[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58966-58968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28910]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Record of Decision for the Navajo Transmission Project (DOE/EIS-
0231)
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Based upon the analysis and information contained in the
Navajo Transmission Project (NTP) Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS), the Department of Energy (DOE), Western Area Power
Administration (Western), has decided that should the NTP be built, it
should follow the preferred alternative described in the NTP Final EIS.
This is the alternative identified in the EIS documents as the Kaibito
1 (K1) for the eastern half of the project area, and the Northern 1
West (N1W) for the western half. The K1 lies between the Shiprock
Substation and either the Red Mesa, Copper Mine, or Moenkopi Substation
sites. It parallels the existing Western 230-kilovolt (kV) Shiprock-to-
Glen Canyon and 345-kV Glen Canyon-to-Pinnacle Peak transmission lines
for most of its route. The N1W lies between the Moenkopi and
Marketplace Substation sites and parallels an existing 500-kV
transmission line for most of its route.
In making this decision, Western evaluated: (1) alternatives to the
proposed project, and (2) alternatives that cover the reasonable range
of options for siting and constructing a 500-kV transmission line.
Western released the NTP Draft EIS in September 1996. The Notice of
Availability for the Final EIS was published on August 8, 1997. This
Record of Decision is pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), which implement the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and DOE's
regulations (10 CFR Part 1021).
DATES: This decision will become effective October 31, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Nicholas Chevance, NTP EIS Project
Manager, Corporate Services Office, Western Area Power Administration,
1627 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO 80123-3398, (303) 275-1713.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Dine Power Authority (DPA), an enterprise of the Navajo Nation,
requested assistance from Western in 1993 in planning for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of a 500-kV transmission line
from the Four Corners area in northwestern New Mexico across northern
Arizona to a terminus in southern Nevada. As a Federal power marketing
agency, Western is responsible for marketing and transmitting power
from Federal power projects in the region. Since the 1960's, Western
and its predecessor agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, have been
assisting the Navajo Nation in meeting its energy needs through firm-
energy agreements with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, a Navajo
Nation enterprise providing utility services and various energy related
projects. Western has provided technical assistance to DPA with the
NTP, invested funds in the project, administered DOE grants to DPA for
the project, and anticipates owning a portion of the NTP capacity
commensurate with its final pro rata investment in the project.
The DPA proposal was developed in response to needs of the electric
industry and of the Navajo Nation. These include the following:
Relieve the constraints on the transmission of electricity
west of the Four Corners area.
Improve the operational flexibility and reliability of the
extra-high-voltage transmission system in the region.
Allow increased economical power transfers, sales, and
purchases in the region.
Improve economic conditions of the Navajo Nation.
Facilitate the development of Navajo Nation energy
resources and its participation in the electrical utility industry.
Western agreed to assist DPA in this endeavor by participating as
the lead Federal agency for the preparation of the EIS. Federal
involvement was provided because of the need to acquire rights-of-way
across public lands, construction of the project could benefit Western
and Western's customers, and because DOE supports the development of
Native American energy programs pursuant to
[[Page 58967]]
Title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Development of Alternatives
The development of alternatives for the NTP EIS first focused on
alternatives to the project proposed by DPA that might meet their
needs. Six alternatives were developed: (1) achieve results through
energy conservation and electric load management, (2) construct new
generation facilities, (3) utilize the existing transmission system,
(4) utilize alternative transmission technologies (different voltages,
direct current versus alternating current, underground construction,
and the use of new technologies), (5) no action, and (6) construct a
new transmission line. The first four alternatives (1, 2, 3, and 4)
were analyzed and found not to be responsive to the purpose and need
for the project. While these would achieve some of the needs addressed
by the proposal, none would satisfy all of them. Western then conducted
a detailed analysis of the no action alternative and the proposed
action alternative, which is to construct, operate, and maintain the
transmission line. Western found that the no action alternative would
not meet the needs addressed by the proposal.
For the proposed action alternative, several general alternative
corridors (approximately 1,800 miles) were identified through a
regional environmental feasibility study (June 1992) and introduced to
agencies and the public during the scoping process for the EIS. This
regional feasibility study evaluated the most reasonable means of
placing a right-of-way corridor from proposed starting point to end
point. It was assumed that to reduce impacts to all resources and
issues associated with transmission line construction, paralleling an
existing utility corridor was preferable. Therefore, the majority of
routes explored in the environmental feasibility study paralleled other
power lines, fiber optic cables and buried pipelines wherever possible.
