[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55995-55998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22243]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Transmission System Vegetation Management Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations and Tennessee Valley Authority's 
(TVA's) procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA). TVA has decided to adopt a condition-based control strategy 
for vegetation management, coupled with an initial clearing off all 
woody vegetation in the right-of-way (ROW) buffer zones. The full 
extent of the right-of-way (ROW) would then be maintained to a meadow-
like end-state. This alternative is identified as the Preferred 
Alternative in the Transmission System Vegetation Management 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and is considered to 
provide the best balance in enhancing system reliability and safety, 
minimization of environmental impacts, and striving for cost 
effectiveness. The notice of availability (NOA) of the Final EIS for 
the Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statement was published 
in the Federal Register on August 30, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita E. Masters, Tennessee Valley 
Authority, 1101 Market Street, BRC 2C, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402; 
telephone (423) 751-8697, or by email [email protected]. The Final EIS, 
this Record of Decision (ROD) and other project documents are available 
on TVA's website https://www.tva.gov/nepa.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TVA is an executive branch federal agency 
and instrumentality of the United States created by and existing 
pursuant to the TVA Act of 1933. Its broad mission is to foster the 
social and economic welfare of the people of the Tennessee Valley 
region and to promote the proper use and conservation of the region's 
natural resources. One component of this mission is the generation, 
transmission, and sale of reliable and affordable electric energy.
    TVA's transmission system serves nearly ten million residents in a 
more than 82,000-square-mile area that spans most of Tennessee and 
parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and 
Kentucky. TVA's transmission system consists of a network of more than 
16,000 miles of electric transmission lines and approximately 500 power 
substations all contained within approximately 238,000 acres of utility 
ROW. The electricity generated by these resources is transmitted along 
high-voltage transmission lines typically ranging from 46,000 to 
500,000 volts (46 to 500 kilovolts [kV]) to more than 50 directly 
served, large industrial customers and to 154 local power companies 
(LPC). These LPCs typically utilize voltages in the range of 4 to 69 kV 
to connect with end-use customers (e.g., residential homes).
    Most of TVA's transmission system is located on private lands. TVA 
typically acquires perpetual rights through purchased easements which 
typically provide TVA the legal rights to maintain or repair 
transmission lines. Many of TVA's purchased transmission ROW easements 
provide TVA the perpetual right to keep the ROW clear of structures, 
trees, brush, stored personal property, as well as fire hazards. They 
also provide TVA the right to clear any trees located beyond the limits 
of the purchased easement that qualify as danger trees. There are some 
variations in TVA purchased easements, but in all cases, TVA's rights 
are defined by the language of the easement associated with the 
particular tract and applicable law.
    TVA actively maintains approximately 46 percent (110,752 acres) of 
the transmission ROW. Approximately 51 percent of the ROW is used as 
cropland, golf courses, orchards or similar uses, which are primarily 
maintained by the landowner. While the floor of the ROW is often 
maintained by others in these areas, TVA conducts routine inspections 
and vegetation management of ditch banks, fence rows, towers, and other 
features. A relatively small amount of the TVA transmission system ROW 
(4,720 acres) does not require routine vegetation management by anyone. 
These areas include ROW that spans open water or deep valleys where 
vegetation growing at lower elevations does not threaten the 
transmission line. Trees tall enough to fall within or grow to an 
unsafe distance of transmission lines under maximum sag and blowout 
conditions are managed on all lands within and adjacent to the TVA ROW.
    Historically, although TVA performed vegetation management 
consistent with its 1997 and 2008 Line Maintenance Manuals, it did not 
engage in system-wide maintenance planning. Rather, TVA employees in 
charge of individual ROW sectors had discretion to determine which 
vegetation within the ROW in their sector would be cleared. Decisions 
were based on a variety of factors, including how great a threat the 
vegetation presented to the transmission lines, budget constraints, and 
agreements with landowners. The industry-wide North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standard enacted in 2007 
states that transmission systems, like the TVA system, must maintain 
adequate transmission line clearances as required by the National 
Electric Safety Code (NESC) in order to be able to survive single-
failure events while continuing to serve customer needs with adequate 
voltage. As such, between 2011 and 2014, the floor work maintenance 
cycle on transmission ROWs associated with transmission lines carrying 
230 kV or higher was shortened from a three-year cycle to a two-year 
cycle. In addition, floor vegetation maintenance work incorporated a 
greater percentage of herbicide use to expedite adequate clearance. 
Although the NERC reliability standards did not require removing trees 
from the transmission ROW, the penalties assessed by NERC for allowing 
even one tree to encroach within a specified distance of a

