Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Cushman Hydroelectric Project, Mason County, Washington, Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0456), 73059-73062 [2010-29936]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: November 23, 2010.
´
Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2010–29993 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Discretionary Grant Programs
Department of Education.
Notice announcing additional
requirement for applicants and grantees.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Education
announces an additional requirement
affecting applicants and grantees. We
are taking this action to conform our
requirements with final guidance issued
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on September 14, 2010
(Financial Assistance Use of Universal
Identifier and Central Contractor
Registration). The new guidance affects
an applicant’s or grantee’s registration of
its Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal
Numbering System (DUNS) Number and
its Taxpayer Identification Number
(TIN) with the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg
Vick, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20202–0170. Telephone: (202) 245–
6147 or by e-mail: gregory.vick@ed.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In each
notice inviting applications for grant
awards, we include requirements
governing an applicant’s DUNS Number
and TIN and specify that to do business
with the Department, an applicant must
register those numbers with the CCR,
the Government’s primary registrant
database.
In its final guidance issued under 2
CFR Part 25 and published in the
Federal Register on September 14, 2010
(75 FR 55671), OMB added a
requirement that an entity doing
business with the Department must
maintain an active CCR registration with
current information while its
application is under review and, if it is
awarded a grant, during the project
period.
The final guidance took effect on
October 1, 2010, which made it
applicable to every grant competition
with an application deadline date on or
after October 1, 2010. However, on or
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
before the effective date, we had
published a number of notices inviting
applications that had application
deadline dates on or after October 1,
2010, but that did not include the new
requirement with regard to maintaining
an active CCR registration.
This notice serves to inform
applicants and potential applicants
under those affected competitions that
the new requirement applies to them,
and each such potential applicant must,
therefore, maintain an active CCR
registration during the time its
application is under review and, if
funded, during the project period.
However, this requirement does not
affect the submission of their
applications and does not require any
applicant to amend, withdraw, or
resubmit its application.
The affected competitions and the
publication date in the Federal Register
of each notice inviting applications are
shown below in order of Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
Number. Questions about the
applicability of this notice to any
application submitted under these
programs should be directed to the
program contact identified for each
program.
CFDA No. 84.019A—Office of
Postsecondary Education; Overview
Information; Fulbright-Hays Faculty
Research Abroad Fellowship Program;
Notice Inviting Applications for New
Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011.
Published October 1, 2010 (75 FR
60740). Program contact: Cynthia
Dudzinski, 202–502–7589.
CFDA No. 84.021A—Office of
Postsecondary Education; Overview
Information; Fulbright-Hays Group
Projects Abroad Program; Notice
Inviting Applications for New Awards
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. Published
September 24, 2010 (75 FR 59051).
Program contact: Michelle Guilfoil,
202–502–7625.
CFDA No. 84.022A—Office of
Postsecondary Education; Overview
Information; Fulbright-Hays Doctoral
Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)
Fellowship Program; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2011. Published September
17, 2010 (75 FR 57000). Program
contact: Amy Wilson, 202–502–7689.
CFDA No. 84.327J—Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services;
Overview Information; Technology and
Media Services for Individuals with
Disabilities—Video Description
Research and Development Center;
Notice Inviting Applications for New
Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011.
Published August 12, 2010 (75 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73059
48957). Program contact: Jo Ann
McCann, 202–245–7434.
CFDA No. 84.327W—Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services;
Overview Information; Technology and
Media Services for Individuals with
Disabilities—The Accessible
Instructional Materials (AIM) Personnel
Development Center; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2011. Published September
28, 2010 (75 FR 59699). Program
contact: Glinda Hill, 202–245–7376.
CFDA No. 84.330B—Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education;
Overview Information; Advanced
Placement (AP) Test Fee Program;
Notice Inviting Applications for New
Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011.
Published September 1, 2010 (75 FR
53681). Program contact: Francisco
Ramirez, 202–260–1541.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You can view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister. To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at this site.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: November 23, 2010.
Thomas P. Skelly,
Delegated Authority to Perform the Functions
of the Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–29990 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
Record of Decision and Floodplain
Statement of Findings for the
Cushman Hydroelectric Project, Mason
County, Washington, Environmental
Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0456)
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD) and
Floodplain Statement of Findings.
AGENCY:
DOE announces its decision
to provide approximately $4.6 million
appropriated under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Public
Law 111–5 (Recovery Act), to the City
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
73060
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
of Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma), for
the design and construction of certain
components of the Cushman
Hydroelectric Project in Mason County,
Washington. These components include
a new 3.6 megawatt (MW) powerhouse
on the North Fork of the Skokomish
River, an integral fish collection,
handling, and sorting facility, and
related transmission infrastructure.
