[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1721-1723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-571]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


Sacramento Area Voltage Support Project (DOE/EIS-0323)

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: Based upon the analysis and information contained in the 
Sacramento Area Voltage Support (SVS) Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS), the Western Area Power Administration (Western) has decided 
that, should the SVS project proceed, it should follow the 
configuration of the preferred alternative described in the SVS Final 
EIS. This alternative is identified as Proposed Action Option B and 
would consist of (1) reconductoring a double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) 
transmission line from Elverta Substation to Tracy Substation, (2) 
constructing a new double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line from 
O'Banion Substation to Elverta Substation, and (3) realigning the 
transmission line near Pleasant Grove Cemetery between O'Banion and 
Elverta substations and Option B of the Cottonwood-Roseville single-
circuit, 230-kV transmission line. In making this decision, Western 
evaluated (1) alternatives to the proposed project, and (2) 
alternatives that cover the reasonable range of options to complete 
enhancements to the 230-kV power transmission system between O'Banion 
and Tracy substations. These transmission enhancements and additions 
are necessary to maintain transmission security and reliability. Of the 
alternatives evaluated, Proposed Action Option B provides the highest 
degree of security and reliability for voltage support while having 
relatively few environmental impacts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loreen McMahon, Environmental 
Project Manager, Sierra Nevada Customer Service Region, Western Area 
Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710, 
telephone (916) 353-4460, e-mail [email protected]. For information 
about the Department of Energy (DOE) National Environmental Policy Act 
(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: Population growth and development in the 
Sacramento, California, area has steadily increased electricity demand. 
The need for generation interconnections and operational flexibility in 
using existing electrical transmission facilities has increased. These 
factors combine to reduce security and reliability of the 
interconnected transmission system, which includes Western's Federal 
transmission system. While Western is not responsible for the load 
growth, transmission lines in the Sacramento area have reached their 
maximum transfer limits in serving existing needs. New transmission and 
transmission upgrades are needed to mitigate transmission line 
overload, reduce the frequency of automatic generation and load 
curtailment during the summer peak load periods, and help maintain 
reliability of the interconnected system operation.
    Power system studies conducted by the Sacramento Area Transmission 
Planning Group and the River City Transmission Group concluded that 
transmission additions in the Sacramento area are needed to alleviate 
voltage sag and ensure power system reliability. The EIS analyzed 
environmental impacts of alternatives identified to improve electric 
system reliability and provide voltage support for the Sacramento area.

Alternatives

    Western identified five broad alternative categories (new power 
generation, demand-side management (DSM), distributed generation, new 
transmission, and transmission upgrades) in its Notice of Intent (65 FR 
48496) to prepare this EIS. Between September 12 through September 21, 
2000, Western conducted a series of four scoping meetings in Lodi, 
Marysville, and Folsom, California. Public scoping comments were 
collected from August 8 through October 2, 2000. Western held two 
public workshops (March and September 2001) to address public comments 
on the broad selection of alternatives under consideration.

[[Page 1722]]

    The results of public scoping meetings, workshops, meetings with 
agencies, and transmission system studies contributed to identifying 
the alternatives carried forward for detailed review. Alternatives 
eliminated from detailed review included new power generation, DSM, and 
distributed generation. New power generation and distributed generation 
alternatives will not solve short-term voltage support and reliability 
issues. DSM would be more applicable to the distribution of 
electricity, and the local utilities have implemented programs to 
decrease electrical loads during peak-use hours. Western believes that 
in the short term, imposing regulations of this type would not solve 
the reliability issues.
    The alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis included new 
transmission and transmission upgrades. To minimize environmental 
impacts, Western incorporated standard Environmental Protection 
Measures (EPM) into the project description for the Proposed Action and 
all alternatives. Detailed evaluation of the Proposed Action and 
alternatives in the Draft EIS considered the three types of project 
activities below.
    1. Reconductoring would consist of replacing the existing 
transmission line conductors (wires) with higher capacity conductors. 
In general, the existing rights-of-way (ROW) would be used, although 
some new structures may be needed.
    2. New construction of transmission lines would include designing 
and building new structures and installing new conductors. New 
construction would occur on existing ROW where possible or require new 
ROW in parallel with existing ROW.
    3. Realignment would include route deviations from Western's 
existing transmission lines.
    The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS was published in 
the Federal Register on November 15, 2002, followed by a 45-day public 
comment period. During the public comment period, three public hearings 
were held: December 9, 2002, in Lodi, California; December 11, 2002, in 
Folsom, California; and December 12, 2002, in Marysville, California. 
Comments on the Draft EIS were made at the public hearings and were 
sent to Western via mail, telephone, and e-mail. A total of 117 
comments were received from 28 individuals, companies, and government 
agencies.
    Comments to the Draft EIS prompted a minor modification to avoid 
residential property. This modification affects two of the 
alternatives, resulting in adding two alternatives as described in the 
Final EIS. The description and impacts of the modification are 
identical for both the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. The title 
description ``Option A'' was added to the original project description 
of the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. The title description 
``Option B'' was added to the modified alignments.
    The Final EIS is an abbreviated version, which references the Draft 
EIS in its entirety. The Final EIS identifies the Preferred Alternative 
and provides corrections to the Draft EIS, additional information not 
included in the Draft EIS, public comments, Western's responses to 
those comments, and analyses of the modification applicable to the 
Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Option A and Option B of the 
Proposed Action, as well as the other alternatives, are described 
below.

