, bringing the Southeast 
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant into compliance with its waste 
discharge permit requirements, as required by law and (2) because it 
will support continued geothermal steam energy production in the 
Southeast Geysers, which has been in decline since 1987. The preferred 
alternative meets the specific objectives of the project that are 
consistent with provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976, Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 and other federal laws 
regulating geothermal energy use in the Southeast Geysers. The area 
currently contains extensive geothermal energy development that is 
regulated by the Bureau. The project with mitigation provides a method 
of continued long-term use of the natural heat resource for electrical 
energy generation. Continued use of the geothermal resources of the 
Southeast Geysers is consistent with federal policy for use of 
alternative energy resources and the specific land management 
objectives of the Bureau in this Resource Area. Additionally, this 
alternative provides an effective means of treated effluent disposal, 
which is consistent with federal policy promulgated by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Clean Water Act. 
By providing a remedy that would remove the current Cease and Desist 
Order for the Plant, the project would support compliance with federal 
law and EPA wastewater discharge requirements. Significant impacts of 
the preferred alternative can be reduced to less-than-significant 
levels through implementation of mitigation. Two impacts were 
identified in the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 
Report as significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2.2.1 identified a 
short-term impact on water quality by construction of a road and 
placement of fill in an unnamed tributary of Bear Creek. The Bureau has 
identified specific mitigation measures in the draft Environmental 
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and final Environmental 
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report which would reduce the 
risk of slope erosion and silt deposition in the creek in the short 
term and in the long term. Impact 5.2.3.13 identified long-term 
cumulative loss of montane hardwood woodland, montane conifer woodland 
and mixed chaparral that potentially provide habitat for the loggerhead 
shrike, a federal candidate 2 species. The same area may also be 
habitat for the Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, both California 
species of concern and protected under State Code. Actual presence of 
these species at the area of potential effect has not been determined 
and, therefore, the impact is not definitive. Mitigation has been 
included that would require preconstruction surveys to determine if the 
species is present. Mitigation would potentially include establishing 
habitat preservation plans in the region for these species. These 
habitats are relatively widespread in the area, providing opportunities 
for preservation.
    Major public concerns relate to induced seismicity, spills and loss 
of habitat. Seismicity: Evidence suggests that injection of water into 
the Geysers steam field does induce seismicity in the form of 
microseismic events which register less than 3.0 on the Richter Scale. 
This magnitude of seismic event is not great enough to cause any damage 
to a structure and therefore is not considered to have a significant 
environmental impact. The Bureau noted in their Record of Decision that 
injection may be stopped if the link to larger magnitude earthquakes 
becomes clear. Spills: The public is concerned that effluent from a 
pipeline break could result in damage to waterways and impacts to plant 
and animal species. Pipeline monitoring, pipeline design and the 
mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Statement and 
mitigation plans will reduce the risk and impact of a spill to less 
than significant levels. Loss of Habitat: There 

[[Page 53363]]
will be temporary loss of habitat during construction and a permanent 
loss along the pipeline corridor. Mitigation measures reduce habitat 
loss to a minimum.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative and Rationale for Rejection

    The environmentally preferred alternative identified in the 
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report was the 
proposed project with the exception that Route Alternative F would be 
implemented. Route F differs from the preferred alternative only in the 
location of a 5,000-foot segment of the pipeline. Route F included 
construction of the Geysers Effluent Pipeline in about 3,700 feet of 
existing roadway and without an access road for about 2,000 feet 
between the Bear Canyon Power Plant and the Northern California Power 
Agency M-Site. This alternative would have eliminated the need to 
construct a new road and place fill in the course of the unnamed 
tributary of Bear Creek, features which created a potential for 
significant unavoidable environmental impacts.
    The environmentally preferred alternative was rejected because the 
advantages of having continuous road access to the pipeline in the 
rugged terrain outweighed the environmental impacts. Mitigation 
included in the Bureau Record of Decision reduces impacts 
substantially. While residual impacts on water quality and permanent 
loss of possible habitat of sensitive bird species would result from 
the preferred alternative in this segment of the pipeline route, these 
impacts are deemed acceptable in consideration of the advantages 
offered by better access to the pipeline. The preferred project also 
would result in connection of two roads that currently dead end. 
Connection of the roads would provide improved access for emergency 
vehicles to the Southeast Geysers.