[[Page 55996]]

conductor can be up to $1 million for each day that the encroachment is 
deemed to exist, and NERC can also mandate costly mitigation plans. 
Therefore, in response to the financial risk of non-compliance, and a 
desire to maintain system reliability, TVA increased the vegetation 
management budget to allow for reclaiming non-maintained areas within 
the width of the transmission ROWs.
    Accordingly, traditional methods of vegetation management have had 
to improve to meet the reliability standards required by NERC via 
Reliability Standard FAC-003. Recent wildfire events in the Western 
United States have placed additional scrutiny on ROW vegetation 
management programs, as these events demonstrate the devastating loss 
of life and property that can occur if ROW are not properly maintained. 
TVA, like other energy companies, now develops long-range vegetation 
management plans for its transmission system, which include 
considerations for how and when TVA controls the vegetation growing on 
its transmission line ROWs.
    The purpose of TVA's transmission system vegetation management 
program is to strategically manage TVA's existing transmission line ROW 
consistent with applicable laws, orders, standards, practices and 
guidance while providing reliable energy and protecting environmental 
resources. Vegetation management is needed to enhance public safety, 
improve the effectiveness of TVA's vegetation management program to 
eliminate vegetation that interferes with the operation of the existing 
transmission system so that TVA can to continue to provide safe and 
reliable electric power in a cost-effective and environmentally sound 
manner. Sound vegetation management will allow TVA to comply with all 
current NERC Reliability Standards FAC-003 to maintain transmission 
lines in a safe and reliable operating condition. In addition, TVA is 
currently subject to a court injunction issued July 31, 2017 by the 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in the 
lawsuit, Sherwood v. TVA, No. 3-12-cv-156, which requires ``TVA [to] 
maintain buffer zones on the edges of its ROW in a manner as described 
in its 1997 and 2008 Line Maintenance Manuals'' until TVA prepares and 
publishes a thorough Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act analyzing TVA's ROW vegetation 
management program. Thus, the completion of this PEIS will enable TVA 
to fulfill its legal obligations in this court action.