The environmental impacts from the
proposed action were analyzed in the
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s (FERC’s) 1996 Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Cushman Hydroelectric Project (FERC
Project No. 460) (1996 FEIS). In a July
15, 2010, Order 1 (FERC’s 2010 Order),
FERC lifted a stay on a 1998 license for
the Cushman Hydroelectric Project and
amended the license to include inter
alia conditions for fish passage facilities
and authorization to construct the
powerhouse. FERC’s 2010 Order
includes the components of the
Cushman Hydroelectric Project that
DOE proposes to fund. FERC relied on
the 1996 FEIS to fulfill its National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
obligations for the 1998 license as
amended on July 15, 2010. DOE has
adopted the 1996 FEIS and 2010 Order,
together, as a final DOE EIS (DOE/EIS–
0456).
DOE’s final EIS, this ROD,
and other project information are
available on the DOE NEPA Web site at
https://nepa.energy.gov. In addition,
copies of this ROD may be requested by
contacting Ms. Jane Summerson, NEPA
Document Manager, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Department of Energy at
jane.summerson@ee.doe.gov. Ms.
Summerson can be reached at the U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave, SW., EE–4a,
Washington, DC 20585, phone (202)
287–6188 or fax (202) 586–8177.
ADDRESSES:
For
further information about this project,
contact Ms. Summerson as indicated in
the ADDRESSES section above. For
information about DOE’s NEPA process,
contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom,
Director, NEPA Policy and Compliance,
GC–54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202)
586–4600, or leave a message at (800)
472–2756.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 City of Tacoma, Washington 132 FERC ¶ 61,037,
(Order on Remand and an Offer of Settlement,
Amending License, Authorizing New Powerhouse,
and Lifting Stay).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Background
DOE is providing approximately $4.6
million to Tacoma, for the design and
construction of certain components of
the Cushman Hydroelectric Project in
Mason County, Washington. These
components include a new 3.6 MW
powerhouse on the North Fork of the
Skokomish River, an integral fish
collection and sorting facility, and
related transmission infrastructure.2
Tacoma applied for this funding in
response to DOE Solicitation (FOA–
0000120), entitled ‘‘Hydroelectric
Facility Modernization,’’ pursuant to the
Wind and Water Technologies Program.
The goal of the Solicitation is to provide
funding for industry members who
propose to develop, deploy, and test
hydropower projects that would
modernize the existing hydropower
infrastructure in the U.S. and increase
the quantity, value, and environmental
performance of hydropower generation.
Because the funds are appropriated by
the Recovery Act, the projects must
stimulate the economy and create and
retain jobs.
The background on the relicensing of
the Cushman Project spans several
decades and includes administrative
and judicial litigation and multiple
stays with interim operating
requirements. To fully understand the
history of the relicensing process, please
refer to FERC’s 2010 Order, the 1998
license,3 and the 1996 FEIS. What
follows is a brief summary setting forth
those aspects of the Cushman Project
and relicensing process relevant to this
ROD.
In 1924, Tacoma obtained a license
from the Federal Power Commission
(predecessor to FERC) to flood 8.8 acres
of national forest land by damming the
North Fork of the Skokomish River at
Lake Cushman on the Olympic
Peninsula. This license was designated
a ‘‘minor part license’’ because it
covered only a small part of Tacoma’s
much larger hydroelectric project
(Cushman Project). At that time, the
Federal Power Commission interpreted
its licensing authority narrowly, and the
1924 minor part license gave Tacoma
the authority it needed to proceed with
the Cushman Project.
The 131 MW Cushman Project is
located on the North Fork of the
Skokomish River (North Fork) in Mason
County, Washington, and occupies U.S.
2 The ‘‘Cushman Project’’ refers to the entire
project that FERC licensed in its 2010 Order. The
scope of the Cushman Project is broader than the
project that DOE is funding, and is defined in this
section of this ROD.
3 City of Tacoma, Washington 84 FERC ¶ 61107
(1998).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
lands within the Olympic National
Forest and the Skokomish Indian
Reservation. Tacoma built two dams
across the Skokomish River. Dam No. 1,
which was completed in 1926,
impounds Lake Cushman and supplies
water for electricity generation at a
powerhouse with a capacity of 50 MW,
located downstream of that dam. Dam
No. 2, which was completed in 1930,
impounds Lake Kokanee, a much
smaller reservoir than Lake Cushman.
Water leaving Dam No. 2 passes through
a tunnel to a second powerhouse with
81 MW capacity and does not return to
the North Fork. Historically, the
Cushman Project diverted nearly all of
the flow of the North Fork out of the
river basin, leading to controversy
regarding the total amount of flow
diverted from the river, its
environmental effects, and the
appropriate level of minimum flows that
should be required to return water to the
North Fork. The Cushman Project is
currently operated to provide loadfollowing power and to meet peakdemand period needs.
In 1963, the Federal Power
Commission determined that its
hydroelectric licensing jurisdiction
extends to whole projects, not just to the
parts of those projects that occupy or
use Federal land. As required by Title
I of the Federal Power Act, Tacoma filed
for a ‘‘major project license’’ for the
Cushman Project on November 5, 1974.
