[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29023-29024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13668]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration
[DOE/EIS-0297]


Record of Decision for the Interconnection of the Griffith Power 
Plant With the Western Area Power Administration's Parker-Davis and 
Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Transmission Systems

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: Griffith Energy Limited Liability Corporation (Griffith) 
applied for transmission service from the Western Area Power 
Administration (Western) for the Griffith Energy Project (Project). 
Based on the application, Western proposed to enter into an 
interconnection and construction agreement with Griffith to provide 
interconnections with Western's Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest 
Intertie and Parker-Davis transmission systems. Western has decided to 
enter into interconnection and construction agreements with Griffith to 
provide the interconnections with Western's Pacific Northwest-Pacific 
Southwest Intertie and Parker-Davis transmission systems, and to 
construct and operate transmission system additions to provide the 
interconnection with its transmission system. The interconnection to 
Western's transmission system will be provided via two new 230-kilovolt 
(kV) transmission lines, a new 230-/345-kV substation, and the 
upgrading of the existing Davis-Prescott 230-kV transmission line. 
Western's decision for its action took into consideration the 
environmental ramifications of the Project. The environmental 
ramifications of the Project were addressed in Western's Griffith 
Energy Project Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DOE/
EIS-0297). This Record of Decision (ROD) has been prepared in 
accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations for 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR parts 
1500-1508) and Department of Energy (DOE) Procedures for Implementing 
NEPA (10 CFR part 1021), and DOE's Floodplain/Wetland Review 
Requirements (10 CFR 1022). Western will reconsider this decision if 
Griffith does not obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) air permit from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
(ADEQ). Full implementation of this decision is contingent upon the 
Project obtaining all other required permits and approvals.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Holt, Environmental Manager, 
Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power 
Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005, telephone (602) 352-
2592, email [email protected]. Copies of the Environmental Impact 
Statements (EIS) are available from Mr. Holt.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is the lead agency for the EIS and 
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman 
Field Office (BLM) is a cooperating agency. Western decided to enter 
into interconnection and construction agreements with Griffith, and to 
construct and operate transmission system additions to provide the 
interconnection with its transmission system. The transmission system 
additions include:

    1. A new 8-mile 230-kV transmission line from the Griffith Power 
Plant to Western's existing McConnico Substation along route 
segments A and D as defined in the EIS;
    2. A new 230-/345-kV substation, named Peacock Substation, at 
the intersection of the existing Davis-Prescott and Mead-Phoenix 
transmission lines in the northeast corner of Section 36, Township 
22 North, Range 14 West;
    3. A new 30.2-mile 230-kV transmission line from the Griffith 
Power Plant to the new substation along route segments A, B and C as 
defined in the EIS (segments A and B will utilize a right-of-way 
previously acquired by Citizen's Utilities for its Kingman-Havasu 
project);
    4. The installation of new electrical equipment and structures 
within the boundaries of Western's existing McConnico and Mead 
substations; and
    5. The tensioning of existing conductors and/or installation of 
new conductors on the existing Davis-Prescott 230-kV transmission 
line between Western's Davis Substation and the new Peacock 
Substation (segment Z as defined in the EIS), including the 
installation of new structures between some longer spans to support 
the conductor.

    The transmission lines will be constructed along Western's 
preferred alternative as described in the EIS. In addition, Western 
decided to utilize single-pole steel structures for the portions of the 
new transmission lines that cross State- and privately-owned lands. 
Across BLM-administered public lands, Western will utilize the 
structure type stipulated by BLM in its rights-of-way grant.
    Western based its decision on the information contained in the 
Griffith Energy Project EIS (DOE/EIS-0297; Draft EIS issued October 
1998 and Final issued March 1999), subsequent comments received during 
the Final EIS waiting period, and consultations with the BLM.

Alternatives Considered

    Western considered the transmission alternatives addressed in the 
EIS and the environmental ramifications of the Griffith Power Plant in 
reaching its decision. Transmission alternatives included system, 
routing, and structure alternatives, and the no action alternative. 
Transmission line routing alternatives considered in the EIS were 
limited by the proximity of the Project to an established utility 
corridor, and the presence of other Western facilities in the area. 
Western did not select a routing alternative directly north of the 
power plant (segments A and E as defined in the EIS) because of its 
proximity to Walnut Creek Estates. Another routing alternative for 
segment D was suggested, but it was not technically feasible. Steel 
lattice, H-frame, and single-pole structure alternatives were 
considered for the transmission lines. The environmental impacts for 
each structure type will be similar. Due to cost and engineering 
considerations, Western selected the single-pole structure for the new 
lines and the H-frame structures for installation between the longer 
spans on the existing line. Single pole structures will not be feasible 
for the Davis-Peacock upgrade due to the horizontal configuration of 
the existing line. System alternatives were also addressed, but 
dismissed from full analysis.
    The no action alternative is the environmentally preferred 
alternative. It was not selected because it will not satisfy Western's 
need to provide access to its transmission system when requested by an 
eligible organization. Western implemented an Open Access Transmission 
Tariff to meet the intent of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) Order for Open Transmission Access (FERC Order Nos. 888 and 888-
A). The no action

