91-319 RESOLUTION NO. 91R-319
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS, ADOPTING
CERTAIN MITIGATION MEASURES, CONCLUDING
BENEFITS OUTWEIGH UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACTS AND GRANTING PROJECT APPROVAL,
ALL WITH RESPECT TO MEAD-ADELANTO PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Anaheim
recognizes that studies were undertaken with respect to the
environmental effect of the Mead/McCullough-Victorville/Adelanto
Transmission Project, also known as the Mead-Adelanto Project (the
"Project"). These studies include the joint Draft Environmental
Report (the "Draft ER") and Final Environmental Report (the "Final
ER") prepared by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau
of Land Management and the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power ("Los Angeles"); and
WHEREAS, Los Angeles certified the Final Environmental
Report in December 1986, approved the Project and filed a Notice of
Determination with respect thereto; and
WHEREAS, Los Angeles prepared an addendum to the Final ER
(the "Addendum") to reflect minor technical changes to the Project
and changes in circumstances under which the Project is proposed to
be undertaken, and Los Angeles adopted the Addendum in June 1991;
and
WHEREAS, the Draft ER and the Final ER, as updated by the
Addendum, have been submitted to the City Council, and the City
Council has considered the information contained therein.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Anaheim hereby makes the following findings with
respect to the Project:
1. This Governing Body has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Draft ER and the Final ER, as updated
by the Addendum, prior to making a final decision on the Project,
and all previous matters or decisions undertaken by this Governing
Body with respect to the Project were of a preliminary nature
related to the planning and development stage of the Project.
Copies of the Draft ER, Final ER and the Addendum are available for
public inspection in the office of the City of Anaheim Public
Utilities Department General Manager during normal business hours.
2. The Project, which is described more fully in the
Draft ER and Final ER, as updated by the Addendum, will consist of
a transmission line, approximately 202 miles long, and associated
equipment and facilities. Termination points of the transmission
line will be at the existing Adelanto Switching Station located
near Adelanto, California, and Marketplace Substation, a new
substation to be constructed near the existing McCullough Switching
Station located in the vicinity of Las Vegas, Nevada. Two 500 kV
tie lines will be constructed to interconnect Marketplace
Substation with McCullough Substation. The transmission line will
be a 500 kV alternating current (AC) line with a nominal capacity
of 1200 megawatts. Los Angeles is to be the Construction Manager
and the Operation Manager for the Project. Project participants
include M-S-R Public Power Agency (the Modesto Irrigation District
and the Cities of Santa Clara and Redding); United States
Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration; and
certain members of the Southern California Public Power Authority
("SCPPA"). The SCPPA members participating in the Project are the
California Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Burbank, Colton,
Glendale, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Riverside, and Vernon. The route
of the transmission line is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference, which is the Final Preferred
Route of the Project as set forth in the Final ER.
3. The purpose and need for the Project is set forth in
Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
which is comprised of the section entitled "PURPOSE AND NEED" from
both the Draft ER and the Final ER. Briefly stated, the Project
will further diversify the Project participants' energy resources,
assist in meeting forecasted energy demand, enhance system
reliability, help reduce dependence on oil and natural gas for the
production of electricity and provide long-term economic benefits
to the Project participants' customers.
4. Following the determination of the need of the
Project participants for additional transmission capacity from the
Inland Southwest (the states of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and
west Texas), alternatives were identified and studied in the Draft
ER and the Final ER to provide such additional capacity. Those
alternatives are: no action; energy conservation; alternative
generation sources; alternative transmission technologies; and the
proposed Project, with various routing alternatives. The City
Council finds that certain engineering, economic, social and other
considerations make certain alternatives to the Project infeasible.
An analysis of each such alternative is set forth in Exhibit C,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which is
comprised of the section entitled "ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE
PROPOSED ACTION" from both the Draft ER and the Final ER. The City
2
Council concludes that, after consideration of the proposed
alternatives to the Project as set forth in Exhibit C, the Project
would best meet the city of Anaheim's needs.
5. Based upon the Draft ER, the Final ER and the
Addendum, the City Council hereby finds that the Project will
result in significant adverse impacts upon the environment. The
impacts are described in Exhibit D, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, which is comprised of the
sections entitled "ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES" from the Draft ER
and "DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES" from the Addendum.
Changes or alterations have been made in the Project as originally
proposed in order to reduce the environmental impacts of the
Project. In addition, the city Council of the City of Anaheim
hereby adopts the mitigation measures listed under the heading
"Table 3-6, Generic Mitigation Measures," and "Table 5-1,
Selectively Committed Mitigation Measures" of the Draft ER, and the
"Reasonable and Prudent Measures" and "Terms and Conditions" as set
forth in the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service memorandum dated February 22, 1991, all as set
forth in Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference. With respect to the significant environmental effects
of the Project as set forth in Exhibit D hereto, the City Council
hereby finds that the changes, alterations, and adopted mitigation
measures will avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant
environmental impacts associated with the Project.
6. The City Council of the City of Anaheim finds that
notwithstanding the changes or alterations to the Project and the
adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit E hereto,
certain of the significant adverse impacts are not oapable of
feasible mitigation to less than a significant level. Such
significant adverse impacts are summarized in Exhibit F, which is
entitled "Environmental Consequences" from the Final ER and "Land
Use" from the Addendum, each attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
7. Because of the overriding importance of the Project
and the benefits to all of the electric system customers of the
Project participants, including the city of Anaheim's electric
system customers, the city Council finds that the benefits of the
Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
resulting from the Project. The unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts of the Project are, therefore, acceptable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
city of Anaheim that based upon the Draft ER and the Final ER, as
updated by the Addendum, the City Council finds: that it is in the
public interest that the Project be constructed, operated, and
maintained; that the Project, as described in the Final ER and
updated by the Addendum, is hereby approved; that a mitigation
reporting or monitoring program, attached as Exhibit G and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted to ensure
compliance during Project implementation of all mitigation measures
adopted herein; and that the City of Anaheim Public Utilities
General Manager, or his designated subordinate, is hereby directed
to file within five days with the County Clerks of San Bernardino
and Orange Counties and the Office of Planning and Research of the
State of California a Notice of Determination, substantially in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit H, evidencing the approval of the
Project.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this 19th day of
November. , 1991.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 91R-319 was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 19th day of
November, 1991, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER certify that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said
Resolution NO. 91R-319 on the 20th day of November, 1991.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
City of Anaheim this 20th day of November, 1991.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
( SEAL )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 91R-319 duly passed and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on November 19, 1991.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Exhibit
Final Preferred Route
The final Dreferred route determined by the Project Sl:~sors and the BLM is
similar to Alternative D, described as the Project Sponsors' Preferred Route
and shown on Figure 3-8 in the [Draft ER. However, three modifications to
this route have been incorDorated into the final Dreferred route, shown as
Alternative DF' an Figure 3-8F in Chapter 2 of this document.
The final alignment includes Link 9 rather than Links I0 and 12 in order to
remain ~n the north side of Interstate 15 (I-IS) near E~aker and out of the East
Mojave Natiota31 Scenic Area. To avoid recreatio~ uses associated with the
Cave Mountain area, Link 16 has been substituted for Links I~, and I$.
Additio~ally, a I.S-mile secjme~t of Link 16 has been modified to provide a
better hlqhway cr_-~__*ing of 1-15. Results of the envirenmental analyses
conducted for the modifica?ian to Link I 6 are inclucled in ChoDter 2. The third
change in the Dreferred route uses Links ~,1, 38 and 39 thro~ Kramer
Junction rather than Link ~,2, following BLM cantincJ~t utility corridors
Qand P.
$-7
[^41
Exhibit A
The preferred route (see F';gure 3-8F) is 2[a.a miles [ong, crossing )5a.I miles
of public land and ~0.3 miles of prFvate land. The route follows 130.5 miles of
currently designated I~LM utility corridors, and parallels approximateF,
I~,l miles of existing transmission tlnes. The following discussion explains the
reasons for selection of the final preferred route, and the Process for
octlv<:tlng E}LM contlnqent corridors C] and P, which will be required to
accommodate the Project.
Following public comment and review of the Draft E~, the E}LM sh[fted its
route preference from the E}oulder Corridor, Alternative A (see F;gure 3-8 i,~
the Draft E~) to AIternative:~ (Proiect Sponsors' Preferred I~oute mainly
located within the 1-15 Corridor). with the exception that the BLM favored an
alignment that passes through Kramer Junction (Links b,I, ]8 and ]9). The
Proiect Sponsors agreed with this change in the preferred route. The following
four major considerations contributed to this shift:
I. The Boulder Corridor presently contains four high voltace transm[sslu,,
lines carrying the major share of the electric power usecJ in the C[ty of
Los Angeles. At peak Periods of electric power use (i.e., hot summer
day) approximately 80 to 70 Dercent of the power supplied to the City
of Los Angeles from areas outside the basin is tronsrnltted through the
Boulder Corridor. Should this Dower be interrupted in any way it could
cause severe damage to the electrical system serving Los Angeles.
Separation of a large block of power into other utility corridors will
reduce the probability of such on occurrence, increasing system rella-
bil)ty and safety.
2. Significant c~oc)osition has arisen from the City of Victorville to more
maior transmission lines through Victorville (see Table I-3 in Chapter I
of this document). Since *'he Boulder Corridor is o~e of those identified
as being primarily on ~r~vate land in the vicinltv of Victorville, it is to
be managed as a joint responsibility between BLM and local govern-
met'it.
3. The 1-15 Corridor has been identified by the Secretary of the Interior as
one of 16 designated utility corridors planned in the California Desert
between 1:)80 and 2000. '['he IPP currently holds a grant to construct a
~- S00kV PC power llne in the 1-15 Corridor. This wo~4d occur if
additional generating units were constructed at the IPP site in Utah
(see Cumulative Impacts. page $-52 in the Draft ER).
~,. The two designated BLM contingent corridors (Corridors Q and P} which
will be activated to full utility corridor status to accommodate the
Mead/McCullough-Victoeville/Adelanto Project have been analyzed and
found to have relatively low environmental resource values, relatively
low constructia~ impact :~otential, and h~ve been heavily impacted by
previous projects. Impacts on biolc~ical values in these corridors are
felt to be mitigable.
$-8
[A-2]
Exhibit A
After the I3LM and the Project Sponsors agreed on an alignment in the 1-15
Corridor and on the use of Links ~1, 38 and 3C) through Kramer Junction
instead of Link /~2 north of I'~elendole, public and agency comments on the
[Draft ER and further routing studies i~rompted two additional changes in the
route.
Comments received on the gortlon of the route south of Baker through the
East Mojave National Scenic Area urged selection of an alternative that
avoided this area. Therefore, Link 9 on the north side of 1-15 outside of the
hJatlonal Scenic Area was substituted for Links I0 and 12 on the south side of
the road. Minor modifications to the boundaries of theBLM 1-15 Corridor will
be required to accommodate this allgnment.
After field investigations, Link 16 was selected rather than Links I~, and I 5 to
avoid recreation uses near C~ve Mountain and for engineering reasons. A final
modification to Link 16 was made to cross 1-15 in an area of flatter terrain
and to take advantage of tol:~graphlc screening provided by the Cronese
Mountains. An environmental assessment performed for this modified llnk (see
Chapter 2) revealed no significant impacts that were different from the
original portion of the link.
S_c)
[A-3I
MEAD/McCULLOUGH-
"°' ~ "--'\VICTORVILLE/ADELANTO
>.,... - ......,~,,.~,:;;,...,.X\ ATRANSMISSION PROJECT
. ,
· . '?-:.. ~_...':.-',
_._/~' ..- /- ..,_. ....,
,...--~ _.._-~-.....--'~.../ /
_.._--- ....-~ /,- t
.. ,..~- ./ //,
,- ...-''., ~'-...~-~'"" ".--~I /-,,
?....?.>--/...--"~.~.~~~'~ /
.- ~ . . ./~..<.~.-- _.,./~.--.-. //
ADDENDUM TO
FINAL ROUTING ALTERNATIVES
........ Alternative DF ~ Final Preferred Route
,"--"~' ,'~:~..~ Key ',
t o~ 2 FKjum 3-8F
[^-41
Exhibit A
MEAD/McCULLOUGH-
VICTORVILLE/ADELANTO
TRANSMISSION PROIECT
~ ~ ,' / ~EST
', ~' I ....
~ '~ · . ~ ~ .
17'
~.,~ ,~-'- ..~ ·
. . ,: -~,~ '
~.5 .:--~~~:-/~_:-' _~ ~_~. --. ~.~
REVISED ~OUTE-LINK 16
Miles
0 ~ 2 3 4 ~ ,,,,,,,,,,, Link 16 Revision-Final E~
[A-6I
Figure 2-~,
Exhibit B
The Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC) has projected that, by
1~2, the peak firm load rec~uirement will have increased over that of 1~85 by
6211 MW in the California-Southern Nevada WSCC Power Area. This
represents an increase o.~ 15 percent. This load cJrowth in California and
Nevada, coupled with the expense and difficulties of building new generating
resources, reinforces the need for utilities to secure firm transmission an a
Ion<j-term basis to provide for interrecjional transfer of energy. Additionally,
the continued dependence of California utilities on oil and natural gas for
providing base load electricity to their respoctive territories may pose
econ~nlc and reliability I>ro~)lems,
S-I
[B-II
Exhibit B
The proposed Mead/McCullough-Victorville/Adelanto 500kV DC Transmiss[on..,~11~
Line Project (hereinafter referred to as the Project) is proposed by the Project~-'
Sponsors to serve the following purposes:
· Help meet the forecast need for power of $CPPA and M-S-R members
by providing firm, long-term transmission capacity for existing and
future resources;
· ~'-urnish access of (311 Project Sponsors to the economy energy market;
· Provide o path for sale of off-peak surplus capacity to California
markets;
· Help reduce dependence on oH and natural gas for electricity consumed
in the SCPPA member and M-S-F:{ service areas;
· Provide out-of-basin support in the event of a Stage II or Stage I11 air
quality episode in the South Coast Air Basin; and
· Enhance system reliability.
S-2
Exhibit B
[DRAFT
1.2 PURPOSE AND hEED
Electric utilities ore responsible for providing odequate supplies of reliable,
economlcol electricity to their customers. The Western Systems Coordinating
Council (W$C:C) has projected that, in IP~)2, the peak firm load will hove
{ncreosed over that of 1985 by 6211 MW in the ("alifornia-Southern Nevoda
WSCC Power Area (WSC.'C 1585). This represents an increase of {5 percent.
This load growth in California ond Nevoda~ coupled with the expense ond
difficulties of building new ge~eratlng resources, reinforces the need for
utilities to secure firm transmission on a long-term basis to provide for
interreglonal tronsfer of energy. Need is further reinforced by California
utilities' continued heavy dependence on oil and natural gas as prim.p/ fuel
sources*
The uncertain availability of both foreign and domestic oil and natural gas
supplies in the near and distant future causes utilities to seek to diversify the
fuel mix of their generation resources. New coal-fired and other types of
generation units have been or are being developed in the Inland Southwest
which will be able to supply energy that can in fact displace oil- and natural
gas-fired generatlan. Examples of these new generation sources inalu<~e New
Mexico Generating Stafion~ Sprlngerville Cenerating Station, Spring Canyon
Pumped Storage Project~ and the White Pine Power Project.
There is an increasing need for utilities in a region to work coaf~eratlvely to
maintoM greater energy transmission flexibility and enhance service reliability
through transmission system interconnections. California utilities must
strengthen their systems by developing additional transmission paths to take
advantage of sources of electricity outside their own systems.
Exhibit B
Electric rates in California are higher than the national average (California
Energy Commission (CEC) 1955). To decrease use of expensive oil and natural
gas, California utilities must i~ully use economy energy markets and coal and
nuclear generation whenever possible. At the same time, out-of-state utilities
look to California markets for sales of excess off-peak coal and nuclear
capacity to the year 2000.
In summary, the proposed project is needed to (I) help meet the forecast need
for po.we.r of SCPPA and .M-S-P, members by providing firm, long-term
transmission capacity for existing and future resources; (2) furnish access for
all project sponsors to the economy energy market; (3) provide a path for sale
of off-peak surplus capacity to California markets; (~,) help reduce dependence
on oil and natural gas for electricity consumed in the SCPPA and M-S-P,
service areas; (c;) provide out-of-basin support in the event of an air quality
Stage II or I11 episode (in the South Coast Air Basin); and (6) enhance system
reliability. Specific purpose and need for the project by each Project Sponsor
are presented in the following .4!scussion.
1.2. I Help Meet the Forecast Need for Power While Reduclr~ I~ence on
0|1 and Ccts Consumption for C~eneratinq Electricity
The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (PIFUA) of IC)75 discourages the
use of fuel oil and gas for generating electricity. Both SCPPA members and
M-S-R are in need of long-term, firm transmission capacity to shift their
generation mix from all and gas while meeting forecasted load growth in the
post-lC)86 period. Both will look to Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico utilities
to provide a portion of this power from coal and nuclear resources. SCPPA
members presently receive approximately ~,300 MW of energy from oil- and
gas-generated resources (including existing generation and purchased power).
Fifteen to 30 perce~t of this power could be replaced by coal and nuclear
generation through SCPPA's entitlement in the proposed Mead/McCullough-
Wctorville/Adelonto Transmission Project. The energy expected to be
received aver the proposed line will displace a portion of the oil- and natural
gas-generated energy currently being purchased from the Southern California
Edison Company ($CE) by the cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton,
Riverside and Vernon. Thus, the proposed project would assist the Project
Sponsors in meeting the requirements of PIFUA by providing access to non-oil-
and gas-based energy in Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico.
Westem Are~ Power Administration
Western plays an important role in providing and transferring off-peak surplus
energy from the Inland Southwest to California. Western intends to continue
to offer hydroelectric surplus energy to California utilities, both from the
increased capacity of Hoover Dam and from other Federal resources as they
become available. This power will be used to displace oil and natural gas for
generation of electricity, and will assist California utilities in providing out-
of-basin support in the event of an air quality Stage II or III episode in the
Exhibit B
South Coast Air BasJn (periods when air quality measures reach levels where
air emissions are curtailed). The proposed project could also benefit Western
by enhancing system reliability and by providing a llnk for power and energy
exchanges between the Pacific Northwest and the Pacific Southwest.
M-S-P, Public Power Agency
M-S-R was formed to acquire, construct, maintain and operate facilities for
the generatiof~ and transmission of electric energy for the benefit of any one
or more of its members (the cities of Modesto, Santo Clara and IRedding).
M-S-F[ is authorized to finance, acquire, construct and maintain projects,
including generation plants and transmission systems, for the purpose of
providing electric energy to its members.
The objective of M-S-F[ is to minimize pow~,r costs of the members by
supplying power through development or acquisition of generatln~ facilities,
and the arrangement of contractual power entitlements for its members.
Long-term savings are anticipcted as resources developed or acquired by
M-S-F[ replace wholesale power purchases currently made by the members.
M-S-F[ is also studying various transmission alternatives including the Mead-
Phoenix Project and the proposed transmission llne to bring Inland Southwest
energy resources to their member utilities. M-S-F[ is committed to assisting
its members in meeting their projected load growth through acqu~'ring lower-
cast coal resources from the Inland Southwest rather than higher-cost supple-
mental oil- and gas-generated power from Pacific Cos and Electric (PGandE).
M-S-F[ has an ownership interest equivalent to approximately I~,0 MW of
capacity [n the San Juan Ceneratlng Station Unit No. 0, in northern New
Mexico. M-S-F[ and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) entered
into on Early Purchase and Participat,on Agreement on December 31, IC?83.
This agreement established the terms and conditions of the sole by PNM to
M-S-F[, and conveyed ownership of approximately t:36 MW of the San Juan
Unit No. ~, to M-S-C[ through lC)~S. The agreement also provides for the
operation of San Juan Unit No. 0,. Additionally, M-S-R has contractual
commitments with Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) to buy 600 and 800
glgawatt (CW) hours/ye~3r from TEP's coal-fired system in 1~5 and ICJ86-I
The TEP and Son Juan Power ,#ill be delivered to M-S-R at several delivery
points, including the Polo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS),
Moenl<opi, Mead, and the vicinity of the Westwing Substation. M-$-R is
investigating several alternatives for delivery of this power to California from
the Westwing area. Also, M-S-F[ has the ability to sell energy to others or
defer deliveries due to transmission limitations.
Modesto Irrlciatlon District
The Modesto Irrigation District (Modesto) is a 50-percent s~onsor ~n M-$-R and
has been providing electrical energy to the Modesto service area for more than
T-S
Exhibit B
50 years. Modesto presently owns only opproxlmately 150 MW of its total
3SO M'N requirement, rendering it dependent on others far supplying approxi.
mately ~.00 MW. Modesto's actual peal< demand and energy requirements prior
to 1950 grew rapidly. In 1981 and 1982 a decrease in peak demand resulted
from lower than normal summer temperatures and economic conditions, amor~j
other things. The annual load growth is projected to increase approximately
1.2 percent between now and 1990, and increase in peak load from the present
380 MW to ~,10 MW in IC)90. Load and resource projections for Modesto show o
continued need for supplemental purchased power through 1970, with the
TEP/San Juan resources the most likely alternative to more costly wholesale
PC;andE oil- and natural gas-fired generation.
As shown in Table I-I (all tables appear at the end of the chapter), Modesto's
source plan calls for a decrease in dependence on fuel oil and purchases from
the IC.~J$ estimate of 87 percent of total resources to 7S percent in 1990. At
the same time, coal will contribute 10 percent of total resources in IDC)0.
P'_ven with this projected generation mix, Modesto will purchase S2 percent of
its total resources, demonstrating the need for economical coal resources
available in the Inland Southwest.
Santa Clara
The City of Santa Clara is a 35 percent sponsor in M-S-R, relying heavily on
power contracts with other utilities to provide all but 5.5 MW of its present
peak load of approximately 30,0 MW. Based on an average annual load growth
of approximately 3.0, percent through Ic)c~o~ Santa Clara will continue to
purchase power at its present rate from resources such as the Son Juan
Project. The city~s present primary alternative to the Son Juan Project is
purchase of power from PGandE.
As shown in Table I-2, Santa Clara's resources plan calls for a reduction in
power purchases from the present 82 percent to 70, percent and 55 percent in
1956 and lc790, respectively. With power purchases totaling at least 5S
percent of total resources through 1990, Santa Clara is looking to Inland
Southwest utilities for supplying economical energy resources.
Reddinc~
The Cit,/of Redding is a 15 percent sponsor in M-S-P, and currently purchases
all of its 116-MW powe~ requirement from Westom's Central Valley Project.
Contrac~ally~ Redding must purchase all supplemental power exceeding
116 MW from other sources. Loads and resource projections through I~0
shaw an average annual load growth of $.0 percent. As in the case of Modesto
and Santa Clare, Redding will purchase supplemental San Juan power.
Exhib'rt B
Southern California Public Power Authority
As ~n the case with M-S-R, SCPPA's demonstrated need for additional capacity
to meet forecasted load growth relates directly to loads and resource
forecasts for each member utility. All Project Sponsors anticipate growth in
loads over the next 20 years. Because of the difference in geographic and
economic factors, the rate at which individual loads are anticipated to grow
varies widely. Even within adjacent geographic areas, differing economic
projections and types of areas served have resulted in substantially different
estimated growth rates.
The service area of each SCPPA member is geographically small. Since the
major resource additions that will meet base load capacity and energy
requirements will be coal- and nuclear-fueled generation, future power sources
will be remote from SCPPA members' service area. The future replacement
of obsolete gas- and oil-flred generating units within the service area will
require new powe,' sources outside the service areas of SC:PPA member,.
Transmission planning by SCPPA members must provide for a reliable trans-
mission system which will deliver power from remote generation sources to
bulk power stations in the service areas of SCPPA members. The proposed
proiect would serve to deliver Inland Southwest-generated capacity for
delivery to SCPPA members. SCPPA has an ownership interest in PVNGS of
S.~I percent, or 225 MW.
DWP's transmission system, consisting of existing and planned inte~rconnecting
transmission lines, will permit optimization of the number of lines and bulk
power stations required to deliver power to each member's delivery point.
This will permit better planning and use of new power sources as they become
available than is possible with long, radial transmission lines frown individual
generation sources to each of the SCPPA members' service area.
Los Ancleles Del~artment of Water and Power
The proposed project is required for transmission of DWP's and SCPPA's
PVNGS oapocity and energy, and for the transfer of off.peak surplus energy
from the Inland Southwest to southern California. The proposed facility would
also allow SCPPA members to efficiently and economically take advantage of
other existing and future potential Inland Southwest power ~upply resources.
Various members presently receive power from Inland Southwest generating
resources that is delivered to McCullough and Victorville.
In 198~,, DWP had a net dependable system capability of over 6200 MW, of
which approximately SI percent was oil- and gas-fueled, 16 percent was coal-
fueled, 22 percent was hydroelectric, I percent was cogeneration, and 10
percent was purchased peaking capacity.
DWP's resource plan is designed to provide an adequate power supply to meet
projected electric load growth reliably and economically, provide a sufficient
Exhibit B
margin to maintain reliability, and to reduce dependence on all and natural gas
as fuels for the generation of electricity. DWP's resource plan through 1992
calls for a 12-percent reduction rn dependence on oil and natural gas over
Ic)$5, a 10S-percent increase in out-of-basin joint ownership coal-generated
copaclty over IC)gS, and a total addition of 373 to 583 NtW of capacity from
the proposed project. Thus, the existing load and 552 MW projected load
growth (or I;~ percent cumulative growth from 1~85 to 1~2) will be met
through power imports. This will result in signlflcant shifts in DWP's
generation mix (see Table I-3). DWP has an ownership interest in PVNCS of
5.7 percent~ or 217 ~W.
According to DWP's resource plan, by the year 2000 the oil- and gas-fired
steam-generating Harbor Units I through S and Valley Units I and 2 will be
deactivated, and most of the remaining oil-fueled generating units will be
placed on hot or cold standby reserve. The current plan includes generation
from PVNCS, Intermountain Power Project (IPP) and White Pine Power
Project. However, these "identifiable projects," together with the existing
out-of-basin resources, will supply only approximately 60 percent of the peak
load demand forecasted for the year 2000. Therefore, a slgniflcant portion of
the remaining ~,0 percent peak demand will be supplied from generation
located outside the Los Angeles Basin (e.g., Sprlngerville Generating Station,
New Mexico Generating Station, and other nonidentified generation sources).
Anaheim
The Anaheim Loads and Resources Plan projects an increase in peak demand
from ~,83 MW in 1~8~ to 738 MW in the year 200/4. The resource plan for
Anaheim is based on the least expensive supply source available, regardless of
whether it ~s purchase power or fram ownership in a generating project.
Currently, Anahelm's only operating resource is its 3.16-percent (70 MW) share
in San Ohofro Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3. Anaheim's
firm resource plan includes participation in IPP Units I and 2 for 202 MW of
capacity by I~87 and continuing through the year 2006,. The remaining 206-
0,66 MWs of power will be purchased from SCE and others. To reduce costs to
its customers, Anaheim is studying various Inland Southwest and northern
resources for the supply of bulk power as an economical alternative to the
purchase of SCE power.
Anahelm's 1~8S generation mix is 3S percent purchased power (mostly SCE-
generated) and IS percent nuclear. The Anaheim resource plan is to reduce
SCE purchases to 63 percent by the year 200/4, as shown in Table I-/4.
The prcl~osed project will provide Anaheim (1). a transmission path to utilities
that have interties at McCullough and Mead~ (2) a transmission path for
capacity and energy from PVNGS; (3)intertie catx~billtles with utility
companies in the Southwest that will allow the purchase of capacity and
energy to di~loce SCE purchases; and (~,)ogportunities to purchase and
market surplus power to interconnecting utilities on a daily and seasonal b~sis,
thus reducing and maintaining lower utility rates.
I-8
Exhibit B
Anaheim does not currently own or share ownership of any fransmission
facilities, and depends primarily on SCE to provide transmission service. Firm ~.
transmission capacity is provided for resources integrated on S(:E's existing
and planned 2201~V facilities, while [nterruptible transmission services ore
provided for resources outside the c;cE 220kV network and for nonfirm energy
purchased ~y Anaheim. This means that SCE will use its '9~est efforts" to
provide such service. This agreement limits Anaheim's ability to import
capacity from the Inland Southwest, thus limiting opportunities to purchase
seasonal capacity end replacement energy. The proposed project would
provide Anaheim with capabilities to negotiate firm capacity and energy
contracts without dependence on SCE for transmission service. Thus, Anaheim
could realize economic benefits from participation in the project.
Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena
. Burbank, Clandale and Pasadena supply electricity to their respective electric
s/stems through a combination of oil- and gas-fired generating facilities
located in the Los Angeles Basin, hydroelectric generation of the Hoover Dam
Project, and purchases from the Bonneville Power Administration
Pasadena generates electric energy from the Azusa Hydroelectric Plant.
Loads and resource projections through I~C)2 predict an increase; in load of
130 f,iW or 18 percent over that of IC)$6. The resource plan calls for reduction
in dependence on oil and gas from 73 percent of total resources in. 1986 to 51
percent in 1~2, as shown in Table I-5.
The proposed project will (I) permit delivery of firm and nonflrm economy
energy from utilities in the Inland Southwest; (2)provide access to numerous
sources of energy generated at modern plants using either coal or e~uclear fuel,
thereby reducing dependence on oil and natural gas and providing environ-
mental benefits for the Los Angeles Basinl (3) provide a firm transmission path
for 5urbank, Pasadena and Glendale's share of capacity and energy output of ~m~
PVNG$1 and (6,) increase s/stem reliability by allowing one or more additional
sources of imported power to be used to meet system loads.
Riverside, Vernon, Azusa, BannincI and Colton
The cities of Riverside, Vernon, Azusa, I=[onnlng and Colton are each municipal
corporations which own and operate electric utilities, providing electric
service to virtually all of the electric customers within their respective city
limits. Currently, all electricity for these five cities is purchased at wholesale
rates from SCE, except for interruptible energy which is purchcL~ed from other
public and private electric utilities and governmental agencies when it is
available at on economically attractive price. The capacity and energy
expected to be received over the proposed tronsmlsslon line will be used to
displace a portion of the power currently purchased from SCE.
Exhibit B
Loads and resource projections through 1~92 for the five cities show
decreasing dependence on oil- and gas-generated electricity, as participation
in coal and nuclear projects begins in ID86. All five entities will participate
under SCPPA in PVNGS while Riverside alone is a sponsor in the SONGS.
Additionally, participation in IPP will serve to displace oil and gas purchases
as it comes on-line in 1~8~. The shift in fuel mixture through 1~92 is shown in
Table
The proposed project will provide all five cities (I) a firm long-term
transmission path for delivery of their PVNGS entitlement and their prospec-
tive share of the Hoover upgrade; (2) intertle capabilities with Inland South-
west utilities to allow the purchase of capacity and energy, to diversify their
resource mixes~ and to displace predominantly oil-fired electrical pawer with
less expensive nuclear and coal-fired energy; and (3) opportunities to purchase
and market surplus power to interconnecting utilities on a daily and seasonal
basis, thus reducing and maintaining lower utility rates.
1.2.2 Furnish Access to Ecanomy Erierely Market
The members of SCPPA and M-S-P, are committed to provide their customers
with the most economical electricity available by decreasing the use of
expensive fuel and fully using economy energy markets. The proposed project
would provide SCPPA and M-S-R members transmission capability for
obtaining lower-cost power available during off-peak periods in the Inland
Southwest. The present interconnected transmission system does not have
sufficient capacity for the transfer of additional power and energy between
the Nevada and California areas. Additional firm transmission capacity would
enable SCPPA and M-S-P, members to purchase surplus low-cost, non-oil- and
gas-based generation available in the Inland Southwest. The low-cost surplus
energy would permit California utilities to (I} displace a portion of the
expensive oil-and natural gas-fired generation; (2) supply a portion of the
projected peak load demand and energy requirement; and (:3) provide for the
retirement of obsolete, less efficient oil-fired generating units,
The nature of SRP's generation mix makes excess capacity attractive for
economy energy sales. A very high percentage of SRP's installed capacity is
or will be base load coal-fired and nuclear generation. SRP's coal-fired
capacity currently totals nearly 80 percent of the annual peak load; this high
percentoge~ in conjunction with loads varying significantly over the day and
year, results in excess energy being available a good part of the time, both
presently and in the future. The proposed project is needed to deliver this
excess low-cost energy, as well as power fram the Hoover upgracle~ to markets
in California.
1.2.3 ~31e of Off..Peak 5url)lus Cc3pacity
The proposed Mead/McC:ullough-V;ctorville/Adelanto Transmission Project will
be used by Inland Southwest utilities to sell excess capacity and economy
1-10
Exhibit E
energy to utilities in California. SRP currently has, and will continue to have,
excess cool-flred energy for the next 10 to 20 years. This excess energy is
attributable to several factors, including the seasonal nature and large daily
swing of SRP's demand. SRD will also have capacity in excess of its loads and
20 percent reserve requirement in some of the next 20 years. This excess
capacity is due mainly to the magnitude of future generating additions as
compared to load growth (i.e., unit sizes are generally much larger than SRP's
annual load growth, causing excess capacity in years immediately following
unit additions).
The proposed project would provide the path needed by Inland Southwest
utilities to sell their excess energy to southern California utilities. Further, it
is very likely that the existing California-Nevada transmission system will be
heavily used through the year 2000 as the energy market in California
continues to increase. This will make the competition for available transmis-
sion capacity to California more intense and should increase the value of the
proposed transmission llne.
1.2.a, Provide Su~x~rt Ourir~ Air Quality Emerc~ncy Episodes
The Mead/McCullough-Victorville/Adelanto Trcmsmisslon Project will help
satisfy the California South Coast Air Quality Management Distrlct's
'Emergency Episode Plan." Part of the plan states that utilities serving the
Los Angeles area (during a Stage II or III episode) should demonstrate measures
to reduce generation in oil- and gas-fired power plants within the Routh Coast
Air Basin .by shifting generation to plants outside the basin to the extent
consistent with health, safety and welfare.
1.2.5 Enhance Systeslt Reliability
The proposed electric transmission llnk between SRP, SCDPA members,
Western and M.S-R systems would permit copoclty and energy exchanges
during operating emergencies, and would improve the efficiency and economy
of all systems. Reliability would be increased by providing an additional firm
transmissien path betwee~ Nevada and California. Primary fuel sources would
be diversified so that impacts resulting from the interruption of eny one type
of fuel supply would be minimized. Voltage regulation, frequer~cy control,
stability margins, and opportunity for reserve sharing would further be
improved, thus enhancing system reliability for all sponsors.