Scoping and public outreach employed on this project were
extensive. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the
Federal Register on July 13, 1993, that announced the intent to conduct
public meetings. A total of 17 meetings were held in the project area,
in addition to several letters, fact sheets, media releases and notices
posted on and off the Navajo Nation. These resulted in public input
that led to the development of five issues of concern, which were
addressed in the Draft EIS: (1) need for the project, (2) benefits of
the project, (3) siting issues, (4) rights-of-way issues, and (5)
health and safety issues.
Also, a non-environmental factor, the cost to construct, was
tracked throughout the analysis to make sure that the environmental
analysis was not leading to a solution that could not be accomplished.
While this was not the deciding factor, the cost of constructing the
project was monitored over the 4 years it has taken to reach a decision
on the project and was considered in the determination of the final
preferred alternative.
Through scoping, some alternative routes were eliminated and some
were added, resulting in approximately 2,200 miles of alternative
routes studied in detail for the EIS. The alternative routes were then
systematically analyzed considering human, natural, and cultural
environmental factors including, but not limited to, land use,
socioeconomics, visual/aesthetics issues, human and animal health and
safety, air and water quality issues, soil erodibility, and
paleontological, biological and cultural resources. This analysis
resulted in narrowing the number of alternative routes addressed in the
EIS.
Description of Alternatives Evaluated in Detail
Once the scoping process was completed, resource inventories were
conducted for each of the alternative routes to establish the baseline
information from which to evaluate potential impacts. As inventory
information was collected, a process was begun to sort this information
and make decisions about further information needs. The
interdisciplinary teams ranked the potential impacts for each
alternative route in terms of the resources that might be impacted, the
likely mitigation measures that would be required, and the residual
impacts remaining after mitigation. The team then made decisions to
eliminate routes with high potential for impacts. The results were then
presented to the public during a set of 20 meetings held throughout the
project area to obtain comments prior to preparing the Draft EIS.
The alternative routes finally addressed in the Draft EIS included
four alternative routes in the eastern portion of the project area and
six alternative routes in the western portion. The project area seemed
naturally to split into halves, with different concerns and issues in
the eastern portion than in the western portion. In the east, of major
concern were those residual impacts associated with Navajo and Hopi
traditional cultural places, and to a lesser degree, impacts to land
use patterns, which is also related to traditional land uses. In the
west, concerns centered around Hualapai traditional cultural places and
land use, as well as visual impacts and impacts to historic resources.
These alternative routes were chosen for detailed analysis since
they had minimal resource impacts. Impacts on visual resources could be
mitigated to some degree. Other impacts are associated with Navajo and
Hopi traditional cultural places in the Marsh Pass/Northern Black Mesa
area, and to Hualapai traditional cultural places in the western
portion of the project area. Because of the sensitivity of these
resources, specific locations of these resources were not known. Zones
of potential impacts were very general. The direct impacts associated
with the environmentally preferred alternatives on specific resource
locations, when known, can be lessened once engineering on a final
route is completed.
The interdisciplinary team selected a single route in each half of
the project area that avoided to the greatest degree possible impacts
on these resources. The eastern alternative presented as the
environmentally preferred alternative, the Kaibito 1 (K1) route, had
the least amount of potential impacts on visual resources and Navajo
and Hopi traditional cultural places. However, some impacts would
result along a short segment of the proposed route in areas of new
corridor (no existing transmission line) near Red Mesa, Black Mesa,
Marsh Pass, and across the Kaibito Plateau. The Northern 1 West (N1W)
route was chosen as the preferred alternative in the western half of
the project area. Because of an issue associated with where the
proposed line would cross the Colorado River, a termination at
Marketplace was determined to be the least damaging. Therefore, this
alternative would have no potential for significant impacts on
resources.
Decision Process
Following the release of the Draft EIS in early October 1996, 44
public hearings were held throughout the project area, which included
hearings held at each of the 36 Navajo chapters crossed by the
alternative routes. Each of these hearings was preceded by public
information meetings, where information on the project was presented
and questions and comments by the public could be addressed. In
addition, 13 written comments were submitted by the public, and 20
letters from the public and other agencies were
[[Page 58968]]
received. This information was summarized and addressed in the Final
EIS, released to the public on August 8, 1997.