Alternatives Considered

    In determining policy and direction for managing vegetation along 
its transmission line ROW, TVA examined its past and current vegetation 
management practices and considered standard practices utilized by 
other entities such as Bonneville Power Administration and the USFS, as 
well as research conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute 
(EPRI). TVA's research revealed that Integrated Vegetation Management 
(IVM) is the industry standard. The goal of IVM is to provide an 
integrated and balanced approach of vegetation management that 
considers the overall long-term effect on public health and safety, 
reliability, environmental stewardship and cost. Therefore, TVA 
determined IVM should continue to be a central component of its 
vegetation management strategy.
    Each of the proposed alternatives incorporates an IVM approach 
based on a carefully planned, multidimensional strategy developed in 
consultation with forestry and habitat experts. IVM aims to create 
conditions on the transmission ROW that improve safety and prevent 
power outages by creating inherently more compatible and self-
sustaining ecosystems while ensuring compliance with regulatory 
standards. By combining physical vegetation removal with selective use 
of herbicides, IVM can more thoroughly eradicate incompatible 
vegetation and allow more ``compatible'' species to fill in, making it 
harder for tall-growing vegetation to reestablish.
    All of the proposed alternatives would utilize a comprehensive set 
of methods of general vegetation control (e.g., manual, mechanical, and 
herbicide/growth regulators) for each component of TVA's vegetation 
management program: Vegetation control, debris management, and 
restoration. Floor work under all alternatives (i.e., that which is 
focused on the maintained herbaceous community) would continue on an 
established cycle and, in general, would be controlled using a mixture 
of methods. The proportion of methods to manage floor work has been 
approximately 90 percent herbicide, six percent mechanical, and four 
percent manual. Site-specific characteristics and the incorporation of 
TVA's office-level sensitive area review (O-SAR) process determine the 
selection of vegetation management methods employed. The net effect of 
TVA's O-SAR process is to consider the site-specific sensitivity at a 
given location on the transmission ROW in the development of a context 
sensitive approach to tools for vegetation management that not only 
have an effect on method selection for floor work but also for tree 
work. In addition, each of the four alternatives under consideration 
includes routine assessment methods to establish a basis for vegetation 
control measures. The alternatives differ in the selected approach to 
create the desired ``end-state'' of the vegetative communities along 
the transmission line ROW.
    Alternatives considered in the PEIS are:
    Alternative A--No Action--This vegetation management process is 
prescribed by the court injunction order currently in place in the 
Sherwood v. TVA litigation. Under the Order, TVA must leave existing 
trees in the maintained area of the ROW so long as they do not pose an 
immediate hazard to the transmission lines or structures. Additionally, 
TVA may remove or trim any tree in the previously maintained areas of 
ROW, or in the non-maintained areas of ROW, or any danger tree outside 
the transmission ROW that TVA deems to present an immediate hazard to 
its transmission line or structures in accordance with its contract 
rights. Vegetated ROW buffer would not be removed under this 
alternative. Floor work would continue to be managed on a nominal 
three-year cycle in previously cleared areas. The No Action Alternative 
does not adequately address the potential for service outages from 
trees growing into the line, falling into the line, or creating a fire 
hazard to the transmission lines and structures and as such creates an 
increasing risk to reliability. The No Action Alternative also does not 
adequately address the risk to public safety that can stem from 
wildfires caused by power lines. In addition, this approach would lead 
to a marked increase in worker safety concerns, due to the increased 
risk of serious injuries and fatalities associated with the increased 
need to undertake manual removal of large danger trees. Consequently, 
this alternative would not satisfy the project purpose and need and, 
therefore, is not considered a viable or reasonable vegetation 
management alternative.
    Due to the injunction associated with the Sherwood v. TVA 
litigation, TVA has stopped removing woody vegetation except for trees 
that are an immediate hazard to the reliability of the transmission 
system and/or safety of the public. As a result, buffer zones within 
the existing ROW continue to contain vegetation incompatible with TVA's 
transmission system. The volume of non-compatible woody vegetation is 
also increasing within the previously-

[[Page 55997]]

