Western Area Power
Administration’s (Western) Central Valley Project (CVP) transmission system
forms an integral part of the interconnected
This Sacramento Area
Voltage Support (SVS) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), of 1969 (NEPA), presents Western’s
analysis of the environmental effects from the voltage support system additions
and improvements for the Proposed Action and alternatives. Western’s SVS EIS
consists of this Final EIS, which incorporates the entire Draft EIS (published
November 2002) by reference. The Draft EIS underwent
public review by government agencies, organizations, and individuals during a
comment period that included public hearings in
The
Western sells wholesale
electricity to more than 70 customers in central and northern
Population growth and
development in the
Power system studies
conducted by the Sacramento Area Transmission Planning Group and the River City
Transmission Group concluded that transmission additions in the
Findings from this EIS
provide a basis for decisions on whether to proceed and, if so, how to proceed
with the Proposed Action. Western would implement the decision under the
Central Valley Project Act authority.
Western’s transmission
system studies have identified a need for short-term transmission line
enhancements to maintain CVP transmission security and reliability.
Enhancements include a transmission system addition between O’Banion
Substation and Elverta Substation and an upgrade of
existing 230- kilovolt (kV) transmission lines in the
To
continue to meet Western’s mission, purposes for the Proposed Action include:
1. Maintaining CVP transmission system security and reliability.
2. Meeting Western’s legislative and contractual requirements.
3. Meeting North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and Western
Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) operating criteria.
Western has selected
Proposed Action Option B as the Preferred Alternative for the SVS EIS. Proposed
Action Option B provides the highest degree of security and reliability for
voltage support, while having relatively low environmental impacts. Figure ES-1
and Table ES-1 show the alternatives and describe the activities for each
alternative.
Public involvement is a
vital part of the decision making process for this EIS. Western developed a
public involvement program to provide multiple opportunities for comment during
public scoping, alternative formulation, alternative evaluation, and
decision-making. Appendix B of the Draft EIS describes the public involvement
process.
Following EPA’s
publication of the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS on
Public and government
agency comments on the Draft EIS were made at the public hearings. Comments
also were sent directly to Western and were received by comment card, mail,
telephone, and e-mail. Western received 117 comments from 28 individuals,
companies, and government agencies. Responses to individual comments are
presented in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIS.
The results of public
scoping meetings, workshops, meetings with agencies, and earlier studies by
Western and interested area utility groups helped to develop a range of alternatives
that were analyzed in the Draft EIS. Each alternative is identified by route
segments (Segments A through J) that represent specific activities. Three types
of project activities would be conducted for the Proposed Action and
alternatives:
·
Reconductoring would consist of replacing
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, and fewer new structures would be needed.
·
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 acquisition of new ROW in parallel with existing ROW.
·
Realignment would include route deviations
would include route deviations from Western’s existing transmission lines at
two locations. The first realignment would avoid encroachment of the
Based on comments on
the Draft EIS, Western added an option that includes realignment modification
for the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. The Draft EIS Proposed Action and
Alternative 2 have been relabeled as “Proposed Action Option A” and “Alternative
2 Option A.” The modified alternatives are labeled “Proposed Action Option B”
and “Alternative 2 Option B.” The differences between Options A and B are
described below and depicted on the insets shown in Figure ES-2. Figures ES-1
and ES-2 illustrate the seven alternatives analyzed and their locations within
the study area. For clarification, Segments A and E refer to reconductoring. Segments A1 and E1 refer to new
construction. Project activities associated with each of the seven alternatives
are summarized in Table ES-1 and are described below:
·
Proposed
Action Option A
is the original alignment of the Proposed Action. It would consist of: (1) reconductoring a double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line
from Elverta Substation to Tracy Substation; (2)
constructing a new doublecircuit, 230-kV transmission
line from O’Banion Substation to Elverta
Substation; and (3) realigning the transmission line near Pleasant Grove
Cemetery, between the O’Banion Substation and Elverta Substation and Option A of the Cottonwood–Roseville
single-circuit, 230-kV transmission line.
·
Proposed
Action Option B
modifies the alignment of the Proposed Action. It would consist of (1) reconductoring a double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line
from Elverta Substation to Tracy Substation; (2)
constructing a new doublecircuit, 230-kV transmission
line from O’Banion Substation to Elverta
Substation; and (3) realigning the transmission line near Pleasant Grove
Cemetery, between the O’Banion Substation and Elverta Substation and Option B 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
1—Reconductoring O’Banion
Substation to
·
Alternative
2 Option A—New Transmission -O’Banion Substation to Elverta Substation
is the original alignment of Alternative 2. It would consist of constructing a
new double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line from O’Banion
Substation to Elverta Substation and realigning the
transmission line near
·
Alternative
2 Option B—New Transmission - O’Banion Substation to Elverta Substation
includes the modified alignment of Alternative 2. It would consist of
constructing a new doublecircuit, 230-kV transmission
line from O’Banion Substation to Elverta
Substation and realigning the transmission line near
·
Alternative
3—New Transmission - Elk Grove Substation to
·
No
Action Alternative—Under
the No Action Alternative, existing transmission line system operation would
continue unchanged. Western would not develop or build additional transmission
lines or substation facilities in the study area relative to voltage support.
