DOCSLIB.ORG

Mcnary-John Day Transmission Line Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mcnary-John Day Transmission Line Project McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement August 2002 DOE-EIS-0332 McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0332) Responsible Agency: Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Interior: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Department of Army: Corps of Engineers. States Involved: Oregon and Washington Abstract: Bonneville is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a 79-mile-long 500-kilovolt- transmission line in Benton and Klickitat Counties, Washington, and Umatilla and Sherman Counties, Oregon. The new line would start at Bonneville’s McNary Substation in Oregon and would cross the Columbia River just north of the substation into Washington. The line would then proceed west for about 70 miles along the Columbia River. At the John Day Dam, the line would again cross the Columbia River into Oregon and terminate at Bonneville’s John Day Substation. The new line would parallel existing transmission lines for the entire length; mostly within existing available right-of-way. Presently, the existing transmission lines in the area are operating at capacity. These lines help move power from the east side of the Cascades to the west side, where there is a high need for electricity (cities along the I-5 corridor). Because the Northwest has only recently recovered from a shortfall in electric energy supply and a volatile wholesale power market in which prices reached record highs, there are many new proposals for facilities to generate new power. Some of these facilities are in the vicinity of the McNary-John Day project; the proposed line would help insure that existing and newly generated power could move through the system. Bonneville is also considering the No Action Alternative and several short-line routing alternatives. The short routing alternatives include three half-mile-long routes for getting from the McNary Substation to the Columbia River crossing; three two-mile-long routes where the Hanford-John Day transmission line joins the existing corridor; two 1,000-foot-long routes at corridor mile 32; and two 500-foot-long routes at corridor mile 35. This abbreviated final EIS consists of an introduction to the document, changes to the draft EIS, copies of all the comments received on the draft EIS, and Bonneville’s written responses to the comments. The final EIS should be used as a companion document to the draft EIS (dated February 2002), which contains the full text of the affected environment, environmental analysis, and appendices. Bonneville expects to issue a Record of Decision on the proposed project in October 2002. To receive additional copies of the Final EIS and/or Draft EIS: Call 1-800-622-4520; record your name, address, and which documents you would like; Access our web site at http://www.efw.bpa.gov, click on environmental planning/analysis, Active Projects; or Write to: Bonneville Power Administration Communications Office - KC-7 P.O. Box 12999 Portland OR 97212 For more information about the EIS please contact: Stacy Mason Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 – KEC-7 Portland OR 97208-3621 (503) 230-5455 [email protected] For information on DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities, please contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington D.C. 20585, 1-800-472-2756; or visit the DOE NEPA Web at www.eh.doe.gov/nepa. Table of Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1-1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................1-1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES...........................................................................................1-2 LEAD AND COOPERATING AGENCIES ...............................................................................1-3 DRAFT EIS COMMENT PERIOD ........................................................................................1-3 KEY CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS...................................................................................1-4 CHAPTER 2 CHANGES TO DRAFT EIS TEXT ...............................................................2-1 SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................2-1 Purpose and Need for Action..................................................................................2-1 Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation............................2-2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION (CHAPTER 1)........................................................2-7 Need for Action.........................................................................................................2-7 Other Projects or Documents Related....................................................................2-8 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES (CHAPTER 2)....................................................2-9 Existing Corridor.......................................................................................................2-9 New Easements .......................................................................................................2-9 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION (CHAPTER 3)............................................................................................................2-12 Land Use and Recreation......................................................................................2-12 