Tacoma continued to operate the
Cushman Project under the terms of its
1924 minor part license, and FERC
issued annual renewals of Tacoma’s
existing license during the application
review period.
FERC’s 1996 FEIS
Subsequent to Tacoma’s application
for a major part license, FERC decided
to prepare an environmental impact
statement to analyze the impacts from
the Cushman Project and alternatives to
it. FERC issued a Notice of Intent to
prepare a Draft EIS for the Cushman
Project on November 12, 1992 (57 FR
53727). FERC held two rounds of
scoping, in December 1992 and April
1993, and issued a final Scoping
Document in February 1994. FERC
issued the Draft EIS in November 1995
and held three public meetings in
January and February 1996 to receive
public comments on the Draft EIS (61
FR 1375). The comment period closed
on February 13, 1996. FERC issued the
1996 FEIS on November 15, 1996 (61 FR
59435).
After a lengthy relicensing
proceeding, FERC issued a new license
for the Cushman Project on July 30,
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
1998,4 and issued an order on rehearing
on March 30, 1999.5 The license then
became the subject of judicial and
administrative review, in which the
principal plaintiff was the Skokomish
Tribe (Tribe), and concerns about
endangered and threatened species and
minimum flow were at the center of the
dispute. The relicensing was stayed in
part for most of the following decade,
and FERC, at various times, amended
the license with conditions for interim
operation of the Cushman Project.
As required by Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) filed a biological
opinion for protection of listed fish in
2004. On January 21, 2009, the City of
Tacoma and other parties to the
litigation, including the Tribe, filed a
comprehensive offer of settlement that
includes conditions for protection of the
Skokomish Indian Reservation, fish
passage facilities, and measures for fish
and wildlife protection. The National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
FWS filed revised biological opinions in
2010.
FERC’s 2010 Order
In its July 15, 2010, Order, FERC lifted
a stay on a 1998 license for the
Cushman Project and amended the
license to include conditions for fish
passage facilities and authorization to
construct the 3.6 MW powerhouse.
FERC relied on the 1996 FEIS to fulfill
its NEPA obligations for the 1998
license, as amended in FERC’s 2010
Order. The amended license includes
license articles consistent with the
settlement, extends the license
expiration date to June 20, 2048, and
authorizes construction of a new 3.6
MW powerhouse that will increase the
Cushman Project’s authorized capacity
to 134.6 MW.
As stated above, FERC’s license
authorizes all activities that DOE is
funding through this decision. In
FERC’s 2010 Order, FERC found that the
activities it authorized, including the
proposed powerhouse, were within the
range of alternatives examined in the
1996 FEIS and that a supplemental EIS
would not be needed for the activities.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Alternatives Analyzed in FERC’s 1996
EIS
In the 1996 FEIS, FERC analyzed
Tacoma’s proposal, which included
replacing turbine runners at the second
powerhouse; installing a 1.3 MW
powerhouse at the base of Dam No. 2;
4 City of Tacoma, Washington 84 FERC ¶ 61107
(1998).
5 City of Tacoma, Washington 86 FERC ¶ 61311
(1999).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
implementing major environmental
enhancements such as increasing
instream flows into the North Fork;
removing resident fish passage barriers
in project reservoir tributaries; and
executing a land exchange to remove
lands within Olympic National Forest.
FERC also analyzed four other
alternatives:
(1) No Action Alternative;
(2) Alternative adapted from resource
agencies’ and Tribe’s recommended
alternatives to Tacoma’s proposal.
Under this alternative, Tacoma would
build a new powerhouse with a
generating capacity of 16 MW at the
base of Dam No. 2, and the project
would operate with full river flows.
Tacoma would remove certain dikes,
enhance more than 15,000 acres of land
for wildlife, and stop diverting water
from the North Fork;
(3) Alternative intended to achieve, to
the extent practicable, important
elements of each objective: under this
alternative, Tacoma would manage flow
levels through an instream flow
schedule to balance the competing
demands on North Fork water; build a
new 3 MW powerhouse near the base of
Dam No. 2; and implement a staffformulated wildlife habitat
enhancement plan covering 5,981 acres
of land for wildlife; and
(4) Decommissioning Alternative.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
FERC identified Alternative (2) as the
environmentally preferred alternative in
the 1996 FEIS because, among other
things, it maximizes river flows and
enhances the greatest area of land for
wildlife in comparison to the other
alternatives.
Alternatives Available to DOE
DOE’s two alternatives are to (1)
provide funding for certain components
of the Cushman Project as defined and
conditioned in FERC’s 2010 Order and
which were analyzed in substantive part
in Alternative 2 of the 1996 EIS, or (2)
not provide funding (No Action
Alternative). Under either alternative,
Tacoma would construct and operate
the Cushman Project consistent with
FERC’s 2010 Order and related
settlement agreements.