cleared ROWs due to the court injunction order.
    To ensure the safe and reliable operation of the transmission 
facilities and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
vegetation management, Alternatives B, C and D would include an initial 
removal of vegetation within the buffer areas (except grasses, forbs, 
and some small shrubs) within the full extent of the ROW. Initial woody 
vegetation removal activities would entail the use of both mechanical 
(about 85 percent) and manual (about 15 percent) methods. Where terrain 
conditions provide for higher clearances (i.e., ravines, steep slopes, 
etc.), vegetation may not conflict with the safe and reliable operation 
of the transmission lines, and thus would not need to be removed.
    Alternative B--Cyclical-Based Control Strategy--Under Alternative 
B, after the initial removal of woody vegetation within the buffer 
areas, the full extent of the transmission ROW subject to TVA 
vegetation management would be cleared on a recurring cycle (typically 
every 3 years). All vegetation with the potential to interfere with the 
safe and reliable operation of the transmission system would be removed 
using a combination of herbicides and mechanical or manual methods 
depending on the specific site condition. Incompatible vegetation would 
be determined by field inspections. TVA previously has, in some 
instances, allowed property owners to maintain trees on their property 
within the transmission ROW. However, this practice is unsafe for the 
landowner as well as for the reliability of the transmission system 
because implementation, timing and consistency of owner maintenance can 
be unreliable. Accordingly, this practice would no longer be allowed 
under this alternative.
    Alternative C--Condition-Based Control Strategy--End-State Meadow-
like, Except for Areas Actively Maintained by Others (Compatible Trees 
Allowed)--After the initial removal of woody vegetation within the 
buffer areas, TVA would use an IVM approach to promote the 
establishment of a plant community dominated by low-growing herbaceous 
and shrub-scrub species that do not interfere with the safe and 
reliable operation of the transmission system. The goal of this 
vegetation management alternative would be to allow compatible 
vegetation to establish and propagate to reduce the presence of woody 
species. Hazard and danger trees would be removed using a combination 
of mechanical and manual methods depending on site conditions. Under 
this alternative, TVA would have the option to allow compatible trees 
to remain in areas actively maintained by others (such as residential 
lands, orchards, forest plantations, agricultural lands or other 
similar areas). The maintenance of trees in these areas would be 
optimized with the use of various inspection methods. These methods 
include aerial patrols, ground patrols, photogrammetry, and Light 
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys to identify the extent of any 
tree removal needed. These tools allow TVA to implement a targeted 
approach through the identification of categories that define the risk 
and removal of trees in these areas.
    Alternative D--Condition-Based Control Strategy--End-State 
Compatible Vegetation Variable by Zone, Except for Areas Actively 
Maintained by Others (Compatible Trees Allowed)--As with Alternative C, 
after the initial removal of woody vegetation within the buffer areas, 
TVA would implement a process of vegetation community conversion within 
the transmission ROW wire zone using an IVM approach. However, under 
Alternative D, the buffer zone would be allowed to redevelop with 
compatible species of shrubs and trees. The goal of this vegetation 
management alternative is to promote a soft or ``feathered'' edge which 
could be used to provide a transition from forested habitat into the 
meadow-like habitat of the wire zone. Removal of hazard and danger 
trees and routine vegetation maintenance and management of compatible 
trees in areas actively maintained by others would be the same as 
Alternative C.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    The scope of the potential alternatives is formed by the purpose 
and need of the proposed action, namely, the need to improve the 
effectiveness of TVA's vegetation management program by eliminating 
vegetation that interferes with the safe and reliable operation of the 
transmission system. Therefore, under all of the proposed alternatives, 
some vegetation control would be the same and as such, implementation 
of any of the alternatives would result in direct impacts to herbaceous 
plant communities as a result of the recurring impact on plants within 
the ROW. Because this is part of an existing management program, it 
would not result in widespread alteration of the overall plant 
community. While there is a potential for long-term impacts to natural 
resources, such impacts would be minimized through sound planning and 
the incorporation of TVA's O-SAR process as a best management practice 
(BMP) and the incorporation of other established TVA transmission ROW 
Management BMPs and established transmission-related environmental 
protection practices.
    Impacts to the human environment (land use, socioeconomics, air, 
noise, cultural resources, solid/hazardous waste, public and worker 
safety, etc.) and on land management (residential, recreational, 
agricultural, commercial, industrial, National Park Service [NPS], U.S. 
Forest Service [USFS], City, County, and State), would occur as a 
result of the maintenance disturbance on the transmission ROW. These 
impacts would be localized and short-term disturbances that are not 
expected to result in notable or destabilizing effects. Additionally, 
impacts to cultural, historic and traditional cultural properties 
(TCPs) would be minimized by ensuring compliance with Section 106 of 
the Natural Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). TVA has prepared a 
Programmatic Agreement (PA) under NHPA in coordination with the seven 
State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) within the TVA power 
service area, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and 
federally recognized Indian tribes within the study area. For 
vegetation management activities not covered by the PA or in the event 
that TVA does not have an executed PA with a particular SHPO, TVA would 
follow the Section 106 process for specific undertakings. As such, 
impacts from any of the management alternatives on the elements of the 
human environment are minor.
    Alternative A--No Action would result in the lowest level of 
environmental impacts as the initial removal of woody vegetation would 
not be conducted, reducing equipment operations and manpower 
requirements in comparison to the other alternatives over the first 
eight years. Additionally, less floor work would be required in the 
future for approximately 8,094 acres of land that would be maintained 
under Alternatives B, C and D. However, Alternative A--No Action, does 
not meet the purpose and need for the project.
    Habitat alteration associated with initial woody vegetation removal 
under Alternatives B, C and D is considered to be notable, but it 
should not destabilize associated resources. Alternative B entails the 
cyclical treatment of the entire transmission ROW to maintain the floor 
and would not be expected to result in a vegetative end condition that 
is of a higher quality as Alternatives C and D. Under Alternative C, 
the plant community would develop into a meadow-like end-state that is 
more compatible with the safe and reliable

[[Page 55998]]

operation of the transmission system and of higher quality than 
Alternative B. Management of the transmission ROW under Alternative D 
is intended to result in a meadow-like condition similar to Alternative 
C. Notably however, this alternative would allow for the development of 
a compatible border zone which provides greater benefits for selective 
wildlife species relative to Alternative C in terms of habitat quality 
in the end-state. However, accomplishment of this end-state requires 
additional manpower and the inclusion of trained staff (botanists) with 
each crew who can direct the application of control methods to achieve 
the desired end-state.

