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

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