Consultation
FERC is the lead Federal agency for
complying with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) and Tribal Consultation for all
components of the Cushman Project.
The Tribe and others originally opposed
Tacoma’s Cultural Resource Summary
Report, and cultural resource protection
became a contested issue. On May 13,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73061
2010, however, FERC entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the Washington State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the
Tribe, and other interested parties
concurred in the MOA. The MOA
includes a Treatment Plan that Tacoma
must follow to protect cultural resources
during the construction of the new
powerhouse. On June 8, 2010, the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) acknowledged
receipt of the MOA and stated that
FERC had completed its requirements
under Section 106 of the NHPA.
DOE hereby concurs with the May 13,
2010, MOA and, in so doing, completes
its own consultation requirements
under Section 106 of the NHPA. DOE’s
proposed action is to fund elements of
the Cushman Project that were already
the subject of extensive Section 106
consultations.
FERC is also the lead Federal agency
for complying with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
1536) (ESA). FERC consulted
extensively with both NMFS and FWS
regarding impacts from the Cushman
Project on listed species and critical
habitat. These agencies concluded
consultation when NMFS and FWS
issued Biological Opinions finding that
the Cushman Project is not likely to
result in jeopardy to listed species or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. FERC and Tacoma
agreed to implement certain mitigation
measures (2010 Order at 148).
DOE finds that, either with or without
DOE funding, Tacoma will manage the
Cushman Project in compliance with
the terms of FERC’s relicense and the
settlement agreement, which include
terms that mitigate impacts to listed
species. Thus, DOE’s proposed action
will have no effect on listed species or
critical habitat and DOE has fulfilled its
obligations under Section 7 of the ESA.
EIS Adoption
DOE has independently reviewed the
1996 FEIS and FERC’s 2010 Order and
has concluded that, together, the 1996
FEIS and FERC’s 2010 Order meet the
standards for an adequate
environmental impact statement under
the Council on Environmental Quality’s
and DOE’s NEPA regulations, which can
be found at 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508 and
10 CFR Part 1021, respectively. In
addition, DOE has determined that the
Cushman Project is within the range of
alternatives analyzed in the 1996 FEIS.
The only difference between the
project that DOE is funding and the
actions analyzed under the 1996 FEIS is
the placement of a transmission line. In
the 1996 FEIS, FERC analyzed an
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
73062
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
aboveground transmission line. Tacoma
is now planning to bury the line
underground to mitigate environmental
impacts. This mitigation measure is not
a substantial change in the proposed
action relevant to environmental
concerns, within the meaning of 40 CFR
1502.9(c), warranting a supplement to
the FEIS. Accordingly, DOE adopted
FERC’s 1996 FEIS and 2010 Order as a
final DOE EIS (DOE/EIS–0456).
Because DOE did not participate as a
cooperating agency in preparation of
FERC’s 1996 FEIS, DOE recirculated the
adopted document as a DOE final EIS
and filed it with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). EPA
published a notice of availability in the
Federal Register on October 8, 2010 (75
FR 62386). DOE did not receive any
comments on the final EIS.
consultation with NMFS, FWS, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
including the comments of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, EPA,
and Mason County; and, under certain
conditions, providing funds for a
Channel Restoration Account.
In addition, under Articles 406 and
407 of FERC’s 2010 Order, Tacoma must
prepare and implement an Operational
and Flow Monitoring Plan to improve
fish habitat, address lake water use
changes, improve sediment transport
and stream flow, and improve flood
control and forecasting. This plan must
be submitted to and approved by NMFS,
FWS, and BIA. Under certain
conditions, Tacoma would be required
to develop a Flood Damage and
Mitigation Plan and provide funding to
implement the plan.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
In accordance with DOE regulations at
10 CFR Part 1022 (Compliance with
Floodplain and Wetland Environmental
Review Requirements), DOE considered
the potential impacts of the Cushman
Project on floodplains. These findings
are based on the assessment of
environmental impacts in the final EIS.
The location of the Cushman Project
and the alternatives considered are
discussed in detail in the final EIS. The
differences among the alternatives,
including the original proposal from
Tacoma, are summarized above.
DOE finds that no practicable
alternative to locating the Cushman
Project in a floodplain is available. The
nature of the existing Cushman Dam site
and the process of generating electricity
from water pressure require that the
proposed powerhouse be constructed
downstream of the dam; therefore the
proposed construction will necessarily
be within a floodplain.