1.2.6 RelationahiD Between the Prolx~sed Project ~ Other Projeelt~
.~uring early systems studies for what was to become the Mead-Phe~enix S00kV
(~C Transmission Line Project, ;t was determined that the pawer transferred
northward via the C)C llne would be converted to AC at Mead and distributed
to fulfill the varlo~s needs for the power. One of those needs is to provide
firm pawer to Mead-Phoenix Project participants in California. At that point
I-ll
[]~11]
Exhibit
in the planning, power transmission from Mead into southern California would
be via existing transmission lines and transmission lines planned for construc.
tlon in association with other projectS. The power path from Mead into
Calil~ornia essentially consisted of two segments~ Mead to McCullough, and
McCullough to Victorville/Adelanto.
For the segment from Mead to McCullough, it was planned that the three
existing 287kV AC lines emanating from Hoover Dom Swltchyard would be
looped into Mead; that two of the lines would be converted to 230kV and
continue to McCullough; and that the third llne from Mead would remain at
287~<V and continue to its termination at Victorville/Adelonto. These trans-
mission changes would be accomplished in conjunction with Western's plans for
the consolidation of the Hoover switchyards into Mead.
From McCullough to Victorville/Adelanto, the intention was to use, in
conjunction with the existing system, the transmission capabilities of the two
$00kV AC transmission lines planned for construction in association with the
Harry Allen Project (formerly the Allen-Warner Valley Project). The Harry
Allen Project was to have utilized what is commonly known as the Inter-
state 15 (I-15) Corridor (identified as Corridor BB in the Bureau of Land
Monagement's (BLM) California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, 1~80).
However, in mid-January 1~$3, a decision was made to postpone the Harry
Allen Project (including all associated facilities) until the mld-19~O$.
As a result of the postponement of the Harry Allen Project, it became
necessary to make other arrangements for the additional transmission from
McCullough to Victorville for the Mead-Phoenix Project power. Accordingly,
DWP began plans to develop and construct a new 500kV AC transmission llne
between McCullough and Victorville. This proposed action was described in
Chapter I of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) for the Mead-
Phoenix Project. DWP and BLM pursued the use of existing BLM corridors,
including the I-IS Corridor, prior to project participants agreeing to investi-
gate the feasibility of constructing a DC transmission line from Mead to
Arielonto.
After publication of the Mead-Phoenix Proiect Draft ElS, the project partici-
pants agreed to investigate the feasibility of constructing a DC llne from
Mead to Adelor~to as an alternative to the previously proposed AC llne.
Although controctu?l agr..e?ments have not b.e~n. fully developed for the
Mead/McCullough-V,ctorv~lle/Adelanto Transm,ss,on Project, it is txgected
~hat th~ ~,,'t~. t particiocLtiort, ~cJudi. na levels of participation, means of
fin. anc, jl~ 4~.~,ct management, licensing ~: .a~s'Tl'oc"~"ton m~navement, owne~-
~.f~, _c_c_c_c_c_c_c_c_c~ .c~incj wi--TlLcb.~Ter Tram tf~Ose ofthe Mead~Phop. nix.'-Pr.~ect. I I~e
lead Federal agency for the Meed4~oenix Project is the Department of
Energy, while the lead Federal agency for the Mead/McCullough-Victorville/
Arielonto Transmission Project is the BLM.
In view of the fact that the 1-15 Corridor has been previously studied, (Allen-
Warner Valley Erieray System Final Environmental Impact Statement~
1979; The California Desert Conservation Area Plan, BLM 19~01 Draft
1-12
Exhibit E
Environmental Impact Report: Allen-W?rner Valley Ene.rq~ S~,stem and
Western Transmission Linest California Public Utilities Commission (California
PUC) 1750~ and the Intermountain Power Proiect F~nal ElS, BLM 1~7c)), the
BLM, the Federal agency administering the corridor, deemed it appropriate to
conduct and prepare an environmental analysis of alternate routes, including
routes within the I-I$ Corridor in order to evaluate the specific potential
impacts that may occur in association with the proposed Mead/McCullough-
Victorville/Adelanto Transmission Project. Because the Mead-Phoenix Project
Draft EIS was near completion at the time of the Harry Allen Project
postponement, it was considered most practical and efficient to complete the
Draft ElS and initiate a separate environmental analysis for the Mead/
McCullough-Victorville/Adelanto Transmission Project.
1-13
Exhibit C
[F AZ.
ALTERNATIVES ELI)I< TIE PROPOSED ACTION
Five general alternafives w~e considered. and evaluated by the Proj..ect
$1x~nsors during the early I~l~lng of the Proleer to meet the need of providing
additiom31 pewes' in their res~cective service areas, These alternatives were:
(I) No Actiont (2)Energy Conservation, (3)Alternative Generafio~ Sources,
(~,) Altern~tive Tr~srnlulan Technologies, ar~ ($)New *_500<V DC Trons-
mission line with voriou~. routing alternatives (Proposed Action). Investigation
of the alfemafive~ (~r~bed below led the Projecf Sl:m~som to the ce~clusion
that the o~tirnal rne~ for sugl~lyin9 I~ower to their service territories within
the time frame of the stated need (cjiven the economic, environmental and
state-of-the-art c~r4traint$ gesed by alternative actJam) is to c~truct an
overhead DC tr~miuian system between the Mead Sul~tation in Nevada and
the Adelanto Sub~tatian in California.
$-3
Exhibit C
The No AcHon alternative as it is used in this F;nal ER is interpreted to mean
that there would be no additional transmission facilities beyond !~hose that are
already constructed or approved for construction by the Project Sponsors. The
advantages of the No Action alternative would be the preclusio,n of environ-
mental impacts within the study area and the costs associated with the
construction and operation of a new transmission line. The disadvantages of
the ~'Jo Action alternative ~nclude the loss of poter~tiol Project tax revenues in
addition to positive environmental, socioeconomic and electric service iml:~cts
that would result from other mitigaHng actions taken by the Project Sponsors.
The Project S!oonsors would probably increase generation from existing oil- and
gas-fired units under the ~'Jo Action alternative, in an effort to meet the
forecasted need. Not only are oil and gas r~ore expensive than coal, but their
use is discouraged by Federal energy policy as stated in the Powerplant and
Industrial F'uel Use Act (PIFLJA) of 1978. Additionally, increast~ generation
from existing power plants could not meet projected peak demand with
existing capacity and committed capacity without firm transmission.
Increased generation would reduce reserve margins to unacceptable reliability
standards. The Project Sponsors wbtdld also continue to expand their energy
conservation efforts in an attempt to mitigate the No Action alternative.
Some significant disadvantages would result from the shortage in electrical
supply if the No Action alternative was selected. The Project SDo~ors would
not be able to diversify fuel sources and, accordingly, reduce their oil
dependency. An interruption to the oil supply could seriously affect their
service. Service miqht have to be interrupted more frecluently for mainte-
nance and emergency outages, and as a last resort, a moratorium on new hook-
ups may become necessary. Such a situation could adversely affect resi-
dential, commercial and industrial customers in terms of income, health,
safety and general convenience.
Er~'qy Cc~servatlan
Energy conservation has the advantage of reducing energy cons4~'nption with
no documented adverse environmental imlxlCt$o However, factors such as high
installation costj coat-effectiveness and i~ublJe acce~oton¢:e may inhibit the
im!olementation of some energy conservation I~rogran~.
The Pl~jeet Seminars have developed and I~t into effect numerous energy
conservation and Im:lcl-m~'~gement programs that have reduced energy con..
sum~l'ion c~d system ~ demand comlxlred to earlier foe'ecc~t$. Current
demand forecasts fo~ the utilities incorl:~orato onticilJated energ,/' ~lvings cmd
reductions in 10oak demcmcl from conservation ~ Ioad-.,,.a,aga,,,erlt I)rogram$,
and dernorkstrate that despite these oran'S9 a significant deficit remains
between I~rojected electricity demand and existing cal~city.
S.-~
[C-2]
Exhibit. C
Alternative C-es~eration Sources
Project Sponsors in California could meet their stated needs by adding
generation caoaclty. However, because of the high capital costs, environ-
mental regulations and lead time required to construct a new generating
facility, new power could not be provided to users in a realistic time period.
For California Project Sponsors, new generation would likely be located
outside their respective service areas and would then require additional
transmission facilities to deliver the new energy to their service areas.
Additionally, new generation cannot be iustifled when existing generation
sources are available in nearby areas.
Alternative Trm~smissio~ Technoloqies
Other possible alternatives include the use of existing or other planned
transmission systems or alternative technologies. Use of existing and planned
lines is not considered feasible because at present, all lines are being utilized
to capacity in the transmission systems from Arizona to southern Nevada to
California. Future transmission lines now committed or under construction
will have little, if any, uncommitted excess capacity after ID86. Since the
E)raft ER was distributed to the public, Southern California Edison ($CE} has
developed plans to construct a second Devers-Palo Verde transmission line,
which would not serve as an alternative to the proposed Project. The Devers-
Polo Verde project is discussed in the responses to Letter 31 in Chapter I,
Table I-2 of this document. UDcJrading existing lower voltage lines in the area
was also examined, but would not provide sufficient capacity JncrecL~e, nor
would it meet the needs for system reliability as defined by the WSCC.
Several transmission technologies ~vere evaluated as alternatives to a new
500kV AC or DC overhead line. Underground construction of a high voltage
transmls-ion line cannot be considered a reasonable alternative because of
high investment costs and technological problems for a line of this voltage and
lenqth. Voltage levels other than $00~V were considered for the pragosed line,
but lower voltages wo~ld not provide the required transfer capability, and
higher voltages would nat be compatible. with existing systems.
The Drcft ER included considerat[on of a new S00~V AC transmission line as a
preferred alternative. An AC line would have had a nominal capacity of
1000 MW and would have begun at V~cCullough Substation near I~c~lder City,
Nevada and terminated at either Victorville Substation or Adelanto Substation
in California. An AC line would hove followed the same'routincj alternatives
as those evaluated for a DC line, using similar towers and recluiring the same
right-of-way (ROW). Neither converter stations nor a ground electrode/
neutral return would be required. The AC alternative waS deleted from
consideration as the progosed action after electrical system studies and
because its capacity would have been oldproximately arm-half that of a DC
line.
[0-3]
Exhibit C
As a result of system investigations, the Project Sponsors determined that the
construction of a new Z$00kV DC transmission llne would best meet the needs
;n their respective service areas. The line will begin at Mead and terminate at
Adelonto. A converter station and associated facilities wi111 be required
adjacent to Arielonto Substation, and a DC bus and switchyard will be needed
at Mead Substatian. The line will have a nominal capacity of 2000
Construction is planned to start in IC)8c), with an in-service date of Ic)c)l. The
proposed Project is described ;n more detail in the following section of this
Summary.
Raut imj Altemmives
Preliminary corridor alternatives for the placement of the prol~,sed line were
[denrifled using multiple approaches incluaing a subregio~al siting study, an
agency contact proc~am, a literature search of existing data for the project
study area, and field reviews. Corridors were thus delineated and refined,
prior to detailed environmental studies of airemPire routes.
Transmission llne route selection was accomplished in four major steps:
(I) identification of initial routing alternatives, (2)comparison of those initial
alternatives, (3) selection of final routing alternatives, and (~,) selection of the
final preferred route. Approximately S7S miles of final routing alternatives
were evaluated in detail during the e~vironmental inventor~ and impact
assessment process.
The Project SDonso¢s' major criteria for route selection were licensibility,
environmental concer~s, engineering design and construction casts, reliability,
maintainc~illty, and the caDability foe locating future transmission lines
adjacent to the selected route.
The BLM's major criteria for route selection were derived from a comparison
of the anviro¢,'nental resource data fo~ all alternatives as well as agency and
public comments received on the Dr~t ER.
The final prefeered route includes consideration of the Project S~sors'
Prefe~ed Route ~ the BLM Preferred Route, as defined in the Draft
and c~rnmee~ts received during the pu~llc comment ~ review period. Doth
the ~ Sganlar, ~ the B~.M now progoee I1~ same route. which is
described ~n the falTewimj s~ction.
Exhibit C
[DRAFT ER]
3.0 - A~TEPJ~TIVE5 INCLUO(NG T1-E PROFR~)~O ACTION
3, I INTROOUCTION
P'~ve general alternatives were considered by the Project Simonsors to meet the
need far providing additional [0ower in the re,active service areas. These
alternatives were= (I) No Action, (2) Energy Conservation, (3) Alternative
Generation Sources, (0,) Alternative Transmission Technologies, and ($) the
Proposed Action.
3.2 NO ACTION
As a requirement for consideration under NEPA and C~QA, the no action
alternative as it is used in this C)roft ER is interpreted to mean no additional
transmission facilities would be built, beyond those that are already con-
structed or approved for construction by the st~nsorS of the project.
The California Project SIx~sors would attempt to meet the n~ds of anticl-
pared power requirements with the existing facilities and various mitigating
measures to compen~te for the anticil:Ktted s~ortfall in the suDply of
electrical power. However, the California Project Sponsors would be unable to
meet the objective of oil and gas displacement.
Advantages of the no action alternative would include (I) no adverse environ-
mental ir~lx~:ts within the project study area itself, and (2) elimination of
financial costs associated with the costs of construction and o~era~ion of a
S00kV AC or OC transmission llne. However, any marrotary savings could be
offset by costs of mitigating actions. The dls~dvantoges of the no action
alternative include the lose of potential project tax revenues to local tax
districts in addition to adverse envlro~mental, soeioeconomic, and electric
service impacts that would result due to other mitlgati~g actions taken to
ensure adequate energy supt~ly to the Project Signsors.
In on effort to meet foreeast need without new ttan~'nisslon facilities, the
~alifornia Project Spanaars would likely increase baseload generation from
existing oil- ar~ gee-fired unitst thereby increcking oil and ga~ consuml~tion.
Not only are oil and g~a more exDenslve as fuel ~ur~es tf~n ca~J for beselexxt
generation, but the use of oil and gas as primary fuels by utilities is
discouraged by Federal energy ~llcy as stated in the PIFLJA of 1~)78. Sul~l;-.s
of iraflatted foreign oil are Uncertain and domestic all praduetian and reserves
are expected te inere~te in cost, and are nonrenewable. A decreasing and
les.~-certain su!~ly af ga~ would cause the California Project Sl:mnsors to
increase all burn, whk:h would result in substantially higher fuel costs and
aleattic rates, and ir~reased air emissions. Increased emissions of susge'xted
p<zrtlculate~ nltregen oxides~ and sulfure dioxide might require retrofitting of
additlan<ll emiuion controls to meet Federal, state and local air emission
i:mrmit requirements. l'~ese emission controls would have a major imtx~t on
consumer energy bills, as they are very exDenSJve to ceeutr~J~t and agerate.
3-1
Exhibit C
The no action alternative would create a need to increase power purchases
over interrul~tible transmission cal~acffy. Only limited quantities of
rul~t~le carlacity are available, and future amounts are e. xpocted
substantially less than those required to fully mitigate the proiected
in electrical SUl~Oly. P'urther, because this type of power transfer can be
;nterrupted at any time, the Project Sponsors could not rely on ;nterruptible
transmission co~city for systems planning.
Increased generation from existing power 101ants could not meet I~rojec?ed I~eak
demand with existing caDac:ity and committed coDacity without firm transmis-
sion. The reserve margins are necessary for r~ulalr maintenance and
emergencies. P~eductian of reserve margin would res~JIt in unacceptable
rel~ai0illty standards for each of the Project Sponsors.
The California Projeat Six, sots, in addition to increasing generation from
exlsttrx; power facilities, would continue to exlx~qcl their energy canservatlo~
efforts in an attempt to mitigate the no action alternative.
Some significant disadvantages or adverse fineacts would result from the
shortage in electrical sul:~oly even if the no action alternative was selected.
The Cc~llfornia Proiect Sixesors would not be able ta diversify fuel sources
and, accordingly, reduce their all dependency. An lnterrul~tion to the oil
sugl~ly could seriously affect their ability to provide electrical IsaWer in their
service areas. Service might have to be interrul~ted more frequently for
maintenance and emergency outages, and a moratorium on new electric
service hoo~-ul~s might become necessary. Such a situetl!on would adversely
affect residential, commercial and industrial customers I'r~ terms of income,
~ealth, safety, and general convenience.
3.3 F. FF. RGY CONSF_RVATIOe4
Energy conservation refers to elimirmtion of wasteful or ~na~essary uses ~
electrical eemrgy. It has the advontoge of reducing energy consumption wit,,
no documented adverse environmental impacts- l-to--r, factors such as high
capital cost (e.g~ of solar, water, and Sl=O:e hectlng equila..ment), cost-
effectlvene~ ~ i~i~11c accegtence may inhibit the implementat,on of some
energy cor~erv~tlan programs.
The Project S.nansars have develoged and put into effect numerous energy
camm'varian and Ioocl management i~rogroma to educate c~tomers on the
neeesalty to cantorye energy, and to encourage the prucle~t use of electrici,~l'~
through the al~lleation of programs 01~rogrlote toe each clct~ of custome~
Energy conservation and load management elfacta from utillty I~rogr,.
(including state-mandated procJrams in Californio)~ have re~mlted in reduction
of the utllltle~ forecasts of electric energy sales and system I~eak dert~nd.
Peak demand forecasts already incorporate estimated energy conservation and
load m,.eoge.,ent effects.
3-2
Exhibit C
3.2.1 W~st~.~ Are~ Po~mr Adminis~tlo~
As ~rt of Westom's mandate, ener~ con~ati~ ~s ~ourag~ ~n f~ilities
operat~ by ~estern a~ c~tractor operation~ Currently, two prorams are
~n o~erati~ by Western.
Westom's ;n-h~ ~er~ c~rvat~on proram c~slsts of efforts to make
~ower system imgrovements to r~uce Ios~s, i~l~lng; r~l~ing old,
;nefficlent Dower ~stem comments; ~erformi~ power f~tor st~ies
r~uce restive I~dtng; ~nsulating older ~uild~s; ~nd ~nst~111~ solar w~ter.
h~t~ng systems ~ ~lar-~ower~ ~a~io rep~ter site~
Western's customer~ri~t~ Con~ati~ and ~ew~le ~nergy Proram
(C&~) i~r~ thrufold in ~al Y~r (F~ 198S. The proram incor-
~rates both custamer a~ ~n~ elem~ts wi~ ~e g~l of hefpi~ to
entre U.5. n~de~e ~ any o~ ~urce or ~ af ~er~. Westom's
pr~r~ stre~s the low capltal, ~ort I~ time~ a~ flexibili~ in.rent
C&~E t~hnol~ie~ Customer~ri~t~ C~E ~tivities pl~ for FY
~lude wo~s ~ I~d managem~t and ma~eti~s ext~si~ ~f ~e direr
t~hnlcal a~ista~e cost-shar~ C~E t~h~l~ devel~m~t ~tlvi~, addN
r~onal customer n~s a~ments, exDansi~ of t~hnlcal ~p~rt ~tivities,
and ~dlti~al efforts to ~rage customers to get m~e involv~ in ~r~
managem~t.
~estern al~ requires e~h of its power c~tractors to ~mit a
Proram, meet~ ~ accurate ¢r~ter{a wi~in ~e y~r after s[gn[~ ~ new
c~tract or formal ~reement with Western.
3.3.2 Salt River Project
$RP has developed and p~t into eff~t humerus ~er~ c~at~ ~d
m~e~t pr~a~ tO ~ate its custo~rs ~ ~ ~e~i~ tO
e~r~ ~ to ~r~e ~ p~t u~ of ~l~t?ci~. As r~ir~ u~r
PIFUA, S~ ~ ~mitt~ a c~Hatl~ p~ to ~re~
m~res ~t~ as a ut{li~. ~is pl~ i~l~es ~tlvities ~t are
r~uir~ under ~ ~tl~l Ener~ C~atl~ Policy A~t (~3A) of
S~ ~ impl~t~ a Power S~er Se~ice, a C~rclal ~ A~rtm~t
~ner~ A~it Pr~a~ ~ a Resid~tial C~matl~ Samite (R~) P~ram.
~e P~ S~ Se~lce offers a ho,~ ~r~ ~Jt f~ all res~d~tial
custom ef S~. In 1978, SRP b~ offeri~ ~er~ ~i~ f~ ~11- and
s~. ~ pr~mm w~ ex~ to i~l~e ~t~ts ~ c~i~
establi~t~ S~ ~s al~ initiat~ a varie~ of c~ infar~t[~
pr~ram~ usi~ ?ri~ m~ia to communicate eff~t~ ~r~ u~ pr~ram~
Other c~rvet~ ~res that h~e b~ ~t~ ~1~ ~Ener~
Efflci~t ~ Proram, ~n ~ner~ Utillzatl~ ~1 ~t is dlr~t~ to
archit~ral ~ ~i~ri~ firms, ~ Ener~ Elficier Builai~ A~rds
Proram, a~ a Commercial a~ ~esid~tlal Time~f~ Rate Proram.
3-3
[c-v]
Exhibit C
5RP encourages the use of solar water heating by its customers whenever it
appears feasible. Alternative systems including heat reclaim hot water~
heat{rig and Rankine Cycle solar air conditioning systems are being tested
residential and commercial style systems to measure their eff~tiveness in
conserving energy. $F~P participates actively in solar technology development,
encourages solar energy use ~y ~ts customers, and offers its services as a
utility consultant to further evaluate performances of solar systems in the
ore~.
3.3.3 Southern California Public Power Authorit,/
Los Angeles Department of Water c~! Power
DWP has developed an active energy conservation program known as the
Comprehensive Conse,'vation Plan. in FY 1~3-g~,, the plan resulted in an
energy savings of aver $00,000 megawatt hours or al~ut 800,000 equivalent
barrels of oil.
Following the N~CDA, IDV~ implemented the residential conservation sereice
which provides home energy audits and other services for residential
customers. The auditing program has been extended to inclucre commerce and
industry. These programs are expected to result in savings of 1.8 ~illion
kilowatt hours annually in 198S. IDWP will also implement its own Commercial
and Airartmerit Conservation Service Plan involving 97,000 small commercial,
non-cjovemmental customers who will now be eligible to receive energy audits.
(DW~ has promoted a variety of solar energy demo~stratlon projects, and ;s
developing o pilot program to determine and define the economics and energy
off,clancy of utilizing electric heat pumps and solar/electrlc systems in new
residential ~onstructian. Individual programs which focus on energy co~.ser.
vatlon :'~ DWP's Conservation Program include: commercial and industrial
load management, streetllght conversion, voltage reduction, time-of-use~m~
motoring, cammenial and at~rtment surveys, master-meter c~wersion, single
residence and multi-family common-space oudit~ water he~tlng, and servicing
pool-tlme~ sefi~ks. The estimated savings fram them and other conservation
programs I~ve bean included in OWD's load forecast. Conservation efforts by
the ye~' 19~) are expec.ted to reduce ener~D, usage by 2001 gigowatt hours
((~1) and'ally, a reduct,an of 9.1 percent. By the year 2000, conservation is
exl~m~l te reduce energy consumption by 3012 G~I annu~lly--a I I.:, Isercent
decrem~
Clty of Andmim
The Anaheim Public Utilities Oepartment administers a voriet~ of energy
cor~ervatian pracJrams intended to reduce energy con,unction and system
peck demand. Such programs include RCS, cornm~ciallindustrial audits.
streetllghting, !c~cl management programs for the home, elimination of
,---.
Exhibit C
declining black rates, conservation awareness programs, oncl reduction of
energy use in municipal buildings.
City of Burhonk
The City of [~urbank Public Service Department offers comprehensive energy
conservation services to all its customers. Burbank provides free RCS energy
audits to all residential customers upon request, and a free weatherization
program for senior citizens, Free energy surveys are also available to
industrial and commercial customers upon request. A wide range of
community education services is provided, including the annual Energy Expo,
co-s~onsored by Burbank and Southern California Gas Company.
Burbank, which has conservation-oriented electric rates~ has iml~lemented an
effective power factor clause as part of its industrial electric rate schedule,
which applies to all large customers with billlng demands of 250 kilowatts or
higher. It imposes a significant penalty for those customers with average
power factors less than ~0 percent and rewards those with power factors
greater than ~0 percent. Compliance with this clause s~auld provide signifi-
cant system energy savings.
City of Glendale
The City of Clandale operates a conservation hatline, s~onsors educaHonal
community seminars and school educational proptartest and slx~sors a do-it-
yourself program that enables participants to make solar panel equipment. A
streetlighting program is ongoing to tel:lace or convert all existing inefficient
lights and fixtures. ~y the end of 1956, almost 9,~00 fixtures will have been
converted. F:nerc~-efflcient lighting is also being installed in city-owned
property that is utilizing streetlight-type lighting.
The City of Glendale actively promotes conservation af electricity through
reducing residential pa~l filtration time. The city promotes l~.~11c awareness
of conservation and disseminates conservation Information. A quarterly
newsletter is planned ta inform and u~late customers on the latest develol>-
ments in ¢on~erv¢~tlan. The city has developed a Large Commercial/Industrial
Audit Plant with I~lanl underway to audit the ci¥s tot~ 200 firms. Conserva-
tlo~ ~_~istonce is also given to small businesses through the Small Susiness
Conservation Program.
City of Paredana
Pasadena Water and Power Department was an active particlpant in the
California RCS Prc~jrarn and continues to offer home energy audits to all
residential customers. The utility will soon be offering audits to small
commercial and alx~rtment customers as a participant in the California
Commercial and Apartment Conservation ~rogram. The utility conducts an
3-S
[C-Ol
Exhibit C
aggressive and expanding commercial and industrial energy and water censer.
vatlon program. Pasadena has also developed a variety' of educatien~,
programs, a~ has sponsored a solar wor~cs~op for customers. Pasadena
converted 8,000 incandescent and mercury vapor street lamps to more energ?
efficient lamps,
The utility has initiated and mainta~ned a "Voluntary Lc,~ Curtailment"
program in cooperation with larger commercial customers who have agreed ~o
drop pre-determined loads during high-peak crises. Omr~ges in the rate
structures for electrical and water users have been developed, and Pasadena
~as adopted lifeline rates For residential customers and has eliminated all
decline rate structures.
Pasadena will SOQ~ becJin a California Home Energy Rating and Labeling
Demonstration Program in cooperation with the CEC. The utility Has been
instrumental in the installation of cogeneration projects with two of t.~e
largest industrial customers, ¢'~d all future large developments will ~e
reviewed for possible cogeneration facilities,
City of F~ms'zicb
The City of Riverside has inlNated a voltage reduction pro, gram to c~'nply
with the C~(~. '~ne city is able to comply eight months of tl~e year arid has
reduced ~ voltage duri~ ~mmer ~ks. The ci~ offers fr~ res~d~tlal
ener~ audits ~ al~ ~rforms ~e~ audits f~ small buzine~ ~e ci~
cu~ently offers r~tes to custo~rz with a swlmmi~ ~1 wh~ trippers are
instail~ to pr~t pu~i~ duri~ ~ u~ ~ri~ ~ere ~as be~ a
c~wi~e c~verzi~ of str~tHghts from mercu~ va~ to hlgh-pre~re
~ium vast la~ Alternate re--roes ~h as wi~, bloma~, geothermal,
and fuel cells are bei~ st~i~.
Ci~ of ~
The Ci~ of Azu~ is pre~tly c~verti~ all its ~ v~ str~tli~ti~
to hiGhsream ~lum la.~p~' ~1~ are ai~ ~i~ draft~. for I~d
ma~e~t f~ ~r~ ~ts m c~ f~llitm~ Re:sld~tml ~er~
a~its are ~i~ ~t~ by the C;~ of Azu~
city of 8tuning
Due to the relatively s~nall size of the City of Banning, efier'gy conservati,
~rograms are timired to conversion of streetlights from mercury vagor to hlg~
pressure sodium vcq~)r, and increasing ~)1ock residential rate,J. T~ne city has
also provided ermrgy audit programs in conjunction with the
3-~
Exhibit C
City of Colton
The City of Colton is presently converting its entire streetlightlng system
from mercury vapor to high~ressure sodium. The city is also working on an
off-peak water pumglng program for its water utility.
3.3.¢ M-S4~ Public Po~mr Aqency
The M-S-Ft Member conservation programs have been designed to provide o
consistent framework to promote feasible, cost' effective, ~nd environmentally
suitable pawer conservation efforts by their customers. P_ach member has
developed an effeatlve mix of programs to encourage conservatioea including
~ncentives' energy pricing, and market savings.
The CEC has set forth building standards and appllanae efficleney standards.
These standards, as well as other programs such as residential load manage-
ment, nonresidential building standards, streetlight c~nversions, industrial
energy audits, and tlme-~f-use rates, have been generally implemented by the
M-S-I:I participants.
Modesto Irrigatla~ District
Modesto's C:o~servation Department is currently participating in residential
and commercial energy audits, co~sumer education programs, residential load
management programs, swimming pool pump "off-I:mq~k" and irrigation pump
testing programs, cash incentives for residential and commercial customers
who switch ta efficient lart~s and bulbs, and s~cmsorship of the Energy Fair
and Sunrise Energy Center to stress conservation practices and benefits.
Modesto has recently instituted a $1.7 million Ioc~cl management program
designed to reduce the system ~ by I0 MW. This program now has t,,0OO
participants ~ is forecasted to have I0,000 volunteers within two years.
Modesto is aim currently active in small-scale hydroelectric develogme~t
programs which will aftset the use of no~renewc~ble energy resources in the
future.
City of .Santa Clara
Santa Clara h~ initiated a Iaaa curtailment program for its larger customers'
and aim ~ programs directed to smaller ~sines~ and residmatlal housing,
including residential, ¢~mmercial and industrial rates, residential insulatio~
and weatherlzatla~ s~lar heating a.nd. cooling, eemrgy exhibits, and educational
workshogs. In ~ddttion to canservahon programs, Santa Clara ha~ emt~rked on
a resource davel~a*ne~t program that include~ hydroelectric and cogeneration
programs, wind farms, and geothermal power.
3-7
[c-ui
Exhibit C
3.5.3 Alten'~tive Trammission Line Yolta</e~
The presently used voltages on the DWP transmission system are
I38kV, 230kV, 287kV and $00kV. W~th few exceptions, interco4~nected utilit~=o
util;ze similar transmission voltages. The selection of a voltage to be used for
transmission involves many technical and economic factors. Several of the
more ~mportant factors are: (I) power transfer capat:Hl~ty, (2) compotil~iHty
with existing power facilities to which the new tronsmis:lion llne would ~e
~nterconnected, and (3) the commercial availability of standardized equipment.
A standard voltage level of SOOkV was selected for the tronsmissio~ system.
N~one of the alternative lower voltages would provide the redoired transfer
capabilltyt nor would a hlgher voltage be compatible with exiisting systems.
3.5.4 Direct Cu~ent C)v~tmad Syste~
A DC system is an alternative to an AC ~stem, A OC ~,stem r~ulres the
constr~t~ of converters that ch~ge AC to DC ~ ~nverters that change
DC to AC. ~e a~ontages of DC ~stems over AC ~stemz are ~at
losMs ~ a I~ transmi~i~ llne are le~ ~ a DC ~stem, a~ a DC ~stem
has a grater c~ity at the ~me voltage. The ~j~ dinette in a DC
~stem is ~ ;~r~ costs from c~st~tl~ co~erter stations and
a~{at~ ~iom~t to c~vert from AC to OC ~ b~k to AC from DC. A
DC ~stem will aim r~uire c~structi~ of a gr~ el~tr~e or a n~tral
return. ~r~lly, the gr~ el~tt~e will car~ ~ly a s~11 amount
unbala~ current~ however, duri~ certain emerg~ ~iti~s the gr~nd
el~tr~e will be r~ir~ to car~ full I~ curr~t for a ~t time ~ri~ in
ca~ a ~le b~omes indratire a~ ~e Nle*l c~tor c~t be
return ~th For turret. The el~tr~e r~ires low resistlvi~ ~ has ~me
~ia~ s~t~ r~irementL ~e bibfar ~stem w~ld ~ ~st deslr~le if the
proj~t start~ at M~ in or~r to take ~vant~e of ~e M~h~ni~
Pro]~t. It w~ terminate adj~ent to Adel~to at ~ ~western end
The M~ix Proj~t w~ld nat h~e to c~v~t ~e OC to AC at M~d
for tr~i~l~ to ~em California. ~e pr~ proj~t w~ld r~ire
c~st~t[~ of ~ly ~ c~verter stati~ for a ~C ~st~ ~]~t to
Adel~t~
3.55 Altle~gtin,l Current Overh..ac] Syste~m
An AC ~ ~ ~ alternative to a O~ tr~i~i~ ~st~. If ~ ~
syst~ ~l ~ ~ ~ilt, it w~ld not r~we ~ c~ters ~ c~ '
AC to ~, ~ ~ ~ters which ch~e ~e ~ ta AC ~ ,gr~ el~tro
are r~ir~ ~ AC ~stem~ The ~er~ Io~l f~ ~ AC ~lt~ however,
are grater ~ ~ AC ~stem, for ~e ~ voJt~et w~ ~e a ~aller
cap~i~ ~ a OC system.
Any di~u~ion of ~ AC orethud transmiss[~ ~stem ~st t~e into ~c~n*
the a~t~es ~ dl~vantages of the varies c~r~teristics of AC
3-10
[C-t21
Exhibit C
technalcx3y. These advantages and d~sadvantages were ~nvestigated and
weighed in terms of performance and economics. Various transmission
scenarios were also studied by OWP to determine the tron~'nission cap~city
between the Mead/McCullough and Victor~ille/Adelanto areas.
An AC system would ~e more advantageous if the proposed transmission line
originated at McCullough and terminated in the Victorville/Adelanto area.
'AcCullough is an AC system, and to use OC would require construction of
converter stations at McCullough and at the Victorville/Adelonto area.
3.5.~ Direct Current Unclerc~'our~l Canztructi¢~
At the present time, while ~t may be technically possible to install S00kV
underground transmission lines~ none have 5ean installed in the United States,
and no long-distance pipe-type cable transmission systems longer than 60 miles
are known to be in operation. Underground DC tron~rnisslon has bee~ in
commercial service in various parts of the world, but usually where s~mciflc
~seagrap~ic and site*relate~ constraints prohibit overhead tron~"nission lines
uch as underwater cables).
Although ~'here are laboratory developments in the United States of high-
voltage (HV) OC cables above 300kV, there are no HVDC cables in service in
North America above 300kV and ~,2 MW as of the beginning of
Consideration of the feasibility of DC cable alternatives with o rating of
S00kV would be a significant advance in the state..of-the.~rt of ~)C cables.
The cost of underground systems (AC and OC) ~s approximately 13 to 30 times
the cost of equlvale~t overhead systems, or tel of millions of dollars,
dependinG an system requirements and restraints pieced in the Hne (APS/
SDC6d-' Interconnection Project Final EIS 1~)81). Additionally, the time
required to repair an underground DC transmlssia~ llne would be prohibitive.