Environmental impacts
would be similar for all the action alternatives. Generally, new construction
would result in more impacts than reconductoring
because of the requirement for new structures and access roads. The Proposed
Action, Options A and B affect more overall miles than the other action
alternatives; however, only a portion is new construction. Alternative 3, which
is all new construction, may have a greater potential for impact.
Air quality is the only
resource area that may have a significant impact for the action alternatives.
However, more detailed air quality analysis would be necessary after a project
is selected to move forward. Significant impacts would be mitigated to the
point that they would be less than significant. The No Action Alternative
appears to have the fewest day-to-day impacts for the operation and maintenance
of the existing transmission line; however, it does not meet the need for power
system security and reliability. A comparison of the impacts associated with
each alternative is presented in Table ES-2.
Cumulative impacts
result from the incremental effect of the action, decision, or project when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Western examined actions that have environmental impacts on the same resources
affected by this proposal and similar projects. Western also reviewed other
proposed projects, including major linear projects that would potentially
create impacts on the same resources. For past actions, Western included
existing transmission lines in the study area. Impacts from these past projects
were considered for each resource area.
Western reviewed 65
projects that could have a reasonable likelihood of being implemented by 2005.
The proposed projects included: bridge repair, development, pipeline, road
expansion, remediation system, transportation, and water and wastewater
projects. These projects are listed in Table 4-2.
Cumulative effects for
environmental justice (EJ), floodplains, geology, soils, health and safety,
land use, noise, and wetlands are expected to be negligible. A description of
cumulative effects is provided below for air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, electric and magnetic fields, paleontological
resources, socioeconomics, visual resources, and water resources.
Within the
For the short term, the
Proposed Action Options A and B, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 would affect nonurban areas or areas not developing
rapidly containing sensitive biological habitat. Much of the study area is
rural and is expected to remain rural for the near term. Although the frequency
of bird strikes with transmission lines would continue, the use of transmission
line marking devices and locating new lines next to existing lines would result
in lower additive cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts resulting from the
Proposed Action Options A and B, Alternative 2, or Alternative 3, and other
area projects would be considered insignificant.
The impacts to
vegetation as a result of Alternative 1, reconductoring,
would be temporary, because these areas would be replanted following the
completion of work. As a result, cumulative impacts to biological resources
would be minimal.
Impacts from the
alternatives would be limited to incremental physical impacts to cultural
resources located within the existing ROW. Most new transmission lines would be
located in areas with other transmission lines where the visual effects would
also be incremental. Western should be able to satisfactorily avoid or mitigate
impacts on prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. The potential to
avoid or mitigate impacts on traditional cultural properties is less clear,
although tribal groups would be involved in assessing impacts and identifying
and implementing avoidance or mitigating measures.
With adherence to the EPMs, it is likely that the Proposed Action Options A and
B, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3, all of which include building new transmission
lines, would only add slightly to the cumulative impacts on the cultural
resources of the region. Alternative 1, which only includes reconductoring,
would not add to the cumulative impacts on the cultural resources of the
region.
In discussions with
planning agencies, Western determined that no new permanent, occupied buildings
are planned within 100 feet of Western’s ROW. Additionally, because EMFs diminish rapidly with distance from the transmission
line, and there is no planned encroachment on the ROW, there would be minimal
electric and magnetic field (EMF) cumulative impacts to human health or the
environment.
Impacts to paleontological
resources could result if fossil materials are destroyed during excavation of
10 feet deep or more. Continued development, extending farther into the
Under No Action, the current strain on electric power
supply and distribution would continue, which could result in power supply
shortfalls and disruptions as power demand increases to support future
development. These supply and distribution difficulties could decrease the
efficiency of business operations in the study area and have an adverse effect
on the overall economy. Spending in local markets would temporarily benefit the
economy.
Past, existing, and future development have and
would continue to visually alter the landscape. Negative effects to the visual
quality of the area from development include existing utility lines and
associated cleared ROW, commercial development, major roads, abandoned
buildings, industrial land uses, aggregate mining, and
sand and gravel pits. Where the alternative would be located near one of these
existing negative visual features, the impacts would result in an additive
adverse effect to the existing visual impacts. However, locating the proposed
transmission line next to an existing utility corridor would typically be
preferable to locating the line in a previously undisturbed landscape. The
additive cumulative impacts for any of the alternatives would not be
significant.
Growth and development in the
The Draft EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and released to the public in November 2002. About 200
copies were distributed to agencies, organizations, and individuals for review
and comment during the review period, which ended on
Following publication of this Final EIS, Western’s
Administrator will issue a Record of Decision (ROD), which will (1) state what
the decision is, (2) identify all alternatives considered in reaching the
decision, including which alternative is considered to be environmentally
preferred, and (3) state whether all practical means to avoid or minimize
impacts from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why. The
Administrator will ensure that the decision is executed as stipulated.