FERC’s 2010 Order establishes
numerous requirements that Tacoma
must follow in constructing and
operating the proposed new facilities to
minimize potential harm to or within
the floodplain, including measures to
reduce flooding hazards while
protecting water quality and fish
habitat. For example, Article 403 of
FERC’s 2010 Order requires Tacoma to
implement measures to enhance the
channel conveyance capacity of the
mainstem Skokomish River for the
reduction of risks to human health and
welfare from flooding, including, among
other things, providing funds to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for a
Skokomish River Basin Ecosystem
Restoration and Flood Damage
Reduction General Investigation; the
preparation, under certain conditions, of
a Mainstem Channel Restoration Plan in
Mitigation
In addition to adopting the measures
addressing floodplain impacts,
described above, DOE adopts and
incorporates by reference all other
mitigation measures documented in
FERC’s 2010 Order. These other
measures include but are not limited to:
• Monitoring water use, which
provides a feedback mechanism to help
ensure that adequate flows will be
available to meet the needs of
anadromous fish at different times of the
year, support aquatic habitats, maintain
improvements to the channel capacity
of the river, and provide some
assurances that the flows released will
benefit these resources.
• A variety of fish habitat protection,
mitigation and enhancement measures
such as habitat enhancement and
restoration work that benefits
anadromous fish by improving channel
habitat and removing instream barriers.
• The use of a floating surface
collector for downstream fish passage.
Tacoma will use a trap and haul system
for upstream fish passage.
• Implementation of a resident
fishery, which will include anadromous
fish hatcheries.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Decision
DOE has decided to provide funding,
appropriated by the Recovery Act, to
Tacoma for the design and construction
of certain components of the Cushman
Project in Mason County, Washington.
These components include a new 3.6
MW powerhouse on the North Fork of
the Skokomish River, an integral fish
collection and sorting facility, and
related transmission infrastructure.
DOE incorporates by reference all
mitigation measures and other
conditions identified in FERC’s 2010
Order. DOE expects that Tacoma will
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
execute the Cushman Project in
compliance with FERC’s 2010 Order.
Thus, all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm have
been adopted.
Basis for Decision
DOE’s decision enables it to meet the
objectives set forth in the Solicitation,
namely, to provide financial assistance
for industry members and industry-led
partnerships who propose to develop,
deploy, and test hydropower projects to
modernize the existing hydropower
infrastructure in the U.S. and increase
the quantity, value, and environmental
performance of hydropower generation.
DOE did not select the No Action
alternative because it would not meet
DOE’s objectives, as set forth in the
Solicitation.
DOE decided not to fund alternatives,
or alternative components, that were
analyzed in the 1996 FEIS but were not
authorized under FERC’s 2010 Order.
Without a FERC license, Tacoma would
not be able to implement such
alternatives.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 18th day
of November 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010–29936 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 13848–000]
Qualified Hydro 27, LLC; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications
November 19, 2010.
On September 30, 2010, Qualified
Hydro 27, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility
of the Howard A. Hanson Dam
Hydroelectric Project (Howard A.
Hanson project) to be located in King
County, Washington, near the town of
Palmer. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform
any land-disturbing activities or
otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners’
express permission.
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73059-73062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29936]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings for the
Cushman Hydroelectric Project, Mason County, Washington, Environmental
Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0456)
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD) and Floodplain Statement of Findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision to provide approximately $4.6
million appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act), to the City
[[Page 73060]]
of Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma), for the design and construction of
certain components of the Cushman Hydroelectric Project in Mason
County, Washington. These components include a new 3.6 megawatt (MW)
powerhouse on the North Fork of the Skokomish River, an integral fish
collection, handling, and sorting facility, and related transmission
infrastructure.
The environmental impacts from the proposed action were analyzed in
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) 1996 Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Cushman Hydroelectric Project
(FERC Project No. 460) (1996 FEIS). In a July 15, 2010, Order \1\
(FERC's 2010 Order), FERC lifted a stay on a 1998 license for the
Cushman Hydroelectric Project and amended the license to include inter
alia conditions for fish passage facilities and authorization to
construct the powerhouse. FERC's 2010 Order includes the components of
the Cushman Hydroelectric Project that DOE proposes to fund. FERC
relied on the 1996 FEIS to fulfill its National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) obligations for the 1998 license as amended on July 15,
2010. DOE has adopted the 1996 FEIS and 2010 Order, together, as a
final DOE EIS (DOE/EIS-0456).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ City of Tacoma, Washington 132 FERC ] 61,037, (Order on
Remand and an Offer of Settlement, Amending License, Authorizing New
Powerhouse, and Lifting Stay).
ADDRESSES: DOE's final EIS, this ROD, and other project information are
available on the DOE NEPA Web site at https://nepa.energy.gov. In
addition, copies of this ROD may be requested by contacting Ms. Jane
Summerson, NEPA Document Manager, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Department of Energy at jane.summerson@ee.doe.gov. Ms.