Under.ground DC transmission does have its apglication in site-sp. eclflc
situat,ons, but the use of underground technolcx~' would nat be economical or
practical for a Me~d/M¢Cullou<jh to Victorville/Adelanta S00kV DC tronsmis-
slan system.
3.5.7 Alternatin~ Current Under~a~r4 Ca~.st~uetlcm
At the present time, underground transmission of pawer using AC cables is not
technically f~le foe' anything but s~ort allstances. TI~ capacitance of the
conductors in an underground 500kV AC system is such that no i~wer will be
transmitted from the transmission source to any loclcl m~re than 25 miles away
unless addltlonal reactive equipment is installed.
To transmit the i~wer from the Mecld/McCullou~ area t¢~ the Victor-
ville/Adelanto area, Me S00kV AC underground system w~uld recluire expan-
sive reactive equipment at frequent ~ntervals to counteract the ¢ag~citance of
the conductors. Since the cost of undergroundlng AC: and IDC systems is
Exhibit C
from 13 to 30 times the cost of equivalent overhead ~stems, the
s~ec~al reochve equipment ,#dl only accentuate the economic disadvantog~~
undergroundlng. The time required to locate and repair an electrical foilur~
an underground transmission line would be prohibitive.
:3.5.8 New Methad~ of Trm~mlsslon
No method different from those described above is presently availat=le for the
economical bulk transmission of electric energy from a generating source to
load centers. While there is continuous research on the possibilities of
microwcrve and loser transmission of energy, these methods are not currently
practical for the amount of energy to be transmitted or for long-distance
transmission and cannot, therefore, be considered as alternaHves.
3.~ I~OF~ ACTION ~
As a result of systems ;nvestigations, the Project $pc~sors ;ropose the
Mead/McCullough-Victorville/Adelanto .Tr. ansm..ission P?.i. ect. The pro13osai
includes a 500kV AC or OC transm,ss,an line, mad,f,cotions to existing
substatlans, a converter terminal rnadiflcaHon to existing communication
ocHer,es, and a ground electr..ade (converter stahon and ground electrode for o
DC system only). F'or a C)C hne, ~3,ower would be transmitted from Mead to
Arielonto. An AC transmission line would begin at McCullough and end ~t
either Victorville or Arielonto. Power transfer caDabillty will be from ',
nominal 1,0<X) MW to a nominal 2,000 MW, dependlng on whether the
transmission system is AC or IDC, resl~ectively. Construction of the llne ~s
planned to begin in l~$~J, with on Zn-service date of I~)1.
3.6.1 Tr~imion Line ~
Electrical Design
The design~ construction, operation and maintenat~ce of the Mead/McCullough-
Victorville/Aclelanto $00kV transmlsslan line well meet or exceed the require-
me~ts of the Natiem:11 Electrical Safety Code (hF. SC), U..$. Oegartment of
Labre' C)¢~ugatim~l Safety and Health $tanclard~ California PUC (~eneral
Order I~ ~, ~ OW~'s own requlreme~ts for maximum safety and protection
of Iondewners and their prooerty. E~ectrical characteristics of the progosed
trammission facilities are shown in Table 3-1.
Line Design
Towers - Towers for the proposed 500kV transmission line will be freestanding
lat~t~"-type made of unpainted galvanized steel. Typical AC and
SU~l~ension tower configurations, tower designs and foundation details
[C-14]
Exhibit C
shown an F'igure 3-1. Typical tower.to-tower spans are anticipated to be
approximately 1,200 to I,~00 feet.
F'ree-standlng square-based towers will be used alang the entire route. Typical
tower height ,~ill range between 120 and 130 feet. A dead-end tower will
required at each end of the llne, at some angle positions along the line, at
heavily loaded tower locations, and at specific utility crossings for added
safety. The remaining towers will be suspension or angle suspension. They ore
of the same basic configuration as susDenslo~ towers, the difference being in
the insulation systems and tower weights.
Foundations - Four foundations for each tower Will be required; each would be
drilled pier cast-in-place concrete. A typical free-standing tower foundation
consists of a steel stub angle for tower attachment, and o aancrete base 2.5 to
~, feet in diameter and I/~ to 25 feet in depth.
Conductors - ~lectr!cal conductors, o positive and negative pole, provide the
medium ove~ which electrical energy flows in a DC transmission line.
Electrical energy would be transmitted by o three-.cm'~tuctor bundle for each
pale with o spacing of at least 18 inches between subconductor centers.
an AC transmission line the conductor would consist of three phases, with o
two-conductor bundle for each phase. $p<x:ing betwees~ subconductor centers
would be 18 inches,
Each conductor is expected to be aluminum trapezoidal or aluminum stranded
conductors with a steel stranded reinforced core (ACSR). The aluminum
carries the majority of the electrical current, and the steel ;ncreasas tensile
strength to support the aluminum strands,
**A~n~mum conductor height above the ground ;s 35 feet, based oa General
Order No. 95. The exact height of each tower would be governed by
topography and safety requirements for conductor clearance.
Insulators and As.satiated Hardware - Two strings af insulators in the form of
"V" will be used to position and support the cc~'~uctors relative to the tower
while maintaining electrical design clearance betwea~ ~ ca~:luctors and the
tower (Fig~re 3-1). Each string will consist of 26 to 32 snsulatars an each leg
of the "V," grid be bet~mea~ I~, to 20 feet long.
Overhead GroundwiresA'qeutral ~etum - To protect conductors from d~rect
IZgt~tning str~e~ two over'head cjroundwires 3/8 to ?/16 Znch in diameter will
be installed an the top of the towers, With these groundwlres, current from
lightning $tr~es can be transferred through the groundwires and structures
into the ground. A neutral return wire, approximately I to I& inches in
d~ameter, would replace the ground wire if used in the OC alternative.
3-11
Exhibit C
Ftlght..ef-Way Acquisitlan
In general, new land rights will be required for the transmission llne and
transmission line access roads. Non..C"ederol lands necessary fo~r the transmis.
sion llne right-of-way and additional land, if necessary, far substations will be
l~urchased in fee simple. Non-P'ederai lands necessary for the access road
Hght-of-way will be obtained in peri~etual easements. The land rights will be
obtained in the name of the C;~ty of Los Angeles. Every effort will be made to
i~urchase all the land rlgl~ts on I~r[vate lands through reasonable negotiations
with the present owners; however, the right of eminent domain will be
exercised in those instances where the negotiations are not successful. A
grant of a 200-foot right-of-way will be requested for portions of the
transmission line within the Federal lands from the BI.M.
Based on growth trends, it appears that the land adjacent to the portion of the
proposed transmission llne route north from the Arielonto Substation to
Highway 3c)$, and along portions of the I~L.M contlnges~-y corridor ~,Corridor P,
CDCA Plan) paralleling ,Highway 3c)$, will be much sought after for future
development. In total, BLM utility corridors, coupled with land use
constraints, provide a limited number of options available for the routing and
location of electric transmission facilities.
While present OWP projections do not call for an additional transmission llne
~n this area, it is anticipated that another as yet unl~lanned trans~nissJon llne
could be needed over the long term to accommodate future Inland Southwest
generation resources. In the event that it becomes necessary to import
additional power from future Inland Southwest resources, there could be a
serious routJncj prc~lem for such a transmission line in the Arielonto area,
based on anticipated growth. Therefore, a 330-fact right-of-way from
Adelanto north to and along portions of BL.M's contingency corridor
(Corridor P, CDCA Plan) along ,Highway 3~)$, will be required on private land
for the praposecl transmission line and a future tran~nission line. If no
provisions are made in this area for the likelihood that a transmission line
could be required in the future, a future transmission line would require an
additional 130-fact right-of-way that could create greater irnfx~ts on the
environment th<m would occur if a 33a-feat right.of-way were provided in this
project. ~he additional 130:foot right. of-way far a future trcrm'nission line
would. mitigate future impacts and assist in present ~ future land use
l~lannmg. For frill rea~, the rights-of.way on private prc~erty for the
parttin of the I~raba~sed transmission line route nertl~ from Arielonto to
,Highway 3~)$ and along I~c~'tlons of the BLM cantlngency corvide~ are proposed
as 330-feet-wide rights-of-way, rather than 200 feet. It iz important to note.~m~
that any future transmission line project would be assas~d in a separate:
environmental document.
Con.str~ct ten
Construction of a transmission line normally follows a se~:e of surveying
the centerline, access road c~nstruction, clearinc] right-of-way and tower
[C46l
Exhibit C
sitest installing foundations and towers (including construction yards and batch
plants), assembling and erecting the towers, stringing, te~siorlingt clipping
conductors, installing of counterpoise, and cleanup and restoration (Figures 3-2
and 3-3). The number of workers and types of equipment required to construct
the propOSed transmission line are shown on Table 3-2.
Surveyincl Activities - Before construction surveying begins, rt will be
necessary to obtain either a survey permit on P'ederal and state lands~ or right-
of-entry for privately owned land. Construction survey work will consist of
tower center hub surveys and access surveys. All of these activities will begin
approximately 2~ years prior to the start of construction.
AccesS Road Constvuction Transmission line ConS?ructio~ requires the
movement of large vehicles along the right-of-way. If new access roads need
to be constructed, they must be able to support the weight of these vehicles.
Unpaved access roads will be required for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the proposed transmission line. Existing roads will be used
when the right-of-way closely parallels a utility corridor, or where other
existing roads provide adequate access to the line. W~ere existing roads can
be used, only spur roads to the tower sites will be required. ,~ain and spur
access roads will be constructed on the r~ght-of-way where existing roads are
lacking. If adverse conditions exist, such as the need to avoid s~nsltive
resources, difficult topography or landowner requlrementst the access roads
may have to be located outside of the right-of-way. Areas of main and
road disturbances as s~own in Table 3-1 are preliminary estimates. Spur roads
are estimated a? 0.25 mile per mile of llne where adequate main access roads
exist and O.S mile per mile of llne in mountainous terrainl 0.7S mile per
of llne where existing access roads must be upgraded~ and 1.5 to 2.0 miles per
· ~ile of line where all new access roads are required. Table 3-3 provides a
llnk-by-llnk estimate of access road requirements.
Wherever possible, roads will be built at right angles to streams and wa~es.
Culverts will ~e installed where necessary. In addition, rood construction will
include clusl'.-contral rnaa.~ures in sensitive areas. All existing roads will be left
in a condition equ~l t~ or better than their condition prior to the construction
of the tronsmi~ion line.
All roads .#ill be constr~cted in accordance wi~ the aggllcont's requirements
For tranz,mislion line access roads. In the event of a conflict betw~es~ the
applicant~ requirements and the requirements of the BL.M~ the states
Calilroemla and Nevada or other agen¢iest the requirements of ttm g~vernlng
3-IS
Exhibit C
· . I
agenares w,II take preced?.nce. .Landowners along the propesect roads will b~mm4
consulted before construct,an begsns.
Tower Site Clear~r~ - At each tower site, leveled areas (pods) will be needed
to facilitate the safe operation of equipment, such as canstruction cranes.
The leveled area required for the location and safe aperattan of large crones
will be approximately :30 by ~,0 feet. At each tower site, a work area
approximately 200 feet square will be required for the location of tower
footings, assembly of the tower, and.the necessary crane maneuvers. The
work area will be cleared of vegetation only to the extent neaessory. After
llne construction, all pods not needed for normal tranlmission I~ne mainte-
nance will he graded to blend as near as possible with the natural contours, and
revegetated where required.
Clearlnc~ Iqiqht-of-Wa~ . The clearing of same natural vegetation may be
.required; however, seleat~ve clearing will be exercised and be performed only
when necessary to provide for surveying~ electrical clearance~ llne reliabilhr,
and construction and maintenance operations. Topp~ng or removal of mature
vegetation, under or near the conductors~ will be done to provide adequate
electrical clearance as required by the I~.SC standards and California Pt. JC
General Order NIo. 95. Trees that could fall onto the lines or affect lines
during wind-induced llne swing will be removed. I~orrnai clearing procedures
are to top or remove large trees and not disturb smaller trees. In critical
areas the removal of trees will be jointly reviewed and agreec~ upan between
the sponsors and the owners or managers of the property. Rights-of-way will
not be chemically treated unless neaes~ary to comply with rec~irements of a
permitting agency.
F'oundatlon Installation - ~:[xcovotions for foundations will be made with power
equipment. In areas where the sail permits~ a vehicle-mounted power auger
will be used. In rocky areas, the foundation holes may be either excavated by
drilling and blasting~ or special rack anchors may be installS. After
excavations are completed for a tower foundation, a footing is installed by
inserting a reinforcing bar cage and encasing it in concrete (casto~n-piace).
Spoil material will be used for fill where suitable. The foundation excavation
and installation requires access to the site by a power auger or drill, a crane
and ready-mix trucks-
IThe BI.M ha~ provided OWl= with the following accesl road stipulations=
(I) um ~isti~ r~ wi~t wid~i~ ~er~er ~let (2) ex~
dard r~l ~ ~allz to ~e minimum size ~e~ r~ ~ (3) ~ere
r~ are ~e~, ~ey ~ld be c~str~t~ ~ pr~i~ a mini~m size
~ce~ t~ wi~ erosi~ preventi~ drai~ devices (water ~ ditches,
etc.). ~e G~M ~rther stat~ that, "As a g~eral ~licy in relateely level
ar~s or or~s of g~tle slopes, which h~e ~atter~ low v~etati~ ~ ore
not excessively r~y, ~ prefer r~s be est~li~ by la~ ~ fl~glng
~ u~ of ~r-tir~ v~icles, with no gradi~ ~ cl~i~" ~M I~S).
h bit C
Co~stn~ct;o~ Yards and [~atah Plants - Temporary constr~ction yards will be
I~at~ n~r ~h e~ a~ at I~ati~s approximately 20 to 30 miles a~rt
al~g ~e route. Concrete for u~ {n c~st~ctJng f~ati~s will be
dlsp~ From a ~rt~le c~crete batch plant I~at~ at ~proximatety
20-to-30 mile ~nte~als. A rubber-tired flatb~ tr~k and tractor will be us~
to rel~ate ~ch plant along the rlght~f-way. Commercial ready-mix
concrete may be u~ when available within a ~e~r drive o~ the
ti~ site. ~e yards~atch plants will ~e as re~rtlng I~at{~s for workers,
pa~ing ~ace for vehicles and equipment, sites ~or material storage, and
stations for ~uipment maintenance. ~acillties will be fenc~ a~ their ~a~es
I~k~. S~uri~ ~ards may be statlon~ where n~.
Tower A~mbly a~ ~r~tion - Bundles of st~l are ~ip~ and as~mbl~
into towers at ~ tower site. Tran~rtati~ ~f the st~l a~ as~a~ed
hardware to the tower site will be by t~k. ~e ~mbl~ ~ti~s are
hoist~ into pl~e by a large crane a~ t~ ~asten~ t~er to form a
complete strife. Table 3-2 I~sts the ~uipm~t a~ per~nel n~e~ry.
~gure 3-2 ~ows ~e ~uence of const~cti~.
Co~tor Installati~ After towers are a~mbl~ ~d ~nsulators and
stringing bl~s are installS, the transmlssi~ line i~ ~ r~dy for the
installati~ of the c~ductors (~igure 3-3). ~ towers are rigg~ with
s?ri~ing bl~ks at ~h c~d~tor or gr~wire ~lJti~. Pulling lines are
stru~ ~r~ ~h bl~k in e~h positi~ ~ ~e tower~ ~ ~e conductors
are att~h~ to the ~ of the lines ~ pull~ ~r~ the bl~ks.
O~e in the bl~k~ ~e c~tors are ~g~ or ~r~t to a ~ifi~ ~r~nd
cl~ra~e throb u~ of c~d~tor tensi~i~ ~ipm~t. At ~e pulling site
this t~si~i~ m~hine~ will ~cupy an ar~ of ~t 2~ by 2~ feet.
Pulling sites will be requir~ ab~t eve~ two mile~
A~ter ~e t~lJ~i~ ~f ~e condotot, t~ gr~wires ~ c~tors will be
att~h~ wi~ c~tors to insulators ~ hardware to ~ tower. During
wire installatl~, te~ra~ ~rd st~el will ~ er~t~ to prot~t
crowings ef hi~ other utili~ Iine~ r~l ~ railr~ G~rd s~ruc-
tures, which are ~ ~le~ r~ulre ~e dlggi~ of ~lel for ~eir installati~
and are re~ at ~ ¢ompleti~ of ~e c~t~ stri~i~ ~rati~.
C~t~i~ Installatl~ - As a part of st~ ¢~st~tl~.pr~tices prior
t~ w,re ~tallati~ tour f~tln~ resist~e al~ ~ r~te ~s m~r~. If
the r~ist~e to re~te ~r?h for ~h tr~l~i~ t~r 1s grater than 20
~ ~te~i~ (g~s) are install~ to le~ ~ reslst~e to 20
r~ will be ~t in ~ orderly co~itl~ ~r~t ~ ~s~ti~ ~ri~.
Refu~ ~ ~a~ will be remov~ from ~e sites ~ di~ of in ~ ~rov~
m~er. O~ls a~ ~11 will not be du~ al~ ~ li~. Oils or
will be ~1~ to ~ a~rov~ site for dl~l. ~ ~ bumi~
c~str~ti~ tr~ will ~r without B~M appr~al.
3-17
[C-191
Exhibit C
Site F~eclamatien - The right-of-way will be restored as required by the
proper~ owner or agency. Every effort will be made to restore the land to
original contour and to restore natural drainage along the right-of-way
required. The reclamation will ;n. volve .the personnel and eclu, il~ment as shown
~n Table 3-2. The total construction period will be approximately two years.
F~re OrotectFon - All applicable fire laws and regulations will be observed
during the construction period. All personnel will be odvlsed of tinelf
responsibilities under the appllcoble f~re laws and regulations.
Opas'atlan
Operational Characteristics - The nominal voltage for a Mead to Adelonto DC
transmission line project would ~e Z.500kV DC. There may be minor excursions
of up to plus five percent c~ove the nominal level depending up~ load flow.
The nominal voltage for a McCullough to V~¢torville/Adelento .AC transmission
line project would be SOOkV AC. The voltage could be as h~gh as $$OkV at
McC'ullough~ while dropping to approximately $00~V at e|ther Victorville or
Adelento.
Permitted C/ses - After the transmission line has been energized, land uses
that are compatible with safety regulatlons will be permitted in and odjacent
to the right-of-way, Existing land uses such as agriculture and grazing are
generally permitted within the r~ght-.of-way. Incompatible land uses within
the right-of-way include construction and maintenance of inhabited dwellings,
and any use requiring changes in surface elevation that would affect existing
or planned facilities.
Land uses that comply with local regulations will be permitted adjacent to the
right-of-way. Compatible uses of the right-of-way on public lar~s will have
be approved by the appropriate agency. Permissien ta use the tight-of-way o~
private Ionc~ will have ta be obtained from the utility owning the transmission
line.
Safe~ o Safety is a. I~i'mary concern in the. design of this $00~¢V tronsrni~.~ion
line. A DC trm~mlsslen line would be protected at beth ~nds with vo;ve
co~tt.l~- An AC transmission llne would be i~ratected with, pawe~ circuit
breakers and related llne relay protectien equipment. If ca,~uctor failu.
occur,& ~ will be automatically removed fr~ the line, I. ightning
protection iS pr~vi .d.ed by averhead grout~dw. ires along the line,
ecluipment and fencing at the substation wdl be grc~-,clec~ All fences on~
metal g~te$ crossing ~ within the trons~ni~i~ line rig~t.c~f-way will b,
grounded to prevent si'mck potential.
3-18
[C-201
Maintenance
The ~00kV transmission llne will be ;ns~eated on a regular basis by both graund
and air patrols. Maintenance is performed as needed. When access is required
for nonemergency maintenance and repairs, the sponsors will adhere to the
same precautions that were taken during the original construction.
Emergency maintenance will involve prompt movement of repair crews to
repair or replace any damage. Crews will be instructed to protect crops,
plants, wildlife and other resources of significance. Restoration procedures
following completion of repair work will be similar to those prescribed for
normal construction. The comfort and safety of local residents will ~e
provided for by limiHng noise, dust and the danger caused by maintenance
vehicle traffic.
Dismontllnq - At the end of the useful llfe of the proposed project, if the
facility were no longer required, the transmission llne will be abc'*~cloned.
Subsequently, coe~luctors~ insulators and hardware will be dismantled and
removed from the right-of-way. Tower structures will be removed and
foundations broken off below ground surface.
Future Uses - When and if the line and associated right-of-way are abandoned
at some future date, the right-of-way will be available for the same uses
possible prior to construction of the project.
Site Reclamation - Following abandonment and removal of the transmission
llne from the right-of-way, are<~s leveled for equipment required to dismantle
the line will be restored as near as possible to their original ccx'~clition.
3.6.2 Grou~i E!ec~,ede/Neutral Return
For a OC tronsmiuion llne, a gr~ el~tr~e will ~ r~ir~ DC ~rates
at o fix~ ~ n~illat~ volt~e. ~ ~itive ~le ~rotes at .S~V a~
the ~tlve ~le ~otes at -5~V. E~ ~le la ¢~o11~ i~ivid~l.ly
duri~ ~1 ~oti~ A small vorioti~ in ~le ~i~t e~teristics
re~lts In 4 ~! u~l~. of turret of ~e ~o ~le~ A gr~ ream ~th
be~ ~ ~ t~i~ls is r~uir~ to ~c~m~te ~ls u~l~ ~le
cu~h ~ f~ ~11 ~n~t for ~ort ~i~ in ~ ~t of ~ e~rg~y
inter~tl~ in ~1 ~reti~ of ~ of ~ ~les (~sitl~ ff ~tlve) of
the c~ersl~ ~ip~t. The retu~ ~ w~ld ~ pr~i~ ~r~ ~e
~r~ by ei~ a gr~ el~tr~e or a n~tral ream
3-19
[C-211
Exhibit C
Ground Electrode System Cronportents
The ground electrode consists of a met<~111c or carbon element{s) surrounded by
a coke b<~ckfill material buried ~n the ground as a method of passi_r~j current
into the earth. Low resistivity soils, underlying rock and availability of
;~o~sture For good electrical conductivity are important factors in the lacat~on
of ground electrodes.
A typical design would be a shallow ring-type electrode which consists of an
approximately I~ ~nch diameter mild steel rod in a cake b~¢kfill material
buried from 10 to 12 feet dee~. The ring d~ameter varies dege~ding on design
parameters and the soil prchoerties of the electrode site (Figure 34).
Another design employs multiple deep vertical electrodes arranged ~n a.
circular, linear or rectangular pattern. Each vertical electrode consists of
carbon elements ;n a deeg well with a coke backfill material. The well is
approximately 12 inches in diameter while the well depth is a function of the
underlying earth resistivity, soll characteristics, and availabili~ty of moisture
for good electrical conductivity (F~gure 34).
The ground electrode llne would be carried o~ a Sellarate distribution-type pole
structure or the ID¢ transrn~ssion I~ne structures. The distr,"outlon-type pale
would be a precast concrete or tubular steel pole c~graximately $$ feet higi~
(Figure 3-$). Al~roximately 10 miles of distribution-type llne to the ground
electrode would be built, if necessary, as a part of a IDC project,.
The ground electrode llne in the area of Mead wa~ addressed in the Mead-
Phoenix Project Draft ElS. A location for the potential ground electrode for
the Arielonto terminal is uncertain. One c~otion would be to place it in the
Coyote Dry I. ake area northeast of Barstow, possibly tea>ping into and
expanding the IPP gra,~cl electrode.
Constructio~
The method of in~talllng the ground electrode would vary degendlng upon
w~icl~ alterr4tlve il ct~3~en. The number of construction personnel at each
site would be ~m~il due to ~ limited nature af the facilities. Co~tt'uct-ion at
the site would canslit ofz acce, road conitructlan and site grading (if
neceslary), drilling wells or burying of feeder cable, backfill, we:11 de./ela~ment
(if required), ~ cleanup. Construction of the gr~.e~cl electrode line would be,~m~
similar te the can~tr~ctlon of a distribution line. ~
ODerorlon
The ground electrode site wo~ld be unmanned. The area afoul,el the grc~,~
electrode site may be fenced for security.
3-20
Exhibit C
Ma|r~tenance
Periodic inqoection of the gr~ el~tr~e site w~ld be r~uir~. Mainte-
nance of facilities w~ld be ~r[orm~ as n~. W~ acce~ is r~uir~ for
maintanaka a~ re~irs, the Proj~t Sp~rs w~ld adhere to the ~me
pr~autlons that were taken during the original construction.
Neutral Return
An alternative to a ground electrode for the Adelanto end of the trc3nsmisslon
line would be a neutral return llne. This llne would replace the ground wire at
t,~e top of the OC transmission tower (P'igure 3-1) and would run back to Mead
where it would be connected to the ground electrode facilities as construction
for the Mead-Phoenix Project.
3.6.3 ¢awerter Station
A new 2000 MW, S'00kV C)C converter terminal i~l~Jng a~at~ el~trical
~uip~ent will be I~at~ within ~e ar~ ~t to, a~ s~ or west of,
t~e existing Adel~to Converter and Switch~ Static, as ~own ~
~gure 3-&. ~e le~ r~ulrements would be from ~20 to 180 ~res ~ing
~ ¢~verter valve c~li~ requirements, storm by~ ch~l design, layer
of as~iat~ el~trical ~uipm~t, a~ ~t~tial all~w~e for ~tbacks from
or rel~ati~ of existing eldtrio a~ gas tran~iui~ line~
~e converter termi~l would ~nclude two ~yrlstor valve halls, a control
buildi~, el~i~l towers a~ rack st~re~ a DC el~trlc ~ipment yard,
valve water c~li~/~rati~ ~ ~ AC el~trical ~ipm~t yard, an
AC ~ipm~t y~d c~troi h~, internal ~ce~ r~ ~i~, ~ ~ten-
tially a storm b~ c~nel.
~e ~o ~yrist~ val~ ~11s ~ld ~h ~ ~roxi~tely 75 f.t wide by 2~
feet I~ by ~ f~t h]~. ~e c~trol buildl~ f~ ~ val~ ~11 ~ipm~t
w~ld ~ ~roximately I~ f~t wide by I~ f~t I~ by 2S f~t hi~. If the
two val~ ~11s N ~ c~trol buildi~ were int~at~ 3 ~ c~tigu~s
str~re ~ pl~ dingles w~ld be ~ ~e ~ of 75 f~t wide by ~
f~t I~ wi~ ~ ~i~t remaini~ ~pr~i~tel~ ~ ~.t. ~ int~rat~
valve ~111 N cmttel ~ildi~ w~ld ~roximate ~ existl~ valve ~11s a~
c~l ~ildl~ ~ ~ ~j~t existi~ c~verter statlm site.
~ el~W~l te~s ~ r~k st~res w~ ~ simil~ in ~r~e a~
hei~t ~ ~ ~ ~ existi~ c~verter statl~/~i~i~ s~tl~ sitel ~a~ is,
wi~ a ~i~m hei~t of approximately 125 f~t. ~ ~ ~ A~ el~tr~cal
~uipm~t y~a will ~ ~ a~ i~l~e tr~f~ c~t briers,
di~t switche~ li~mi~/surge arrest~ fllt~ c~lt~ ~ bus
(c~tor) st~ture~ ~e AC ~ulpm~t ya~ cmttel ~, a stature
~ximately S0 f~t wide by I~ f~t I~ by 2~ f~t hl~ ~ internal
~ce~ r~s ~ storm b~u ch~nel w~ld ~11 N simil~ te ~t is now
3-21
[C-231
Exhibit C
existing an the adjacent existing s~te. A water..cool!ng tower with water~
treatment plant (approximately $0 feet long, SO feet wide cmd $0 feet
and an approximate six-acre evaporation pond may be required if the thyristc
valves are cooled by water. The proposed facilities would be enclosed by
chain-llnk fencing for security.
The site preparation work will involve~
I. Cut-and-fill grading and placement and compaction of structural fill to
serve as a foundation for the converter station facilities. The site will
be graded to maintain current drainage patterns.
2. A new constructlon entrance and construction fencing will be provided.
3. Approximately 20-foot-wide paved secondary roads and 30-foot-wide
paved priman roods ,#ill be required. The AC and DC yards will be
covered with aggregate. A paved parking ore~ approximately 100 feet
by 100 feet, will be required. Landscaping adjacent to the valve hails
and control buildlr~j will be provided. Where pasz~le~, original vegeta-
tion will be re-established.
~,. Four $(X~V A¢ and four 220kV AC double circuit transmission towers
may require relacatlon or mndiflcatlan within the site.
3.&11 Ca~unicatlens Facilities
Each terminal has an existing telecommunications system utilizing microwave
radio facilitle$ for protective relaying, suparvisory control,, and power dis-
PatChing purposes. A telecommunications system can ¢ontro~ the trans~'nisslo~
llne automatically from remote locations and is required to insure the
reliability af the pawer system. The sys.tern also .provides voice communi-
cation circuits to coordinate activities in operating and maintaining
transmission line.
For either on AC ar a DC transml.lon line, three to four new channels will
have to be ack~cl to existing microwave equipment..In add|tion~ for a IDC llne,
chong~l to the existing equ!pment ?.t. Meal will be neceszar~, ~ we!l as the
addition of ontennaz to existing facihtles between Mead and Boulder City.
One man will be needed to expand the channel capacity at each terminal. For
a ~ line during ~ construction .periad~ .al~lr~ximately three ~ will~il!
requ,recl to make the changes to ex~stlng eqU,la~mnt at the Mead Substa. t,
Approximately six men will be needed to add the ontenr4s tc the exis
facilities betwee~ Mead and Boulder City. Canttr~.,ction at all sites w,.,
consist of equipment installation.
The~e c~nrnunicatlons facilities are unmanned onci agerate autae~atically.
The buildlng is fenced, lacked and secured, and entry is restricted to
3-22
Exhibit C
appropriate utility personnel. The rnnaxlmurn microwave transmitter power at
each facility is five watts.
Maintenance of the proposed communication facilities consists of testing,
repair and replacement of electronic equipment located within the building at
the communication site. Inspection and maintenance of the building, commun-
ication tower, and other physical equipment will occur periodically.
At the end of the proposed praiect life and if the facilities were no longer
required for other existing or proposed projects, the microwave sites will be
abandoned. Subsequently, the equipment will be dlsrnantled and removed from
the sites.
3,6.5 S~hedule cmcl Budaet
Construction and operation scheduling for the proposed project are shown in
Table 34. Estimated capital c~t for the proposed project is in escalated
dollars. Table 3-S shows the approximate cost far each major project element.
3.7 ALTERNATIV~ CORRIDOR COMPARISON
3,7.1 Introcluetion
Route selection was based on the identification and compariso~ of routing
alternatives between the Mead/McCullough are~ and the Victorville/Adelanto
area. Three steps were conducted in this process: (I) identification of initial
routing alternatives~ (2) comparison of those initial alternatives, and (3) selec-
tion of final routing alternatives. These steps are descried below in Sections
3.7.2 through 3.7.~. From the flve final routing alternatives identified in
Step 3, the BLM and OWl~ selected the~, respective preferred routes, through
processes descried below in Sections 3.7.5 and 3.7.&.
3.7.2 16entific-~tlen ef Inltlel Rautin~ Altomotive!
Initial routing alternatives were identlfi;d through the scoping process and a
field review. Su~seClUe~tly, detailed environmental studies were conducted to
form the basis of cornparlng those initial alternatives.
Sc ing Prace
As discussed in Cha~ter 2, a substantial effort was exl~m~ded in scoping the
environmental studies undertaken for the proix)led project, a major portion of
which was directed towards identifying alternative corridors {~tly,
routes) to be asses.~d in the detailed corridor studies. Study corridors were
selected between Mead/McCullough and the Barstow area by using the
extensive data bas~ develoged previously through the CDCA Plan~ the Alien-
3-2~
Exhibit C
Warner Valley' and the IPP environmental studies, and agency/public input.
Alternative study corridors between the ~arstow at.ca and Victorville/Adelanto~l~.
terminals '#ere selected based on previous studies, the Subregional Sitinc;
Study, and agency/public input.
One maior siting alternative identified during agency/public contacts was to
follow existing transmission lines through the L.ucerne Valley area to the
Mojave Power Plant and the Eldorado Substation (located near McCullough).
Based on agency review with both BLM and Clark County's Comprehensive
Planning Department, the route was eliminated because of longer distance and
potentially greater ~mpacts. The subregional siting study soe~ifically evalu-
ated potential alternatives parallel to the existing $C~ lines through the
L.ucerne Valley (e.g., Eldoroclo-L.ugo S00kV, Pisgah-Lugo 220kV, anc~ Moiave-
Lugo S00kV), and alternatives south and west of Victorville.Adelanto (e.g.,
Lugo-Vincent $00kV, and Victorville-Lugo 500$cV). Results .of this analysis
indicated that numerous land use/visual conflicts would pc, tentially result
along these corridors, esoecially between L. ugo and Adelonto/Victorville.
Based on this )nformation, these alternatives were eliminated from further
co~sideration.
Field Review
Through a joint effort ;nvolving ~)WP, Dames & Moore and the 3LM,
alternative corridors were carefully reviewed through numerous field and
aerial surveys. The objective of the review was to further refine the routing
alterncfives, delineate assumed centertines for assessment studies, and to
assure ~I.M of adecluate mace for placement of another major transmission
line. In addition, access road requirements, including amount of potential
disturbance (e.g., constructing new roads or upgrading existing roads), were
major considerations during field review, Figure :3-7 shows the alternative
corridors, which are delineated as numbered "links" for ease in comparing
rout].~g alternatives.
As a result of the field review and public seaping, alternatives north of Col;co
Mountains (e.g., Links 20, ~7, ]38, 39, ~,0, etc.) were identified. These
alternatives avoid i~tential ira;acts associated with crossing the Mojave River
~,.orrtdor Q~ as
Valley, are pri.'n~rily within the 8LM's contingeney corridor '~ '
identified in th¢l' CDCA Plan) and, to a large degree, parallel existing
transmission lines.
Exhibit C
Final Alternative Corridor Environmental Studies
Following the review of exlst~ng data, completion of the subregipnol siting
studies, field review of alternatives, and agency/public comment[, approxi-
mately 575 miles of alternative corridors were studied in detail. Study areas
were established along each corridor ranging in widths from one to six miles
depending upon the needs of each environmental resource study (discussed in
Chapter 5.). Additional environmental information pertinent to the study
corridors was compiled at a consistent scale and level of detail. An
assessment of this information provided the basis for identifying specific
impacts, relative levels of impacts, appropriate mitigation measures, both
generic and specific, and comparing the routing alternatives. Table 3-6 lists
generic mitigation measures to which the Project Sponsors committed as part
of the projeat description. The effectlvenes~ of the mitigation measures
determined the remaining, or "residual," and unavoidable adverse impacts to
the environment along each alternative corridor. Detailed results of the
inventory, impact assessment and mitigation planning are provided in the
Teahnlc0J. Report.