Other Alternatives and Rationale for Rejection

    The Lake County Sanitation District rejected all alternative forms 
of wastewater disposal described in the Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report because of significant potential 
environmental impacts and costs. These considerations were reviewed by 
the Bureau and the Department. The Lake County Sanitation District had 
primary responsibility for the rejection of other disposal method 
alternatives. In making its decision about providing partial funding 
for the project, the Department considered the environmental effects of 
the project and all alternatives, including alternative disposal 
options.
    The No Action Alternative was rejected because it would not allow 
the Lake County Sanitation District to resolve its wastewater treatment 
deficiencies. Specifically, it would be unacceptable to take no action 
and thereby continue conditions that have caused the existing Cease and 
Desist Order to be in effect for the Plant with periodic violations of 
the federal Clean Water Act. In addition, the No Action Alternative was 
rejected by the Bureau because it would not provide a means to support 
the continued economical use of the geothermal resource in the 
Southeast Geysers and would not assist northern California in meeting 
its present and forecast energy demand.
    Alternative wastewater disposal locations considered in the 
Environmental Impact Statement included injection at the Borax Lake 
geothermal well, Audrey geothermal well or a new on-site disposal well. 
These alternative locations are speculative and technically unproven 
for sustaining the geothermal resource and thus would not meet the 
objectives of the proposal. Engineers and geologists have determined 
that the Southeast Geysers area is the best location to inject water 
and sustain the resources, given geological conditions, topographical 
features and environmental concerns.
    A number of alternative facility designs and routes were evaluated 
in the Environmental Impact Statement including differences in the 
designs for pumping water from Clear Lake, pump stations and surge 
tanks along the pipeline route, and alternative pipeline segment 
routes. The discussion below relates the impacts from the alternative 
to the impacts from the preferred alternative and why those 
alternatives were not selected.
Alternative Facility Designs
    The Lake Diversion Pumps and Pipeline on Pier alternative differs 
from the preferred alternative in that the pumps and pipeline to the 
Clear Lake shore would be located on a pier instead of locating the 
pipe underwater and the pumps on shore. This alternative would 
temporarily increase local water turbidity and local noise from driving 
piles for the pier and would result in an unavoidable and significant 
alteration of the visual environment.
    The Bear Canyon Single Pump Station and One-Way Surge Tank in the 
Geysers alternative would replace five pump stations with one large 
pump station and require a surge tank to be located at the high point 
of the pipeline in The Geysers. It would result in a significant noise 
impact to residents near the larger pump station, the loss of several 
large trees and valley oak woodland habitat which may provide habitat 
for the Coopers's hawk and sharp-shinned hawks, and increased 
degradation of the visual environment along a well-travelled highway.
    The By-pass Pipeline at the Plant is an alternative to discharging 
diverted lake water into the Plant reservoir. Instead, a pipeline would 
be constructed to channel water to the pumps for the Geysers Effluent 
Pipeline instead of to the reservoir. This alternative offered no 
significant environmental benefits or detriments over the preferred 
alternative. It was rejected for engineering reasons because it would 
create inferior Plant operating conditions and efficiencies by limiting 
the flexibility of Plant reservoir management.
    The alternative site for the Childers Peak regulating tank would be 
at the high point of the Geysers Effluent Pipeline between the Plant 
and the Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant more to the east of the 
saddle in the Big Canyon Creek watershed. This location would require a 
substantial cut to be made into the hillside which would introduce some 
potential slope instability and require a greater amount of grading and 
possibly some blasting. There would possibly be impacts of greater 
intensity to water quality because of increased silt generation from 
the increase in grading. Two special status plant species specimens, 
scarlet fritillary and thread-leaved miner's lettuce, could potentially 
be lost.
Alternative Pipeline Routes
    Route Alternatives A-1 and A-2 would avoid placement of the 
pipeline in existing private driveways by taking short diversions from 
the proposed route. They would produce silt that would be conveyed into 
the Clear Lake Outlet Channel. These routes would add 400 and 450 feet 
respectively to the length of the proposed route. These were rejected 
due to the siltation potential and higher construction costs.
    Route Alternative B would avoid crossing Clayton Creek on the 
bridge by spanning the deeply incised channel upstream of the bridge 
and crossing the large meander loop of Clayton Creek. This alternative 
could result in a significant erosion hazard and the hazard of stream 
erosion undermining the pipeline, potentially significant short term 
silt deposition in Clayton Creek and potentially significant short term 
impact to Northwestern pond 