Summerson can be reached at the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave, SW., EE-4a, Washington, DC 20585, phone (202) 287-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6188 or fax (202) 586-8177.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
project, contact Ms. Summerson as indicated in the ADDRESSES section
above. For information about DOE's NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-54, U.S. Department
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
telephone (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DOE is providing approximately $4.6 million to Tacoma, for the
design and construction of certain components of the Cushman
Hydroelectric Project in Mason County, Washington. These components
include a new 3.6 MW powerhouse on the North Fork of the Skokomish
River, an integral fish collection and sorting facility, and related
transmission infrastructure.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``Cushman Project'' refers to the entire project that
FERC licensed in its 2010 Order. The scope of the Cushman Project is
broader than the project that DOE is funding, and is defined in this
section of this ROD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacoma applied for this funding in response to DOE Solicitation
(FOA-0000120), entitled ``Hydroelectric Facility Modernization,''
pursuant to the Wind and Water Technologies Program. The goal of the
Solicitation is to provide funding for industry members who propose to
develop, deploy, and test hydropower projects that would modernize the
existing hydropower infrastructure in the U.S. and increase the
quantity, value, and environmental performance of hydropower
generation. Because the funds are appropriated by the Recovery Act, the
projects must stimulate the economy and create and retain jobs.
The background on the relicensing of the Cushman Project spans
several decades and includes administrative and judicial litigation and
multiple stays with interim operating requirements. To fully understand
the history of the relicensing process, please refer to FERC's 2010
Order, the 1998 license,\3\ and the 1996 FEIS. What follows is a brief
summary setting forth those aspects of the Cushman Project and
relicensing process relevant to this ROD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ City of Tacoma, Washington 84 FERC ] 61107 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1924, Tacoma obtained a license from the Federal Power
Commission (predecessor to FERC) to flood 8.8 acres of national forest
land by damming the North Fork of the Skokomish River at Lake Cushman
on the Olympic Peninsula. This license was designated a ``minor part
license'' because it covered only a small part of Tacoma's much larger
hydroelectric project (Cushman Project). At that time, the Federal
Power Commission interpreted its licensing authority narrowly, and the
1924 minor part license gave Tacoma the authority it needed to proceed
with the Cushman Project.
The 131 MW Cushman Project is located on the North Fork of the
Skokomish River (North Fork) in Mason County, Washington, and occupies
U.S. lands within the Olympic National Forest and the Skokomish Indian
Reservation. Tacoma built two dams across the Skokomish River. Dam No.
1, which was completed in 1926, impounds Lake Cushman and supplies
water for electricity generation at a powerhouse with a capacity of 50
MW, located downstream of that dam. Dam No. 2, which was completed in
1930, impounds Lake Kokanee, a much smaller reservoir than Lake
Cushman. Water leaving Dam No. 2 passes through a tunnel to a second
powerhouse with 81 MW capacity and does not return to the North Fork.
Historically, the Cushman Project diverted nearly all of the flow of
the North Fork out of the river basin, leading to controversy regarding
the total amount of flow diverted from the river, its environmental
effects, and the appropriate level of minimum flows that should be
required to return water to the North Fork. The Cushman Project is
currently operated to provide load-following power and to meet peak-
demand period needs.
In 1963, the Federal Power Commission determined that its
hydroelectric licensing jurisdiction extends to whole projects, not
just to the parts of those projects that occupy or use Federal land. As
required by Title I of the Federal Power Act, Tacoma filed for a
``major project license'' for the Cushman Project on November 5, 1974.
Tacoma continued to operate the Cushman Project under the terms of its
1924 minor part license, and FERC issued annual renewals of Tacoma's
existing license during the application review period.
FERC's 1996 FEIS
Subsequent to Tacoma's application for a major part license, FERC
decided to prepare an environmental impact statement to analyze the
impacts from the Cushman Project and alternatives to it. FERC issued a
Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft EIS for the Cushman Project on
November 12, 1992 (57 FR 53727). FERC held two rounds of scoping, in
December 1992 and April 1993, and issued a final Scoping Document in
February 1994. FERC issued the Draft EIS in November 1995 and held
three public meetings in January and February 1996 to receive public
comments on the Draft EIS (61 FR 1375). The comment period closed on
February 13, 1996. FERC issued the 1996 FEIS on November 15, 1996 (61
FR 59435).
After a lengthy relicensing proceeding, FERC issued a new license
for the Cushman Project on July 30,
[[Page 73061]]
1998,\4\ and issued an order on rehearing on March 30, 1999.\5\ The
license then became the subject of judicial and administrative review,
in which the principal plaintiff was the Skokomish Tribe (Tribe), and
concerns about endangered and threatened species and minimum flow were
at the center of the dispute. The relicensing was stayed in part for
most of the following decade, and FERC, at various times, amended the
license with conditions for interim operation of the Cushman Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ City of Tacoma, Washington 84 FERC ] 61107 (1998).
\5\ City of Tacoma, Washington 86 FERC ] 61311 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) filed a biological opinion for protection of
listed fish in 2004. On January 21, 2009, the City of Tacoma and other
parties to the litigation, including the Tribe, filed a comprehensive
offer of settlement that includes conditions for protection of the
Skokomish Indian Reservation, fish passage facilities, and measures for
fish and wildlife protection. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and FWS filed revised biological opinions in 2010.