Additional environmental studies on alternatives around Coyote Lake (Link ~,/4)
and the development at Stateline (Link ~,5) were completed in March 1985.
The new alternative at Stateline was identified during the publ~ information
meetings held in March at Boulder City, Nevada in order to avoid the potential
private development in the area. Based on a series of agency contacts with
the military, George Air Force Base found the alternative through Coyote
Lake (Link 20) between the existing transmission lines (Boulder Corridor) and
Fort Irwin Road unacceptable because of low-level training routes. The Air
Force recommended moving the alignment further south and adjacent to the
foothills of the Callco Mountains as mitigation that would be acceptable to
their operations. Based on this input, Link ~,, a route accodiablo to the Air
Force, was located in the foothills of the Calico Mountains between the
Boulder Corridor and Fort Irwin Road.
3.7,3 Ca~i~i~ af Eautirol Altemathees
In order to aJlt ~M a~ DWP in ~J~tJ~ r~ti~ prefer~es, the
environm~tal c~es for each r~te were ~mmariz~ ~ ~ the
indlvid~l i~t (r~id~l) as~s~ent re~lt~ ~iflc envir~mental
re--roe prefer~e~ ~ ~e~y/publi¢ commits.
IFollowing the identification of initial routing alternatlve~ DWP conducted a
series of p~bll¢ and ~y meetings to present, discuu and refine those
alternatives. Public meetings were held as fallow~ Boulder Cit3~, March
1~851 Arielonto, March 7, 1985; Baker, March 12, I~$l and Silver Lakes,
March 13, lg~S. Volume I, Chcx)ter I of the Mead/M¢Cullq~cjh-
Victorville/Adelanto Technical Report contains o summary of the comments
and discussiaa.~ from these meetings.
3-25
Exhibit C
To facilitate description of the routing alternatives, the overall routing __
network was organized into subdivisions representing localized routing options.
Six subdivisions of routing oOfions, or "groups," were identified and represent
major routing issues and decision points. These groups are:
A. Stctellne Alternatives
c~. 1-15 Alternatives
C. Mojave Valley Alternatives
D. Kramer Junction Alternatives
E. Helendale-Victorville/Ac~elanto Alternatives
V. F'ort Irwin Alternatives
',Vtthin each group, a combination of contiguous links constitutes an "option"
that shares common beginning and end points with other options in the same
set. The oDtions within the six groups were then coml~ared and the most
favorable opt;on within each of those groups ;dentif;eClo Selected options were
then combined with their oppropr;ote connectors to create five final routing ~1~
alternatives from northern to southern terminals, fro~ which the BLM ' '
Preferred and Project Sponsors' Preferred routes were identified (see
Section 3.?.S and 3.7.6). The preliminary c~tions compared are listed in
Table 3-7, and compared on Table 3-~ (in MaD Volume). The fcdlowlng section
summarizes various issues for each of 3tion compared and describes the
preferences for the resources evaluated.
A. Stateline Alternatives
Links 0 and I are common to all three routing Ol~tions and follow existing
transmission lines their entire distance, crossing the McCullough Mountains
{bighorn sheel~ habitat), routing south of Jean Lake, with overall law impacts
identified. Virtually no differences exist for biological, land use, and visual
resources (residential, recreation and highways) associated with Routing
Options A-I anu A.2. While Ootion A-2 follows the existing Boulder Corridor,
Option A-I follows the newly constructed IPP transmission llne through Roach
Lake. Routing Option A-3 is utilized for comparing the I-I$ alternatives.
No significant concerns or routing preferences were identified at the public
meetings. The BLM in Nevada expressed concern fdr rec:reational uses
associated with dry lake beds in the area.
B. I-IS AIt~f~tiv~
Routing Options B-2 and B-21 ~oth utilize Link 8 and were preferred ave
Optians B-I and B-20 which utilize Link 7. Greater ootontlaJ vL~,al (scenL~
ClUality)~ archatgJ~icaJ {_new access requirements) arid biological (desert
tortoiseJ I~.pacts were found aloncj Ltnk 7 because of no ex,sting roads or
transmission lines located in ~hts aUgnment. Routing OI3tian B-2 i~' the most
preferred because it follows .*he existing corridor. Although Routing
OI3tianB-21 avoids private lands, Option B-2 parallels the existing line,
3-2~
[C-2~]
Exhibit C
crossing lands that lack any future development plans (no~e were filed with
the county). Option B-2 appears environmentally preferred while Option B-21
would be the Project Sponsors' Preferred Route.
Option B-3 is environmentally preferred while Option B~ is the Project
Sponsors' preferred option. Option B~ crosses the East Mojave National
Scenic Area which lles within approxlmately one mile of I-IS (I-IS is crossed
twice) and would be highly visible. Option B-3 would generally follow an
existing transmission line (existing 138kV line is considerably smaller than the
proposed action) for the majority of its length. Option B-3 would place the
llne immediately adjacent to the north edge of Baker, whereas Option
would be separated from Baker by
Option B-6 is preferred environmentally and would be the Project Sponsors
Preferred Route in this area. This alignment w~ld generally follow the
existing 138kV transmission line. Routing Option B-S crosses a portion of the
East Mojave National Scenic Area and the environmentally sensitive Soda
Mountains.
Option B-7 was environmentally more acceptable than Options B.-8 and B~
since they cr~'porallel the Mojave River and traverse Cave Mo~ntain (BLM
Alton Canyon Recreation Area, bighorn sheep habitat, and high scenic
quollty). Option B-7 parallels an existing transmission llne and avoids the
recreation area and associated impacts. Opti~ B*10 was.preferred environ-
mentally and by the Project Sponsors over Option B-I I.
The' results of the public workshop and scoplng meetings held in Baker
indicated that Baker residents, East Mojave National Scenic Area supgarters,
and other agency representatives all strongly favor the B~ulder Corridor over
any of the I-IS alternatives. Concerns were for visual impact, future land use
impacts, and RI/TVI to area residents and I-I $ travelers.
C. Mojave Valley Alternatives
Routing Option C-2 was environmentally preferred over Option C-3 because it
would parallel the existing Boulder Corridor (four extra high v. oltage.lines),
while Co3 would only I:~rallel a small existing line. Greater visual (highway
and residential) and historical impacts are antlclpote~ ular, g Option C-3.
Optiafi C-2 may potentially result in removal of two resid~n~..,s if routed south
and adjacent to the existing corridor. Option C-2 is also the BL.M Preferred
alternative.
Option CA I$ t~e Project Sponsors' Preferred Route and was identlfied as a
miticjc~tlon (to F~outlng Optlo~ C-l) measure to avoid i~tentlal impacts to the
law-level training flights occurring over Coyote I. ake. If Ol~tJon C-~ is
utilized, the pro~ tran~missio~ line would be h~-ated wllt~ln 0.25 milo
north of the existing tran~rnlssion line (along Link 21cz), thus avoiding removal
of two residencas~ and increasing system reliability. Optla~ C.I wa.~ identi-
fied as unacceptable by the (~eorge Air Force Base.
3
Exhibit C
D. Kramer Jutration Alternatives
~out;ng Option D-5 follows existing transmission Hnes and is located within
the BLM's ¢ont~ngenc:y corridors (P and Q, CDCA Plan I.~0) for its entire
d~stance. Lin~ ~,2 of Option D-] (Project Sponsors' Preferred ~oute) and
L.;nk ]7 of Option 0--~, deviated from existing transmission lines and the
~dentified ¢ontinger~y corridors. Based on agency/public inl~ut, Kramer
Junction routing options are all more preferable than any of the Helenclale
al ternat~ves.
E. Helendale-Victorville/Adelonto Alternatives
Of the Helendale alternatives, ;~out[ng Option ~-6 parallel to t~e
transmission line is the environmentally more acceptable route. Although
Option E~4~ generally follows the Boulder Corridor, it veers .away close to
Victorville, resulting in greater bio~ogical/vlsual impacts than Option
Although yet'/ similar, Option -_--I ;s slightly better than ~-2 (both utilize L;nk
2~,a), while Option ~-3 is more preferred 'than E4'~'(both utilize Linl< 2?]'
because Ol>tionsE-I and E-3 parallel the existing corridor for a greater
distance. ~outing Option ~--6 is environmentally more a¢cel~table than either
E-I or E-3 because it parallels an existing corridor for a greater distance.
Significant visual (Mojave r~iver and surrounding residential areas) and
biological (highest desert tortoise density area) impacts are anticipated along
Options ~'ol and E-]. I~out[ng ODtion E-6 however would remove one
residence.
~out~ncJ Ol~tlons E-l, E-] and E-(~ were identified as unacceptable during the
Dublie workshc~os held [n Arielonto and Silver Lakes. Co~cerns r~oted includec~
the crossing of the Mojave F~iver, land use (both existing ariel future), and
visual imoacts to residents. In addition, the City of Victorville is opposed to
'~ny alternatives through the city (e.g., ~outing Option
F. Fort Irwin Alternatives
No major impacts were identified along Link 6 of the Fort Irwin alternatives.
Alternatives followir~ the Boulder Corridor were preferred by residents of
Baker, Zost Mojave National Scenic Area supp4rters, on¢l CAL. TF~ANS
persa,~nel.
3.7.~ Final Pautinq Alternatives
P'ollow~ng ~e comparison of t~e ~umer~s r~ti~ ~ti~s a~iat~ with the~:.
six major com~ri~ ~ts, f;nal rout;ng alter~tlves for ~o ~jor g~raphic
ar~s were ;d~tifi~: (I)~etween M~/~CulI~ ~ Barstow, and
(2) from ~a~tow to Victowille/A~elonto.
3-28
Exhibit C
F~rst, the Project Sponsors' Preferred Route (Links So,
IS, I8 and I c)) and the environmentally best I-(5 alternative (Links 5¢3, 5b, $c,
~J, 9, 13, 16, 18 and 19) were both compared with the Boulder Corridor (Link 6).
While only minimal environmental impacts were found along the Boulder
Corridor (Fort Irwin alternative), significant visual, biological, cultural, recre-
ariahal and RI/TVI ~mpacts were identified along both of the 1-15 Corridor
alternatives. As a result of this coml~arlson, any alternative along the 1-15
Corridor would be substantially worse (environmentally) than the Boulder
Corridor. Therefore, the comparison charts for the final routing alternatives
only compare the Boulder Corridor with one 1-15 route--the Project SDonsors'
Preferred IRoute.
C-~econd, the environmentally best alternatives, one around Kramer Junction
(Links 21a, 2Oh, 0,1, 38, 35, ~.Oa, O,0b, 30 and 31) and the Boulder Corridor
(Links 21a, 2lb, 23, 25, 26, 32 and 35) through Victorville were identified.
Although paralleling existing lines from Barstow south, the Boulder Corridor
alternative crosses over a mile of irrigated cropland, crones the Mojave River
twice, and crosses important historic resources, although visual impacts are
minimal. The Kramer Junction alternative is located in a BLM contingency
corridor and would require uggraded or new access for a,oproximately 30 miles,
resulting in potential impacts to biological, visual and archaeological re-
sources. The Boulder Corridor alternative would pate~tlally remove three
residences, two residences along the south side of Link 21a and one along
Link 35. ,~/o residences would be removed if the I(ramer Junction alternative
is utilized because DWP would build on the north side of the Boulder Corridor
(along Link 21 a), thus avoiding all residences.
The Project Sl~c~s~rs' Preferred Route around ~(ramer Junction was also
included as a final routing alternative (see Sectio~ 3.7.~),
The five final routlng alternatives evaluated, as shown on Figure 3-8 (MaD
Volume) and Figure 3-5 at the end of this chc~ter, are compared o~ Table 3-9.
These alternatives are as follows~
ALTERNATIVE: A (B/M Preferred Route)
~., Segrramts~ A-I (LinksO, I, 3)
F-2 (Links 6, 21a, 2lb)
F-~ (Lqnk 23)
E-& (Links 2S, 2G, 32,
AL.T-g~NATIV~ 8 (C~tingency Corridnr)
Segme~ts~ A-2 (Links O, l, 2,
F'-I (Link 6)
C2-$ (Links 21 a, 0,~, 2Oh)
O-S (Links ~,t, 38, 3~,
0-7 (LinksO,0b, 30, 31)
3
[C-311
Exhibit C
ALTERNATIVE C
Segments: A-I (Links 0, 1, 3)
F-I (Link 6)
CoS (Links 21a, O,b,, ~Ob)
D-3 (Links ~,2, ~,0a)
0-7 (Links 5,0b, 30, 31)
ALTERNATIVE D (Project Sponsors' Preferred Route)
Segments.' A-3 ('Links O, [, 2)
B-21 (Links So, ~,S, So, 8)
B-16 (Links 10, 12, 13, 10,, I$,
(Links Ic?, 21o, ~ ~0b)
D-3(Links ~, ~0a)
(Links~Ob, 30, 31)
AL~RNATI~ E
S~mentsl A-3 (L~nEs 0, f, 2}
B-21 (LinEs So, ~5, So, 8)
B-16 (Links !0, 12, 13, I~,
C-~ (Links 1~, 21a, ~, 2~)
D-5 (L~nks 51, 38, 3~, ~0a)
D-7 (Lin~s ~0b, 30 3~)
Alternative A (BLM Preferred Route)
Alternative A is the shortest olternatlve (183.0 miles) and wo~ld cross the
least amount of private land (33,S miles) ~nd the most miles (5,.~,) of
incorporated lands. With the exceptio~ of 0.6 mile of new access, the
remaining 182.~, miles would utilize existing access roads (assuming 200-foot
separation from existing lines). Only the Boulder Corridor alternative would
cross the Mojave R~ver (twice) <and affect the least miles of s~ecial (protected)
interest plait ~ecies habitat, and (ilia monster and Mohave ground squirrel
habitat. 'NhHe Alternative A follows the designated BLM Boulder Corridor for
approximately 100 miles, three residences would potentially be removed. The
Boulder ~orridor also cros_,e_s the most miles of high archaeol~]ical sensitivity
and major areas of historical sensitivity.
Of the fln~l routing alternat;',es, Alternative A is more preferred than an ,., S
alternative. Alternative A through Victorville is least preferred by ~reo
resicle~ts~ t;'e City of Victorville, and (;eorge Air Fro'co Base.
Alternati~e B (Cantinge~-y Corridae')
Alternative t~ is 212.8 miles 'ong and crosses ~e largest amount of publK.
lands (162./~ miles). Approximately 3~ miles of new or uggrad,ed access roads
would be required. This al[gn'~ent would cross $6.$ miles of moderate to hiqh
density desert tortoise hobit'll. The corridor would follow exit;ting lines for o
total at ap13rox~mate~y 180 "~les, ~vhile the entire alignment is located within
3-30
[C-32I
Exhibit C
the designated Boulder Corridor (77.8 miles) or continaency corridors P and Q
(85.2 mdes) as described by the BLM CDCA Plan. Th~ a i~nment crosses the
least miles of VRM Class II, BLM East Mojave National Scenia Area, and
Califomla Natural Areas. Only two California state highways eligible for
scenic designation are crossed.
Based on the results of the agency/public soaping and workshop meetings held
during the environmental studies, Alternative B would be acceptable to the
public (area residents in Baker, Victorville, Adelanto and Silver Lakes),
agencies (City of Victorville, Ceorge and Edwards Air Farce Bases, and
CALTRANS), and public interest groups (e.g., supporters of the East Mojave
National Scenic Area).
Alternative C
Alternative C is approximately 10 miles shorter th~n Alternative ~ and would
have similar environmental impacts. The only slgt~iflcant difference is that
Alternative C utilizes Link b, 2, ~st ~(ramer Junction, which does not follow o
BLM co~tlngency corridor or existing transmission lines. An existing access
road is paralleled for 27.5 miles along L.~ok 0,2. A total~f 56 miles of new or
upgraded acces~ roads are potentially required.
This route is also more preferable to tt~e' I~Folic than Alternatives A, ID and E
because it would parallel the Boulder Corridor past Baker and avoid the
Victorville/Helendale areas by going north around Calico Mountains.
Alternative D ~Pro]ect Sponsors' Preferred Route)
The Project Sponsors' Preferred Route parallels the existing Ooulder Transmis-
sion Lines from Mead to McCullough. The route then parallels the
transmission line west of McCullough, parallels I-IS within BL.M's designated
Utility Corridor B~ (CDCA Plan 1980), rejoins the existing Boulder Transmis-
sion Lines for several miles northeast af Barstaw, and gees nor11~ af Barstaw
and the Calico Mountains within BLM's CDCA cantinge~cy corridors. The
route the~ generally Ix~rallels ;>artions of SC~.'s C~lwater ta l(ramer and
Kramer to Lugn trm~amission lines to Arielante.
This alternative is 205.$ miles tong, crossing IS2.~, miles of public land and
44L9 mileel of prtv~te land, with a total of 116.& miles of new or uggraded
aCC~lI b~ng required. Approximately 7? miles ~ ~ Project Sixesors'
Preferred Route cross~ moderate to high_cl~sitx dlses't t?'. tol~e habitat. The
alignment follow~ &4.1 miles of BLM designated corr~dor~ and parallels
approximately 1(30 miles of existing transmisaion I;nes. The pro~ align-
merit affects the greatest amount of VRM Ciasa II areas (~A.5 miles), BLM
~ast Mojave National Scenic Area (29.~ miles), and California Natural Areas
(19.& miles). The Project Sponsors' propeNd Qct|Qn craMes the least amount
of archaeologically ~ensltive areas.
3-31
Exhibit C
Concern has been expressed by area residents (Baker), ~eclal..interest groups
(supporters of the East Mojave National Scenic Area), and agencies~"~,
(CALTRANS). No public concern has been expressed for the Kramer Junction
portion of this alternative.
Alternative E
Alternative E is the same as the Project Sponsors' Preferred R~Jte except that
the route would fallow LinEs ~,1, 38 and 39 ~LM contingency corridor and
existing transmission line) around Kramer Junction. This alternative would
cross the greatest amount of private land (5~.~ miles), high erosion potential
soils, special-interest p/ants (32.3 miles), moderate to high density desert
tortoise habitat (83.3 miles), East Mojave Notional Scenic Area (2<).~ miles),
and California Natural Areas (t 9.6 miles).
Alternative E has the same agency/public concerns as expressed in Alter- ,~
native D. ."
3.7.5 8LM Route Selection Proces~
The selection of the BLM Preferred Route resulted from a comparison of the
resource data for all alternative routes (Table 3-9). Agency/public comments
will be factored into the final route selection based on comrne~ts received on
the Draft ER. Capital costs will also be considered. Table 3-9 shows agency
and public comments, as well as estimated costs for the alternative line routes
(costs from DWP).
3.7.~ Proiect Sl~n.s~s' Route Selection Proces~
The first ste13 in selectl-.g the utilities' preferred route was to determine the
factors ~mportont to the siting of a transmission line. The six factors arrived
at and agreed UDon by a DWP Route Selection Committee (Committee) were:
llcensobilltyt environmental concerns, e~jineering design and construction
costs, reliability,. the ¢apaDility of locating future trammlm~ion lines adjacent
to the 'sele¢'red' route, and maintainctbility. Each factor was then broken down
into its mast iml~ortan/parameters, as described below,
In rating the Iicen~i;'b, of alternative rout~% the Committee considered
ager~'y oceeptabillty, local permit processes, public (citizen) accegtabillty, the
l>ass~ility of legal action, the amount of private versus Federal land traversed.~.,~
by the route, and whether or not the routes were within a BLM utility corridor-'~
Environmental cancorns considered included visual, Icr, d uee, biolc~ical,
cultural resource and earth resource iml~acts, and RI/TVI. Engineering design
and constructlon costs were based on land and design costs, length of the
route, and difficulty of construction. Far reliability, rating~ for a proposed
alternative route were evaluated based on the cancentration of power (trans-
mission lines) already existing in the corridor; the length of Yne llne exposed to
3-32
Exhibit C
rlsk~ and the sus~eptib!l[ty of the llne to outages due to floods, aircraft
collision, sabotage and fires. A secondary consideration under reliability was
the number of crossings of extra high voltage power lines along the alternative
route. The ability of DWP or another utility to locate future additional
tronsmiss{on lines on a proposed route was determined by the physical
(topographic) constraints on the route. Maintainabillty ratings were basically
a function of the costs incurred due to the frequency and difficulty of
maintaining the llne. This included proximity to dust sources such as cement
plants or ooen~it mines, vandalism, and accessibility to the line in an
emergency.
Rating points were defined for each factor on a scale of $ (routes providing
best case for the given parameters) to I (routes providing worst case for the
given parameters). The relative weighting of each of the six factors was then
discussed and agreed upon by the Committee.
The route selection process consisted of direct comparlso~s of segments or
alternatives between common endpoints. Rating points were determined for
each factor for each alternative. The rating points for each of the six factors
were then multiplied by their reSOectlve relative welghtlngs and the r~sultant
total points for Ipq_h alternative route segment were added. The preferred
route selected was Mot alternative with the highest point total.
Based on this route selection process, Alternative ID ,~as selected. One of the
major factors leading to the selection of Bl_Mts I-IS Utility Corridor over the
Boulder Utility Corridor ~LM Preferred IRoute) was the ability to maintain
separation from major existing transmission Ilne~. The Boulder Corridor
already co~tains a 287kV and two S00kV AC Boulder Tron~nisslon I. ines, and
the ~_500~V IPP OC Transmission ~.ine. Therefore, this corridor should be
considered fully develc~ed.
By utilizing the comprehensively studied BLM-designated I-I$ Corridor
betwees~ the California/Nevada border and the M. Liave Valley, by offsetting
the proposed ~'ansmisslon line uD to 0.25 mile from the four existing lines on
Link 2.1a, and by ~ continuing into Adelanto via the ~,ram. e.r
Junct,on/northem routes, the Project Span~ors' Preferred Route crvo~ds
paralleling all four ~f the existing lines at one tlme. I%e these reasons, t~
Project Sponsors b~lleve that Alternative 0 sh~ld be agl)roved for
progosed project.
IApl~ee~ix O of this clecument provides a detailed dl~cussla~ of the reliability
issue, and de~cr~'oe~ the concerns regarding corridor separation.
-33
[c,-3.Sl
Exhibit D
FDR FT ERI
S.0 ~ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSF_QUENC~$
IMPACT ASSESSMENT/MITIGATION PLANNING I:~OC~SS
~'~vironmentat consequenCeS from the proposed action and alternatives ~re the
residual impacts remaining after mitigating measures have been applied to
Jnltiol (unmitigated) impacts. The process involved assessing impacts b(3sed
upon (3 cornpar[son of the proposed project with tt~e pro-project env[r.3nment,
determining mJHgation that would effectively reduce or eliminate [rapacts (3nd
identifying "residual" impacts, or impacts remaining after the application of
committed millgallon. The [r~pact assessment and mitigation planning process
is briefly described below.
The initial step in the impact ossessment/mitigaHon planning process was to
define the proposed action, which collectively involved three components
which are interrelated; -(I) the project description~ ("2) access requirements,
and (3) generic mitigation.
The first component described the Project Sponsors' proposed project design
features, construction techniques, operational charocteristics~ and mainte-
nance and abandonment procedures (see Chapter 3). The second component
involved data on where and to what extent roads would have to be ~uilt or
upgraded to construct and ma[ntoin the proposed project facilities for each
routing alternative. The Project Sponsors provided information on where
existing access was sufficient, where existing roads would require upgrading,
and where new access roads would have to be constructed (see Chapter ]).
The third component was generic mitigation. Mitigation for the proposed
project included two types of programs-- generic and selective. Generic
'nitigat~on consists of measures or techniques to which the Praiect Sponsors
made commitment on a "gen~,.;ic" or ~onspecific basis as part of their proposed
project plan. This levc~ of mitigation was assumed in assessing impacts
resulting from the prooosed action. Generic mitlgatina measures are listed in
Table 3-6. Selective mitigation consisted at measures or techniques to ~hJch
the Project Sponsors made commitment on a case~Dy-case Lot "seLective")
basis after'imp.acts were_identitie-J aria assessect.
The proposed octia¢~ was thus ~efined as including the project description, road
access requlrements~ and generic miHgotion. The next set of data used in the
impact assessment/mitigcHon planning process was the inventory of the pro-
project environmental Setting as tiescribed in Chapter ~,. Collectively, these
data define the natural, human and cultural environments potentially affected
by the proposed action.
Types of impacts were first identified by considering what effects project
activities could have on the pre-proiect environment of each alternative route,
Impact zones within alternative study corridors were defined as one-half-mile
wide, and were delineated from a ~reliminary centerline, assumincj that the
final right-of-way would lle ~ithin the half-mile zone. Following identific(3-
tion of types ol~ impacts, patenti(3l impacts were determined~ assessed and
documented according to location. ",~e, and intensity 3f impact. The impact
Exhibit D
location was recorded by llnt4 number and milepost and the impacted areo~
described. The impact type was recorded to correspond to the predeterminec~
list of significant impact types relevant to each resource. The impact
intensity was assessed and recorded both quantitatively and quaJitotlveiy. In
order to determine impact levels, an "impact model" was developed for each
resource classification. Each model was constructed from the same criteria:
· C~esource Sensitivity, or the probable response of a particular resource
to project-related activities.
· Resource Quality, or the pre-project condition of the resource poten-
tially affected.
· ~esource Quantity, or the amount of the resource potentially affected.
· Ourarian of impact, or the period of time over which the resource
would be affected, measured as short-term (up to a few years) or long-
term (life of the project and beyond).
Although the underlying criteria were conceptually the same for each model,
characteristics of the criteria varied according to the charactter;stlcs of each
resource. Application of the models to each route yielded qualitative levels of
high, moderate, low or no identifiable impacts, as defined below.
Hiqh Impact - A high level of impact would result if the construction,
operation, maintenance or abandonment of the propose~ project would
potentially cause a significant or substantial adverse change; or stress to an
envir=n,~ental resource(s).
Moderate Impact - A moderate impact would result iF the construction,
operation, maintena.0.nce' or abandonment of the proposed. project would
potentially cause some adverse change or stress (ranging between signifi--
cant and insigniflcar~t) to an environmental resource(s).
Low Impact - A low impact would result if the construction, operation,
maintenance or abandonment o'f the proposed project. would potentially
cause an insignificant or small adverse change or stress to an environ-
mental resource(s).
No Ide~tlfiable Impact - No identifiable impact would be i;ndlcated where
no measurable ifspact would occur to the specific resource(s) under
investlgaHo~.
In some cases where impacts were low, or mitigation wo~ld nat be effectiv~
no mitigation was recommended. Where mitigation was warranted and wou,
be effectlye, mitigation recommendations were made by the resource
.sgecialists to reduce or eliminate specific impacts.
Based upon aDpllcation of recommended mitigation, impacts were re-assessed
and, where appropriate, impact levels reestablished. The ;~reliminary residual
~mpacts remaining after applicaHon of recommended mitigation indicated the
[D-21
Exhibit D
effectiveness of a particular ,mitigation measure. The Project Sponsors
evaluated the cost and technical feqsib{lity of each recommended mitigation
measure, and made commitment to undertake specific mitigation in specific
geographic locales on a case-by-case basis. This selectively committed
mitigation plan, along with the generic mitigation committed to as part of the
proiect plan, constitute the mitigation program for the proposed project.
Selectively committed mitiaation measures are shown in Table 5~-I~ and the
~ocofion at each com~tt~ ~i~t~ for ~ preferred franco,sion ~ne
route is s~own ~n ~a~l~ ~*Z (~ ~ Subsequent assessment of the
impacts ramamOng after select,very committed mitigation resulted ~n the f~n~l
residual impacts that constitute the environmental consequences of the
propas~ action. T~ ~iaal Re~ort ~rovides detail~ impact assessment
information (e.q., impact ty~ initial and resid~l imD~e ~ re~d
an~ commift~ mif~ation~ ~y C~ourne~d~y mlf~Dn~t~ ~k.
S¢~iflc mitigation r~ommendations/commitmentCfor cultural resources will
be made following the completion of the commltt~ pre~onstructlon cultur¢l
resources studies. ~itigation will be developed in consultation with the SHPOs
in California and Nevada and the ACHP as appropriate.
5.2 TRANSMISSION Lli'qE
The following sections on environmental consequences describe types of
impacts that could be expected for each resource in the natural, human
cultural environments, and potential initial and residual impacts. ~'or the
purposes of this I~D,, environmental impact has been defined as a modification
in the status of the environment, as it presently exists or is anticipated to be,
from the proposed action.
~.nvironmental impacts can be ~ositive (beneficial) or negative (adverse) as
~rimary result of the action (direct) or as a secondary result (indirect). They
can be permanent or (ong-{asting ((ong-term)~ or temporary or of short
duration (short-term). Impacts can vary in degree or magnitude from no
chonge~ or only slightly discernible change, to o total ~¢nange in the environ-
mental condition.
A summary of residual impacts ~s presented in Table 3-9 (Map Volume).
Impact maps for blologicoi, ~and use, visual, archaeological and historic
r.~sources are presented in F';gures $-I through 5-9 (Map Volume). Potential
air quality and acoustical impacts ,~ere not mapped because of their regional,
rather than site-specific~ nature. In addition, impacts to sacloeconamics,
earth and poleontological resources were not mapped because all impacts were
determined to be low. For ethnological resources, no site-specific identifica-
tion of potential impacts has been ;~rovided, but will be provided for purposes
of resource preservation or planning on a case-by-case basis.
It is important to note that the following discussions emphasize environmental
resources identified along the ~ro]ect SponSors' and the BLM Preferred
Routes, both included in the ~ive ¢;nal routing alternatives ~dent(fied in
~. -3 [i).3l
Exhibit D
Chapter 3. For additional informal,on on alternatives evaluated, refer to
Chapters 2 and ~ of this document. ~
$.2.1 Air Quallty/Metearolom,
The constr~ct~on of the proposed transrniss~on line will cause temporary land
disturbances and, therefore, the generation of dust. Construction may <:lso
cause short-term air quality impacts clue to the operation of aonstr..~¢tion
equipment.
The operation of transmission lines is not a significant source of air pollution.
Insignificant amounts of oxidants and nitrogen oxides may result from the
operation of a high voltage llne, and small amounts of criteria pollutants will
result from maintenance vehicles and equipment.
Criteria pollutant emissions will be 'nitigated by the uJe of water ~rays to
reduce particulate emissions, ~y providing proper maintenance af vehicles, and
~y asSuring conformance with existing tailpipe exhaust standards far
applicable equipment.
Results
£onstructlon oclirilles will result ~n temporary emissions ~ncreases ~t
localized areas as construcHon proceeds along the transmission ~ne route over
a period of about 2~, months. Operation of the line will result in minimal
pollutant emissions (Droppo J979), Therefore, adverse impacts to air quality
will de short-term and minimal, and generally the some for all alternative
routes. No long-term adverse air qual[ty impacts will occur.
5.2.2 Earth Resources
The trapact assesSment was designed to determine which e~rth~ resources, if
anY, may potentially be affected. ~y transmisSion line constnuction and/or.
operation. Only roll erosio~ p~tterns ~ paleantelagical fe~.rcea have the
po~e*~llll to, b~ s~. U~k:antly ~ .mpactod by the proposed ~roject.
An impact model was developed for soll erosi~ that considered resource
sensitivity (erosion potential), quality (existing dlsturbance)~ quantity (amount
of new disturbance), and duration (short or Ion~ term). P?JeontologJcal/~!~11~,
resources #ere evaluated with respect to four main impact criteria.' sensi-.
Hvity (value or significance of fossil-bearing strata), q~lity (existing distur-
bance), quantity (amount of new ~isturbance), and duration (length of time
resource will be affected).
Aspects of the geologic environment which could potentially affect the
proposed st.el lattice towers and conductors were also analyzed and identif;e~l
$-4
Exhibit D
as gaptechnical hazards. In general, the hazards present either a siting
constraint (could be avoided by alternative route selection or tower spacing) or
a foundation problem (requires special tower foundation investigations).
Gaptechnical hazards considered include surface fault displacement, strong
ground motion, soil liquefaction, slope instability, expansive soils~ hydrocom-
paction (soil collapse) and flo~ing or debris flows. Mitigation r~ommenda-
Huns were develop~ based on potential ~mpocts and axisling conditions along
the alternative corridors.
Results
Generally, soil erosion impacts were low in areas where existing road access
was considered sufficient or where erosion potential for the soils was low.
Initial impacts were moderate in areas where rood access would have to be
upgraded or newly constructed and where erosion potential was identified as
moderate or high. Recommended mitigation measures, which reduce all
residual impacts to low, include a pre--constructlon field review by a qualified
professional to identify the most effective means of mitigating site*specific
soil erosion impacts. Possible mitigation measures could include minor adjust-
ments in tower and road locations, restricting access during periods of high
soil moisture, and utilizing selective biodegradable soil stabilizing agents.
Initial potential impacts to paleontologlcal resources are anticipated to be low
or moSle'rate,-with residual impacts being low. Recommended mitigation
measures include a site-specific field review by a qualified professional to
identify fossil localities that are considered rare or unique and should not be
disturbed. Minor realignment of tower and access roads may be necessary to
avoid such areas.
Potential geotechnical hazards that may affect the project can, w:th minor
exceptions, be mitigated by proper route selection, tower spacing, or founda-
tion design. The principal results of the geotechnical h~zard assessment are
summarized 5claw.
Surface Foul.t Displacement - Placement of transmission towers u~. fault
traces (ident,fled in the Technical Report) should be avoided, e.g., Link 22
betwee~q Mileposts 12.0 and t~.5. In general, the routes should crass the faults
at high angles to the fault traces.
Stronq Ground Motion - Transmission towers are generally insensitive to
primary ground shaking during seismic events, and no specific design measures
are recommended.
Soil Liquefaction - Soil liquefaction is considered a foundation problem.
Mitigation involves proper design of foundations to withstand liquefaction.
Slope Instability - Potential slope instability conditions are present in very few
areas in the corridors. Recommended mitigation consists of selective siting of
towers in these areas. No major rerouting is anticipated.
5-5
Exhibit D
Expansive Soils - Expansive soils are considered a foundation problem. They~
are so extensive that, in general, they cannot be routed around. Proper
of foundations can millgate th~s hazard.
!-IydrocomDoction - Hydrocompaction should be evaluated at each tower site so
that mitigation cneasures may be taken as appropriate. Proper design of
foundarians can mitigate the hazard, where present.
Floodlnq and Debris Potential - Areas of potential flash floods and debris flows
can be spanned or, where pulleys are of substantial width that they cannot be
avoided (i.e., width greater than tower spacing), proper engineering measures
can be taken to protect tower sites.
