Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard-Windy Gap Substation Transmission Line Rebuild, Grand County, Colorado, 60273-60275 [2013-23988]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
• Western Area Power Administration

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60273-60275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23988]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration

[DOE/EIS-0400]


Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard-Windy Gap Substation Transmission 
Line Rebuild, Grand County, Colorado

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Western Area Power Administration (Western), a power marketing 
administration in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), owns and 
operates the 69-kilovolt (kV) Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard-Windy Gap 
Substation (Project) transmission line in Grand County, Colorado. The 
transmission line is 13.6 miles long. Western proposes to rebuild the 
single-circuit line as a double-circuit line, increase the voltage 
rating to 138-kV, and operate one circuit at 69-kV and the second at 
138-kV. One circuit would replace Western's existing transmission line 
between the Windy Gap Substation and Stillwater Tap and provide a 
redundant feed from the tap to the Granby Pumping Plant to prepare for 
when the existing 69-kV cable located in the Alva B. Adams Tunnel is no 
longer operable. The second circuit was requested by Tri-State 
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) to improve 
reliability for their local customer, Mountain Parks Electric, Inc., 
and to minimize environmental effects by sharing a right-of-way (ROW).
    The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2013 
(78 FR 40474). After considering the environmental impacts, Western has 
decided to construct, operate, and maintain the transmission line on 
the preferred alignment identified as Alternative D (Option 1), in the 
EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Mr. 
Jim Hartman, Corporate Services Office, Western Area Power 
Administration, A7400, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228, telephone 
(720) 962-7255, or email: gppwgp@wapa.gov. For general information on 
DOE's National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) review process, 
please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy 
and Compliance, GC-20, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, 
telephone (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western markets and transmits wholesale 
electrical power generated at federal hydropower facilities through an 
integrated 17,000-circuit mile, high-voltage transmission system across 
15 western states. At the beginning of the project, Western determined 
an environmental assessment (EA) would be the appropriate level of 
review under NEPA. In 2005, Western began to prepare the EA. Scoping 
for the EA started with notification in local newspapers and mailing to 
over 250 landowners, government officials, and persons known to be 
interested in similar projects. One public meeting was held in July 
2005 and a second in November 2006. After reviewing public comments and 
concerns about potential impacts, Western determined an EIS would be 
appropriate for this project.
    The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the 
Federal Register on August 10, 2007 (72 FR 45040). Formal public 
scoping for the EIS began with the publication of the NOI and ended on 
September 17, 2007. One public scoping meeting was held on August 30, 
2007.
    The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management were federal 
cooperating agencies on the EIS and Grand County was a local 
cooperating agency. The NOA for the Draft EIS was published in the 
Federal Register on March 30, 2012 (77 FR 19282). The NOA established a 
60-day public comment period that ended May 29, 2012. A public meeting 
and hearing on the Draft EIS were held in Granby, Colorado on April 24, 
2012. Notice of the meeting was provided through an advertisement in 
the local newspaper and direct mailing to approximately 1300 
addressees. Six individuals provided oral comments during the public 
meeting and one individual provided an oral comment at the public 
hearing. Western received 43 comment letters, emails, or telephone 
comments on the Draft EIS during the comment period. Western received 
135 unique comments from all comment sources.
    The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on 
July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40474). Approximately 1200 notifications were sent 
to landowners in the Project area and other stakeholders, and notices 
were published in online and printed versions of the local newspaper 
from June 21 to 28, 2013. Copies of the Final EIS were available for 
review at three local reading rooms and were available for download 
from Western's Web site. A copy of the EIS was sent to those who 
requested one.