Public Involvement

    On January 23, 2017, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS to 
address the management of vegetation on its transmission system was 
published in the Federal Register. The NOI initiated a public scoping 
period, which concluded on April 1, 2017.
    In addition to the NOI in the Federal Register, TVA published 
information about the review and planning effort on TVA's project 
website, notified the media, and sent notices to numerous individuals, 
organizations, and intergovernmental partners with information about 
the review.
    During scoping, TVA received fifteen comments related to use of 
herbicides and mechanical controls, and five comments regarding the use 
of border to border management. The remaining 33 comments identified 
issues to be addressed in the Programmatic EIS. These comments were 
considered and as a result, TVA added an additional alternative, 
Alternative D to be considered in the EIS.
    The Draft PEIS was released to the public on August 8, 2018, and a 
notice of availability (NOA) including a request for comments on the 
Draft PEIS, was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2018. 
Publication of the NOA in the Federal Register opened the 45-day 
comment period, which ended on October 1, 2018. To solicit public 
input, the availability of the Draft PEIS was announced in regional and 
local newspapers and a news release was issued to the media and posted 
to TVA's website and hard copies were made available by request.
    TVA's agency involvement included circulation of the Draft PEIS to 
local, state, and federal agencies and federally recognized Indian 
tribes as part of the review. The NPS and the USFS served as 
cooperating agencies in this review.
    During the public comment period on the Draft PEIS, TVA conducted 
seven public meetings across the Valley. Notification of the public 
meetings was published in local newspapers and on TVA's project 
website.
    TVA received 150 comment submissions from members of the public, 
organizations and state and federal agencies. Comment submissions were 
carefully reviewed and compiled into main topics which received general 
responses. More specific public comments, local group comments, and 
agency comments received individual responses. The most frequently 
mentioned topics included comments regarding keeping the ``old'' 
vegetation management policy, project purpose and need, private 
property concerns, project costs and use of herbicides. Additional 
comments regarding climate change, compatible vegetation, BMPs, and 
expressing preference for a particular alternative were also received. 
TVA provided responses to these comments, made appropriate minor 
revisions to the Draft EIS and issued this Final EIS.
    The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on 
August 30, 2019.

Decision

    TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative, Alternative 
C, which would include implementing a process of vegetation community 
conversion within the full extent of the actively managed transmission 
ROW. This alternative is considered to provide the best balance in 
enhancing system reliability and safety, minimization of environmental 
impacts, and striving for cost effectiveness.

Mitigation Measures

    Mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts 
to the environment are summarized below. Any additional project-
specific mitigation measures, such as avoiding areas identified from 
desktop reviews as having a high probability of any sensitive 
resources, would be identified on a site-specific basis.
    TVA has prepared comprehensive standard BMPs that represent 
mitigation measures that are effective in avoiding, minimizing, 
rectifying and compensating for effects of vegetation management 
activities. These BMPs are detailed in TVA's guide for environmental 
and best management practices. Topics addressed in this manual include 
the following:
     Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance 
Activities including Vegetation Management.
     Sensitive Resources and Buffer Zones.
     Structural Controls, Standards and Specifications.
     Seeding/Stabilization Techniques.
     Practices and procedures are provided that directly relate 
to the vegetation management activities including initial woody 
vegetation removal, good housekeeping, waste disposal, herbicide use, 
and stormwater discharge management.
     Integration of TVA's O-SAR process.
    Any additional project-specific mitigation measures, such as 
avoiding areas identified from desktop reviews as having a high 
probability of any sensitive resources, would be identified on a site-
specific basis.

    Dated: October 3, 2019.
James R. Dalrymple,
Senior Vice President, Transmission, Power Supply & Support, Tennessee 
Valley Authority.
[FR Doc. 2019-22243 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P