BLM Preferred Route
All residual soll erosZon impacts along the BLM Preferred Route are expected
to be low. The residual impact to paleontologlcal resources crossed in Link 6
will be low because existing access is sufficient.
Project S~onsors' Preferred Route
Moderate initial soil erosion impacts were identified in Links 10, 12, 15, I~ and
0,2. With miHgat[on~ however, all of these impacts will be reduced to a
level. Palecntological resources are crossed in Links 18, 19 and 20b, with
iniHal impacts identified as low and moderate. Residual impacts, based on
committed ,~Jt[~tlon (Measure 12A, Table 5-1), will I~e low for all links.
5.2.3 Biological Resaurc ;s
Potential impacts on biological resources of the study area are summarized
below, and presented in detail in the Technical Report. Potential adverse
effects of the project an each alternative corridor were evaluated using an
impact a~sessrnent model that incorporated the following ~lements to predict
initial impact levela it, pact type, resource sensitivity, resau~'~.quantity, and
generic mitigation measures.
~31ological impacts associated with the construction and o~eration of the
proposed project include any adverse effects an vegetation, ,~61dlife, legally
protected species, and species of special interest. These potential impacts can
be categorized into construction and operation.related effects as describe,.d,'m~.
below.
Construction Impacts
Construction impacts include d;rect and ~ndlrect effects which iresuit fram the
need for access for wor',cers arid ecluipment along the proposed right-of-way to
5-6
Exhibit D
construct the transmission towers and string conductors. The level of these
impacts varies among alternative corridors because the need to improve
existing roads or establish new access roads varies from llnk to link.
Construction activities are the only project elements that could potentially
result in significant impacts if mitigation was not applied.
Direct impacts due to construction activities consist of temporary and/or
;~ermanent disturbance, displacement, and/or removal of plants and animals.
Areas of tecnporary disturbance include the tower base construction zone,
wire-pulling sites, wire-splicing sites, construction yards, and batch plant
y'ards. These areas will be cleared of vegetation when grading and recan-
touting are necessary to accomplish construction activities. In other areas,
vegetation will not be removed. Temporary disturbances represent short-term
impacts. These disturbed areas will be left to revegetate naturally and to ~e
recolonized by wildlife as vegetation becomes established. Permanent distur-
bances represent long-term impacts that would persist for the life of the
project. Areas of permanent disturbance and removal include tower bases, and
permanent access and spur roads.
Indirect construction impacts consist of potential new or increased
unauthorized vehicular and human activities along access roads. Such
activities could result in new or increased adverse effects on the local biota
due to off-road vehicle travel; ¢011ectlng of cacti; incidental-damage to native
vegetation or special-interest plants; and harassment, disturbance or hunting
of legally protected and special-interest wildlife. Another indirect construc-
tion impact is the potential disturbance of wildlife in odiocent habitats due to
the temporary introduction of, or increase in, vehicular travel, equipment
noise, and human activity.
Ol>eratia~ Imp,acts
The operating transmission Hne would consist-of stationary, unmanned and
nonmechanical structures with negligible maintenance needs. Hence, opera-
lion and maintenance of the proposed line are not expected to result ~n any
significant impacts to biological resources. Transmission llne towers and
access roads are not expected to present an effective obstacle to wildlife
movement. A low potential exists for orlon collisions with the transmission
conductors. This potential impact is considered to be insignificant because:
(I) the line will not be located adjacent to bodies of water where larger
numbers of waterfowl would be in low-altitude flights, and (~) the rate af
mortality due to collisions with conductors is expected to be extremely small
compared to the number of birds in the study area, due to the small size of the
obstacles (i.e., conductor and ground wires) relative to flight space. Electro-
cution of raptors on transmission towers will not occur due to the fact that the
.:listonce between conductors is much greater than wing spans of golden eagles
and other large raptors (Doanes 17~3). In fact, the proposed transmission
towers could provide new perch and nesting sites for raptors in the study
area--a net beneficial impact.
5-7
Exhibit D
Mitigation Measures
Generic mitigation .'neasures represent eleme.n. ts of. the. proposed project .~.~
designed to minimize and avoid, when feasible, s~gnif~ca,nt impacts to
blolog~cal resources along each alternative corridor. These measures consist
of procedures. 4asign features and restrictions which will be ~mplemented
along at! corridors. The generic mitigation that would apply to biological
resources are measures I, 2, 3 and $ (see Table 3-6).
Despite the inclusion of generic mltlgat{on 'neasures in the project, there
would be many moderate and occasional high initial impact levels along
alternative corridors. Selective mitigation measures ~ere de,~lol~ed in order
te t~duce initlal impact levels. The goal of these recm~m~et-,:i-,d mitigation
measures is to eliminate significant, site-sgeclfic construction impacts (very
high and high impact levels), and reduce ¢er~in aletar construction impacts
(moderate and some low initial impact levels1. to the extent that is reasonable
and feasible. These measures consist of the following (number~s refer to those
on Table $-I):
I. No new access will be constructed in designated areas; e.g., construc-
tion and maintenance will be accomplished without benefit of new
access in designated areas. This will minimize ground disturbance,
limit new or improved access a~ility.
No widening or upgrading of existing access roads will be undertaken in
the area (some bane(its as No. I above).
3. All access roads not required for maintenance will be permanently
closed using the most effective and least envlronmentaily damaging
methods appropriate to that area with concurrence of the landowner.
This would limit new or improved accessibility into the area.
8. In designa'ted areas, structures will be placed so as to avoid ser~sitive
features and/or to ~11ow conductors to clearly soon the features, within
limits of standard tower design. This would minimize the amount of
sensitive feature disturbed and/or reduce visual contrast,
II. In designated' areas, construction activitie~ will be r~odified during
breeding or non-hibernation seasons o!' sensitive, listed or proposed
threatened or endangered species. This would reduce disturb~ce to
sensitive species.
a. Construction activities in ~cnown desert bighorn sheep habitat would
be limited to the summer and fall months when the sheep are.....
restricted to their small, isolated crucial habitats away fro,""'"--~
potential disturbances by construction activities.
b. Construction activities ~n potential desert tortoise habitat with
moderate to high densities (100 to 250 individuals per square mile)
or very high densities (greater than 2S0 individuals per square ,nile)
Exhibit D
would be restricted to the period of October to March when
tortoises are underground and hibernating. Hence, construction
octivitles and vehicular movements on the ground surface would not
greatly disturb the tortoise and would eliminate the potential far
-nortolity from collisions with vehicles.
i3. Prior to construction~ an ecological field review of tower and access
road des)gn will be conducted by a quailfled professional to identify
site-si~eclfic 'impacts to threatened, endangered or otherwise sensitive
vegetation and wildlife, and to determine the most effective means to
mitigate those impacts. Possible mitigatlan measures could include
minor adjustments in tower and road locations, closing access roods,
relocating sensitive species, habitat improvements, etc.
o. The presence of special-interest plants in areas likely to provide
suitable habitat would be evaluated by seasonal surveys prior to
construction. Populations in potential disturbance zones would be
identified and the Iocatlons of towers, construction yards, and new
access roads would be altered to avoid the populations.
b. [During construction activities in high and very high density desert
tortoise habitats, o qualified biologist would be on*site to locate and
mark any tortoise dens that would be adversely affected by
construction activities.
The number and type of selective mitigation measures appiled to alternative
corridors are dependent on the initial imoact level and resources affected. All
high initial impact levels would be reduced to moderate or low residual impact
levels by the alkalication of selective mitigation measures, All moderate
impact levels would be reduced to low or necjllgible residual levels, ~hile low
impact levels with moderate sensitivity resources w~uld be reduced to
negligible residual levels.
Results
The results of the impact assessment consist of initial and residual impact
levels for all alternatlve corridors, as shown on Figure $-I. These results are
described in detail in the Technical Report, including a tabulation of impact
levels by milegosh
~BLM Preferred Route
Initial impact levels along the BLM Preferred Route range from low to
moderate. Moderate initial iml~act levels (not considered signlf~cont) occur on
portions of numer6us links, including Links 6, 26 and 32. Moderate impact
levels are due to the potential adverse effects of construction activities on
bighorn sheep, adjacent golden eagle nesting habitat, sgecial-interest plants,
Mobave ground squirrel, and desert tortoise (low to high density classes).
[D-9]
Exhibit D
Most moderate initial impact levels along this route would be reduced to low
or negligible residual impact levels due to the application of the selective
mitigation measures to protect the affected resources. As a result of the~
mitigation planning, no significant impacts are expected to occur along this
too re.
Oroject Sponsors' Preferred Route
Initial impact levels along the Project Sponsors' Preferred Route range from
low to high. High initial impact levels are considered significant if not
mitigated and occur for the following biological resources on the following
links=
· '..ink 5c - A new access road between Mileposts 7.3 and 9.0 could
potentially affect Gila monster habitat, two ~ecial-interest plants, and
adjacent golden eagle nesting habitat (Clark Mountain area).
· Link 12 - A new access road between Mileposts 3.$ and b,.9 could
potentially affect desert 'wash vegetation.
· Link I~, - A new access road between Mileposts 1.9 and ~,.9 could
potentially affect desert wash vegetation (Mojave River 'Wash).
· Link I$ - A new access road between Mileposts 0.0 and 0.$ could
potentially affect desert wash vegetation (Mojave River Wash); a new
access road between Mileposts 0.~ and 3.2 could potentially affect'
bighorn sheep.
· Link 20b - A new access road between Mileposts 2.7 and 7.3 could
potentially affect the Mohave ground squirrel, desert tortoise
(moderate t6 high density class), ~ond' two.special-interest plar,'s.
· Link ~,2 - A new access road between Mileposts 0.0 and 2.:; could
potentially affect the Mobave ground squirrel, desert tortoise
(moderate to high density class), and three sgecial-interesl' pl~n~'s.
Moderate. initial impact levels (not consldere~. significant) occur on portion&
all but Links {3,. 2, Sag IPJ and 21a. Moderate ~mpact levels are due to potent :,
adverse effects of construction activities on Gila monster habita., specieq,~d
interest plants, bighorn shee~. adjacent golden eagle nesting habitat, Mobave
ground scluirrelt desert wash vegetation, and desert tortoise (low to high
density classes).
Hiah initial iml~acts (siqnlficant) on Links 5¢. 12_. I~,, 15.20b and ~,2 would .~
avoided or reduced to low or moderate residual levels due to the application o,
s~l~tjv.~ ~'~i~]~.t.~or~ ~ne.~su.C~ <uch Ols ~ access road (LT~R ~. n~ widening of
existing access roadst avoidance of desert wasl'l vegetation, restrict[n~i
construction activities to specific seasons to avoid impacts to desert tarto,so
[r 1Ol
Exhibit D
(moderat~ to high density ~reas) and bighorn sheep, and conducting pro-
construction surveys for desert tortoise and rare plants.
Many moderate initial impact levels along the Project Sponsors' ~referred
Route would be reduced to low or negligible residual impact levels due to the
application of the selective mitigation measures to protect the affected
resources. As o result of the mitigation planning~ no significant impacts are
expected to occur along the Project Sponsors' Preferred P, oute.
$.2.¢ Existln~j and Future Land Use
The following adverse impact types identified for existing and future land uses
are characteristically direct and long-term, and include any impact that:
· Displaces, piers, or otherwise physically affects any existing,
developing or planned residential, commercial, industrial, governmental
or institutional use or activity.
· Displaces, alters, or otherwise physically affects any existlng agricul-
tural use or activity.
· Displaces, alters, or otherwise physically affects any existing or
planned air facility or air travel-related activity.
· Affects applicable general and regional plans and/or approved, adapted
or officially stated policies, goals or operations of communities or
governmental agencies.
Only physical impact (interference) to land uses along a reference centerline
(200-roar right-of-way) of the alternative routes was determined. Resource
sensitivity~ or the functional, social and economic a~cts of various land use
categories, was considered in determining how susceptible to the introduction
of the proposed project the land uses would be.
Selectively committed mitigation measures (see Table 5..I) that were applied
includedz
.~. No widening or upgrading of existing access roads will be undertaken in
the area°
3. The alignment of any new access roads will follow the designated areo's
landform contours, provided that such alignment does not additionally
impact resource values. This would minimize ground disturbance and/or
reduce scarring (visual contrast).
~,. All access roads not reauired for maintenance will be permanently
closed using the most effective and least environmentally damaging
methods appropriate to that area with concurrence of the landowner.
This would limit new or improved accessibility into the area.
Exhibit D
~. Special tower design will be utilized to minimize ground disturbance,
operational conflicts, visual contrast, and/or ovian conflicts.
$. In designated areas, structures will be I~laced so as to ovoid sensitive
features and/or to allow conductors to clearly span the features, within
limits of standard tower design. This would minimize the amount of
sensitive feature disturbed and/or reduce visual contrast.
I0. Line will be rerouted to clearly avoid unmit;gable sensitive features.
This would eliminate or severely reduce visual or physical confilct with
feature.
Results
Locations of impacts to existing and future land uses are shown an I~igures $-2 ~
and $-], respectively.
BLM Preferred Route
Two areas of significant residual impact to existing land uses were identified.
The first occurs where L~nk 21a (Mileposts 5.5-5.6) crosses two sincjle-fomHy
dwelling units. The mitigation measure of rerouting does not seem to
feasible in this case; thus, ;t is assumed the two dwellings would have to be
removed. The sacand is where Link 35 crosses three single-family dwellings,
one of which cannot be avoided; therefore, removal is anticipated.
~'4o s[gnificont initial impacts ~vere identified along the 3LM Preferred Route
for future land use.
Proiect Spansors' !nreferred Route
Th~ OhiO"significant residual iml~act to existing land use along ['his route is in
Link 21a, Mile~osts $.$-$.6, os described above for the BLM Preferred Rout~.
It is important to nol'e, however, that if this route. were utilized, the alignment
would be located on the west side of the existing lines, thereby avoiding
removal of dwellings.
Significant initial impacts ,~ere identified where Link 31 crosses Bender School
and its grounds (area is used for science classes and research). C~esidual~
impacts in this link were determined to be low as a result af the ProjecC
Sponsors' commitment to mitigation measures 8 or I0. It should be noted that
if miti_aafion measure l0 is utilized, the transmission line wouta oe ~laced on
rn~ ~,-~t side of an ex~tinq transmission lln~e.~..t119.,~ F..~$UITL~.In 'the (:r~osslngor
~1 moolie nome
The one significant residual impact to future land use alo~g the ~roiect
Sponsors' Preferred Route occurs ;n Link ~,0b, Mileoosts 1~6-~.1. No ot~er
[D. 121
Exhibit D
significant initial impacts to future land use were identified along the Project
Sponsors' Preferred Route.
5.2.5 Park, Recreation and Preservation Land
One impact type was identified for park, recreation and preservation land
uses, and includes any impact that alters or otherwise physically affects tiny
established, designated or planned recreation, preservation, education or
scientific facility, use area or activity. Only physical impact to land uses
occurring within the right-of-way was considered. For the park, recreation
and preservation land use element, selectively committed mitigation measures
included numbers 2, 3, ~,, $ and 10 (as listed previously under Existing and
Future Land Uses).
Results
Figure S-/4 shows residual impacts to park, recreation and preservation land
uses.
~LM Preferred Route
No significant residual impacts to park, recreation or preservation resources
were identified. Potential significant [nlt)al impacts identified along the ~LM
Preferred Route include the crossing of the Nevada Natural Heritage Site af
McCullough Mountains (Links O and I)) the East Mojave Notional Scenic Area,
8LM Cjark Mountain ACEC, and the California Natural Area of Clark
Mountains (Link 6).
Low residual impacts were determined where Links 0 and I cross the Nlevada
Natural Heritage Site of McCullough Mountains as a result of the Project
Sponsors' commitment of mitigation measure 8. The residual impact levels of
Link ~ where it crosses the East Mojave National Scenic Area, BLM Clar~<
Mountain ACEC, and the California Natural Area of Clark Mountains were
also low as a result of Proiect Sponsors' commitment of mitigation measures 2
and 8. It was assumed that all BLM WSAs would be avoided~ therefore, no
identificlble impacts were indicated for this land use category.
Proiect SIx~nsors' Preferred Route
No significant potential residual ;rapacts to pork, recreation or preservation
resources were identified. Potential significant initlol impacts identified
along the Project Sponsors' Preferred Route included the impacts noted in
Links 0, 1 and 20b for the BLM Preferred Route. In addition, significant initial
impacts were identified where the Project Sponsors' Preferred Route crosses
the California Natural Area of Clark .~ountains, BLM Clark Mountain ACEC
and the ~ast Mojave National Sce.~ic ~,rea (Lin~< $c)i the East Maiave Natlanai
[D. 131
Exhibit D
Scenic Area and the California Natural Area of Clark Mountciins (Link 8); the
East Mojave National Scenic Area and the California Natural Area of
Cone Area (Link 10); the East Mojave National Scenic Area and the Colifornic
Natural Area of Soda Springs (Link 12); and the BLM Alton Canyon P~ecreation
Area and the California Natural Area at: Afton Canyon (Links IS and
Low residual impacts occur where Links 0 and I cross the Nevada Natural
Heritage Site or McCullough Mountains, as a result of the Project Sponsors'
commitment to mitigation measure cj. The residual impact level in Link 5c
where it crosses the California Natural Area of Clark Mountains, BLM
Mountain ACEC and the East Mojave National Scenic Area was also low as a
result of commitment to mitigation measures 2, o, and 8. A low residual
impact level was determined where Link 8 crosses the East Mojave National
Scenic Area and the California Natural Area of Clark Mountains, due to the
commitment to mitigation measures 2 and 8. A moderate residual impact
level was determined where ~.in~< I0 crosses the East Mojave National Scenic
Area and the California Natural Area of Cinder Cone Area due to commitment
to mitigation measures 3, ~, and 8; however, Link 10 has a low residual ~mpact
level from Milepasts 9.0-19.9, crossing the East Mojave National Scenic Area,
as a result of the commitment to mitigation measures 2 and 8. The residual
impact levels of Link 12 where it crosses the East Mojave National Scenic
Area and the California Natural Area of Soda Springs are moderate as a result
of the commitment to mitigation measures 3, ~, and 8. A residual impact level
of moderate was also determined for Link IS where it crosses the BLM Alton
Canyon Recreation Area and the California Natural Area of Alton Canyon due
to commitment to mitigation measures 3, b, and 8. The residual impact level
of Link 18 where it crosses the BLM Afton Canyon Recreation Area and the
California Natural Area of Afton Canyo~ was determined to be low as a result
of the commitment to mitigation measures 8 and 10. Finally, a moderate
residual impact level was determined where '..ink 20b crosses the C3LM
F~ainbow 13asin/Owl Canyon ACEC as a result of the commitment to mitigation
measures 2, ¢ and 8. It was assumed 'that all BLM WSAs would be ovoidedi
therefore, no identifiable impacts were indicated for this land ,use category.
Visual iml~cts ~e c~sidered ~o be ~er~, dir~t
C~st~ti~ a~ ~rati~ activities m~ result in ~r typical visual impact
~ aff~ting~
I. The q~li~ of any scenic re~urce~ i~ludi~ any ~enic renuroe
~i~ rare or unique value.
2. The view from or m~ifying the visual ~tti~ of any resident~a
camtactical, institutional or other visually ~sitive land u~.
3. The view from or altering the visual ~ttlng of any tr~el route.
[D-141
Exhibit D
~,. The view from or altering the visual setting of any established,
designated or planned recreation, preservation, educot[on or scientific
facility, use area, activity, and viewpoint or vista.
Duration of the visual impact was considered constant since visual change
would last for the life of the proposed project. Quantity of the visual resource
was based on the presence of the proposed towers and conductors, access road
construction and vegetation clearing likely to occur. Quality of the visual
environment was bas~:l on the combination of scenic quality, sensitivity to the
introduction of a transmission line into the seen landscape (visual sensitivity)
and the distance from the proposed activity to key observation points (distance
zones) that resulted in minimum management objectives or VRM classes.
Finally, sensitivity was defined as visual contrast. Visual contrast typically
results from modifications to landforms, vegetation pattarns and the introduc-
tion of new structures into the landscape. Physical contrast is a measure of
both ground disturbance and extent and type of structure contrast, and the
potential degree of visibility. The introduction of 500kV lattice towers and
conductors (or structure contrast) was given a slightly higher weighting than
ground disturbar~e in determining contrast.
Visual impacts are identified by comparing contrast to visibility levels from
viewing locations. Six variables were identified as most significant ~n
establishing visibility levels: viewer orientation, distance, duration of view,
numbers of viewers, view angle and the potential capacity of the landscape to
absorb the contrasts from a specific viewpoint. Visual impacts are considered
adverse, direct and long-term. Generally, a high visual impact will result from
strong contrasts where there is o high degree of vislbility and the viewpoint is
within. one mile, or when strong contrast visually disrupts a unique scenic
resource.
Re~ults
Visual impacts are shown on Figures S-S (residential), 5-6 (recreation), 5-7.
{hlghway$), and 5-8 (scenic quality).
3LM Preferred Route
No significant visual impacts to recreation areas would occur as a result of the
BLM Preferred Route, although potential moderate legacts were identified
for the Lake Dolores Recreation Area (Link 21) and a p~rk at George Air
Force Base.
Potential moderate visual impact to residences could occur along L~nks 21a,
2lb, 23, 25, ~J2 and 35 because the proposed line is in close proximity. None of
the visual impacts to residences were considered significant because the
proposed llne would parallel exlstlng structures for almost its entire distance.
s-I s [D-tSl
Exhibit D
ProieCt 5pon~ors' Preferred Route
Significant visual impacts occur along the Project Sponsors' Preferred Route
fro-n crossings of 1-15 by Lintcs 0,5, 10, 12, 100 and 19. Other highways that
would be significantly iml~acted by highway crossings are Fossil ~ed Road by
Linl< 2Oh, California 58 and U.S. 39S by Link 002 (impacts result from short
duration yet highly visible skylining effects), and Alton Canyon Road by
Link I$. Significant visual impacts resulting i~rom i~arallellng highways with
the transmission line would occur to I-I$ from Link ~ (8.2 miles of hlg~
significant impacts), from Link I0 (10.7 miles of hig,~ significant impacts),
Link 12, Link 13 (3.o, miles of high significant impacts) and Link
Significant moderate v~sual impacts would occur to a WSA cmd to the
Mojave National Scenic Area from Link 5c (0.8 mile), and to the East Mojave
Nlat~onal Sce~.~c Area from 'paralleling the existing 138kV corrh~r from Lint<
(~.8 miles). The East Moiave National Scenic Area is cros~ed by Link
resulting in 19.00 miles of high significant impacts. Alton Canyon Recreation
Area would be crossed by L. ink IS (00.0 miles of high significant impacts).
Links 18 and 19 would either cross Alton Canyon IRecreation Area ar would
result in sicjn[ficont visual impacts to the recreation area, a WSA and 1-15 rest
areas (3.7 and 0.$ miles of high significant impacts).
'tlgh and moderate significant visual impacts would occur to rural residences
or to community residences from Link $ (0.7 mile of significant moder.:te
;.'nilact1, Link 10 (00.1~ miles of high [midoct to I0 residences anct southern edge
of ~3akerl, Link 12 (impacts to Baker), Link 13 (1.9 miles of high and moderate
h'npacts to ~, residences), Link 13 (I.I miles moderate impacts to ~. residences),
Link 19 ('0.9 mile of high impacts to 2 residences), Link Lo, (2.9 miles of high
impacts to approximately I I residences), and Link ~,~ (6.0 miles of high
L, np.~cts to 1 5 residences).
Significant high and moderate visual iml~acts to scenic Clual[ty #auld occur in
Link Sc (1.3 miles crossing Class A scenery), L{nR 3 (2.3 miles crossing Class A
scenery), Link I0 (8.7 miles of Class [3 scenery), Link 12 (0,.0 miles of Class
scenery), Link t3 ~2.7 miles of Class O scenery), Link l'~, (I.6 miles. of Class
sc~me_ry.), Link 15 (3.G miles of Class 13 scenery) and Link 201:~ (0.~ mile of
C lass-B ~c:enery)~ ' ·
5.2.7 Sociaeconomics
Most of the changes in existing sacioeconomic characteristics that would b~'aem~.~
caused ~y the prol~osed action .,411 affect the residents of the areas closest tc
the transmission Hne route. The ~mpacts of tr3nsmission llne construction and
operation on local residents' I~/es and ,~elfare are generally small. Construc-
tion activities are transitory ~nd fairly rapid, and the structures that remain
have minimal impact on existing uses of the land within the right-of-way. Of
greater consequence are the property tax revenues fram fee 1and within the
r igh t-of-way,
Exhibit D
The parameters of interest for socioeconomics are: (l) construction worker
employment and income in the counties containing the new facilities, (~) fiscal
;rnpocts on those counties and other local jurisdictions where the facilities ore
located, and (3) the economies and population of the service areas served by
the additional power made available ~y the proposed facilities.
Constructio~ Impacts
As stated in Chapter 3, construction of the tronsmissio'~ line will r.=quire a
total of 120 workers working for 2~, months. In addition, it is estimated that
for the OC option, construction of the DC converter station and AC
switchyards .viii involve peak construction farces of 75 persons far the
station/switchyard combinatio~ (Draft ~IS, Mead~hoenix ~00kV DC Trans-
mission Line Proj~t, page 7, November i983). These facilities will also be
constructed over the 2~-month ~eriod. (For the AC Dro~ect~ the two AC
sw~tchyards will r~uire substantially [ess labor--~e Chapter 3.)
Construction of the transmission line would entail deployment af a serles of
~ork crews responsible for various ospects of site preparation, erstion of
towers, stringing of conductor, and clean-up. The largest crew would number
~0 people stringing conductor. Other crews would range in size from ¢ to Z5
persons. The crews would work ~n sequence, preening from staging ~reas
established olong the route of the Hne.
The construction work would be contracted out, so it is not possible to st¢~e
where ~(~ the workers ~ill come from. Since Clark and Son ~ernordlna
counties have large numbers of constructlon woK~eKs in residence, [t is
ossum~ that o number of workers would be hired I~ally, and that out-of-
state recruiting would supply the remainder. Con~quentiy, the main impact
of the construction effort would be to sustain the I~ol ~onomies.
There will be some negligible, very I~oliz~ impacts from the construction
effort, due to wo~ers using transient accotom,arians along the route when
commute Hines from Los Vegas and Son ~ernordino b~ome excessive (assume
more th6n 15 to ~ ~urs, ~e way). The communities of Victorytile, 3orstow
~nd Baker will experience ~me (ncreoses ~n tr=ns(ent workers but, b~ouse oil
have ample facilities for travelers, the impacts will be n~ligible. There ~ill
be no di~ernible effect of constr Jction tr=ffic on overall traffic c~dit[ons on
t- ) 5 or o~er main routes.
The cost of transmissio~ Hne constvJctlon (exclusive of terminals and
switchi~ stations) is estimated at $[20 to ~130 million (in e~aloted i989
dollars), Of this amount, approximately ~0 percent is cost of labor, or about
~S0 miillon. About one-~alf of this amount would be co~ income to the
workers, with the other half representing fringe benefits, taxes, and other
withholdings that the employer ~oys to the relevant institutions. Therefore,
the restricts of the counties of Clark and Son Bernardino would benefit fr~m
on estimated ~25 million in wcge ~ncome aver the two-year Deri~ [98~ to
1990, out of which ~rne major ~ortlon would enter circulation as payments for
Exhibit D
local goods and services (public and private). The local impact ~f these line~
construction wages and attendant consumption spending would be indis.
cernible, in view of the relativ.-ly large size of the local eaanomies of Clark
and San ~ernardlno counties.
Construction of the DC converter station and associated AC .,switching station
modifications at Arielonto would cost $200 million (in escalated l~89 doH~rs).
Since the Mead Terminal was evaluated in the Mead-Phoeni[x Draft F_IS, its
impacts are qot being included in this report. If the AC configuration for the
projeCt is adopted, then two AC switching stations would be modified; one at
McCullough, to take converted power from the Mead O(C terminal, end the
other at Adelanto. These modifications would cost $3S million..
The $200 million cost of the Arielonto DC converter station (which includes an
AC switching station) would consist of materials worth an es. Hrtloted $170
million (85 percent), and labor worth $30 million (including fringe benef[ts).
Thus, the cash benefit to residents of Son (3ernardlno County ,~vould amount to
an esth'nated $15 million over the two-year construction period. This would
not make any discernible impact on the overall level of economic activity in
the county (in I.a$~, total countywide personal income aggregated to more
than $~) billion). Alternatively, the AC configuration of the project would
result [n much smaller amounts of terminal construction wage, income to San
13ernardlna and Clark counties (less than $ I million each).
Fiscal Imlsac ts
AcquisH'ion of in-fee land for terminal sites end transmission rights-of-way
may increase property tax revenues on real property in the two-county project
orea~ if trans~er prices for the lands are higher than the prior values at .~vhic~
the counties assessed them. %r the ~mprov~ments (intangible properties),
Clark County will benefit from the expanded tax base resulting from constrJc-
tion of facilities. In San ~ernard[no County, however, the improvements
be exempt beCause they belong to municipal utilities. In both countlos the
v_alue of taxable properties will be net of ',¥e?ern's share. Other sources of .'
local tax revenues will be use taxes on project materials (Nevada only), and
sales taxes on workers' consumption exRenditures.
Detailed informallan on .:~e calculation of expected tax revenues are provided
in the Technical Report (Volume I1~, Chapter 7).
Re~lts
The types of secioeconomic impacts described above~ both adverse and
beneficial, will be essentially the same for all alternative transmission line
routes, with the exception of property tax revenues. Because atoparty taxes
on the transmission line will vary with alternative routes, estimated revenues
are summarized below and tabulated in Tables 5-3 and
Exhibit D
E)I_M Preferred Route
As shown on Table 5-3, the estimated property taxes for the Nevada portion of
the BLM Preferred Route are $67 per year. The California portion of the
r~ute would result in property tax revenues of $21,502 per year.
Project Sponsors' 'Jreferred C~oute
As shown on Table 5-~,, the estimated property taxes for the Nevada portion of
the ,°roject Sponsors' Preferred Route are $1~ per year. The
~ortion of the route would result in property tax revenues of approximately
25,528 per year.
5.2.8 Audible Noise
Short-term audible impacts may be associated with construction activities in
populated areas during temporary construction periods. Long-~erm audible
impacts during the operation of high voltage lines, substations and switching
stations may be associated with trans~:ormer and shunt reactor noiSe levels.
(Section $.~, discusses corona-generated transmission line noise.)
Results
Most of the project construction activities will occur in uni:~:~ulated areas and
will only occur during daylight hours. In unpopulated areas, no impact from
noise is expected. In populated areas, there could be an impact an tiny noise-
sensitive receptors within about one-half mile of the construction zone.
Construction-related noise impacts, if they occur, would only occur for a
relatively short period at any one location.
Transl~ormer and shunt reactor soqnd levels outside of the subsiaL[on
boundaries should not cause significant noise impacts. Circuit breaker trips
may cause some annoyance to nearby residents becauSe of the suddenness of
the noise. However, the actual impact of the stations on residents will be
minimal because the circuit-breaker trips are infrequent (about two to three
per month) and the steady noise levels are within acceptable bounds.
Acoustical barriers can be used, if necessary, to shield noise-sensitive
receptars from excessive noise.
5.2.9 Archaeokxlical Resources
[Direct adverse physical impacts fo archaeological sites occur during ground
disturbing activities associated with construction, such as the preparation of
tower pads, equipment yards, pulllng sites and access roads. Indirect adverse
impacts can result after construction due to increased erosion ar to i.nproved
access which 'na~<es sites more vulnerable to accidental or deliberate disrut-
S-I ? [15-191
Exhibit D
~ance. Physical disturbance of an archaeological site~ whether it is direct or
indirect, causes a permanent loss at~ informational content of the site.
Archaeologists study the spatial I~atterning of artifacts and features within
sites; once this pattern has been disrupted, it can never be reconstructed.
Adverse visual ~mi~acts may occur to sites with high aesthetic or interDretDe
values in otherwise pristine settings. The intrusion of a transmission I~ne may
degrade the cultural context of these sites even if no physical impact occurS.
V~sual impacts are theoretically reversible with the removal of the llne but. in
practice, transmission lines are rarely taken out of service.
The purpose of the impact assessment is to predict relative impacts of the
routing alternatives. As tower and access road locations are not known at this
stage of proiect planning, impacts and applicable mitigation measures for
specific sites cannot be determined. $ucl, assessments ?nd mitigation require-.
merits will be completed later to meet the E~LM's responsibilities under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. For now, the impact
assessment is areal rather than site-specific. The areas of archaeological
resource sensitivity form the basis of the iml~act assessment,. but estimated
requirements for access road construction are also taken into consideration.
In order to include access roads and indirect impacts, (3 quarter-mile wide
~mpact area (centered on the link centerlines) is assumed.
In rating the severity of impacts, the relative probability of hight reader:re
~:nd low impacts was assessed. As significant sites could occur ,anywhere ~1ong
the alternatives, significant iml~acts are also possible in all cases. The impact
levels refer to the relative probability that such impacts will be unavoidable.
In assigning impact levels, an impact model was developed using archaeo-
logical sensitivity and access road requirements as factors. In transmission
line siting, the need for new access roads in. creases the probqbility of both
direct and indirect impacts, while requirements for upgraded ,roads increases
the probability of direct impacts. Where existing access is sufficient, impacts
are relatively avoidable in tower siting. In assessing impacts, it was assumed
that avoidance is the preferred mi.tigation ~e. asure. ProbabilDy of avoidance
is factoFed' into the sensitivity and .,~npact mb¥~ls.
Re.lb
The results of the impact assessment are ~.hown on Figure 5-~), and tabulated
on a llnk-by-link basis in the Technical Report (Volume IV, Chapter 9).
possible routes pass through areas of major archaeological sensitivity~ thus,
;s doubtful that impacts to archaeolc~'Jical resources can be avoided altogether
However, impacts to cultural resources can be mitigated foilouting procedures
developed by the ACHP, pull;shed at 36 CFR 800. This will require
intensive survey of the selected right-of-way, access roads and construction
areas, (2) an evaluation of identified resources for eligibility far the National
Register of Historic Places in consultation with the $HPOs of Californ;o
Nevada, (3) determinations of effect on eilgible properties in consultation .~ith
ACHP, and (~,) implementat[on of ;~rudent and feasible measures to avoid ~r
1 -2o1
Exhibit D
reduce adverse impacts. In developing a mitigation plan, avoidance of impacts
is the preferred opt;on, as other mitigation measures generally entail the
partla{ destruction of the resource. Where avoidance is not possible, data
recovery could probably reduce impacts to an acceptable level,
,~LM Preferred Route
The ~3LM Preferred Route passes through potential moderate and low impact
areas. Highly sensitive areas include the Clark Mountains, Silver Lake, the
Mojave River (Link 32), and a large I[thic workshop/quarry/habitaHan area in
Links & and 21. Potential impacts in these <areas are reduced, however, by the
existence of sufficient access along existing transmission lines.