The verbal comments could be summarized into six issues of concern,
expressed mainly but not exclusively by residents of the Navajo Nation.
These were: (1) concerns over the distribution of project revenues to
Navajo chapters, (2) concerns about extending the local electrical
distribution system, (3) concerns for health and safety, (4) concerns
over involving the public in the project status, (5) concerns over the
acquisition of rights-of-way, and (6) concerns for employment
opportunities. In addition, a few comments identified other issues.
Each of the concerns expressed orally or in writing was addressed
in the Final EIS, by providing a reference to a previous discussion in
the Draft EIS, by expanding on those previous discussions in the Final,
and/or by providing new information. A standard answer was provided to
each of the six issues discussed above, rather than respond
individually to multiple questions on the same issues. Only one minor
modification to the environmentally preferred alternative in the
eastern half of the project area was presented in the Final EIS. This
was in response to concerns expressed by the public during and
immediately following the public meetings. Local land users in the
Dennehotso, Arizona area expressed concerns over the preferred
alternative passing through areas of dispersed but common use, though
the alternative would not impact any residences directly. The route of
the alternative was modified slightly to satisfy these concerns.
The Decision
Western has decided that should the NTP be built, it should follow
the preferred alternative described in the NTP Final EIS. The project
would satisfy the needs identified in the EIS: it would relieve the
constraints on the transmission of electricity out of the region; it
would improve the flexibility and reliability of the existing system;
it would allow the economical transfer, sales, and purchases of power
in the region; and it would provide an opportunity for the Navajo
Nation to improve economic conditions. Based upon the information
gathered throughout the EIS process, Western provided the public and
the decisionmaker with complete information on the environmental
impacts associated with the project. Western analyzed several
alternatives to the proposed action in terms of their ability to
satisfy the identified needs. Western then analyzed many routing
alternatives in order to arrive at the least environmentally damaging
alternative routes.
The following factors were taken into account in arriving at the
preferred alternative: (1) environmental acceptability, (2) siting and
permitting requirements that vary by land status (i.e., Federal, state,
tribal, and local), (3) public and agency preferences, especially those
of the Cooperating Agencies, (4) electrical system considerations such
as power flow and the impacts on system interconnections, (5)
engineering factors leading to an increase in costs, such as the length
of route, construction difficulty, accessibility, extent of mitigation
required, and the extent of design modifications needed for mitigation,
(6) rights-of-way acquisition considerations, and (7) consideration of
the statutory obligations of the permitting agencies.
In making this decision, Western believes that all practicable
means to avoid or minimize significant impacts have been presented in
the NTP EIS in the form of standard and specific mitigation measures.
The Kaibab National Forest; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo and
Phoenix Area Offices; Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office
(representing the state BLM offices in Arizona, Nevada, and New
Mexico); and the National Park Service, Colorado Plateau Systems
Support Office, participated in the NTP EIS as Cooperating Agencies. In
addition to the Federal agencies, the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and
the Navajo Nation participated as Cooperating Agencies. These agencies
and tribes have decisions to make concerning the granting of rights-of-
way for the alignment described in the EIS, provided a Construction,
Operation, and Maintenance Plan for the construction of the NTP,
including a plan for all necessary environmental mitigation, is
prepared and agreed upon by all parties.
Mitigation Action Plan
The Final EIS presents reasonable and practicable mitigation
measures to reduce the severity of the impacts associated with
construction of the line. The preferred action, given the analysis
process and the proposed mitigation, will not have a significant impact
on environmental factors, with the exception of the potential for
impacts on visual resources and Hopi, Hualapai, and Navajo traditional
cultural places as discussed above. Western will issue a Mitigation
Action Plan (MAP), as required by DOE NEPA implementing procedures
found at 10 CFR Sec. 1021.331, at a later date. The MAP will detail the
mitigation and monitoring required to reduce impacts to less than
significant. Western's final decision is contingent upon the
construction of the line consistent with the requirements of the MAP,
and acceptance of the MAP by the Cooperating Agencies.
Dated: October 23, 1997.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-28910 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
