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

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