Project Sponsors' Preferred ~oute
~.
The Project Sponsors' Preferred Route passes through 25.7 miles of high
potential impact areas. Highly sensitive areas include the Clark Mountains,
Soda Lake, Cronese 3asin, Mojave River, and large lithic workshop/quarry/
habitation area in Links I$, I? and 21. Impacts are potentially higher in these
areas than along the ~LM Preferred Route because new or upgraded access
would be required, increcsing both direct and indirect impacts.
5.2. I 0 Historical Resources
The purpose of the impact assessment is to predict relative impacts of the
routing alternatives. As tower and access road locations are not known at th[s
stage of project planning, precise impacts and applicable mitigation measures
for specific sites cannot be determined. Such assessments and mitigation
recluirernents will be completed later to meet the BLM's responsibilities under
Section 10~ of the ,National Historic Preservation Act. F'or present purposes,
the impact assessment will be areal rather than site-specific. The areas of
h{storic resource sensitivity defined ~n Chaoter 5, will form th~-,~s of the
impact a~essment~ but estimated requirements for access road construction
will also be taken into consideration. In order to include access 'roads and
indirect impocts~ a quarter-mite wide impact are~3~ centered on the link
centerlines~ is assumed.
Impacts to historic recurcos for this project can be of three types~
I. Physical or visual effects to prooerties included on or known to be
eligible for inclusion on the Nk3tlonal Register of Historic Pl~ces.
2. Physical effects to I~istoric Droperties based on expected site densit,/
and significance (sensitivl ty~.
3. Visual effects to historic ~ropert;es ~aving visual sensitivity and hig~
site integrity.
[D_21l
Exhibit D
In rating the severity of these impact types, the relative probability of high,
moderate and low impacts was assessed. As significant sites could occur
anywhere along the alternatives, significant ~mpocts are ahso possible in all
cases. The impact levels refer to the relative probability that such impacts
will be unavoidable. In assigning impact levels an ~mpoct model ~as
developed, using historical sensitivity and access road requirements as factors.
In transmission Hne siting, the need for new access roads increases the
probability of both direct and indirect impacts, while requirements for
upgraded roods increases the probability of direct impacts. Where existing
access is sufficient, impacts are relatively avoidable in tower siting. In
assessing impacts, it was assumed that avoidance is the preferred mitigation
measure. Probability of avoidance is factored ~nto the sensitivity and impact
models.
I~esul ts
Potential impacts to historical resources are shown on F'igure $-10~ and
tabulated by impact level and miles of impact in the Technical Report
(Volume IV, Chapter lO). Moderate and low impacts have been assigned to
h~storical resources. Although some of these impacts ore signiflcant,
mitigation procedures can reduce them to on acceptable level.
As presented ~n the project description, IDWP has already agr~.,ed to campIcrc
generically committed mitigation which includes pre.-construction
resources studies. Impacts to cultural resources can be mitigated following
procedures developed by the AC~P. This will require (I) on intensive survey
of the selected right-of-way and access roads, (2) an evaluation of ~dentified
resources for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places
consultation with the SHPOs of California and Nevada, (3) determinations of
effect on eligible properties in consultations with ACHP~ and (~,) i~ )plemento-
tion of prudent and feasible measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. in ~1~
developing a mitigation plan, avoidance of impacts is the preferred option, os
other mit~gatlon measures generally entail the partial destruction of the
resource. '
~3LM Preferred Route
Along this route 2.3 miles of high ~mpacts have been assessed, as well as 3.0
miles of moderate impact. included is a moderate impact for an archaeo-
logically recorded mine on ~[nk ~, ForRs in the Road~ an important
camping site along Linl<s ~.l and 23 (high impact for 2.3 miles), and moderat-
impacts along Link 32 because of quarry and railroad shipping activities.
remaining low impacts assessed for th~s route are associated with ranching and
mining.
Exhibit D
Proiect Sponsors' Preferred Route
No high ~mpacts hove been assessed for this route, but there are I1.I miles of
,"noderote impacts. The highest potential impacts to historical resources are
to ;hose areas of moderate sensitivity where new or upgrade access will be
required. Included along this route are the Desert Antimony Mine on Link $c
and the I3oker-Cjoda Lake oreo on L~nk I2. Of less import are areas af
moderate sensitivity where new or upgrade access are ~ot required. These
include the Copper Wortd and Mohawk mines around Mohawk on Link 8 and the
.qradley Ranch on Link 15,. The low impacts assessed for this route are
associated with transportation, mining and ranching.
5.2. I I Ethnolocjical Resources
Impacts to ethnog?ophic resources ~naZ include physical, visual and aurat
impacts. These three types of project impacts are generally defined as
follows:
· A physlcol impact would eliminate, alter or otherwise physically affect
the integrity of a site or area possessing contemporary or heritage
significance to Native Americans.
· A visual impact would effect the view from or modify the visual
integrity of a site or area possessing contemporary or heritage signifi-
cance to Native Americans.
· An aural impact would affect the aural integrity of a site or area
possessing contemporary or heritage significance to Native Americans.
Et;tnogr~Dhic resources are subject to both direct and indirect impacts. Direct
impacts are commonly associated with project construction and indirect
impacts with project apeteflon, although there is some overlap. Direct
impacts usually involve ground disturbance while indirect impacts involve
increased public access to previously closed areas. These impacts can affect
the physical integrity of ethnographic sites. Impacts which can offact the
visual and aural integrity of ethnographic sites, usually oss~ciated with sacred
sites, are possible during both construction and operation. None were
identified for the proposed proiect.
Impacts to ethnographlc resources were assessed using on impact model
considered resource sensitivity and degree of required access. Sensitivity
levels developed for the ethnographic resources (high, moderate to high,
moderate, moderate to low) are equated with project defined sensitivities in
the impact model. Impact levels were assessed as high, moderate, low, and
negligible on the basis of the interaction of these variables. Potential impacts
decrease as the degree of ground disturbance, defined by access requirements,
decreases,
[r -231
Exhibit D
Impact assessment was confined to one-half mile on either side of ~
alternative IMks. While this ~s a relatively wide area of impact for
project, ;t was used to allow for possible Iocationol discrepancies. Some ~
the inventorled resources compiled l~rom previous ethnographlc studies consist
of prehistoric (archaeological) resources ;n the absence of Nat;re ~,meric=n
identiflcation or comment. impact assessment of these re~:,urces was left to
the archaeological resources study team since the assignment of both ethno-
graphic and archaeologlcal impacts to such sites would result in double
weighting. Ethnographic impacts are assessed only for those places where
Native American concerns ore cleariy evident and for those identified os
ethnographic and ethnohistorlc in the literature. This does, of course, include
a number of archaeological resources associated with areas for which Native
Americans expressed concern.
Results
Potential impacts to Native American cultural resources are tabulated by
impact level and miles of impact M the Technical I~eport (Volume IV,
Chapter II). Impacts to Native American cultural resources are generally low
and Ms;gnificant for both routes.
A pre-constructlon survey of sensitive ethnographlc sites and areas will be
conducted M accordance with generically committed mitigation. Such survey
will be conducted with the aid of knowledgeable Native Americans, cs
appropriate, and M conjunct{on with the intensive archa~l~ical su~ey. The
purpo~ will be to ~ccurately record the I~at[an and integrity of previously
r~orded re~urces~ ~dentify any new sites enc~ntered~ and d~ument related
Nat;re American c~cerns. The inventory develop~ through these procedures
should then be di~ussed with ¢pproprlate Native A~erican religious and
political leaders. Where avoidance is not possible and phxsicall disturbance to
significant ~tive .'A,~erican cultural resources c~nnot be ellminat~ by
changes in the siting of access r~ds, towers, c~structlon areas and other
facilities, mitigati~ r~ommendations ~ould be disused with appropriate
Native American J~ers. Such consultati~ is in accordance with the
provlsi~s o~ t~ California Native Am.eridan Historical, Cultural and Sacred
Sites Act, the A~rican Indian ~ellgious Fr~om 'A~t an~ other re~urce
BLM Preferr~ ~te
There are ~ hi~ or m~erate impacts a~e~ for this route. A total of 3 I.~
miles of low i~t is a~iated with routing thr~gh areas of c~cern to
c~temparary Native Americans. Includ~ are the El Oarado Valley~ foothills
of the McCull~gh Range, and the IvanDab Valley along ~inks 0, l, 2 and the
eastern end of ~[nk 6. Other Native American sites along this route ~cur in
the context of prehistoric resources and are asslgn~ impacts under the
archaeol~ical re,ureas assessment.
Exhibit D
Proiect Sponsors' Preferred Route
There are no high or moderate impacts assessed for this route. A total of ~2.0
miles of low trapoct )s associated with routing through areas of concern to
Noti'le Americans. Included are the F_.l Dorado Valley, foothills of the
McCullough Range, and the Ivanpah Volley along Links 0, I, 2, 5a, ~,S and
Further west, concerns were expressed for Valley Wells 3n Link 8. Other
Native American sites along this route occur in the context of prehistoric
resources and are assigned impacts under the archaeological resources assess-
ment.
$.3 TERMINAL AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES
The intent of the impact assessment process was to evaluate the_ tyDe and
degree of change generally brought about by the constr,Jction and operation of
typical ancillary facilities which include substations, microwave communi-
cation sites, and ground electrode sites.
Generalized impact assessment information was assembled for the potential
Arielonto Converter Station site addition. An impact assessment was not
conducted for the microwave communication sites or the ground electrode site
because these are existing. No significant impacts (excluding cultural
resources) are anticipated. The following discusses the potential impacts ond
potential mitigation.
Air F~escurces - Minimal adverse impacts will be short-term resulting from
construction activities. Criteria pollutant emissions will be mitigated by the
use of water sprays to reduce particulate emissions, by providing proper
maintenance of equipment and crew vehicles, and by assuring conformance
with existing tailpipe exhaust standards for equipment.
~arth ~esources - Low to moderate impacts to soil erosion are anticipated;
however, a pre-construction peatechnical survey identifying appropriate miti-
gation to limit patentiS1 erosion will be conducted.
E)iolc~ical Resources - No s~gnificant impacts are anticipated; however, a pre-
constructla~ field review to identify threatened and endangered species and
recommend appropriate mitigation ,vould be undertaken.
Land Use - No impacts to existing, future, park, recreation or ;)reservation
land uses are anticipated.
Visual Resources - Potential low impacts to existing residences (within one
mile) are anticipated because of the converter structure. Assuming the final
design corresponds to the existing converter station, no mitigation has been
iden t i fled.
Cultural Resources - Significant potential impacts will be determined based on
a )00 percent cultural survey of the final site location selected.
s-2s
Exhibit D
Audible Noise - Because of existing activities at George Air Force
the existing Arielonto Converter Station, minimal additional impacts
anticipated.
ELECTRICAL, BIOLOGICAL~ HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS
This section provides a summary of potential electrical, biological, health and
safety effects of the proposed transmission line project. Effects are described
separately for an AC line (Section S.~,.I) and a DC line (Section 5.~,.2). These
discussions are general, and would apply to any of the alternative line routes.
Section 5.0,.3 provides a more detailed analysis and mitigation descriptlon for
specific areas along the alternative routes where certain electrical and safety
effects may be a concern. Electrical effects of ground e~ectrodes (i~or a DC
system) are described in Section 5.L~.t~. Mare detailed information on
electrical effects is presented in Appendix E of this ER, and'in the Technic~
Report, VoLume Ill, Chapter ~,
SJl. I S0i]kV AC Transmission Line Alternative
The potential electrical effects of the AC transmission tlne alternative can be
categorized as corona effects and electric field effects. These are summar-
ized below, followed by brief dlscussio~s of magnetic field effects, and effects
on cardiac pacemakers and public safety.
The levels of corona and fie'ld effects discuS, seal in ~'hls document are
calculated values, based an a computer program developed by BPA (Chattier
1977, 1983). The important parameters include voltage, conductor size, and
geometric configuration. .~igure 5-11 shows the conductor configuration far
the proposed S00kV AC llne. The figure assumes the use of free-standing
lattice steel towers with a typical height of 120 feet, and a 200-foot-wi~
right-of-way. A clearance-to..ground of 3&.$ feet was used in these analyses.
· Cardem Effects
Coron~ is the"'portial el;ctrical breakdad"of air into charged molecules.
Coro~a results'in audible noise, electromagnetic interference, and production
of photochemica~ oxidants (see Appendix E for detailed discussions of corona
effects).
Audible Noise
During operation, noise ,vould emanate from the proposed llne as a result of
corona activity. Corona-generated ~olse is most noticeable during foul
~veather; during fair, dry ,,eather, audible noise from transmission lines is
barely perceptible.
5-26
Exhibit D
Transmission line noise is measured and predicted in units of decibels on the
A-weighted (dBA) sound-level scale. The L50 level denotes the sound level
exceeded 50 percent of the time, and represents the median sound level. The
L5 level is equaled or exceeded 5 percent of the time, and represents the
typical maximum sound level.
Predicted L50 and L5 noise levels during fair weather at the edge of the Hgnt-
of-way are 32 dBA and 36 dBA, respectively. The maximum (L5) ~redicted
level is ~,0 dlBA. These levels would be barely distinguishable from ambient
levels in most cases. (Ambient noise levels vary greatly, depending on air and
vehicular traffic, industrial activity, and wind conditions.) During foul
weather, the predicted median audible noise level at the edge of the right-of-
way would be about 57 dBA, and the maximum level would be 61 dBA.
Although the llne would be relatively nolsy during foul weather, the proposed
line route crosses desert country ~ith sparse population and llmiCed,.rainfall.
Therefore, no complaints would be expected.
~lectromaqnetic Interference
Corona on transmission llne conductors can generate electromagnetic noise in
the frequency bands used far radio and television signals. This noise can cause
P,I and TVI.
~adio Interference
F~adio reception in the amplitude-modulated (AM) broadcast band is most often
affected. F'requency-modulafed (F'M) radio reception is rarely. affected. Only
residences very near transmission lines can be affected by RI. An acceptaisle
level of maximum fair-weather :~1 at the edge of the right-of-way is ~,0 to
decibels above one microvolt per meter (dBuV/m) (General Electric 1978a). As
a general rule, average levels during foul weather are 16 to 22 c~>V/m higher
than average fair-weather levels.
The predicted !_50 RI levels at 1,000 kilohertz 0<Hz) al: the edge of the
proposed right-of-way are ~,7 dBuV/m far fair weather, and 6~, dBuV/m for foul
~veather. The fair-weather levels for the propvsed line would be slightly above
the range considered acceptable. The RI levels from the proposed llne could
affect reception of weak signals at the right. of-way edge. Section
provides a discussion of specific areas along the proposed llne that may be
affected, and of mitigation measures for potential RI problems.
Television Interference
Corona-caused TVI occurs during foul weather. The predicted level of TVI at
7S megahertz (MHz) from the proposed llne is 26 dl~uV/m at the edge of the
right-of-way (for llne operation at 5S0kV}. At this level, TVI from the line
would not have an impact. Section 5.~,.3 ~rovides a discussion of ot'~er forms
s-z7
Exhibit D
of TVI (signal reflection and blocking) that potentially could affect areas
the proposed Hne route.
Photochemical Oxidants
When corona is present, the air surrounding the conductors is ~on[zed and many
chemical reactions occur, producing small amounts of ozone and other
oxidants. Measurements have shown that the quantity of oxidants produced by
operating transmission lines is barely measurable and of no environmental
consequence. Appendix E contains more information on ozone and nitrogen
oxides.
Ele~,tric Field Effects
The electric field created by a high voltage transmission line extends from the
energized conductors to other nearby conducting objects such as the ground,
towers, vegetation, buildings, vehicles and persons. The electric field is
expressed in units of ~<[Iovolts per meter (kV/m)~ and the unperturbed electric
field at a height of I meter (:].3 feet) above ground is used to describe the
field under transmission lines.
The calculated electric field profile at 3.3 feet above ground for the proposed
iine with ground clearances of ~J6.S feet and 93.5 feet is shown in Figure 5-12.
The maximum field at 36.5 feet is 3 kV/m, and is 1.7 ~cV/m at the edge of
right-of-way..There is currently no national standard establishing acceptaisle
levels for electric or magnetic fields fram transmission lines. Several states
have imposed electric field limits, as shown in Table $-,5. The Tec.~nico]
Report provides further detail on these s~:te limits.
Induced Currents and Voltaqes
The amount of current that 'flows from on object in an electric field throb
an electrical connection to'the earth is called the'short'-circuit current a? ",e.
obiect. The. e'nagnitude of ~e ind6ced currenO to vehi~le!i and obiects
the praoosed line would depend on the electric field strength and the s~ze
shal~e of the object. When the object is electrically g14ounded, the vo~oge~
the object is effectively reduced to zero; however, if the object ~s
grounded, it then acquires some voltage relative to grc~nd. Such induced
voltages and currents represent a potential source of nuisance shocks ne~,~m~
high voltage transmission line.
DWP routinely grounds fences and metal buildings located c~ the right-of-way.
Grounding needs can extend beyond the right-of-way I~or very large objects
extremely long fences. These will also be grounded where necessary. L.J'nl[I<e
permanent objects, mobile obiects such as vehicles and farm equipment cannot
be grounded permanently. Limiting induced currents to persons from such
objects can be accomplished in several ways. First, the NESC requires
Exhibit
sufficient conductor clearance to limit the induced short-circuit current in the
largest anticipated vehicle under the llne to $ milliamperes (mA). A second
:nethod of reducing potential currents to persons is to use intentional grounds,
such as dragging a chain behind a vehicle. Third, the nature of large vehicles
and their use tends to provide some grounding and reduce ;'he electrical
resistance of the vehicle to ground..-~or example, tires tend to be conductive,
farm machinery is usually in direct contact with soil~ and conducting vegeta-
tion is in contact with equipment. Thus, impacts of electric field coupling can
be mitigated through grounding policies and through adherence to the NE~SC.
Table S-6 shows the short-circuit current for the largest anticipated vehicles
in California and Nevada. To meet the NF. SC 5-mA criterion, conductor
clearance may have to be increased in some areas along the transmission tine
route (see Appendix ~ for more detail). Table 5-7 shows short-circuit currents
for various objects, and only the largest objects exceed the 5-mA criterion.
Increasing line height o~ restricting right-of-way use would be required under
some circumstances to meet the criterion. In the following disucssion of
steady-state current shocks, it is assumed that the proposed line will be
designed and operated in accordance with the NE".$C criterlonl therefore, the
largest possible current shocl~ is 5 mA.
Steady-State Current Shocks
Steady-state currents are those that flow continuously after a person contacts
an object and provides a path to ground for the induced current. Primary
shocks are those that can result ~n direct physlologic harm, but such shocks
will not be possible from induced current under the proposed line. Secondary
shocks are those that could cause involuntary and potentially harmful move-
ment, b. ut .cause no direct physiologic harm.
The highest level of secondary shock is "let go" which represents the steady-
state current that cannot be released voluntarily. "Let go" thresholds of
%0 mA for adult males and 6.0 mA for adult females were established from
human subjects. However, the S-mA safety criterion was developed from
extrapolation of animal studies to children, with a safety factor applied (Banks
· 178~).
Appencl|x E describes factors which tend to reduce opportunity for ~condary
shocks to occur. Due to these mitigating factors, it is very likely that steady-
state current shocks would be below the I.I-mA perception level. Thus, these
shocks are not anticipated to occur very often and, wh~ they do, they will
represent a nuisance rather than a hazard.
Spar~ Olscharqe Shocks
Induced voltages occur on objects when there is an inadequate electrical
ground. With sufficiently high voltage, a spark discharge shock will occur as
contact is made with the object. These shocks are similar to "carpet shocks"
5-25
[D-29]
Exhibit D
which occur when touching a door knob after wall<ing across a carpet. Based
on the low frequency of complaints reported by Glasgow (1990) for $00kV AC
trclnsmission lines, nuisance shocks (which are primarily spar~ di~har~.~
not appear to be a ~rlous impairment to activities under 500~V l~nes. co
propos~ line, spar~ discharges can be expired to ~cur only infrequentl)
then only in a small ar~ under the Hne near midspan.
F'uel lanltion
13etause of the theoretical possibility of [gnit{on, DWP recommends that
vehicle refueling not be done near a $00kV llne unless necessary. In the event
refueling must be done under a llne, grounding is recommended. It is
extremely unlikely that fuel igniHon from a spark discharge could occur near
the proposed line.
Human Health Implications
The question of whether long-term direct exposure to the electric fields fr~m
a transmission line causes biological or health effects in humans has been
raised primarily in transmission line certification hearing:l. In no case has a
specific deleterious effect been ~dentifled from exposure to transmission line
fields.
In evaluating whether or not the proposed line's electr{c fiefid would Dose ~arm
to the environment or be a health and safety risk, the body of biological
literature dealing ,~ith electric fields has been critically analyzed. To date.
there is no convincing evidence that such fields induce harmful biological
effects. The electric fields of the proposed llne are not anticipated to cause
adverse health or biological effects. Appendix I~ and the: Technical
provide detailed discussions of studies and conclusions regarding human health
implications. ..
Irrioatlon and Aqricultural Implications
~ .. Fixed .and mobile irrigation systems can l~e operat~l' sa~'ety near
transmission llnes~ but ;~recautions are necessary to mi~'nize the hazards
involved. Hazards include direct contact, induced shocks~ and transferred
pgtentials. ' -
Direct contact is the most dangerous of the potential hazards, and can occur
on a llne of any voltage. Pipes should never be tipped up w'he~ in ~roximity~di~!l
an overhead llne. Equipment used to install irrigation systems can be tab
;)recautions should also be tal<en to maintain adequate electrical clear
during installation.
Steady streams of water :antacting the energized conductors can provlde a
direct path to ground for leakage current or a flashover. Thus, precautions
5-30
[I)-301
Exhibit D
should be ta~<en to prevent this situation. Information on safe operating
distances for this type of equipment ~s available (Ewy 1981; Lee 1982). To
prevent electric field or magnetic field coupling, installation and maintenance
of long pipes such as pivot systems should be done with the pipe perpendicular
to the transmission llne, rather than parallel. If this orientaHon is not
possible, the system should be grounded at each end. To avoid the possibillty
of a transferred potential fram the power system to an irrigation system
during a fault, buried portions of irrigation systems or any pipelines should be
sufficiently separated from towers and tower grounding systems. DWP will
specify minimum separation distances to irrigators.
The proposed line is not expected to have any adverse effects on agriculture.
At the edge of the right. of-way, the electric field of the line will be below
levels where effects have been observed on honeybees and craps. Impacts on
the handling and behavior of livestock near the line (3re not anticipated. Like
all conducting objects under the line, metal water- and feed-troughs can be
grounded to eliminate the passib(lity of nuisance shacks to livestock.
Mac. tic Field Effects
As shown in Figure $-13, the maximum calculated 60 HZ magnetic field is
0. lB G. Far this condition, the magnetic field at the edge of the right-of-way
is 0.00, G and, at 200 feet from the line, the field is 0.01 G. The maxlmum
magnetic field is comparable with those measured very near common house-
hold .appliances. The DC magnetic field of the earth is 0.6 G.
Two potential i'mpacts from magnetic fields of AC transmission lines have
been investigated-' induced voltages and currents in long conducting phieats,
and possible biological effects from long-term exposure. Appendix E contains
more detail regarding these potential effects. However, based on the low
levels of magnetic fields from the proposed AC line, the comparability of
these levels with ambient exposures in saclety, and the lack of evidence of
effects from these fields, ;t appears highly unlikely that exposures to the
magnetic fields from the ~oroposed line would have any adverse biological
effects.
Cardiac Pacemakers
Sixty-hertz currents and voltages induced into the body represent a possible
source of interference to cardiac pacemakers. Recognition of, and concern
for, possible effects have led to considerable research on this topic in the last
decade (Bridges IC)79), as detailed in Appendix E. To date, no evidence has
been found to indicate that (3 transmission llne has caused a serious problem to
pacemaker wearers. However, ;t has been suggested that persons with
pacemakers who spend time near high voltage transmission lines consult their
physicians about the suSceptibility ~f their particular pacemaker model to
possible interference (Lee 1982).
Exhibit D
Public Safety
The design, construction, operation and maintenance af the proposed hne
would meet or exceed all applicable safety standards. Nevertheless, electrical
equipment can be a safety hazard, and care must be tc~cen when working or
playing near transmission lines to avoid hazards.
5.~.2 ~_.~0(~V [~ Transmissio~ Line Alternative
P'or AC transmission lines, it i5 valid to treat oaroho and f~eld effects
independently. Fffowever, in the case of I-IVDC lines, field effects cannot be
treated independently of corona. In fact, the presence or absence of corona
a prime determinant of the line's ground-level electrical environment. (See
Appendix E for further detail on the difference bet,-een AC and DC lines.)
The proposed configuration for the [:)C line alternative is shown ;n
F~gure 5- I ~,. A clearance.to-ground of ~,0 feet was used in the analyses of DC
electrical effects, which represents the minimum clearance at t soar (on
unusual case). The use of minimum clearances and maximum voltages yields
conservative estimates for electrical effects. This section summath, es corona
and field effects of the proposed DC llne, and more detail is provided in
Appendix E and the Technical F~eport.
Corona Effects
Corona activity on HVDC lines produces a number of effects. The more
important of these are described below, and include production of small
ions, audible noise, and electromagnetic interference with radio and television
reception.
Air ions
The'process of'~orona discharg~ iS similar for both AC and ~VDC transmission
fines, in that ionization occurs f~'ec'lr the conductors in' bo'i'h cases. :'towever,
for AC lines, the air ions ~roduced do not migratel ~nstea,5~ they form a
~ '" density sheath around tF~e~'conductors. For HVIDC: lines with constant polarit,/
on the conductorst the result ~s a net migration of charge away from each
pole. The density of air ions at ground level con thus be enhanced by the
ions from the llne.
Small air ions can be conceptualized as a trace gas constituent. On this
they have an exceedingly law concentration; in fact, concentrations are
below any existing standards for air pollutants. There are no Federal or state
standards limiting air ion emissions or ambient densities.
[D-32l
Exhibit E
Audible Noise
Audible noise fram HVDC is more prevalent in fair ,Neather or at the time that
rain and snow begins to fall. This ~s in contrast to corona-generated audible
noise from AC lines, which is highest during foul weather. The maximum
audible noise level of an HVDC llne can thus be expected to occur during fair
weather. This level, however, is significantly lower than established noise
standards or levels associated with hearing h'npairment and other noise-related
heal th effects.
.Car the proposed DC: line, the maximum audible noise level at the edge of the
200-foot right-of-way would be approximately 32 dBA. Allowing a ~ ctt~
uncertainty associated with this estimate, the maximum noise level at the
edge of the right-of-way could be as high as 37 dBA. In the unlikely
occurrence of continuous worst-case conditions, the noise level could be as
high as ~,3 dBA. This level would still t~e well below the U.S. EPA 55 dBA
guideline (EPA ID7~,). Therefore, audible noise levels from the proposed DC
line would not be at levels of concern to the public health and welfare, nor
would they likely be cause for complaints.
Electromaqnefic Interference
Corona-generated electromagnetic radiation can interfere with radio
reception in the AM broadcast band, but P,I from HVOC lines has less effect on
radio reception than does FRI from AC lines, The predicted edge-of-right-of-
way fair weather Lb0 (median) RI level is 27 ctBuV/m. This is .Nell ~elow the
acceptable limit of b,O to b,$ dB~JV/m for AC lines. For the wetted conductor
condition, the predlct~ci edge-of-right-of-way LS0 level is
The signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio required for entirely satisfactory AM reception
is about 17 c~uV/m, so R[ levels above about 23 c~pV/m could theoretically
cause interference. Therefore, RI from the propascal DC line has the potential
to interfere sli~lhtly with reception at the edcje of the right-of-way. However,
due to the low level of RI compared to other operating .%rVOC.[ines where
has not been a probl.em, and due to the sparse pof)u. lat'ion along the proposed
route, the impact o~ radio reception would be minimal. See Section
discu~io~ of site-specific areas where RI may be a problem prior to
mitigation.
The presence of 'rvI generated by HVDC transmission line corona has been
very difficult to detect, and predictions of its possible magnitude cannot be
made. l~ecause the conductor surface gradient and corona activity of the
proposed llne would be well below levels for which 'rvI has been minimal or
impossible to detect~ corona-generated TVI is not expected to be present off
the right-of-way of the proposed line. $[milarly~ interference with two-way
communications is not anticipated for the proposed HVDC llne.
Exhibit D
Photochemical Oxidants ~
Measurements in the laboratory and near operating ~IVDC: lines have show,,
that the amount of oxidants produced is barely detectable (Droppo I.~81; Krupa
I?cJ2; Vatfairy 1985). Under .,~orst-.case conditions, the predicted ozone
contribution to background oxidant levels near the proposed Hne is less than a
few parts per billion (ppb). Thus, no effect on the local or regional
environment would occur.
Electric Field Effects
Three parameters are necessary to .characterize the ground-level electric field
environment for an HVDC line: electric field (voltage gradient), charge
density, and ion current (Bracken I~7c)).. The magnitudes of these thr_e~a~
electric field parameters at ground 'level can be described by profiles toi<~.
perpendicular to the line. Figure 5-15 is a conceptual drawing helpful in
understanding the discussion of these parameters, "Peak'" values at ground
level occur iust outboard of each pole within the right-of-way. Electric fields
are also of interest at the edge of the right-of-way and at sl>ecific locations
beyond,
Predicted levels for the HVDC line are shown in Tables $43, 5-c) and 5-10 for
electric field, ion density, and ion current densitT, respectively. These levels
are described in detail in Appendix E.
The interaction of the electric field and ion current with persons and objects
could lead to mild and sometimes percelvable effects, including induction of
steady-state OC currents, sparE*discharge shocks, and direct perception of the
field through hair stimulation. However, because of the low levels of
proximity effects relative to hazardous'conditions; 'ahd b~.~ause of 'their..~
infrequent occurrence, these are at ~nost a possible nuisance near the propose
line. These effects have no identifiable public safety implications. Standard
OWP grounding procedures will be followed, eliminating any shock potential
from-the prbDosed line. -.- ' : ~ .., , . ~. ¢, --, o ,
· ~ ~- ' .,/ ~ -.~ -'..4.
Human Health Implications
Numerous laboratory and clinical studies have been conctucted over the past 50
yecr$ to determine effects of DC electric fields and ?it ions... Study findin~l~
were reviewed and analyzed, including those deellng w~th public, occupatic~'---"~
and veterinary public health implications of the HVDC: electric environrr
These studies are described in the Technical Report, and conclusions ~...
summarized in Appendix E.
There is presently no credible scientific, medical or public health ~asis ~
conclude or even presume that the electrical environment associated with the
proposed HVDC transmiss;on ',ine ;s of concern with respect to public
welfare or safety,
[D-34l
Exhibit D
Magnetic Field Effects
At ground level, the DC~ magnetic field of the proposed line would have a
max[mum peak value of 0.3 G, which is less than the earth's magnetic field of
about 0.6 G. Given the comparability of the field with natural levels and its
low inherent biological activity, the static magnetic field associated with the
proposed HVDC line does not appear to be of public health or safety concern.
5.~,.3 Site-Specific Concerns Re,lording Radio, Television, and Instrument
Londinq Systems interference
The effect of transmission line corona electromagnetic interference (EMI) and
physical Proximity on radio and television reception in the Baker, California
area and on the aircraft Instrument Landing Systerfis (ILS) in the viclnit'/ of
George Air Force Base near V~ctorville was evaluated during this study.
I-I 5 is the principal tourist route between the west coast cities and Los Vegas.
Radio, both AM and FM, is the principal source of entertainment for those
traveling on 1-15. Commerce in Baker relies heavily on radio advertisements
to attract tourist business from I-t $. RI along the highway due to transmission
llne EMI would impact this means of attracting commerce. Radio is also an
entertainment source for the citizens of Baker. Since Baker lles on the route
of 1-15, RI impact is assessed along the route of I-I$ and in the City of Baker.
Other types of radio communications susceptible to RI in the vicinity of Baker
are also assessed. These include FM emergency radio and amateur radio.
Television is a prime source of entertainment for the residents of Baker. TVI
is assessed both in th~ immediate vicinity of Baker and near Turquoise
Mountain where television translators for Baker are located.
George Air Force Base ILS is assessed in the vicinity north of the Air Force
Base. The primary concern is for safety of aircraft operations in the ILS
approach pattern which extends seven miles north of the principal north-south
runway.
Meetings were held with representatives of Baker and George Air Force 3ase
to determine the radio, television, and ILS systems that would be susceptible
to EMI and to discuss possible impacts. Radio, television, and ILS data were
obtained at these meetings for the purpose of analyzing the susceptibility oi~
these communication systems to extra high voltage (D. HV) transmission lines.
In addition, March Air Force 3ase expressed concern regarding potential
interference with its low-frequency Hawes Radio Relay Site, located about I2
miles east of Kramer Junction. However, because this site is two to three
miles from the nearest transmission line route (Link ~,2), the proposed project
will not have any adverse effect on the radio facility.
s-2s
Exhibit D
Memoda
EHV transmission lines hove the following potential impacts on radio, televi-
sion, and ILS systems (hereafter referred to as radio systems):
· C_MI
· Shielding
· Reradiation
· Multipath
EHV transmission llne corona generates radio noise that has the potential to
interfere with radio systems. When interference occurs, it appears as audible
noise in AM radio receivers; visual noise and distortion in television pictures,;
and noise and/or guidance error in iLS systems.- FM radio systems, which A
include television audio, have an inherent ;mmunlty to radio noise and are
seldom affected by transmission Iine corona.
EHV transmission line towers, conductars, and shield wires farm a shield to
electromagnetic propagation. This shielding effect dlst=rts both transmitting
and receiving antenna patterns. The results of shielding can produce loss of
signal in the receiver resulting in no~se and/or loss of volume in AM radio
receivers; distortion, noise and/or quieting ~n FM radio receivers; no;so end
dlsi'ortion in television receivers; and loss of guidance signals and/or guidance
error in ILS systems.
El--iV transmission llne towers and shield wires can be excited with radio
frequency currents when located in close proximity to radic, transmitters.
~erodiatlon occurs from the towers and shield wires resulting in alteration of
the radio transmitter antenna pattern. The result at the receivers is gonerail,., ·
loss of signal whic~ can lead to noise and/or )~s~ of volume in AM radio
receivers; distortion, noise and/or quieting in FM radio receivers; noise,
distortion and ghosting in television receivers; and guidance errors in iLS
sys,ems.