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity..............................................................................2-14 Streams, Rivers, and Fish.....................................................................................2-15 Wetlands and Groundwater...................................................................................2-19 Vegetation...............................................................................................................2-20 Wildlife.....................................................................................................................2-24 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................2-26 Public Health and Safety .......................................................................................2-30 CONSULTATION, REVIEW, AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (CHAPTER 4).........................2-31 REFERENCES (CHAPTER 5) ...........................................................................................2-33 APPENDICES...................................................................................................................2-33 CHAPTER 3 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIS TABLES .................................................3-1 CHAPTER 4 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ...................................................................4-1 PURPOSE & NEED (CHAPTER 1)......................................................................................4-2 Need for Action.........................................................................................................4-2 Decisions to be Supported by the EIS .............................................................4-8 Public Involvement.............................................................................................4-9 Other Projects ..................................................................................................4-10 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES (CHAPTER 2)..................................................4-11 Location ............................................................................................................4-11 Existing Corridor (ROW)..................................................................................4-11 Towers ..............................................................................................................4-12 BPA McNary-John Day Transmission Project i Abbreviated Final EIS August 2002 Conductors .......................................................................................................4-13 Access Roads ..................................................................................................4-13 Staging Areas...................................................................................................4-14 Substation Work...............................................................................................4-14 Line Planning and Construction......................................................................4-14 Construction Schedule ....................................................................................4-15 Cost...................................................................................................................4-16 Hanford-John Day Alternative.........................................................................4-16 Corridor Mile 32-35 Alternatives (Tribal) ........................................................4-18 No Action ..........................................................................................................4-19 Alternatives Eliminated....................................................................................4-20 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts .....................................................................4-22
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Umatilla Ped-Bike Plan
    U m a t i l l a Pedestrian & Bicycle MASTER PLAN June 3, 2003 David Evans and Associates, Inc. Umatilla Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan 1 (UMAT0001) This project is partially funded by the Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM), a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Development and Conservation. This TGM grant is fi nanced, in part, by federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), local government, and the State of Oregon Funds. Neither the City of Umatilla nor ODOT guarantee funding to complete any project described in this document. Historic Umatilla River bridge David Evans and Associates, Inc. Umatilla Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan 2 (UMAT0001) Contents Chapter 1 — Scope . 5 Chapter 2 — Background Research . 6 2.1 Sources . 6 2.2 Area Description . 6 2.3 Jurisdictions . 6 2.4 Nonmotorized Traffi c Generators . 7 2.5 Implementation Plan . 9 Chapter 3 — Inventory . 10 3.1 Street System . 10 3.2 Pedestrian Facilities . 11 3.3 Bicycle Facilities . 12 Chapter 4 — Systemwide Factors . 14 4.1 Natural and Manmade Barriers . 14 4.2 Development Pattern . 14 4.3 Street Standards and Development Codes . 15 4.4 Funding . 17 Chapter 5 — Neighborhood Analysis . 23 5.1 Project Evaluation Criteria . 23 5.2 South Hill Projects . 26 5.3 Downtown Umatilla Projects . 36 5.4 Central Area Projects . 41 5.5 McNary Projects . 45 Chapter 6 — Capital Improvement Program . 49 Appendix A — Glossary . A-1 Appendix B — Pedestrian & Bicycle System Maps . B-1 Appendix C — Transportation SDC Example . C-1 Appendix D — General Plan and Code Amendments D-1 Appendix E — Inter-Jurisdictional Agreements .