[[Page 29024]]

alternative also will not provide enhancements to the transmission 
system in northwestern Arizona, or extend the life of the existing 
Davis-Prescott transmission line.
    Western believes that the selection of the no action alternative 
would not necessarily preclude development of the Griffith Power Plant, 
as Griffith could pursue other options or appeal a Western denial. 
Existing transmission constraints in the Kingman area have been well 
documented. If Griffith decides not to develop the Project under the no 
action alternative, it is believed that Citizen's Utilities would 
reinitiate its Kingman-Havasu transmission line project and pursue 
development of its own power plant to meet future electrical loads in 
the Kingman area. With development of the Project, Citizen's Utilities 
is not expected to construct a new 230-kV transmission line north of 
the Griffith Power Plant.
    In addition to the transmission system additions, the Project has 
other components that include the power plant, a brine disposal pond, 
gas pipelines, a power plant access road, an equipment off-loading 
area, a temporary haul route, water wells, and a water pipeline. 
Western does not have any jurisdiction over these components of the 
project. The BLM has jurisdiction over the eastern gas pipeline and 
will be issuing a separate ROD for the pipeline and the transmission 
lines that cross BLM-administered public lands. Western did consider 
the environmental ramifications of the entire Project in its decision 
making. Western has determined that the development of the gas 
pipelines, access road, temporary equipment off-loading, and haul road 
will not have significant environmental impacts based on the mitigation 
measures included in the EIS. The significance of the environmental 
impacts of the other Project components are discussed below.
    Additional comments were received during the Final EIS waiting 
period that expressed concerns about water use and depletion, water use 
alternatives, Mohave County's authorization of the water supply for the 
Project, and cumulative impacts. Western's decision considered water 
resource impacts based on an average annual consumption rate of 3,300 
gallons per minute over a 40-year life of the project. The water 
balance analysis in the Final EIS addressed water consumption rather 
than water supply. The water consumption analysis is a more accurate 
representation of the Project's impacts on the Sacramento water basin. 
Considering the water balance analysis and the highest possible 
estimates used to address cumulative water withdrawal impacts, Western 
believes the Final EIS more than adequately represents potential 
cumulative water consumption impacts. Western determined that the water 
consumption impacts will be adverse, but not significant.
    Western's decision also considered action taken by the Arizona 
Corporation Commission which issued a Certificate for Environmental 
Compatibility with conditions related to water use. The conditions will 
help the State monitor the Project's impact on groundwater resources. 
The power plant design incorporates equipment to recycle waste water 
and minimize water use. The EIS addressed alternatives to reduce water 
consumption by the power plant, but these alternatives were not 
economically feasible and were dismissed from full analysis. Two 
additional methods were suggested to reduce water depletion during the 
Final EIS waiting period that are consistent with the alternatives 
dismissed. Two more methods were suggested, but were outside the scope 
defined for the EIS during scoping.
    Western's decision also took into consideration the potential 
impacts of the brine disposal pond. In response to comments received on 
the Draft EIS, Western worked with Griffith to add monitoring and 
reporting of any waterfowl use and problems with the brine disposal 
pond. With monitoring and reporting, Western will be able to address 
any impacts to waterfowl with State and Federal wildlife agencies. In 
addition, Western based its decision on Griffith's need to obtain an 
aquifer protection permit from ADEQ for the brine disposal pond. The 
permit will adequately address concerns expressed about the pond to 
Western during the Final EIS waiting period.
    Western's decision also considered the Project's impacts on 
regional haze. Based on a review of the additional analysis on the 
Project's impacts on Grand Canyon visibility, Western concurs with the 
results that the Project will not have an adverse impact on Grand 
Canyon or Hualapai Tribe visibility. This ROD will be reconsidered if 
the ADEQ denies Griffith a PSD permit for the project.

Mitigation Measures

    All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from 
Western's selected alternative have been adopted. The generic and 
selective mitigation measures adopted are given in Table 2.1-4 of the 
Final EIS. Specific mitigation that applies to the construction of the 
new transmission lines, and the upgrading of the existing transmission 
line is identified in the EIS. This mitigation includes:

    1. A desert tortoise mitigation plan which will include 
preconstruction surveys and compensation for unmitigated impacts;
    2. Hualapai tribal participation in the intensive cultural 
resource surveys for the new transmission lines and the upgrade of 
the existing Davis-Peacock line;
    3. In locations identified during cultural resource inventory as 
having the potential to contain sensitive cultural resources to the 
Hualapai Tribe, Hualapai representatives will be invited to monitor 
right-of-way blading and construction;
    4. New conductors and groundwires will be nonspecular and when 
existing conductors are replaced, nonspecular conductors will be 
used to reduce visual impacts;
    5. New transmission line structures will be dulled to reduce 
visual impacts;
    6. Transmission line structures would be designed for the 
appropriate seismic zone;
    7. Third-party construction monitoring in areas identified by 
the BLM;
    8. Reseeding and plant salvaging per a BLM approved Reclamation 
Operation Maintenance Plan;
    9. Preconstruction surveys for peregrine falcon and other raptor 
nesting activity;
    10. Avoidance of construction during any discovered mountain 
plover breeding season; and
    11. Coordination with interested property owners on structure 
siting to reduce land use and visual impacts.

    The decision also is based on the implementation of specific 
mitigation measures identified in the EIS for the other components of 
the Project including:

    1. Western's review and approval of dust control procedures for 
the construction of the Griffith Power Plant as required by the ADEQ 
air permit;
    2. Power plant lighting compliance with Mohave County 
illumination ordinances and use of partially- or fully-shielded 
fixtures during darkness;
    3. Painting plant with colors similar to the surrounding 
landscape; and
    4. Monitoring and reporting of waterfowl use and impacts at the 
brine disposal pond.

    A Mitigation Action Plan will be developed in accordance with 10 
CFR 1021.331 that addresses mitigation commitments described above. The 
Mitigation Action Plan will explain how the mitigation will be planned 
and implemented and will be available upon request.

    Dated: May 12, 1999.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-13668 Filed 5-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P