[[Page 53364]]
turtles and the habitat of the black-shouldered kite.
    Route Alternative C would cross Highway 29 about 150 feet south of 
a fruit and vegetable stand as proposed in the preferred alternative. 
This route would result in no increase in negative environmental 
impacts and would preserve several large conifers and deciduous trees 
along the east side of the road, providing a beneficial impact on 
visual resources. This alternative was rejected because of engineering 
and cost benefits in implementing the preferred alternative.
    Route Alternative D would reduce the length of the pipeline by 250 
feet by cutting across the longer turn of the existing road leading 
down from Childers Peak Saddle. This would likely produce high erosion 
hazards and potentially significant erosion with silt deposition 
ultimately in Big Canyon Creek.
    Route Alternative E would reduce the need for easement acquisition 
by continuing in a southerly direction on the Big Canyon Road to its 
intersection with Harbin Springs Road and then proceeding northwesterly 
on Harbin Springs Road. The preferred alternative route would cut 
across the northern edge of a pasture. The alternative would require 
the pipeline to be 900 feet longer than the proposed route and would be 
located entirely within or on the shoulder of public roads, but would 
not result in any significant change in environmental impacts. It was 
rejected because it would result in higher construction costs with no 
substantial environmental benefits.
    Route Alternative F would not follow a new road connecting the 
Northern California Power Agency M-Pad but follow the Bear Canyon 
Access Road to the Bear Canyon Power Plant, cross the creek in the fill 
above the culvert and trend uphill to the M-pad. This route would 
result in higher erosion hazards, potentially significant impacts on 
runoff and water quality and would contribute to the permanent 
cumulative loss of mixed chaparral and montane hardwood habitat of the 
Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawk.
    Route Alternative G was a small deviation from the proposed route 
near the end of the Geysers Effluent Pipeline to avoid construction in 
the area of the Northern California Power Agency main gate, which 
receives heavy vehicle traffic. The road is the Northern California 
Power Agency's private road. The alternative route was rejected because 
it offered no substantial environmental advantages and because the 
construction disturbance for the preferred alternative route could be 
accommodated.

Consideration of Other Alternatives

    The preferred project is a preliminary plan. As the project has 
been approved by the Lake County Sanitation District Board of 
Directors, the phase of final engineering design will soon be started. 
At present, the project sponsors are considering a number of design and 
route alternatives that would represent modifications of the plan as 
presented in the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 
Report. One of the primary reasons for these potential modifications is 
to reduce mitigation costs by avoiding environmentally sensitive areas 
altogether. These alternatives include (1) evaluation of isolation 
valve placement; (2) relocation of the main pump station site on 
private land within the City of Clearlake (on Robin Lane); (3) a new 
pump station located near Highway 29 by project station 58 on private 
land; and (4) an alternative pipeline route between the southern end of 
the City of Clear Lake and Morgan Valley Road on private land and 
county roads to avoid the proposed route in Lake Street which is 
heavily constrained by cultural resources, traffic and other 
infrastructure. All of these alternatives, if advanced to a specific 
proposal, would require completion of supplemental review pursuant to 
the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental 
Policy Act.

Non-Environmental Factors Affecting The Decision-Making Process, 
Rationale and Trade-Offs

    Non-environmental factors that entered into the Department's 
decision-making process included the mission of contributing to the 
research and development of alternative energy resources and a desire 
to perform that mission while contributing to resolution of the 
municipal wastewater treatment problems in Lake County. Cost 
considerations were a significant consideration on the part of The Lake 
County Sanitation District in selecting alternatives.

Decision

    After consideration of the entire record and attachments (including 
the conditions for right-of-way grants in the Bureau of Land 
Management's Record of Decision) the Department has decided to provide 
additional funding to the Lake County Sanitation District through 
financial assistance awards for this project. The project encompasses 
upgrades to the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and 
construction of a pipeline to transport treated municipal wastewater 
treatment plant effluent and water from Clear Lake in Lake County, 
California, to the Southeast Geysers Geothermal Field for injection 
into the steam field.

    Issued at Washington DC, this 2nd day of October, 1995.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 95-25360 Filed 10-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P