    [Show full text]
  • 3.6-1 3.6 Traffic and Circulation Construction of the Wanapa Energy
    3.6 Traffic and Circulation Construction of the Wanapa Energy Center would most likely affect traffic flow on McNary Beach Access Road, U.S. Highway 730, and U.S. Highway 395/State Route 32. Up to 600 workers would travel to the facility site during construction, 100 to the natural gas supply/wastewater discharge pipeline routes, and 120 to the transmission line route. During operation, 30 workers would work at the facility. 3.6.1 Affected Environment Major highways accessing the project study area include U.S. Highway 730 (i.e., U.S. Highway 730; the Columbia River Highway), U.S. Highway 395/State Route (SR) 32 (i.e., SR 32; the Umatilla-Stanfield Highway), Interstate 82 (I-82), and State Route 207 (i.e., the Hermiston Highway). U.S. Highway 730 is a 2-lane west-east highway that generally runs along the south side of the Columbia River. U.S. Highway 395/SR 32 is a 2-lane northwest-southeast highway that runs from U.S. Highway 730 in the north; through Umatilla, Hermiston, and Stanfield; and then to I-84/U.S. 30 in the south. I-82 is a 4-lane highway running north-south from the Tri-Cities in Washington until it intersects with I-84/U.S. 30. SR 207 is a 2-lane highway that runs southwest- northeast, starting at I-82 in the west, through Hermiston, and then intersecting with U.S. Highway 730 in the east. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the average daily traffic (ADT) and accident counts by milepost and location for these major roadways for 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcnary-John Day Transmission Line Project
    McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bonneville Power Administration February 2002 McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0332) Responsible Agency: Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Interior: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Department of Army: Corps of Engineers. States Involved: Oregon and Washington Abstract: Bonneville is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a 79-mile-long 500-kilovolt- transmission line in Benton and Klickitat Counties, Washington, and Umatilla and Sherman counties, Oregon. The new line would start at Bonneville’s McNary Substation in Oregon and would cross the Columbia River just north of the substation into Washington. The line would then proceed west for about 70 miles along the Columbia River. At the John Day Dam, the line would again cross the Columbia River into Oregon and terminate at Bonneville’s John Day Substation. The new line would parallel existing transmission lines for the entire length; mostly within existing available right-of-way. Presently, the existing transmission lines in the area are operating at capacity. These lines help move power from the east side of the Cascades to the west side, where there is a high need for electricity (cities along the I-5 corridor). Because the Northwest has only recently recovered from a shortfall in electric energy supply and a volatile wholesale power market in which prices reached record highs, there are many new proposals for facilities to generate new power.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Bridge Authority 1937-1977
    Guide to the Records of the Office of the Secretary of State Division of Archives and Records Management Olympia, Washington April 2004 1 Guide to the Records of the Washington State Toll Bridge Authority 1937 - 1977 Compiled by Kathleen Waugh Office of the Secretary of State Division of Archives and Records Management Olympia, Washington April 2004 2 INDEX History of Toll Bridge Authority . page 5 Scope and Content . page 8 Note on Arrangement . page 8 Toll Bridge Authority Subject Files . page 9 Files on Individual Bridges . page 13 History of Tacoma Narrows Bridge . page 37 Tunnels . page 63 Tacoma-Seattle-Everett Toll Road . page 64 3 4 TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY The Toll Bridge Authority was created by the Legislature in 1937. The state wanted to improve transportation routes by building bridges but had been hampered by restrictions regarding bonding in Article VIII of the state constitution. Therefore the Toll Bridge Authority was given the power to issue revenue bonds which were not limited by Article VIII. It was to select, fund, build and operate bridges which would probably not win approval in a statewide levy. The revenues from the operation of the bridges would pay off the bonds. The membership of the Authority originally consisted of the Governor, the State Auditor, the Director of the Public Service Commission, the Director of Highways, and the Director of the Department of Finance, Budget and Business. By the time the Authority was dissolved in 1977, the membership consisted of the Governor, two members of the State Highway Commission appointed by the Commission, and two other members appointed by the Governor.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft EIS Summary
    Introduction/ Purpose and Need for Action Summary Introduction This summary includes information regarding the following elements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact statement (EIS) for the McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project: the purpose and need for action; short-line routing alternatives; and affected environment, impacts, and mitigation measures. The project would involve construction of a new 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line parallel to existing Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) transmission lines from the McNary Substation to the John Day Substation, a distance of approximately 79 miles. Purpose and Need for Action Bonneville is a federal agency responsible for purchasing, developing, marketing, and transmitting electrical power to utility, industrial, and other customers in the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville is required to ensure its transmission system can reliably serve customer power needs under all operating conditions, including times of peak use (maximum demand). The Federal Columbia River Transmission Act directs Bonneville to construct additions to the transmission system that are required to provide interregional transmission facilities [16 U.S.C. § 838b(c)], integrate and transmit electric power from new generating sources [§ 838b(a)], and for maintaining the electrical stability and reliability of the transmission system [§ 838b(d)]. The proposed action is needed to comply with these Congressional mandates. Bonneville is facing two problems regarding power flow on the system: there is not enough electricity being generated to meet demand, and many of Bonneville’s transmission lines are now at capacity and cannot carry more power. To solve the BPA McNary-John Day Transmission Project S-1 Draft EIS February 2002 Summary problem of lack of power, private investors have proposed and are developing gas-fired and wind-powered generation facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Gray Notebook 25