FERC's 2010 Order
In its July 15, 2010, Order, FERC lifted a stay on a 1998 license
for the Cushman Project and amended the license to include conditions
for fish passage facilities and authorization to construct the 3.6 MW
powerhouse. FERC relied on the 1996 FEIS to fulfill its NEPA
obligations for the 1998 license, as amended in FERC's 2010 Order. The
amended license includes license articles consistent with the
settlement, extends the license expiration date to June 20, 2048, and
authorizes construction of a new 3.6 MW powerhouse that will increase
the Cushman Project's authorized capacity to 134.6 MW.
As stated above, FERC's license authorizes all activities that DOE
is funding through this decision. In FERC's 2010 Order, FERC found that
the activities it authorized, including the proposed powerhouse, were
within the range of alternatives examined in the 1996 FEIS and that a
supplemental EIS would not be needed for the activities.
Alternatives Analyzed in FERC's 1996 EIS
In the 1996 FEIS, FERC analyzed Tacoma's proposal, which included
replacing turbine runners at the second powerhouse; installing a 1.3 MW
powerhouse at the base of Dam No. 2; implementing major environmental
enhancements such as increasing instream flows into the North Fork;
removing resident fish passage barriers in project reservoir
tributaries; and executing a land exchange to remove lands within
Olympic National Forest. FERC also analyzed four other alternatives:
(1) No Action Alternative;
(2) Alternative adapted from resource agencies' and Tribe's
recommended alternatives to Tacoma's proposal. Under this alternative,
Tacoma would build a new powerhouse with a generating capacity of 16 MW
at the base of Dam No. 2, and the project would operate with full river
flows. Tacoma would remove certain dikes, enhance more than 15,000
acres of land for wildlife, and stop diverting water from the North
Fork;
(3) Alternative intended to achieve, to the extent practicable,
important elements of each objective: under this alternative, Tacoma
would manage flow levels through an instream flow schedule to balance
the competing demands on North Fork water; build a new 3 MW powerhouse
near the base of Dam No. 2; and implement a staff-formulated wildlife
habitat enhancement plan covering 5,981 acres of land for wildlife; and
(4) Decommissioning Alternative.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
FERC identified Alternative (2) as the environmentally preferred
alternative in the 1996 FEIS because, among other things, it maximizes
river flows and enhances the greatest area of land for wildlife in
comparison to the other alternatives.
Alternatives Available to DOE
DOE's two alternatives are to (1) provide funding for certain
components of the Cushman Project as defined and conditioned in FERC's
2010 Order and which were analyzed in substantive part in Alternative 2
of the 1996 EIS, or (2) not provide funding (No Action Alternative).
Under either alternative, Tacoma would construct and operate the
Cushman Project consistent with FERC's 2010 Order and related
settlement agreements.
Consultation
FERC is the lead Federal agency for complying with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Tribal Consultation
for all components of the Cushman Project. The Tribe and others
originally opposed Tacoma's Cultural Resource Summary Report, and
cultural resource protection became a contested issue. On May 13, 2010,
however, FERC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Tribe,
and other interested parties concurred in the MOA. The MOA includes a
Treatment Plan that Tacoma must follow to protect cultural resources
during the construction of the new powerhouse. On June 8, 2010, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) acknowledged receipt
of the MOA and stated that FERC had completed its requirements under
Section 106 of the NHPA.
DOE hereby concurs with the May 13, 2010, MOA and, in so doing,
completes its own consultation requirements under Section 106 of the
NHPA. DOE's proposed action is to fund elements of the Cushman Project
that were already the subject of extensive Section 106 consultations.
FERC is also the lead Federal agency for complying with Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) (ESA). FERC consulted
extensively with both NMFS and FWS regarding impacts from the Cushman
Project on listed species and critical habitat. These agencies
concluded consultation when NMFS and FWS issued Biological Opinions
finding that the Cushman Project is not likely to result in jeopardy to
listed species or destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. FERC and Tacoma agreed to implement certain mitigation
measures (2010 Order at 148).
DOE finds that, either with or without DOE funding, Tacoma will
manage the Cushman Project in compliance with the terms of FERC's
relicense and the settlement agreement, which include terms that
mitigate impacts to listed species. Thus, DOE's proposed action will
have no effect on listed species or critical habitat and DOE has
fulfilled its obligations under Section 7 of the ESA.
EIS Adoption
DOE has independently reviewed the 1996 FEIS and FERC's 2010 Order
and has concluded that, together, the 1996 FEIS and FERC's 2010 Order
meet the standards for an adequate environmental impact statement under
the Council on Environmental Quality's and DOE's NEPA regulations,
which can be found at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021,
respectively. In addition, DOE has determined that the Cushman Project
is within the range of alternatives analyzed in the 1996 FEIS.