Proposed Project

    Western needs to address electrical system deficiencies of their 
existing 70-year-old transmission line in the Granby, Colorado area. 
Western also needs to ensure reliable power to the Granby Pumping Plant 
(also known as the Farr Pumping Plant) if the Adams Tunnel cable fails. 
The Adams Tunnel cable has exceeded its expected life and cannot be 
economically replaced. The purposes of the Project are to address the 
deficiencies in the existing system, ensure a reliable and safe 
electrical supply, and decrease maintenance costs. Western's preferred 
alternative is to rebuild and upgrade the existing transmission line 
along Alternative D, (Option 1). This includes rebuilding and upgrading 
the existing single-circuit 69-kV transmission line between the Windy 
Gap Substation and Stillwater Tap, and between the Stillwater Tap and 
the Granby Pumping Plant. The transmission line was constructed in 1939 
by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as part of the Colorado-Big Thompson 
Project. Much of the line has a 30-foot

[[Page 60274]]

wide ROW. To provide additional voltage support to address startup 
issues for the pumps at the Granby Pumping Plant, Western's circuit 
would be upgraded to 138-kV capacity but operated at 69-kV. At the 
request of Tri-State, Western would share the ROW so Tri-State could 
construct a redundant feed for the local electrical system owned by 
Mountain Parks Electric, Inc. Adding a second 138-kV circuit requires 
the use of double-circuit steel structures. Western needs to expand 
ROWs where they are inadequate to ensure public safety and to support 
the higher voltage and double-circuit conductor. The Granby Pumping 
Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate a 138-kV yard and a 
breaker would be added to the Windy Gap Substation. The proposal 
includes reroutes to avoid existing developments and existing 
incompatible commercial uses that have been built near the line since 
it was constructed. The proposal consolidates utility ROWs and reduces 
visual impacts. The proposed Project is located on private and Federal 
land and would be about 12.6 miles long.
    Western revised its preferred action alternative in the Final EIS 
to accommodate requests by landowners along County Road 64 to move the 
preferred alternative further to the west. Western met with the Forest 
Service on August 10, 2012, to discuss this request since the request 
would move the line closer to the Cutthroat Bay Campground. After this 
meeting, the alignment of the preferred alternative was moved further 
west of the residences to cross County Road 64 onto Forest Service 
lands. Based on the field review and discussions with the Forest 
Service, the route was modified to meet additional objectives and local 
constraints. Minor localized modifications to structure locations to 
protect resources and accommodate landowner requests will be considered 
during design as long as the modifications would not adversely affect 
adjacent landowners, increase environmental impacts, or appreciably 
increase costs or affect maintenance and operations.

