[Federal Register: November 13, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 64315-64317]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13no03-13]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
[[Page 64315]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Methow Transmission Project, Okanogan and Wenatchee National
Forests, Okanogan County, WA
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the USDA Forest Service and the
Okanogan Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) will jointly prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will evaluate alternatives to
provide reliable electric power to the Methow Valley and improve
electric distribution to customers in the lower Methow Valley. The
project is located in Okanogan County, Washington. Although the
proposed action does not involve Federal lands, two of the preliminary
alternatives identified for this project involve a ``hot'' rebuild of
the existing Loup-Loup electric transmission line. A ``hot'' rebuild
would involve replacing the existing high-voltage transmission line and
its poles while maintaining power in the existing lines. Approximately
4.5 miles of the 27 mile Loup-Loup transmission line is located on the
Okanogan National Forest, approximately 12 miles west of the town of
Okanogan. The proposed ``hot'' rebuild alternatives would require
additional clearing of vegetation in the existing right-of-way (ROW) on
National Forest System (NFS) lands. The proposed project will comply
with direction in the 1989 Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended. The Forest Plan provides the
overall guidance for management of NFS lands included in this proposal.
In addition, the Loup-Loup line also traverses approximately one mile
of Bureau of Land Management lands. The agencies invite written
comments on the scope of this project. In addition, the agencies give
notice of this analysis so that interested and affected individuals are
aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final decision.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by December 15, 2003. A public information and scoping meeting is
proposed to be held in November to provide information about the
project to the public and to allow people to comment on the project.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope
of the analysis to Keith Rowland, Project Coordinator, Okanogan Valley
Office, 1240 Second Avenue South, Okanogan, Washington 98840 [Phone: (509) 826-3067; E-mail: krowland@fs.fed.us].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about the proposed
action and EIS to Keith Rowland, Project Coordinator, Okanogan Valley
Office, 1240 Second Avenue South, Okanogan, Washington 98840 [Phone: (509) 826-3067; E-mail: krowland@fs.fed.us].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action: The Okanogan Public Utility District
(PUD) is a non-profit local government entity whose mission is to
provide reliable electrical service to those within its defined
boundaries, and to plan for the future electrical service needs of its
constituency (Title 54 RCW). The PUD is responsible for providing
electrical service to the communities of Pateros, Twisp, and the
unincorporated area of the lower Methow Valley in Okanogan County,
among other communities in its service area. The Okanogan National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan permits and gives priority to
special uses that provide public service. Pateros, Twisp, and the
unincorporated lower Methow Valley area are currently served by a
single transmission route constructed in 1948 that crosses Loup Loup
Pass from Okanogan to Twisp. Distribution of that electrical service
throughout the lower Methow Valley depends on a system that is
approaching capacity now under average winter conditions and will not
meet severe winter demand. The PUD has proposed the construction of a
new transmission line, a new substation, and improvements to the
distribution system in order to meet its obligations under the law to
provide reliable electricity at reasonable rates to its ratepayers.
The PUD is also a party to a general transfer agreement (GTA) with
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for providing transmission
service to the Okanogan County Electric Cooperative (Co-op). The Co-op
provides service to the upper Methow Valley including the towns of
Winthrop and Mazama. BPA has notified the PUD that the reliability of
the existing transmission system is below standard.
Proposed Action: The proposed action, the project proposed by the
PUD, involves construction of approximately 26.5 miles of 115 KV
electric transmission line and associated access roads between Twisp
and Pateros in Okanogan County, Washington. The first 5.5 miles of
transmission line (from the existing Twisp substation) would overbuild
existing distribution along highways 20 and 1523. Existing poles would
be replaced as part of this overbuild. The remainder of the proposed
transmission line would be constructed along the benches and foothills
to the east of Highway 153. The final 1.7 miles of the proposed
transmission line (south to the existing Pateros substation) would
parallel Watson Draw Road. The proposed project would also include
construction of a new substation located along Highway 153 between
Carlton and Methow in the Gold Creek area, as well as improvements to
the existing distribution system. Construction of the proposed project
would occur in 2006. Under NEPA, the ``proposed action'' may be, but is
not necessarily, the agency's ``preferred alternative.'' The proposed
action identified above represents the PUD's initial proposal that has
not yet undergone analysis in the EIS process. The EIS process will
involve evaluation of the proposed action described above, as well as
other reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
Alternatives: For the purposes of this analysis, the PUD and Forest
Service have identified preliminary action alternatives for
consideration in the scoping process. The preliminary action
alternatives all include construction of new electric transmission
capacity and improvement of the existing distribution capacity. Four of
the preliminary action alternatives also include construction of a new
substation in the Gold Creek area
[[Page 64316]]
near Washington State Route 153. Two of the preliminary alternatives
involve a ``hot'' rebuild of the existing Loup-Loup electric
transmission line. Approximately 4.5 miles of the 27 mile Loup-Loup
transmission line is located on the Okanogan National forest,
approximately 12 miles west of the town of Okanogan and approximately
one mile is located on Bureau of Land Management Land, two miles
southwest of Okanogan. The proposed ``hot'' rebuild alternatives would
require additional clearing of vegetation in the existing ROW on
National Forest Service (NFS) lands.