The only difference between the project that DOE is funding and the
actions analyzed under the 1996 FEIS is the placement of a transmission
line. In the 1996 FEIS, FERC analyzed an
[[Page 73062]]
aboveground transmission line. Tacoma is now planning to bury the line
underground to mitigate environmental impacts. This mitigation measure
is not a substantial change in the proposed action relevant to
environmental concerns, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c),
warranting a supplement to the FEIS. Accordingly, DOE adopted FERC's
1996 FEIS and 2010 Order as a final DOE EIS (DOE/EIS-0456).
Because DOE did not participate as a cooperating agency in
preparation of FERC's 1996 FEIS, DOE recirculated the adopted document
as a DOE final EIS and filed it with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). EPA published a notice of availability in the Federal
Register on October 8, 2010 (75 FR 62386). DOE did not receive any
comments on the final EIS.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
In accordance with DOE regulations at 10 CFR Part 1022 (Compliance
with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements), DOE
considered the potential impacts of the Cushman Project on floodplains.
These findings are based on the assessment of environmental impacts in
the final EIS. The location of the Cushman Project and the alternatives
considered are discussed in detail in the final EIS. The differences
among the alternatives, including the original proposal from Tacoma,
are summarized above.
DOE finds that no practicable alternative to locating the Cushman
Project in a floodplain is available. The nature of the existing
Cushman Dam site and the process of generating electricity from water
pressure require that the proposed powerhouse be constructed downstream
of the dam; therefore the proposed construction will necessarily be
within a floodplain.
FERC's 2010 Order establishes numerous requirements that Tacoma
must follow in constructing and operating the proposed new facilities
to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain, including
measures to reduce flooding hazards while protecting water quality and
fish habitat. For example, Article 403 of FERC's 2010 Order requires
Tacoma to implement measures to enhance the channel conveyance capacity
of the mainstem Skokomish River for the reduction of risks to human
health and welfare from flooding, including, among other things,
providing funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a Skokomish
River Basin Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Damage Reduction General
Investigation; the preparation, under certain conditions, of a Mainstem
Channel Restoration Plan in consultation with NMFS, FWS, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and including the comments of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, EPA, and Mason County; and, under certain
conditions, providing funds for a Channel Restoration Account.
In addition, under Articles 406 and 407 of FERC's 2010 Order,
Tacoma must prepare and implement an Operational and Flow Monitoring
Plan to improve fish habitat, address lake water use changes, improve
sediment transport and stream flow, and improve flood control and
forecasting. This plan must be submitted to and approved by NMFS, FWS,
and BIA. Under certain conditions, Tacoma would be required to develop
a Flood Damage and Mitigation Plan and provide funding to implement the
plan.
Mitigation
In addition to adopting the measures addressing floodplain impacts,
described above, DOE adopts and incorporates by reference all other
mitigation measures documented in FERC's 2010 Order. These other
measures include but are not limited to:
Monitoring water use, which provides a feedback mechanism
to help ensure that adequate flows will be available to meet the needs
of anadromous fish at different times of the year, support aquatic
habitats, maintain improvements to the channel capacity of the river,
and provide some assurances that the flows released will benefit these
resources.
A variety of fish habitat protection, mitigation and
enhancement measures such as habitat enhancement and restoration work
that benefits anadromous fish by improving channel habitat and removing
instream barriers.
The use of a floating surface collector for downstream
fish passage. Tacoma will use a trap and haul system for upstream fish
passage.
Implementation of a resident fishery, which will include
anadromous fish hatcheries.
Decision
DOE has decided to provide funding, appropriated by the Recovery
Act, to Tacoma for the design and construction of certain components of
the Cushman Project in Mason County, Washington. These components
include a new 3.6 MW powerhouse on the North Fork of the Skokomish
River, an integral fish collection and sorting facility, and related
transmission infrastructure.
DOE incorporates by reference all mitigation measures and other
conditions identified in FERC's 2010 Order. DOE expects that Tacoma
will execute the Cushman Project in compliance with FERC's 2010 Order.
Thus, all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm
have been adopted.
Basis for Decision
DOE's decision enables it to meet the objectives set forth in the
Solicitation, namely, to provide financial assistance for industry
members and industry-led partnerships who propose to develop, deploy,
and test hydropower projects to modernize the existing hydropower
infrastructure in the U.S. and increase the quantity, value, and
environmental performance of hydropower generation.
DOE did not select the No Action alternative because it would not
meet DOE's objectives, as set forth in the Solicitation.
DOE decided not to fund alternatives, or alternative components,
that were analyzed in the 1996 FEIS but were not authorized under
FERC's 2010 Order. Without a FERC license, Tacoma would not be able to
implement such alternatives.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 18th day of November 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-29936 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P