Description of Alternatives

    A range of reasonable alternatives for the proposed project was 
identified by evaluating routing opportunities and constraints, 
engineering design standards, public comments, and environmental 
resources. The objective was to identify alternatives that address 
public, environmental, and social concerns, and meet the project 
purpose and need and engineering criteria. Relevant issues identified 
during both the EA and EIS public scoping processes were used to refine 
the alternatives. The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest Plan goals 
and objectives and Grand County zoning and land use policies applicable 
to the project area were considered in the development of alternatives. 
Western relied on additional studies and public comments to refine 
transmission line alignments and to identify the proposed action and 
alternatives to analyze in the EIS.
    Ultimately, five alternatives were identified for detailed analysis 
in the EIS: (1) Alternative A: keep the existing transmission line (no 
action); (2) Alternative B1: rebuild and upgrade the transmission line 
primarily on the existing transmission line ROW; (3) Alternative C1: 
reroute and upgrade the transmission line; (4) Alternative C2: reroute 
and upgrade the transmission line, with options to use existing utility 
ROWs; and (5) Alternative D (Options 1 and 2): rebuild and upgrade the 
transmission line primarily on existing utility ROWs. Alternative D 
(Option 1) was selected as the preferred alternative.
    Both Option 1 and Option 2 of Alternative D follow the existing 
transmission line ROW and then interconnect with an existing water 
pipeline ROW. Option 1 follows the water pipeline ROW further than 
Option 2. Options 1 and 2 have the fewest residences within 100 feet of 
the proposed transmission line centerline. Both Options 1 and 2 reduce 
impacts to houses by removing the existing line and relocating the ROW 
further from existing development. The options also remove an existing 
line from a Forest Service campground and incorporate modification in 
the campground area that was requested by local residents. On the 
southwest end of the project area, key impacts and differences between 
alternatives surround issues of planned development and proximity to 
sage grouse leks.
    Alternative D (Option 1) is the environmentally preferable 
alternative because it best balances impacts to existing and planned 
development, scenic values, and wildlife resources. Alternative D 
(Option 1) consolidates a pipeline and transmission line ROW through a 
proposed development on the southwest end of the project area, which 
reduces impacts to proposed development by avoiding areas planned for 
higher density development. It locates the line away from the northern 
boundary of the planned development to reduce impacts to the last known 
active sage grouse lek in eastern Grand County and avoids construction 
of new access and utility ROWs. Alternative D (Option 1) reduces 
potential visual impacts by placing the transmission line further away 
from the scenic byway near Scanloch Subdivision and Grand Elk Marina, 
removing an existing line and locating the rebuilt line out of the view 
toward Lake Granby from Scanloch Subdivision, and removing an existing 
line from the Cutthroat Bay Campground to improve views toward Lake 
Granby. Alternative D (Option 1) furthers the intent of the Grand 
County Three Lakes Design Review Area to preserve scenic values by 
using non-reflective conductors and consolidating two separate lines 
onto one ROW between Stillwater Tap and Granby Pumping Plant 
Switchyard, thereby avoiding the need for two separate, single-circuit 
transmission lines. Further, it would use non-reflective conductors. 
The proposal maximizes the use of Federal land and minimizes conflicts 
with existing development.
    Western considered eleven additional alternatives that were 
eliminated from further evaluation based on technical or economic 
considerations. Western assessed the alternatives for their reasonable 
ability to achieve the stated purpose and need of the project, while 
reducing significant environmental effects. Among the alternatives 
eliminated were undergrounding, placing the transmission lines inside 
an existing underground water pipeline, rebuilding and upgrading the 
Adams Tunnel Cable, installing part of the line under Lake Granby, and 
other routing and system alternatives. These are described in the EIS.
    The No Action Alternative did not meet the purpose and need for the 
project. This alternative would require continued actions to maintain 
the transmission line to ensure that it remained safe and provided 
reliable service. While this alternative would maintain the current 
level of service in the project area, it would not address the 
decreased system reliability if the Adams Tunnel cable failed. 
Additionally, Tri-State would still need to expand their transmission 
system to improve service reliability to their customers by building a 
line roughly parallel to Western's because of topographic and 
environmental constraints and the need to interconnect at the same 
substations. The No Action Alternative would not address the increasing 
costs associated with maintaining the 70-year old transmission line, it 
would not address the voltage fluctuations and other system operation 
issues described in the EIS, and it would not address the constraints 
to maintenance that have developed in some areas where the

[[Page 60275]]

ROW could not be expanded to ensure adequate clearances and access.

Mitigation Measures

    Practicable methods to avoid or minimize environmental impacts from 
the selected alternative are adopted in this Record of Decision. 
Western's standard practices and project-specific protection measures, 
listed in the Final EIS, will be implemented. Many of the protection 
measures will be implemented through design and the project 
construction contract. A Mitigation Action Plan will be prepared that 
includes protective measures that will be implemented during design, 
construction, and routine maintenance or Forest Service agreements.

Comments on Final EIS

    Western received two comment letters on the Final EIS. Colorado 
Parks and Wildlife submitted a letter reiterating their preference to 
keep the project on the existing ROW and further from the sage grouse 
lek, and requesting that Western ensure that wildlife resource 
protection measures be implemented. The Final EIS responded to these 
comments and described protective measures for wildlife. The 
Environmental Protection Agency commented that it was unclear whether 
new sources of power would be needed for the project. No new sources of 
power would be needed for the project. The resource mix would not be 
modified for the project. Other comments on the Final EIS included 
email comments stating a preference for undergrounding and requesting 
additional information on the construction schedule.

Decision

    Western's decision is to construct the project along the preferred 
alternative described in the Final EIS.\1\ This satisfies Western's 
statutory mission while minimizing harm to the environment. This 
decision is based on the information in the Final EIS. This Record of 
Decision was prepared according to the requirements of the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 
1500-1508) and DOE's procedures for implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 
1021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On November 16, 2011, DOE's Acting General Counsel delegated 
to Western's Administrator all the authorities of the General 
Counsel respecting environmental impact statements.

    Dated: September 23, 2013.
Mark A. Gabriel,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-23988 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P