~' '- ~_HV' transmission line towers con reflect telev'~io~ signals-,#hich~ when=.
· ._ recei¥od by television~ receivers, producer's'delayed'reception appearing as
ghostlng of the images (multipath).
Asseument Model A
Assessment models were develooed for each impact type. The models
determine levels of impact, .4ellned as maximum, major, moderate and
minimal. The following is a ~escription of the assessment models by impact
type.
~-36
[D-361
Exhibit D
Electromagnetic Interference
EHV transmission llne corona produces an EMI field strength that can be
estimated for both fair weather and foul weather conditions. EMI field
strength level estimation is accomplished by utilizing a computer program
developed by the BPA (Chattier 1983) for both AC and DC EHV transmission
lines. The computer program computes the radiated field strength at o
particular frequency as a function of distance fram the transmission lines.
Figure 3-1 shows 500kV transmission line tower configurations used for the
calculation of EMI field strength. Both utilize 2312 kcmil ACSR conductor.
Received field strength of the subject radio system is derived from either
supplied field data, predicted transmitter coverage data, or calculated based
upon supplied radio system data (ITT ID72~ White IC)71). Comparison of this
received field strength to the computer predicted transmission llne EMI field
strength results in o prediction of reception quality. This comparison is
termed S/N ratio and is utilized as o quality measure. For AM radio, the
quality of reception is determined from Figure $-16. Received field strength
of AM radio stations is given in Table $-II, and the transmission line EMI field
strength at o specific location is determined from the computer program.
For FM radio, the quality of reception is basically immune to the transmission
line (Schwartz I~80), EMI until the EMI field strength is equal to or exceeds
the radio station field strength. This level can be predicted for both the rcd[o
station and transmission line for a specific location.
The quality of TV reception, based upon S/NI ratio, is determined from
Figure $-)7. Received field strength of TV stations is given in Table
F'or a known TV and transmission line EMI field strength, the quality of
reception can be estimated for a given location.
ILS systems are similar to AM radio but have on immunity to transmission line
EMI by nature of their selective antenna patterns.
Shielding
This characteristic occurs directly under 'and adjacent to EHV transmission
lines. Shielding modifies the radio frequency antenna pattern. A radio or TV
receiver located directly under or adiacent to the transmission llne ,vould
experience maximum shielding ~mpoct but may still be able to receive an
acceptable signal.
r-~erodiation
This phenomenon is only a consideration when transmission lines are located
near a high power transmitter. This is <3 proximity effect that must also
consider the transmitter antenna pattern.
Exhibit D
Multipath ,,~m~
TV reception is susceptible to multipath reflections fr~m EHV tronsmis~
lines. Impact of multipath ~s determined by received field strength, receiver
.~nte,nna pattern, and proximity of the antenna to tl~e transmission Hne.
Impact Results
AM Radio (Standard ~Jroadcost)
The only impact type that need be considered with AM radio receptlon (535 to
1605 kHz) is transmission line corona EMI. EMI degrades the received signal
when the receiver is {n the immediate proximity of the transmission line. The
primary station that must be protected in the Baker area is KDWN, 720
from Los Vegas. This station is a clear channel, Class II-A station th
provides service to the Baker area. EMI limits for protection of this statio,
are 28 dBuV/m field strength.
The estimated EMI level for o 500kV AC transmission line at the edge of the
200-foot right-of-way at 1000kHz is ~7 d13pV/m during fair #eather, and
6~, dBluV/m during foul weather. Qepending on Station '.<DWN received signal
strength and the receiver antenna, some interference may occur in the
immediate vicinity of the right-of-way, particularly in foul wecther.
For o $00kV DC transmission llne, the estimated fair and foul weather
levels at the right-of-way edge are estimated to be 27 dB~V/m and 25, dB~JV/m,
respectively, at 1000 kHz. These levels are not expected to cause any
interference to Station ~(DWN beyond the right-of-way.
Two others stations, KNX 1070 kl-lz, from Los Angeles and KDHI, 12S0 ~<.~tz
from Twenty-Nine Palms, were mentioned by Baker residents as stations the~
listen to. Baker is not in the service area of these stations and, therefore,
signals would be expected to be very weak. Interference would be expected
near the, right-of-way, porticuJqrly in foul weath.er.
-"" FM Radio (Star{dard"':3roadcast)' ~- - ~
The primary F'~ stations that must be pFo~ecfed in the~Baker area ~re X. ,.<
(?8 MHz) and KXVR (~? MHz). Due to the ~olse immunity of FM r~¢io
receivers., reception is seldom degraded by transmission llne F_MK I~
degradat,on to occur, the 5V, I level must exceed the received station
Estimated EMI levels of the 500kV transmission line are below the mini
received station levels; therefore, signal degradation due to EMI is .~,
expected to occur.
Shielding of FM stations directly .~nder the transmission llne would onty be
considerat[on if the station reception was weak. Both KRXV and KX'/R :re
$-38
Exhibit D
quite strong in the Cioker area, thereby overcoming signal degradation due to
shlelding.
Degradation of the transmitter antenna pattern due to reradlat[on is the only
other consideration. 3ecause of the distance between the transmission line
routes and the station transmitters, no impact is expected.
FM Radio (Emeraency Service)
Emergency radio in the Iqaker area is FM at I.~$ MHz and 0,60 MHz. The base
station is located in ~aker with mobile units operating in a 30-mile radius.
Doth the base station and mobile units transmit and receive voice communi-
cations. Reception criteria are similar to standard FM broadcast, in that the
FM receivers have an inherent ~nmunity to EMI noise and only' F_MI levels
equal to or above the levels of the received signal will degrade reception.
Minimum receiver field strength necessary for voice communications was
calculated for the 155 MHz receiver and the ~,60 MHz receiver. EMI directly
under both $001<V AC and DC transmission lines was predicted to 5e near the
receiver minimum reception levels. Voice communication degradation would
be expected directly under the transmission line when receiving a weak FM
signal.
Reception of both the I$$ MHz and ~,60 MHz is subject to shielding directly
under and adjacent to the transmission llne. The shielding would degrade
reception and transmission ability and lead to degradation of reception at both
the base. and mobile units. Modification of the base station antenna pattern
due to shielding effect o4~ the transmission line will be minimal. The closest
transmission line route is S,000 feet J~ram the base station. Mobile unit
reception is marginal in outlying areas due to the mountainous terrain around
~aker. Any slight modification to the antenna pattern due to shielding would
impact reception in these marginal areas.
Reradiation is n6t a consideration since the ,-;o_:~st transmission line routing is
5,000 feet fram the base station transmitting antenna located in Baker.
Television
Reception quality is poor in 5aker due to the fringe reception area of the
translators (receiver-transmitter) located on Turquoise Mountain. Any further
degradation of the reception quality in Baker would not be acceptable.
For the 500kV AC transmission line, foul weather EMI at the edge of the right-
of-way is estimated to be ~-~ dG~V/m at 75 MHz, and 16 dBuV/m for fair
weather. EMI from DC transmission lines is not of sufficient magnitude to
considered.
[D-391
Exhibit D
Reception quality on Turquoise Mountain would not be affected by EMI fram
the proposed transmission line routes since the closest route ils three miles
fro n the translator site.
~ased on measured television signal strength in Baker, reception in some areas
of Saker could be degraded during foul weather. The degr¢idation ,~ould
depend upon receiver antenna proximity to the transmission line and antenna
pattern.
Multipath will possibly degrade the received picture quality if the transmission
line passes between the receiver and Turquoise Mountain. The highest
possibility for multipath occurs if the receiving antenna must look through the
transmission line. Shielding would also be a consideration if the line ~ere
within 1,000 feet of the receiving antenna and the receiving antenna looked
through the transmission line to. Turquoise Mountain.
Reradiation is not a factor since the Turquoise Mountain transoonder location
is three miles from the proposed routes.
Amateur Radio (HAM)
Due to the uSe of directional antennas, this type of radio reception is very
sensitive to transmission line EMI. An existing HAM radio installation
Baker is reported to be able to pic~< up EMI from the SCE lattice steel
line located one mile north of Baker. The $00kV AC Hne is expected ta
r~diate more ~MI (approximately 10 db) than the existing SCE line. A 500~<V
DC llne is expected to radiate less -'_MI than the existing 138'4'/ llne. ~outing
a .C00kV AC line within one mile of Baker may degrade HAM radio receptlan
when the antenna is looking directly at the line.
Instr'Jment Londincl System
..- There. arc,two typee of systems'c:14' George Air For~e !3:~e. Orle i~'the sfandar~J
.o, irct~aft FAA ILS ~.ystem employing VI-tF and ultra.~.i~h fr~luen~y AM radio;
'l'h~ othe~ system ,s a Pl'imar? ',.~opr~ach Radar J~P~lR).system ur~d' f~r
· c~ntrol. E,~IV transmission .lines do not emit sufficient ~"MI at
frequencies to ~e a consideration to the PA~ sys~'em~~- '- ~ """'~'
Three frequencies are used in the ILS system: 10~ Ml-tz for the runway
Iocalizer, 75 Mbiz for the marker, and 330 MI-Iz for the glide slc~pe. The
slope for approaching aircraft is ~.$ percent. The distance from the end of the
runway to the nearest transmission line route is four miles. Considering the
terrain elevations, an aDproaching aircraft will be 922 feet above the
transmission line when following the glide slope. Calculated signal strength of
the Iocalizer and glide slope signals above the transmission Hne route are
sufficient to predict that IL~ degradation will not occur. The 7S MHz marker
is located 3,000 Feet from the '~arth end of the runway which places the
marker approximately ~.~ miles fr~m the tr:nsmission Hne route. At
[D4Ol
Exhibit D
dlstancet the transmission Hne EMI will not be detectable by the marker
receiver.
Shielding, reradiation and multipath are not factors due to the proximity of
the ¢lntennaS and the transmission line.
Miticjatlon Planning
The impacts of EMI, shielding, reradiation and multipath on radio Systems
caused by EHV transmission lines can, in most cases, be reduced or eliminated
by changing either the receiver or transmitter ~ntenna pattern or location.
AM fRadlo
Protecting all received AM radio signals from EMI is not practical. At night,
many signals are received by sky wave. These are very weak signals and are
subject to fade. Weak signals can also be picked up in the daytime that are
5claw levels prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission for
protection. It is only necessary to protect to an EMI level of 28 dBuV/m,
which was determined to be approximately 300 feet from the center of a
S00kV AC transmission line in fair weather. Residents within this distance
may require an antenna located farther from the transmission llne. In the case
of AM radio, moving the receiver antenna as little as 100 feet can often
reduce the EMI noise to acceptable levels. Foul weather is not considered to
be critical due to the lack of rainfall. For residents within 300 feet of the
transmission line route, a survey should be made of principal AM stations
listened to before the line is constructed. The quality should be recorded. A
like survey should be made crfter the line is operating. If the quality of
reception is degraded, a remote antenna can be utilized to restore
c'or the caSe of cars traveling on I-IS, receiver degradation will occur as the
autos pass under transmission llne highway crossings. Crossings are unavoid-
able but should be minimized. Paralleling I-I $ within 300 feet from the 500kV
AC transmission llne should be avoided if possible.
FM Roclio (Emerqency Service1
The present location of the base station in Baker is not an ideal location, For
FM radio to be effective, the antenna should be located on high ground,
especially in the caSe of Baker ~here the surrounding terrain is mountainous.
Due to this~ mobile unit reception is poor in the outlying areas. Any change in
the terrain around Baker, such as a $00kV transmisslan llne, may change the
base station coverage pattern. Measurements of reception quality should be
made before and after the line construction to determine if any impact occurs.
If impact does occur, the base station would need to be moved to a higher
location such as a tower or a mountain top. The Turquoise ~4ountain site
would be ideal since a communication foc[Hty presently exists there. An
[o-4q
Exhibit D
additional communications Hnk would then be required between ~3c~er
Turquoise Mountain. ,~dicrowove radio would ~e the most practical link
communicating between ~aker and Tue~uolse ~ountain,
'television
Interference can oCcur due to shielding and multlpath caused by both AC and
DC transmlssior~ lines. foul weather ~:MI of the $00kV AC Ii.~e is mot
considered o foctor~ due to lack of rainfall. Shielding and multipath impacts
are related to the receiving antenna type and location in Baker. It ;s
anticipated that any antenna in ~oker that must look through the tr3nsmiss[on
tlne to Turquoise Mountain may require correcHon in Iocatlon or pattern (such
as an antenna with a narrower beam). A survey should be made of reception
quality before and after construction of the transmission line, mokira:j a
recording of the picture quality. Correction can be either relocat on at' the
antenna or installation of an antenna with a n~rrower pattern.
Amateur ~ad~o (HAM)
For a base stat~an located ;n ~aker, an ~HV transmission line located near
2aker may impact HAM reception when the antenna ~s pointed directly at the
transmission line. A survey of reception quality before and after l;ne
construction is required to determine impact. If significant iml~act occurs,
relocation of the antenna may be required.
~onc lusions
Mitigation of transmission line ff-MI problems can be dlfflcult and expensive.
~o~ the pra~ trans, nlss~an ~ne route ~or'th of ~er (Link 9), a significant
number of televisi~ antennas must look thr~gh the llne at the Turquoise
Mountain tr~itter, If multipa~ and shielding ~cur, mitigati~ will be
difficult, sublet to change with time due to antenna dlr~ti~ ~ift.,~ith wind,
etc., and a contlnui~ pr~lem as new residents ar~ est~li~; In the'case o~
movi~ ba~. statics (emergency'radio and HAM r~). t~ .~i~i.~te int~
fer~.~bstaRtlal expe~ can ~e incaalfred. If a to&at can 5&'install~ to
mitigate an imp~t, ~e expense is minor camgored to l~ating the
stati~ ~ a m~ntain peak suc~ as Turquoi~ M~ntain, G~au~ of this
pot~tial exp~, it is extremely important to su~ey r~e~ti~ quality ~efore
and after c~str~ti~ ~n order to subs~antlate i~ an im~t did ~eur. This
proc~ure ~ly a~lies to the routes imm~iately adjacent to ~.okef (portions
of Links 9, I I and 12).
5.4.4 Electrical Effects of Ground Electrodes
The poteqtlal for electrical effects arises ~rom the fact that ground electrodes
will inject electrical current into the ground. During normal blpo~lar operation,
Exhibit D
the electrodes provide the means for a normally small amount of unbalanced
DC current (0 to 20 amperes (A)) to enter the ground at one end and leave the
ground at the other, thus completing a circuit through the earth between the
ground electrodes.
'During monapolar operation (e,g,, when one pole is out of service), the OC
current in the pole in operation will pass through the ground electrode and
earth to complete the circuit, The ground electrode will be capable of
providing for electrical current flow into the ground for a period of several
· vee~cs. However, it is unlikely that currents due to monaDolaf operation will
actually be experienced through the electrodes for more than few minutes per
outage because monapolar operation ,vith earth return will be converted to
monapolar operation with metallic return (using the other pole conductor on
the transmission line) as soon as possible to limit the effects of ground current
flow.
The current flows radially from the ground electrode close in to the electrode
and distributes ~tself at further distances based on the resistivity of the
various soils. The current will seek the paths of least resistance. However,
the current density in the earth decreases very rapidly with increasing
distance from the electrode.
The potential electrical effects may be classified as either safety, inter-
ference, or corrosion effects. A discussion of each type follows.
Safety (Step Potential)
Step potential {s a voltage grod[ent effect where short path, current or
"electrical shock" is the primary concern.
~ven at the electrode site, the maximum potential gradient at the ground
surface will be limited by the electrode design to prevent harmful current
levels in humans and animals. The current would be ¢ause~. by the potential
difference between the feet of the human or animal walking or lying an the
ground and the resistance of the body. Thus~ it will not be necessary to
exclude the public or animals from access over the site for their s~fety.
Fence wire grounded at only one point can assume the potential of earth at
that point. A person or animal touching the wire could receive a shock caused
by the potential difference between the fence grounding point and the local
earth at the touching point. Th~s effect can be prevented by simply grounding
or sectlonallzing the fence at many points.
The neutrals of electrical services are grounded at the distribution trans-
former and at the residential or commercial buildings, The neutral and ground
if not interconnected could have a potential rise which could produce <3
hazardous electrical shock.
[D-431
Exhibit D
Bare metal ~vater and gas service pipes are usually not insulated from ground;
therefore, are not likely to transfer potential from one point to another but
ore subject to corrosion as discussed later. Telephone lines may be grounded
of one end, both ends, or multigrounded. It ~s not onticlpoted that hazardous
potentials will occur on the telephone lines.
Interference
[~)C currents can interfere with the operation of serv[ces such as electric
power and transmission systems, railway signalling systems, and telephone
systems. DC currents can get into on electric distribution system which ;s
grounded through grounded neutrals at transformer poles, surge ~:rresrer
grounds and uninsulated guy wires. The DC current flowing in the neutral can
cause saturation of distribution transformers which can cause overheating of
the transformer and disturb the voltage.
The telephone interference is caused by the harmonic currents ~n the
electrodes lines paralleling the telephone lines. This may cause noise or static
on the Hnes.
Railway signalling systems can also be affected by harmonic currents induced
in the signalllng systems. This may cause unwanted operation of the troc!<s
signals.
Interference effects can be eliminated or mitigated by studying the problem
and adding, if necessary, remedial measures to the systems. These
measures are discussed at the end of this section.
' Cbrrosion ~
Corrosion is potentlolly the most significant effect of IDC ground currents.
Metallic objects in the earth will try to attain the potential of the earth which
.... ~ cbrffoc~. If the"earth potential b~tween two points oel' the met911ic ob~ect ;s ~ ·
differen.t~ c~ cur're~t will flow between these points. Where the curre6t enters
" ' ~ the metallic' object, h?~rogen g'ds.'is ~enerated..Where the.¢G~efit 'Jeaves t.h~~ ':
metqlllc object,.metatHc, ions, ~re formed which move away fram the object
ar{d r~sult in a Ibss of metal or,'as'if'is"said, the'r~etal cor'~"c~es. The amount ',
of metal lost is dependent on the amOunt of current, the period of time, and
the medium in which the metal object is buried. Plans to study and document
absence or existence of corros[o~ effects and to mitigate the:so effects are~
discussed below under Mitigation,
Local arid Remote Effects
~1ose to the electrode (one mile or Iess), the change in current density and
potential gradient is greatest. Thls ~roduces the most concern for safety ~nd
corrosio'~o ~ecause it may be 3ill;cult to design for safety or mit;g'Jte
Exhibit D
corrosion) it is desirable to locate the ground electrode more than a mile from
metallic objects. Cjeyond one mile, the safety hazard is unH'.cely but
interference or corrosion effects can be ~resent. The following distances are
sometimes used as Ouldellnes for adequate clearance ~etween under,round
Facilities and ground electr~es~
Major ~pelines ~ miles
Minor or distribution pipellnes 2 miles
Telephone lines I/2 mile
Oistri~ution lines I/2 mile
Railroads 3 miles
Mitigation
Mitigation ,'neasures are proposed to mitigate, to the extent possible and
practical, the potential environmental effects o-f the c~structlon and
oDeration of all el~tr~e facilities. Most of the mitlgati~ ~hich oddre~
conventional environmental concerns will be included in the Constr~tion
Ogerat~o~ ~d Maintenance Plan wh~c~ will c~stitute a formal ~greement
betw~n O~ and
The primary mitlgati~ measures for eldtribal eff~ts are ~e site
and design m~sures. First, in ~l~t~on of a site for ~e el~tr~e, avoidance
ariteria were used in combination with other g~l~i~ ¢rlteria. This resulted
in geol~ieally suit~le sites which were al~ sufficiently remote from
Fac{llties which could be aH~ted by el~tric~l eff~ts such ~s ~orros[on.
S~ondly, by employi~ aggro~rlate ~esi~ ariteria, the curr~t densities
the individual el~tr~e an~es have b~n limited to hel~ minimize eldtribal
eff~ts as well ~ ~sure ~ro~r fu~ti~ing.
To b~k u~ the~ Drjma~ mea~res, the proj~t will c~t ~ plann~
mitigati~ or,ram to veri~ Lhe exist~ce or ~e ~f el~trical eff~ts
s~h as corroli~ er interference a~ employ mitigative m~sures. This
proram will i~olve ~eying of existl~ c~dltlons, m~ring of test
turret ~ initial o~rat~on eff~ts, wo~ing wi~ utilities ~at rea~nably
would ~ im~t~, ~ implementati~ of mutually ~r~ u~n mitigation
The ~tl~$ ~ich ~re available ~s mltlgqti~ ~res are quite numerous,
and the ~ific m~res emDIoy~ will va~ d~i~ ~ ~e utility
off. ted a~ ~e nature ~ magnitude of eff~ts. The follow~ ~re examules
of m~sures which may be employS.
~or ~nterfer~e eff~ts with teie~h~e lines) mitlgat~ ~y involve nhieldlng
of aff~t~ ~rti~s of the lines or ~uipment m~ificatl~ for interference
eff~ts ~ railr~ signallzatlon, equipment changes or ad~usfm~ts may
r~uir~. On pipelines of other bur{~ metallic facilities, cq~ic prot~tion
~evices employing c~nteractlng voltage and current or ~riflcial an~e
metals are commonly u~ to mitigate corrosi~ eff~t~
Exhibit D
The specific measures employed, however, will be aterefrained on a case.L
case basis. It is t~e intent of the mitigation program to restore any offecte~
facility to conditions which existed prior to ooeratio:~ of the DWP facil;t;es
where Oossible and practical. in ~ll cases, the mitlgation measures '~HI be
suffic?ent to o~ure that operaH~ of t~e ground el~tr~e will not impair the
function ~r life of any facility.
GROWTH INDLK~MENT EFFECTS
Regional economic and pol~ulation growth could be stimulated by the l~roposect
action both dir~.ctly (from the creation of construction ]ol~:s and income)
~ndlrectly (from the stimulus of additional electric power suppiles in the
service area of the sponsors). Neither the direct nor the indirect effects are
likely to be significant for ~he following re~ons:
I. Direct effects {employment and income) are very small in relation to
the magnitude of economic activity in Clark and San 3ernordino
counHes, as was demonstrated in the preceding sections on construction
and fiscal impacts.
2. Indirect effects (l~ower availab[llty) are likely ta be negligible because
the additional capacity afforded by the proposed transmiss[on
designed to accommodate load and energy growth stimulated by autono-
mous forces that ore external to the project.
An analysis of the relationship of the proposed project to the Project Signsors'
needs for additional power is presented below.
Despite a shard deceleraHon in the pace of expansion of demand for i~ower
southern California after' the OPEC oil embargo and subsequent efforts to
conserve and economize on energy user the basic economy and pchoulation of
the region have continued to expand. In the face of growing constraints an
siting of generation facilities in the state, the ~region's power v/itities--pubL~
and private aweed~loaked' to ~ut-of-sta~e.sourees of power and oggressivel?
sought to ~rticil~te in the ownership, of. new ge,n.,.e~atlon reso??es. : : -.
Power lmlxlrts will ~rovlde muqh af the energy. required. to meet' .-~ 'dclenflel:r
commercial ~ct' ~ndustriol growth over the next several decades. Tronsmissio,~
systema will h~ve to be built to convey that energy. The point, ~hough, is that
the generation facilities have been develOl~cl to meet t~e service area needs._~_
The tronsmlssion lines merely serve to permit utilization of the power. They
do not stimulate demand, they merely accommodate it.
Table S-I.~ shows the shares in the AC and DC configurations of the
partialporing utilities, in terms of megawatts of c~acity. Also provided are
the service area characteristics of each particil~nt in 1~83 in terms of
population, customers, pe~k load, ~nd graSs s~les Of energy. Service area
demands for CalX~City and energy ~re ,~roiected to increase at rag'es of t.-a to
three percent per year, according to the CEC's Integrated Sul~ly end Demand
Exhibit D
Report on Electricity (September 195~). For the southern California municipal
utilities, major increments of energy and capacity are projected to ~e
imported fro~ out-of-state resources in the Southwest. ~y l~6, OWP and the
municipal util~Hes for ~urb~nk, Clandale, P~dena, ,~esto, S~nta ~lorq and
Redding ~re ~toj~ting firm imports of I~56 MW of c3o~ity from their shares
of the IPP, Polo Verde and 5an Juan power pro,acts. The energy sh~res of the
~aJo Verde ~nd Son Juan proj~ts (~7 MW) would be tron~ort~ by the
Dropos~ Hne. In ~ddition, c~Dac[ty end energy contr~ct~ by the other
participants from ~uthwestern re~urces would be tt~nsmltt~ by this
A comDor~n of ~e transmission capacity to be own~ by ~h
with a Dro~tion of their ~eak system Io~ds in ID?I indicates that the
~ncrement~l c~i~ d~s not quite cover the proj~t~ growth of load.
Assuming a nominal annual growth rate o~ dem~ of ~.5 percent, ~e peak
I~d of the Callforni~a~ utilities (excluding SRP and Western) will rise
fro~ 7207 MW in l~83 (~tual) to ~7~1 MW in ID~I, an increa~ of 157~ MW.
~e tronsmissi~ c~city to be ~ulr~ by the Collfomlo~o~ portlci~tlng
utilities w~ld be IS~ MW in the c~ of the OC configuration and 863 .~W
for the AC ~lternotive. ~us, to m~intaln pre~nt levels of re,we capaci~,
the utilities will be I~ing to other sources of firm power besides tho~ to be
serv~ by the pro~ Hne.
The C~C re~rt cit~ ~bove emph~siz~ that the ~thern California
.~unlc¥~l utiliHe~ ~nd M.5.~ still ne~ firm tr~nsm~ssi~ to deliver the;r
shares o~ ~uthwestern ~wer Dro~ts. Once this w~s provid~ the system
would h~e ample cap~c[~ to import purchases of firm pawer from out-of-
state ~rces {n the S~west ~nd to provide tr~nsmiss[~ cag~ity for ~ew
firm ~urch~s as exlsti~ ~les ~greements expire. ~e pr~s~ llne
complete the ~llforni~ municio~l utilities' c~n~ti~ with the ~e~d~h~nix
Proj~t, giving ~em ~¢e~ to sur~lu~s ~n Ariz~ in additi~ to firm
tr~nsmlsslon ~tltle~ts for firm ~nd nonfirm energy.
~e~ relati~ip$ c~firm the ~t that the p~ tran~i~i~ llne ~s
growth~com~ti~ a~ not g~owth-[nd~ing. Wight ~ f~ili~, or
~ulv~l~t~ ~ Ptoj~t $~rs would h~e to Io~ to o~er s~rces of power
to pre~me tell~ill~ ~rgins. ~s w~ld be ~ible, ~f pr~ly
h~gh~ c~t.
SIGNIFICANT t,~4AVOID~ ADVEFL~ IMPACTS
Signlf1¢~t unavoidable adverse ~mpacts are de~ctibed occordlng to resource
category far the BLM Preferred and the Project Sgen~ors' Preferred Routes,
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts were identifled for earth,
biological, paleo~tological, ethnological, socloecormmlcs, or air re~rces. It
should be noted l~at significant unavoldabie adverse iml:x~cts for terminal and
ancillary faGilitie$ were addressed under that section.
Exhibit D
Land U~
8LM Preferred Route would potentio/l~, remove three slngle-fc~mily dwellings.
Proiect Sponsors' Preferred ~oute would avoid all dwelHngs.
V~suol ~esources
I~I_M Preferred Route would not result in any significant unovoidable adverse
impacts ~o vinci renuroes.
Proj~t S~rs~ ~referred ~oute w~ld result in a total of 87.8 ~les
significant un~old~le c~ver~ i~t to ~e v~cl re.roes,
g~erally follows Bh~ designated or cantlge~y corridors. Si~ificant visual
Jmp~ts to r~r~ti~al u~rs would result where the study corridor cro~s t~e
East Mojave National Scenic Area. ~mp~ts to Mg~way travelers would
~cur ~n this ar~ ~au~ of the al[gnm~t ~allel~ or cro~Jng J-IS. Scenic
q~lity ~mp~ts ~cur ~n the crowing of h~g~ q~llty I~a~es suc~ as C~e
M~n mln.
ArchaeoloqJcal IResources
BLM Preferred ,'Route would result in ~,3.6 miles of potential m<xterate impact.
Project Sponsors' Preferred tRoute would result in 32.7 miles of potential high
impact and 21.:~ miles of potential moderate impoat.
Historlcal IResources "~,
BLM Preferred IR~ute would result in 2.3 miles of high ond 0.7 mile of
moderate im~t~ .~. ~% .., ..,
Prei~t S~rs' Preferr~ ~te,w~ld re~lt,i~-I~.l miles of m~erat~. .
im~t.
The "~ir~tally s~erior alternative" (as r~ir~ by CE[QA) has been
det~mi~ tO ~ ~ BLM Preferr~ R~te for ~e ar~ ~t~., ~ ond the
vicini~ of C~ote L~e. From there to Adel~to, ~th the BLM and Proj~
S~ Prefe~ R~tes are ~ual in ~vlr~tal ~t~dl~. A th~gr
the ty~s of aff~t~ rearcos are clifferst al~ ~ r~te~ the overall
imp~t is ~roxi~tely ~ual.
5.7 SHORT-TERM L/SE:S VERSUS LONG-T-r. RM I:qROOUCTIVI'rY
.:or the purposes of th~s sect;on, short-term has been defined as the
tion period plus two to three years For reclamation. Long-term is tiefined
3S years (l~e estimated llfe of the proposed project), and thereafter.
S..~8
Exhibit D
Potential effects on air quality would be short. term, mainly lacalized~ and
largely the result of construction and abandonment activities, which would
create Fugitive dust and gaseous emissions. No short- or long-term effects on
water resources are anticipated. There would, however, be some short- and
long-term soil erosion.
Potential effects on biological resources would be both short- and long-term,
because of Ios~ and displacement of vegetative and wildlife species, although
no vegetative or wildlife species is expected to become extinct as a result af
project-related activities. Wildlife habitat recovery would va~ according to
vegetative type, e.g., rlparian areas would recover mare quickly from distur-
bance than desert areas.
Potential effects on existing land use would be both short- and long-term.
Future lancl use plans and planning would also be affected, and to some extent
determined, by the location of the proposed l~roject facilities. Par~, recre-
ation and preservation arecs could be expected to experience limited and site~
specific short- and long-term impacts (e.g., Clat~ Mountain Are~).
Regional and local economies could be expected to experience short-term
benefits from project-related exponditures, and long-term benefits of property
tax revenues for the llfe of the proiect. No long- or short-term relacations to
local infrastructures are ontlcipoted, because of the small numbers of workers,
far relatively short periods of time, that would be required during construc-
t [on.
The project will result in long-term visual impacts for the llfe of the proiect.
Cultural resources, which are nonrenewable, would be impacted both short-and
long-term. Those resQ~rces destroyed or removed during construction, main-
tenance or abandonment would be lost forever. Historical resources that were
disturbed visually would be adversely affected until project-related facilities
were removed when no longer needed.
In summary, rno~f re~'.~,rces within the natural, human and cultural ~viron-
merits would exl)erlence short-term impacts, pr!n~.ipolly from construction
activities. Some long-term effects on productivity would depend on the
continued exlstefice of ih11 proposed projeat's facilities, or the continued use of
the right. of-way GS a utility corridor.
Long-term i~raclu~tlvi~ related to project development would generally reflect
s~ort-term increases in the ~J~gJy Of reliable regior~l eleatric power. The
proposed proloot would help meet long-term power requirements of existing
population areas, both {n terms of residefitlol and commercial/industrial uses.
The economic benefit of increased regional bulk transmission calfcity would,
therefore, cantri'oute directly to long-term economic growth amc~ wholesale
anti retail customers.
5-~9
Exhibit E
Project Six.sots' Preferred Route
Within the llfe of the proposed project, the construction phase would represent
the period of greatest impact to the physical environment, involving
temporary dlsturbanee to approximately 350 acres for ~ce~ roads, ~68 ocres
For transmission tower and line installation, and o maximum af approximately
130 acres far instaUaf'~on of a terminal facillty adjacent to Ade~anto. The
construction of the proposed 500kV transmission line would entail the ~reatest
short-term impacts~ because it would require approximately 205 miles of new
right-of-way, It should be noted~ however, that the progosed $00kV transmis-
sion line would follow a designated ~L.M corridor for most af its length. In
addition, the proposed terminal would be ~acoted adjacent to an existing site.
P'oUowing the construction phase of the pro!0osed action, the majority of land
d~sturbed during construction wou~d begin to revert to its preconstruction use.
Approximately 272 ocres would be accupZed by the transmission line towers
and access roads, as well as o maximum of 180 ocres for the terminal facility.
BLM Preferred Route
For the :3LM Preferred Route, spur road construction would total opproxi-
.'nately ~)2 acres, while opproxlmately 3~2 acres would be required /'or
transmission tower and line installa~'~on. During operation. agt~roximotety r13
acres would be required for the transmlssia~ towers and access requirements
(a maximum of I~O acres for the terminal would also be reclulred for this
alternative). This route would reClulre approximately 183 miles of new right-
o f-way,
5,8 I~i~LE AFID IRRETRIEYAIILE COMMITMENT OF
RESOLIRC S
Resources committed to the procased project would be material and non-
' .... r~atefial, including 'financial'. Irreversible commitment of resources fo~ the ... ,--
.... pur~?ses of. this section has beq? interl~reted to mean that those resources.
· ' ' ' "°~qce-a~mmltted so "r4e." Fe se l' .p'roject, would ~'a~tlnue tO 6e committ~eCl "~- '*
,,., :... .... : ,thr[~ghg~ut the life of thq.proje~:,t~ Irretrievable cemmitment af resources has
been ' mean that those' resources Used, consum~l, destro?ecl or:" ' -
infersrated to
degraded during construction, operation, maintenance and abandonment of the
~ragosed I~rOject could not be retrieved or re~lac .~1. for t~e llfe of the proiect
or beyond. Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of re:murces for th.~
prog, osed project are summarized below.
TyI~ of Commitment
Re~Jree I~ for Commitment Irtmlble Irretrievable
Air C)egredatlon of air ~uality No Construction
during const ruc t ion. phase
lb-SOl
Exhibit D
Ty13e of Commitment
Resource Reason for Commitment Irreversible Irretrievable
Soils Soil loss and erosion Yes Project llfe
during construction. end beyond
Water None
Geological None
Biological Disturbance to and loss of Yes Project life
vegetation and wildllfe and beyond
sDecies durlng ¢onstru¢-
tlon and operation.
Land Use Residential, institutional Yes Project llfe
and industrial exclusion.
Park, Increased recreation use of Yes Project life
Recreation preservation areas and
and Preset- off-rcx~d vehicle c~reasl
vatlon increased access for con-
struction.