Proposed Action

    Option A: This is the original alignment of the Proposed Action. It 
would consist of (1) Reconductoring 73.2 miles of double-circuit, 230-
kV transmission line from Elverta Substation to Tracy Substation, (2) 
constructing 26.6 miles of new double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line 
from O'Banion Substation to Elverta Substation, and (3) realigning the 
transmission line near Pleasant Grove Cemetery, between O'Banion and 
Elverta substations and 5 miles of the Cottonwood-Roseville single-
circuit, 230-kV transmission line north of Elverta Substation.
    Option B: This is the modified alignment of the Proposed Action. It 
would consist of (1) Reconductoring 73.2 miles of double-circuit, 230-
kV transmission line from Elverta Substation to Tracy Substation, (2) 
constructing 26.6 miles of new double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line 
from O'Banion Substation to Elverta Substation, and (3) realigning the 
transmission line near Pleasant Grove Cemetery, between O'Banion and 
Elverta substations, and 6.1 miles of the Cottonwood-Roseville single-
circuit, 230-kV transmission line. This modified realignment of the 
Cottonwood-Roseville line would extend about 2 miles east of the 
original alignment and then traverse south.

Alternative 1

    Reconductoring Transmission Lines between O'Banion and Tracy 
substations would consist of reconductoring 99.8 miles of the existing 
double-circuit and single-circuit, 230-kV transmission lines from 
O'Banion Substation to Tracy Substation.

Alternative 2

    Option A: New Transmission from O'Banion Substation to Elverta 
Substation is the original alignment of Alternative 2. It would consist 
of (1) constructing 26.6 miles of new double-circuit, 230-kV 
transmission line from O'Banion Substation to Elverta Substation, and 
(2) realigning the transmission line near Pleasant Grove Cemetery and 5 
miles of the Cottonwood-Roseville single-circuit, 230-kV transmission 
line north of Elverta Substation.
    Option B: New Transmission from O'Banion Substation to Elverta 
Substation is the modified alignment of Alternative 2. It would consist 
of (1) constructing 26.6 miles of new double-circuit, 230-kV 
transmission line from O'Banion Substation to Elverta Substation, and 
(2) realigning the transmission line near Pleasant Grove Cemetery and 
6.1 miles of the Cottonwood-Roseville single-circuit, 230-kV 
transmission line. This modified realignment of the Cottonwood-
Roseville line would extend about 2 miles east of the original 
alignment then traverse south.

Alternative 3

    New Transmission from Elk Grove Substation to Tracy Substation 
would consist of constructing 46.2 miles of new double-circuit, 230-kV 
transmission line from Elk Grove Substation to Tracy Substation.

No Action Alternative

    The No Action Alternative would involve unchanged operation of the 
existing transmission line system. Western would not develop or build 
additional transmission lines or substation facilities in the study 
area relative to voltage support.
    The NOA of the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on 
September 19, 2003. Western publicized the Notice of Intent, public 
scoping meetings, public hearings, and availability of the Draft EIS in 
local newspapers. Western will also publish the availability of this 
Record of Decision (ROD) in local newspapers.

Decision

    Western selected Proposed Action Option B as its action, since it 
provides the maximum load-serving capability and reduces the need for 
automatic generation and load curtailment during the summer peak load 
periods to the greatest degree. This action best fulfills the agency's 
statutory mission and responsibilities under the Central Valley Project 
Act authority and it has relatively low environmental impacts.

[[Page 1723]]

    Through analysis in the EIS, Western determined two of the 
alternatives were environmentally preferable. The No Action Alternative 
was determined to be the environmentally preferred alternative with the 
least environmental impact. It would not, however, meet the purpose and 
need. Western determined that Alternative 1 is the environmentally 
preferred action alternative due to fewer environmental impacts on land 
use, visual resources, and water resources compared to the Proposed 
Action Option B and the other action alternatives. However, none of the 
action alternatives, including Alternative 1, would avoid significant 
air impacts. The environmentally preferred action alternative was not 
selected because its fewer environmental impacts do not outweigh 
Western's need to provide maximum load-serving capability that is 
provided with the selected alternative.

Proposed Action Option B

    Project financing for construction is uncertain. With this 
decision, Western is adopting the EPMs outlined in the EIS. Once 
funding is secured, Western would complete an air quality analysis to 
predict potential emissions, conduct biological and cultural resource 
surveys as necessary, complete a biological assessment and Section 7 
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, and consult with the State Historic 
Preservation Office on cultural resources. Stipulations identified 
through these analyses and consultations would be developed based on 
agreements reached between Western and the regulatory agencies. Western 
would develop a mitigation action plan (MAP) for such stipulations to 
ensure all practical means of avoiding environmental harm. Western 
would make the MAP available to the public.
    This ROD meets the requirements of NEPA as well as the Council on 
Environmental Quality and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations. 
Additional analyses results may affect this decision and result in 
subsequent analysis or decisions. The public will be notified of any 
additional activities necessary to meet Western's NEPA and other public 
involvement requirements.

    Dated: December 29, 2003.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-571 Filed 1-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P