The alternatives currently under consideration are:
[sbull] The No-action alternative under which there would be no new
powerline built and non ``hot'' rebuild of the existing Loup Loup line.
[sbull] The proposed Twisp/Pateros transmission line that would
connect existing substations in Twisp and Pateros and involve
construction of a new substation located along Highway 153 between
Carlton and Methow in the Gold Creek area, as well as distribution
improvements.
[sbull] A ``hot'' rebuild of the existing Loup-Loup transmission
line that would include approximately 15 miles of new transmission line
from Pateros to Gold Creek, as well as a new substation in the Gold
Creek area. This new transmission line and substation are assumed to
involve the same alignment and substation proposed for the Twisp/
Pateros transmission line and substation.
[sbull] A ``hot'' rebuild of the existing Loup-Loup transmission
line that would include an upgrade of distribution between Twisp and
Pateros, but not a substation or the 15 miles of new line to Gold
Creek.
[sbull] A new transmission line that would overbuild or follow the
existing distribution line near the Methow River along the valley
floor, including a new substation.
[sbull] A new transmission line along the valley floor that would
be aligned to reduce the number of Methow River crossings associated
with a route that overbuilds or follows the existing distribution line.
This alternative would also include construction of a new substation.
The final alternatives analyzed in detail will depend on issues raised
during public scoping.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies: The Forest Service and the PUD will
be joint lead agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and are
responsible for preparation of the EIS. The Forest Service will serve
as the lead NEPA agency. The PUD will serve as the lead Washington SEPA
agency. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) will be cooperating agencies
are needed.
Nature of Decision To Be Made: The Forest Supervisor for the
Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests will decide whether to permit a
``hot'' rebuild of the existing Loup-Loup electric transmission line
across NFS lands if this is the preferred alternative identified by the
agencies. If this alternative is permitted, the Forest Supervisor will
also decide what mitigation measures and monitoring will be required.
The Forest Supervisor will only be making a decision regarding
operations on NFS lands. The Forest Supervisor will not have a decision
to make if the PUD selects an alternative for the Methow Transmission
Project that does not involve NFS lands.
Scoping Process: Public participation will be especially important
at several points during the analysis. The participating agencies will
be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State,
local agencies, Native American Tribes and other individuals and
organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed
project. This input will be used in preparation of the draft EIS. The
scoping process includes:
[sbull] Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth.
[sbull] Identifying issues that have been addressed by a relevant
previous environmental analysis including the SEPA Checklist and
Determination of Nonsignificance and Response to Comments and
Additional Information on the SEPA Checklist and DNS documents prepared
by the PUD.
[sbull] Identifying potential environmental effects of the
alternatives identified to date.
[sbull] Identifying potential alternatives that meet the Purpose
and Need of the project.
[sbull] Notifying interested members of the public of opportunities
to participate through meetings, personal contacts, or written comment.
Keeping the public informed through the media and/or written material
(e.g., newsletters, correspondence, etc.)
Preliminary Issues
A number of issues were identified in the public comment received
on the SEPA Checklist and Determination of Nonsignificance issued by
the PUD in August 1998. Major issues identified included potential
effects to eagles and sharp-tailed grouse, critical deer habitat,
noxious weeds, aesthetic concerns, and cumulative effects. These issues
were identified specifically with regards to the proposed Twisp/Pateros
transmission line route. The Forest Service has identified the
following preliminary issues should a ``hot'' rebuild of the existing
Loup-Loup transmission line be identified by the agencies as the
preferred alternative: impacts on visual quality, potential for spread
of noxious weeds, potential for sedimentation, and safety during
construction.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides
development of the EIS. The Forest Service is seeking public and agency
comment on the proposed action to identify major issues to be analyzed
in depth and assistance in identifying potential alternatives to be
evaluated. Comments received to this notice, including the names and
addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public
record on this proposed action, and will be available for public
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will be
accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments
will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR
part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may
request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by
showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such
confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be
aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very
limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest
Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding
the request for confidentiality. Where the request is denied, the
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the
comments may be resubmitted, without name and address, within a
specified number of days.
A draft EIS will be prepared for comment. Copies will be
distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and
members of the public for their review and comment. The comment period
on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal
Register. The draft EIS is
[[Page 64317]]
expected to be filed in September 2004. The final EIS is expected to be
filed in May 2005.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to
the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Corp v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections
that could be raised at the draft EIS state but that are not raised
until after the completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed
by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d. 1016, 1022 (9th Cir.
1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 409 F. Supp. 1334, 1338
(E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important
that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close
of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and
objections are made available to the participating agencies at a time
when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final
EIS.
To assist the participating agencies in identifying and considering
issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS
should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer
to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also
address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
In the final EIS, the participating agencies are required to
respond to comments and responses received during the comment period
that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft
EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making
a decision regarding the proposal. The Forest Supervisor for the
Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest will be the Federal responsible
official for this EIS and its Record of Decision. Should the selected
alternative involve National Forest System lands, the Federal
responsible official will document the decision and reasons for the
decision in the Record Decision. That decision will be subject to
Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).
Dated: November 3, 2003.
James L. Boynton,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 03-28397 Filed 11-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M