    Measures, Markers and Mileposts The Gray Notebook for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 WSDOT’s quarterly report to the Governor and the Washington State Transportation Commission on transportation programs and department management Douglas B. MacDonald Secretary of Transportation MP 25 What Gets Measured, Gets Managed This periodic report is prepared by WSDOT staff to track a management use and is subject to correction and clarifica- variety of performance and accountability measures for review tion. The Gray Notebook is published quarterly in February, by the Transportation Commission and others. The content May, August, and November. For an online version of this or and format of this report is expected to develop over time. a previous edition of the Gray Notebook, visit ����������www.wsdot. Information is reported on a preliminary basis as appropriate wa.gov/accountability. and available for internal Contributors WSDOT’s Capital Delivery Project Control and Reporting Office, Claudia Lindhal, Regional Program Managers (Beige Pages) Programs Tacoma Narrows Bridge Miles Sergeant Project Update Hood Canal Bridge Project Update Sarah Lamb Tacoma/Pierce County HOV Heather Clarke, Jamie Swift Program Update Cross-Cutting Management Issues Erin Britton, Marion Carey, Jenna Fettig, Erik Johnson, Linea Laird, Rose This, Bob Thomas Contributors Asset Management: Rest Areas Yvonne Medina, Thanh Nguyen, Doug Pierce (White Pages) Aviation Eric Johnson, Nisha Marvel, Tracy Paul, John Sibold, Kerri Woehler Highlights of Program Activities Ann Briggs
    [Show full text]
  • Hanford Reach National Monument Rattlesnake Unit
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hanford Reach National Monument Rattlesnake Unit Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Public Access Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing This DEIS $178,000 [Inside Front Cover] Hanford Reach National Monument Rattlesnake Unit Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Public Access Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex 64 Maple Street Burbank, Washington 99323 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 August 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS MAPS ........................................................................................................................................... iii-xviii 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Description of the Planning Area ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Purpose of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement .................................................. 4 1.4 Public Involvement and Scoping ................................................................................................. 6 2. Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Omatilla County Transportation System Plan
    Omatilla County Transportation System Plan April 20Q2 Prepared by: David Evans and Associates, Inc. and Umatilla County Staff in cooperation with ODOT April 2002 Umatilla County Transportation System Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 :INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1 VISION AND MISSION STATEMENTS .....................................................................................................1-1 PLANNING AREA ........................................................................................................................................1-1 PLANNING PROCESS ...............................................................................................................................1-2 Community Involvement ......................................................................................................................... 1-3 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................1-3 Review and Inventory of Existing Plans, Policies, and Public Facilities ...................................................1-3 Future Transportation System Demands .....................................................................................................1-4 Transportation System Potential Improvements .........................................................................................1-4 Transportation System Plan ......................................................................................................................1-4
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 50Th Anniversary: the Story of Oregon's Interstates
    Interstate 50th Anniversary The Story of Oregon’s Interstates Table of Contents 1) Introduction ....................................................................................................................2 2) Oregon’s road-building legacy...................................................................................... 2 3) The interstate comes to Oregon .................................................................................. 5 i) Segments of interest on I-5............................................................................. 5 ii) Focus moves to I-80N (today’s I-84) ............................................................ 6 iii) Notable segments on I-84............................................................................... 6 iv) Oregon’s minor major interstate: I-82........................................................... 7 v) Oregon’s other interstates ............................................................................... 8 vi) Oregon’s interstate segments that weren’t.................................................... 10 4) Interstate finalization chart ........................................................................................... 12 5) Interstate-related issues in Oregon .............................................................................. 12 6) Highway beautification.................................................................................................. 14 7) What’s next?....................................................................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM Streamlined Process for Section 106 and Section 4(F) Compliance
    INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM Streamlined Process for Section 106 and Section 4(f) Compliance As the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate Highway System) approached the fifty-year anniversary on June 29, 2006, large sections of the Interstate System would have achieved the mark at which resources are often evaluated for historic significance. In order to address the volume of administrative work this could foster, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation adopted the Section 106 Exemption Regarding Effects to the Interstate Highway System on March 10, 2005. This exemption effectively excludes the majority of the 46,700-mile Interstate System from consideration as a historic property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In addition, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59, Aug. 10, 2005) includes a provision (Section 6007) that exempts the bulk of the Interstate Highway System from consideration as a historic resource under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. With these two exemptions in place, Federal agencies are no longer required to consider the vast majority of the Interstate Highway System as historic property under Section 106 and Section 4(f) requirements. Excluded from these respective exemptions are elements of the Interstate System that are exceptional in some way or meet a national level of significance under the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places. The final list identifies those elements that are not covered by the exemptions discussed above and will therefore continue to be subject to consideration under the Section 106 and Section 4(f) processes.1 Historically Significant Features are Excluded from the Exemption The Exemption does not apply to certain historically important, distinctive features of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Plymouth Generating Facility Plymouth, Washington
    Final Environmental Impact Statement Plymouth Generating Facility Plymouth, Washington Prepared by: Benton County, Washington Bonneville Power Administration (DOE/EIS 0345) June 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plymouth Generating Facility To: People Interested in the Plymouth Generating Facility Enclosed is the Final EIS for the Plymouth Generating Facility. The Draft EIS was published in August 2002, and comments were received through October 5, 2002. The Final EIS contains revisions to the Draft EIS and our responses to public and agency comments on the Draft EIS. This letter briefly describes the Final EIS, outlines our next steps, and tells how to contact us if you have questions. The Final EIS is abbreviated, consisting of an updated summary and project description (Chapter I), other revisions to the Draft EIS (Chapter II), copies of all comments received on the Draft EIS, and our written responses to those comments (Chapter III). This Final EIS also identifies Bonneville Power Administration’s preferred alternative, which is the Proposed Action. This Final EIS should be used as a companion document to the Draft EIS, which contains the full text of the affected environment, environmental analysis, and appendices. Process/Schedule: All comments on the Draft EIS and our responses to those comments are published in this Final EIS. Where appropriate, the Final EIS notes where any changes were made to the proposal or analysis in response to comments. Now that the Final EIS is published, Benton County will process the Conditional Use Permit Application and BPA will issue a Record of Decision outlining whether and how we will proceed with the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Kennewick, Washington Urban Design Assistance Team December
    Kennewick, Washington Urban Design Assistance Team December 2003 Our mission is to reconnect with the Columbia River and to develop the Bridge to Bridge/River to Railroad area into an attractive, economically viable front door to our community. We will place significant importance on public and private sector input to develop a vision plan and implementation schedule that will create a premier destination riverfront area combining unique gathering places for civic and cultural activities, distinctive shopping venues, welcome living spaces, and enjoyable recreational opportunities for the entire region. – UDAT Steering Committee The Bridge to Bridge/River to Railroad Committee’s purpose in bringing an Urban Design Assistance Team to Kennewick was to have this Team provide visioning and planning guidelines together with an implementation schedule for the revitalization of the area located between the Blue and Cable Bridges and from the Columbia River to Canal Drive. This Team Report is the product of many public meetings, a compilation of surveys, concerns and input received from the community, and the Team’s visit. The goal of this project is to create an economically viable, aesthetically pleasing, premier destination riverfront area combining unique gathering places for civic and cultural activities, successful businesses offering distinctive shopping venues, welcome living spaces, and enjoyable recreational opportunities for current stakeholders and the entire region. While the community and region at large have been fully supportive and embrace the Bridge to Bridge/ River to Railroad project, it is the business owners, property owners and residents in this area who will make this revitalization successful. Several of these entities have already created niches that support economically viable, appealing businesses and attractive residential housing.
    [Show full text]