Visual Oegradatlon of natural Yes Project life
scenic Clualityl viewshed
intrusionl during con-
structlan and operation.
Acoustical Noise levels exceeding Yes Project life
ambient cluring construc-
tion and Qf)eratlon.
Archaeo- Disturbonce or removal of Yes Project life
logical sites daring construc* and beyond
tiens c~eration, main-
ten~et abandonment.
Historical Disturbance or removal of Yes Project llfe
site~ Interference with arid beyond
visual setting.
Native Disturbance or removal of Yes Project llfe
American sltesl interference with and beyanal
visual settingl aural dis-
turbancol during con-
struatian, c~eraHon,
maintenance, abandonment.
Exhibit D
Type of Commitment
Resource Reaz~ for C~mit~t Irr~sible Irretri~le
Human Potential adverse electrical Unknown Unknown
~eaDh effects during operation.
revenues during constr~cfion
ond oper~t ~on,
Construe- ~ of: Aggregate Yes Pruitt li fe
t~on Materi. and beyond
als ond Fuels Water Yes Pruitt life
and beyond
Steel Yes Proj~t life
Aluminum Yes Proj~ life
Concrete Yes Proj~t llfe
ond beyond
Fo~il Fuels Yes Pro}~t life
ond beyond
$.D CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In accordance with COCOA Sect[on 15130, cumulative impc~.'ts must be
cussed when they are signlficont. Accordingly) one rea~nably antJcipate~
Future groj~t ~r~ucing cumulative im~ts is de~rib~ in this ~tion.
~n additional tie from the DWP system to me S~ ~stem is ~eing investi-
gate, which w~ld ~ro~ably involve I~i~ ~ existing DWP transmission line
through S~'s W~ent Substation. ~is tie w~Id f~ilitate ~wer transfer
caDability betw~ t~ DWP and S~ system~ ~d w~td strengthen the
system by J~r~i~ ~stem staDili~ ond reliabili~. This tie .may also be
beneficial to 6~er Mead/McCullo~.Victo~ille/Adelanto Transmission
mroj~.~t~n~ by incr .~. th~r~tt~s for ~w~ransfer~to the SC~ -'
· ' · ~t ~ ~ ~jor el~tHc~l station ~ '~e ~ ~stem~ ~tafi~ five
AC ~ ~ Z2~V A¢ transmission line~ Vi~ent is in Los A~eles C~nty,
a~roxJ~tely 6 miles ~th of Palmdale, Callf~ia, ~ ~1 miles west of th~
Adel~to C~verter/Switching Static. D~ h~ ~ pr~ a~
existing S~V AC transmission lines within 0.7S to 2.0 miles 04 Visit. ThL
tie wouJd involve (I) c~structi~ of leg ~an five miles of ~w S~V AC
tronsmissi~ llne (adj~ent to existing tton~isslm li~s), a~ (~) installation
of ~ditlonal el~trical station ~uipm~t at the Visit yord.
The cumulative imD~ts of this t~e on the ~rogo~ ~roj~t are antici~ted
be minimal b~au~ it is geographically ~arat~ from ~e progo~ proj~t.
It is not c~sider~ a related action, ~au~ it c~ld pr~e~ ~ its
5-52
Exhibit D
merits, with or without the construction of the proposed l~roject. If the
VTncent Substation tie is proposed at a future date, it will be addressed in a
separate envJrom~entaJ document.
%$3
[D-~31
Exhibi D
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUF~
Environmental resources such as soils, geology, water
resources, and cultural resources are not ordinarily subject
significant changes over short periods of time. Other resources,
such as biological resources and land use can change relatively
~'~ rapidly. The purpose of the following section is to review the
uhanges in the Project and how they affect environmental
resources.
3.1 Biological Resources - Deser~ Tor~o£se
The desert tortoise was listed as a threatened species
by the California Fish and Game Commission on June 22, 1989
pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. On August
1989, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed =he
desert tortoise north and west of the Colorado River as
endangered for 240 days under an emergency ruling pursuant to the
Federal Endangered Species Act. On April 2, 1990, after the
240-day period, a long-term threatened listing was made.
The desert tortoise was treated as a sensitive wildlife
species in the Draft and Final ER for this project. However,
under the provisions of the California and Federal Endangered
Species Acts (ESAs), a formal consultation process must be
undertaken for projects affecting threatened or endangered
species. A formal Federal consultation was initiated on July 30,
1990. A biological assessment de=ailing the ProJect's impacts to
the desert tortoise was prepared to support the formal
consultation process (Appendix A, Dames & Moore, May 1990). As a
result of the formal consultation, a Biological Opinion
(Appendix B) has been issued by the USFWS on February 22, 1991
which indicates that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the desert tortoise.
As a result Of the biological assessment and formal
v consults=ion process under the provisions of the Federal £SA, =he
Project participants will under=eke certain supplementary
mitigation measures, including the acquisition of suitable land
to replace desert tortoise habitat disturbed by the Project. The
Biological Opinion con=sins a complete listing of =hess
supplementary mitig~tion measures developed under =he California
and Federal ESA~ which will be incorporated into =he Project.
Also, =he Dref~ ER con,sins mitigation measures selectively
comm,=ted ~o for ~he desmr= tortoise.
The environmental impacts on the desert
resulting from the construction and opera=ion of an AC or DC
~ project have been fully analyzed in the Draft and Final ERs and
extensive mitigation measures are set forth therein. The change
in status of the desert tortoise from a sensitive wildlife
species tO a long-term threatened species under the California
and Federal ESAs does not raise new significant environmental
impacts not covered in =he Draft or Final ERs.
3-1
Exhibit D
3.2 Reviev of Technical Changes
The AC project described in the Draft ER and the
proposed AC project are essentially the same. The major
components, such as the tower design, the tower spacing, the
proposed route, and the proposed connection point in California,
are the same as those set forth in the Draft ER. Technical
modifications to the AC project are: 1) utilization of a ~hree-
bundle conductor configuration in place of the double-bundle
conductor configuration shown in Figure 5-11 of the Draft ER
(conductor diameter is unchanged at 1.802 inches per conductor);
2) construction of a small capacitor station to be 1Oca=ed
underneath the transmission line near the midpoint; and
3) increasing transfer capability from 1,000 MW to 1,200 MW.
The conductor changes in California incrementally
increase the visual impacts; however, the changes are not
significant when contras:ed to the dominant visual effects of the
transmission to,~ers.
The capacitor station to be located under the
transmission line will occupy approximately i to 2 acres.
Several sites near the town of Baker were investigated. The
proposed location of the station is within the transmission line
right-of-way, approximately 2 miles east of Highway 127.
Proximity to the Project transmission line and the availability
of distribution-level electricity at Baker were key factors in
deciding where to locate the capacitor station. Technical
analysis done after the certification of the Final £R has shown
that locating capacitors away from either terminal of a
transmission line is more effective and economical than at
end of a line.
T~e additional 1 t~ 2 acres are not a significant
change in acreage when compared to the total amount of land that
the Project is expected to disturb, which is approximately 1,000
acres. If practical, the capacitor station will be located in an
area disturbed or graded for transmission line construction
activities. If this canno~ be accomplished, a biological review
of the proposed station sit~, w~11 be undertaken prior to
construction of the capacitor station to minimize environmental
impacts, if any.
The change from a DC to an AC project elimina:es the
need for a ground electrode. Approximately :en miles of local
distribution-type line were part of the DC project. An AC
project will not include the vzsual or ground disturbance impacts~
associated with constructing a ground electrode which is a
positive environmental effect.
3.2.1 Electrical a/!d ~aql~etic Effects
The technical changes described above will not
significantly alter the electrical effects described in the Draft
Exhib D
ER. Section 5.4.1 of the Draft ER - Electrical, Biological,
Health, and Safety Effects, contains an analysis of the potential
corona and electric field effects posed by a $00-kV AC
=ranemission line. Because of two variations between the AC
project described in the Draft ER and the proposed AC Project,
1) a 20-percent increase in maximum power flow, and 2) a
different conductor configuration, data in Section 5.4.1 is
hereby updated.
As stated on p. 5-28 of the Draft ER, the calculated
maximum electric field (within the right-of-way at 3.3 feet above
ground for conductor clearances of 36.5 feet) was calculated as
8 kilovolt per meter (kV/m) and 1.7 kV/m at the edge of the
right-of-way. The maximum electric field considering the
technical modifications described in this document will be less
than 9 kV/m, and 1.9 kV/m at the edge of the right-of-way. The
change in the level of electric fields is not a significant
change in magnitude and no new significant issues.are raised.
As stated on p. 5-31 of the Draft ER, the maximum
calculated magnetic field (within the right-of-way for conductor
clearance of 36.5 feet and 120 degrees Fahrenheit) is 0.18 Gauss
(G) and 0.04 G at the edge of the right-of-way. The maximum
calculated magnetic field considering the technical modifications
described in this document will be 0.24 G and 0.05 G at the edge
of the right-of-way. At 200 feet from the line, the magnetic
field will be approximately 0.01 G. Continuing researc~
regarding potential human health effects has not establxshed a
relationship between magnetic field exposure from a 500-kV
transmission line and health effects. Therefore, the predicted
change in the level of magnetic fields is not considered a
significant change in magnitude.
3.2.2 Potential Human H~alth Effec~
Appendix E of the Draft ER contains · technical report
which discussed studies and conclusions regarding human health
implications. Al~houq~ much research and deliaration has taken
place since ~l Finll ~ was issued, no conclusive evidence has
come for~ ~o lUbltlntiatl the position tha~ electric or magnetic
fields fro~ electric ~ransmission lines cause ~e,l~h effects.
~e~er e~osure to electric and magnetic ~ields causes
decadel. ~ of ~il research hal involv~ fieldl a=
fre~encies o~her then the 60-Hz (cycles per eecond) fre~ency o~
elec=rical power. Since frequency is of prlae ~a~r=ance in
de~e~ining ~he biol~ical interactlone and o~e~ characteristics
of electric and magnetic fields from various ~r~ions of the
electromaqne~ic spec~, studies which do no~ involve 60-Hz
sinusoidal fields are not relevant to the in~i~ ~ effects oE
power ~re~en~ fields. In addition, some resear~ has utilized
"pulsed' ~ields which In actuality do not consist of a ainqle
~requen~ but are cosposed oE a ran~e o~ ~re~enciea. These
3-3
Exhibit D
fields also lack the characteristics of single-frequency 60-Hz
electric and magnetic fields and are not relevant to the inquiry
of effects of power frequency fields.
Three general types of research have examined the
possibility of health effects from exposure to 60-Hz power
frequency electric and magnetic fields: 1) epidemiologic studies
(public health surveys of the patterns of disease and health in
human populations and the factors that influence :hose patterns);
2) in-vitro studies of cellular and molecular activity
(laboratory studies and experiments with isolated cells and
tissue); and 3) in-vive animal studies (involving the study of
whole animals).
The early residential epidemiologic studies that relied
solely on a wiring code configuration (a classification of
exposure by the size and number of wires instead of field
strength measurements) ~s an estimate of residential field
exposures presented conflicting results concerning a possible
association with childhood leukemia. Some studies reported
positive associations (i.e., a greater incidence of cancer near
power lines), some studies found no associations, and :some showed
negative associations (i.e., a reduced incidence of cancer near
power lines). The more recent residential epidemiologic studies
consider actual measurements of residential field levels as well
as the wiring code approach. While an association has been
reported when the wiring code approach was used, the recent
studies have found no statistically significant associations
be:ween actual measured magnetic fields and cancer ris~.
Occupational epidemiologic studies have looked at large groups of
workers presumed to have been exposed to electric and magnetic
fields over a long period of time. While some of these studies
have reported statistically significant associations between some
classifications ~f workers ~nd certain types of cancer., the
overall body of occupational epidemiologic research regarding
workers presumed to have been exposed to electric and magnetic
fields has found no consistent pattern of increased risks of any
particular type of cancer.
The in-vitro molecular and cellular level studies
provide strong evidence that genetic damage that leads to the
development of c~ncsr or ott~er adverse hsalt; effects does no=
result fro~ exposure to power frequency electric and magnetic
fields. The in-viv~ animal studies have not es:ablishsd that
exposure to pcwer frequency electric and magnetic fields
adversely affects the reproductive or developmen%el processes of
the study subjects, causes stress reactions or adversely affects
immunelogic functions, is associated with the development of
cancer, or adversely affects overall health.
Results of research involving ~0-Hz fields have led
several scientific panels of independent experts to find that
although these fields do produce some biological effects, e.g.,
perception, =bari is no basis to conclude that exposure to power
3 - 4 ~'D-57]
Exhibit D
frequency (60 Hz) electric and/or magnetic fielde is harmful or
that exposure causes any specific or general diseases or
illnesses, including cancer. The California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) recently evaluated this issue as well and
stated, ,,although biological effects are clearly established, the
relationship of these to possible public health risks is not yet
established (CPUC, Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields
from Electric Power Facilities. Report to the California State
Legislature by the CPUC in cooperation with the California
Department of Health Services, September 15, 1989)." To date,
none of the scientific panels who have analyzed the research on
this issue have concluded that exposure to power frequency (60
Hz) electric and/or magnetic field causes adverse health effects.
The Project participants are committed to deliver
electrical energy in a safe and responsible manner and,
therefore, share the concern over possible adverse health effects
from power frequency electric and magnetic fields. Based o-
available literature and research results to date, it is
concluded that magnetic field exposure due to a $00-kV
transmission line is of the same order of magnitude as normal
ambient levels in ordinary working and living environments and,
thus, do not cause any significantly greater risk tO human
health. However, to further resolve this issue, scientific
research will continue to be supported by the Project
participants and as conclusive scientific answers become
available, the Project participants will prudently respond.
3.3 Lm!!d ~
Some changes and proposals for change in land
jurisdiction or land use along and adjacent to the proposed route
have occurred since the certification of the Final £R. These
changes can be dividmd into: i) new commercial and residential
development, ii) proposed wilderness designations, iii) proposed
changms in military land uses, and iv) utility facilities.
New commmrcial and residential developments have been
constructed in Adelenee since 1986, and additional developments
· or trac~e arm planned. Several new or planned developments
(residential and indua~rial) occur within the environmental study
~mrridor for this pro~e¢~. Although increased develupmmn~ will
slightly increase the degree of impact the Project will have on
land use, ~he increased development does not pome nmw significant
environmental impacts f~ ths Project. Land-acquisition
procedurma end land use impacts for the ProJec~ are essentially
the same as described in the Draft ER. Mitigation measures set
forth in the Draft and Final ER are applicable to such
developments.
The proposed California Desert Protection Act and other
Federal legilla~ive proposals have the potential to desiqna~e
wildmrnass areas or national park land in the vicinity of the
proposed route. Provisions for utility corridors have bmen
Exhibit D
cons£dered during the development o£ boundaries for the proposed
wilderness areas and parks. Potential environmental impacts, if
any, cannot be quantified until legislation is passed.
Two changes in military land use have been formally
proposed since the certification of =he Final ER. The changes
are the closure of George Air Force Base (AFB) near Adelanto and
the proposed expansion of Fort Irwin National Training Center
(Fort Irwin) northeast of Barstow. Although flight paths into
George AFB were a significant consideration in developing the
proposed route which was certified in the Fine1ER, the closure
of George AFB raises no new significant environmental impsons
with respect to the Project.
Five alternatives have been developed for the proposed
expansion of Fort Irwin and four of the them would encompass land
adjacent to the proposed route on both sides of the proposed
Project. Potential environmental impacts, if any, cannot be
quantified until the Fort Irwin expansion plane are more
definitive.
Additional utility facilities have been proposed or
constructed along the proposed route since the certification of
the Final ER. A new 230-KV transmission line adjacent to the
proposed Project route from Kramer Junction east to Harper Lake
has been constructed by the Luz corporation to accommodate solar
energy. A double-circuit 230-kV transmission line from Kramer
Junction south to Adelanto is planned to be constructed by
Southern California Edison Company adjacent to the proposed
Project route. Also, a large-diameter natural gas pipeline
crossing the desert is undergoing construction. Provisions for
the proposed Project were made during the routing phase of these
utility facilities and no new significant environmental impacts
with r~spect to the construction and operation of the Projec. are
raised by construction of these additional utility facilities.
3.40~h~ Enviromntal Resources
No significan~ changes in soils, geolo~, water
resources o= archaeol~y and paleontology are known to have
occurred lincl ~t Final ER was certified. Impacts =o these
resources will be mi=ig&*ed as descriDed in =Ae Drag= and Fi. al
ERa.
[DRAFT ER] EXHOrt e
T~E ~.~
GEJ~.FUC MITIGATION M~=.~
GI~hF_~IC MITIGATION
I, All construction vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will normally
be restricted to predesignated access, contractor acquired access or public
2. The areal limits of construction activities will normally be predetermined,
with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or
permanent discoloring agents will be a13plled to racks or vegetation to
indicate survey or const~ction activity limits.
3. In construction areas where recontourlng is not required, vegetation will be
left in place wherever passaic and original contour will b~ rnointair~d to
avoid excessive root damage and allow for rasprouting.
~,. In construction areas where recantouting is required, revegetation and/or
reseeding will accur ~s required by the landowner.
S. Watering facilities will be repaired or replaced if they ore damaged or
destroyed by constructlon activities.
6. Towers over 200 feet in height and condu<:tors will be marked with high-
visibility devices where required by governmental agencies (Federal
Aviation Administration).
7. On agricultural land, right-of-way will be aligned, insofar as practical, to
reduce the impact to farm c~)erations and agricultural production.
8..Prior to cor~truction, all supervisory construction personnel will .be
instructed on the protection of cultural and ecological resources. To assist
in this effort, the con~truction contract will eddres~ (cl) Federal crKI state
laws reg~dlng antiquities and plants cmd wildlife, including callaction
removal; (b)the Importance of these resourc, and the
necessity of prot~cting them.
!~. Prea=n~tructlon Cultural Resource Studies
Intensive cultural-resource surveys will be conducted an the preferred
route by an apl}rc~rlately qualified professional to identify sl3ecific
prepsties subject to irr¢~ct from the construction, operation and
maintenance of the proposed project. The cultural resource surveys will
include historical, ethnographic, architectural and arch~molaglcal elements.
I of~,
Table 3-6 (continued) EX~ITn~ E
Generic Mitigation Measures
A. The historical element will include, but not be limited to, development ~
of the narrative history of the study area. The purpose of the narrative
history will be to provide a framework in which to evaluate individual
historic properties.
D. The ethnographic elements will include, but not be limited to, the
identification of general and/or specific heritage or ethnic concerns.
The pu~ose of the ethnographic study will be to provide a framework in
which to evaluate the concerns of local Native Americans for historic
and prehistoric properties ~n the study area and to assess the effect
that the proposed action will have.
C. The architectural element of the cultural resource study will focus on,
but may not be limited to, the ldentlflcatlon of properties within the
study area that may be of architectural Importance.
D. The archaeological element will include, but will not !be limited to,
identification and evaluation of prehistoric archaeological resources,
within the study area. The archaeological study will compile sufficient
background information on the prehistory of the study area in order to
assess and/or provide a framework in which to evaluate individual
prehistoric properties.
c.. An intensive archaeological survey will be conducted on the proposed
right-of-way, access roads and any other areas that will be disturbed by
the construction and/or operation of the proposed transmission llne.
The purl~ose of the survey will he to identify specific properties within
the survey area that may have cultural resource values. The survey will
be established in consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SI-IPO) or his/her designated representative within each state.
F. Following identification of the cultural resources within the survey
study area, a preliminary report(s) will be prepared and maps with site
locations will be compiled. The preliminary report will include a brief
de~crJptlon and evaluation of the cultural resources located within the
survey study area and recommendations for avoidance. The preliminary
ref~rt and maps will be submitted to the Project Sponsors' transmission
line engineers- The site information will be used In ,Biting towers,
access roads and other construction areas to avoids t.o the extent
possible, the cultural resources along the route.
~. A report or separate section of a report(s) will be prepared for each'
element. Each report will include, but will not be Umlted to, a
description of background research and evaluation of existing data, a
description of field inspectlo~ methods, a substantive assessment of the
EXI-~B1T E
Table 3-~ (continued)
Ceneric Mitigation Measures
results of the survey, recommendations of testing or further analysis
and an evaluation of the significance of each property.
H. A preservation plan will be prepared. The plan will address all four
elements - archaeology, history, ethnology and architecture. The
preservation plan will include, but not be limited to, the followlng~
(a) identification of those cultural resource properties that are not
considered to be eligible for the inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places and the rationale for such an evaluation, (b) identifi-
cation of those cultural resource properties that are considered to be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the
rationale of such an evaluation, (c)a detailed description of the type
and degree of impact the proposed project will have with regard to
those properties identified above, (d) recommendations for mitigating
any adverse effects that are expected to occur, (e) recommendations
for general protective procedures to be followed during construction,
maintenance and operation of the proposed transmission line.
I. BLM will follow the procedures prescribed in 36 CFR800.~, and
36 CFR 63 and will consult with the $HPO and ACHP regarding
determination of eligibility, determination of effect, and identification
of measures which will avoid or mitigate any adverse effects.
J. Project Sponsors will satisfactorily avoid or mitigate the adverse
effects to cultural resources resulting from the proposed project in
accordance with measures agreed upon by the ~3LM, SHPO and ACHP.
10. The Project Sponsors will respond to complaints of line-generated radio or
televisia~ interference by investigating the complaints and implementing
appropriate mitigation measures.
tl. The Project Sponsors will aDply necessary mitigation to eliminate problems
of induced currents and voltages onto conductive objects sharing a right-
of-way, to the mutual satisfoctio~ of the parties involved.
12. The Project Sponsors will continue to monitor studies performed to
determine the effects of audible noise and electrostatic and electro-
magnetic fields in order to ascertain whether these effects are significant.
13. Roads would be built as near as possible at right angles to the streams and
washes. Culverts would be installed where necessary. In addition, road
construction would include dust-control measures during construction in
sensitive areas. All existing roads would be left ~n a condltlon equal to or
better than their condition prior to the construction of the transmission
line.
3 of~,
[E-3]
Table 3-6 (continued) EXZ-B~IT E
Generic Mitigation Measures
I~,. All requirements of those entitles having jurisdiction over air quality,~
matters will be adhered to and any necessary permits for construction
activities will be obtained. Open burning of ¢o~struction t~rash will not be
allowed unless permitted by appropriate authorities.
[~4]
EXHIBIT E
[DRAFT ER] ;
TAi3LJ~ 5-1
SE.L.F_CTIV~I.Y COMMITTED MITIGATION MF. AS~
Note: These selftire mitigQtion measures apply only to Me Sl~ifi¢ locations
indicQt~l on Table ~-2 in the Map Volume.
SELECTIVE MITIGATION
I. No new access will ~e ¢onstr~cted in ~esig~t~ ar~
~esignat~ ar~ T~is w~l~ minimize gr~ ~iztu~e, limit new or
;mpr~ ~ce~ibili~, ~ hellc~tar c~st~tl~ or ~trol is ~m~.
?. No wid~i~ or u~r~i~ of existi~ ~ce. r~s will be u~ert~ (~me
benefits ~ I ~e).
3, ~e align~t of any ~w ~ce~ r~s will follow ~e desig~t~ ar~'s
la~torm c~t~rs~ providi~ that ~ allgnm~t d~s ~t additi~all~
;input re.roe value~ This w~ld minimize gr~ distu~a~e and/or
r~e ~=rri~ (vi~l c~tr~zt).
~. All ~ce. r~z not r~ir~ for ~lnt~e will be ~rma~tly clo~
usi~ ~e ~t eff~tive a~ le~t envir~tally da~i~ meth~s
a~ropriate to ~t ar~ with c~urre~e of the I~ow~r. ~is w~ld
limit new or i~r~ ~ce.ibilJ~ into ~
S. S~ial to~ ~Ji~ ~ ~ utiliz~ to minimize gr~ distu~e,
~rati~l c~fl~t~ vl~l c~tra~t ~/or ~i~ c~flict~
~. ~ finira ~ st~l towers will be dull~ in desi~t~ ~s to r~uce
vi~l c~t.
7. In djsig~ ~ c~tors will be c~tr'~t~ af ~ular ~terJal
to r~t vi~l c~trast.
8. In desi~t~ ar~ st~res will be pl~ ~ ~ to ~oid ~sitive
f~tures ~/~ to allow c~tors to cl~ly ~ ~ f~ture~ within
limits af st~rd tour ~s[~ ~is w~ld minimize ~t of ~sitive
f~re dls~ ~/~ r~t vi~l c~tr~t.
~. SeaWard st~re ~i~ will be m~if{~ to
existl~ tr~{.i~ line statures w~re f~z~le ~ wi~in limits of
seaward st~re design. This w~ld r~e vi~l c~trast.
I of 3
EXI-I~IT E
Table $-I (continued)
Selectively Committed Mitigation Measures _~
10. I. ine will be re-routed where feasible to clearly avoid unmitigable sensitive
features. This would eliminate or severely reduce visual or physical
conflict with feature.
Canztructlan Schedule
I I. In designated areas, if deemed approl~riate by pre,.construction surveys (see
13 below), construction activities will be modified during breeding or non-
hibematlon season of sensltive~ listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species. This would reduce disturbance to sensitive sf~ecies.
a. Construction activities in ~now~ desert blghorn ~hee~ I~abitat would be
limited to the summer and fall months when the shea~ ,are restricted to
their small, isolated crucial habitats away from potential disturbances
from construction activities.
b. Construction activities in potential desert tortoise habitat with high
densities {I 50 to 250 individuals per square mile) or ve~,y high densities
(greater than 2S0 indivlduals Iser square mile) would be restricted to the
period of October to March when tortoises are underground and
hibernating. Hence, ¢onsttuctlon activities and vehicular movements
on the ground surface would not greatly dlsturb the tortoise and would
eliminate the ~tential for mortality by vehicular collisions.
Pr~mtt~cti~n Study Program.~
12. Prior to construction, o geatechnical field review of tower a~. ac.c. ess-rood
desi.g?.. will.be condu?. ted by o qualiflod. professional t,~ ~dent~fy site-
sl~czf~c, ~d.~r~lon impacts and determina the most effective means of
mitigating them. F'or poleontolnglcal resource~ a field review of tower
and accee~ rcmd design and location will be conducted by a qualified
I~refessional t~ identify fossil Iocalitles that s~ould not be distur'oed.
Pe,ible mitigation measures could include miner adjustments in tower and
road I~ation~ restricting access during periods of high moisture, and
utilizing selective biodegradable soil stabilizing agants~ etc,.
13. Prior to constt,~ction, on ecological field review af tower and access-rood
design will be ¢m~ducted by a qualified prefessional to identify site-si~ecif~
impacts ta threatened, endangered or etherwise sen~itive vegetation a
wildlife and to determine the most effective mecm te mitigate
impacts. Perihie mitigation measures could Include minor odiustments in
tewer and road lacatlons, closing access raads~ relocating sensitive s¢~cies,
habitat improvements, etc.
a. The presence af st~ecial-interest plants in areas likely to provide
suitable habitat would be evaluated by seasonal surveys prior to
2 of 3 [E-6]
EXH~IT E
Table S-I (continued)
Selectively Committed Mitigation Measures
construction. Poilulotions in potential disturbance zones would be
identified and the locations of towers, construction yards, and new
acces~ roads would be altered to ovoid the ix~ulatlons.
b. Outing construction octlvlties in high and very high densi~! desert
tortoise habitats, a qualified biologist would be on-site to locate and
mark any tortoise dens that would be adversely affected by
constructlon octivltles.
EXHIBIT E
U.S. FISH & W[I' D!.IFE SERVICE
MEMORANDUM
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes that the following Reasonable and Prudent
taking authorized by this Biological Opinion:
~. MoFkor education progFmus, defined const~uction ~rsas, and
well-defined operational procedures shall be implemented,
with ~Ae cooperation of qualified on-site biologists, to
avoid the take o£ desert tarraises and tortoise
during constructAsh and operation of the transmission line.~da~
2. Attraction Of ravens to the construction area shall be
reduced to the maximum extent
Terms and Conditions
The following ?e~ms and Conditions are established to implement
the Reasonable and Prudent measures described above:
state DL~ector (1-6-91-F-46) EXHIBITE 9
1. Z£ the pro~ect proponent faLLs to comply w~th My of the
Realon&bLe and P~udent Neasures or Tem and Cond~tLons of
~ thLs Op~nion~ the Bureau shaLL suspend the ~Lght-of-wa¥
petit for the Xead/NcCuLLough - VLctoz~LLLe transmLasLon
~Lne untLL such tLme th&t the p~oponent Ls ~n compLLance
~th these Te~s and CondLtLons. The Bureau shaLL also
notL~y the p~oponent at that tLme ~hat ~&LLu~e to co~pL~
~LL Lead to ~evocatLon o~ the PL~ o~ Ope~tLon~. ThLs
CondLtLon appLLes to the pe~L~ of t~s~ssLon
ope~atLon, ~s ~e~L ~s du~Lng const~ctLon.
2. The p~o~ect p~o~nent sh~LL desL~te ~ Lndividu~L as &
~LeLd contact ~ep~esentatLve ~ho ~LLL have the autho~Lty
ensure compLLance ~Lth p~otectLve stLpuLatLons ~o~ the
dese~ to~toLse ~nd be ~es~nsLb~e ~o~ c~d~natLon ~Lth
~ Bureau, the Se~vLce, ~nd bhe St&re ~LLdLL~e a~encLes. The
~LeLd contact ~ep~esentatLve ~LLL have the ~utho~Lty to
actLvLtLes of const~uctLon e~ip~ent ~hLch may be ~n
vLoLatLon o~ st~puLatLons.
3.ALL p~e-const~uctLon &ctLvLtLes ~hLch could take
Ln any manne~ (e.~., d~LvLn~ o~ an estabLLshed
cLea~Lng vegetatLon, etc.) shaLL occu~ Ln the p~esence o~ a
quaLL~Led bLoLogLst. k bLoLo~Lst sh~LL t~&veL ~Lth each
~o~k c~e~ to ensure that aLL to~toLses &nd theL~ bu~o~s
avoLded du~Lng these actLvLtLes. ThLs CondLtLon does not
autho~Lze handLLng o~ any to~oLses du~Lng p~e-const~uc~Lon
actLvLtLes. Any hazards to to~toLses that may be c~eabed by
bhLs actLvLty, such as auge~ holes o~ any steep-sLded
dep~essLons, sh&LL be eLLmLnated each d&y p~Lo~ to ~he ~o~k
c~e~ Le~vLng the sLte.
4. The Bureau Ih~LL ensure that the mLtLg~tLon measures
contaLn~ Ln the envL~o~entaL assesssent a~e L~pLe~ented by
~he Lo~ ~geLes Department o~ ~ate~ and Po~e~. These
measures &~e:
A. NO ~ent ~LdenLng o~ up~adLng o~ exLstLn~ access
~o~ds ~LLL be undertaken ~n ~eas o~ bLoL~Lc&L concern.
B. The aLL~ent o~ an~ ne~ access ~oads ~LLL ~oLLo~
designated a~ea's L~nd~o~ contours, p~ovLdLng ~hat such
aLL~en~ does not addL~LonaLLy a~ect ~esou~ce v~ues.
C. ALL access ~oads not ~equL~ed ~o~ maLntenance ~L~L be
pe~anentLy closed usLn~ the most e~ectLve and Least
envL~o~entaL dama~Lng methods app~op~Late to that
~L~h concurrence o~ ~he Lando~e~. ThLs ~ouLd ~LmL~ ne~
o~ Lmp~oved accessLbL~L~ Ln~o the &~e&.
[E-9]
D. St~ci&l towe~ placement ~aM ~ us~! to m~ni~ize groun~
d~tu3~b~nce.
The p~o~ec~ p~oponenb ~ designate a ~e~d con~acb
representative. The ~ield contact representative will
be responsible ~or overseeing compli~ce wi~h protective
stipulations ~o~ the desert tortoise and
coordination on compliance with the Bureau.. The ~ield
contact rep~esentative ~ill have authority to halt
activities o~ const~uction equipment which ~aM ~e in
viola~ion of the stipulations.
All construction and mainten~ce workers will
participate in a tortoise education p~. The
p~og~ ~ill be developed b~ the p~oject proponent pric~
to beginning o~ consb~uction. The p~ will be
submitted to the Service and the State wil~[li~e a~encie~
~o~ ~eview and approval p~io~ to implement~tion. The
pro~ ~ill include, at a minim~, the ~ollowin~
topics: occurrence o~ desert to~toise, semsitivitM o~
the species to h~an ac~ivities, legal p~otection
desert to~oises, penalties ~o~ violations o~ Federal
and State laws, general tortoise activitM patterns,
~epo~tin~ ~equirements, measures to p~otect tortoises,
and personal measures emploMees can take to promote ~he
conservation o~ t~e desert to~toise.
G. A biolo~ist ~lll ~e assigned to the p~e-const~c~ion
su~veM te~. The biologist ~ill be ~es~nsible
ensuring that ne~ access ~outes, spu~ ~oad and
sites a~e placed in a manne~ that will a~ect as ~e~
tortoise burrows as possible. These a~eas ~ill be
desi~ated by ~la~ing. The placement o~ access ~ou~es~
and spu~ ~outes will be as direct as possible to
minimize h~itat distU~bance while minimize dest~ction
of tortoise burrows. Othe~ ~o~k a~eas (e.g., splicing,
tensionin~, pulling, batch sites) ~ill also be ~evie~ed
by a biol~ist as construction p~oceeds. Potential
a~eas ~ill be ~la~ed several dams p~io~ to construction
~o~ ~evie~ by a biologist.
H. ~e~ight pa~king and storage o~ equipment ~d material
~ill be in p~evio~sl~ disturbed a~eaa (i.e., lackin~
vegetation). These areas will also be designated b~
pre-const~uction su~ve~ te~. These a~eas could ~e
batch siCes, pulling sites, and to~e~ lites.
p~eviouslM disturbed a~eas a~e not available, t~ese
activities ~ill be restricted to the ~ight-of-~ay and
~ill be clea~ed o~ ~o~oises by the on-site
p~io~ to use.
EX~E
State Director (1-6-91-F-45) 11
Z. ~ithin desert tortoise habitat, const~uction and
maintenance workers will strictly limit their activities
and vehicles to construction areas and routes of travel
which have been flagged to eliminate adverse impacts to
desert tortoises and their habitat. Aside from these
areas, workers may not drive cross-country even within
the right-of-way. All workers will'be instructed that
their activities are restricted to flagged and cleared
areas.
J. To the extent possible, blading will not be ~one on spur
roads, and at tower, splicing, and tensioning sites.
The field contact representative will ensure that
blading is conducted only where necessary. However, due
to construction constraints, a result of equipment size
and personnel safety, most spur roads and tower sites
may need to be bladed.
K. Within 30 days of construction, tortoises will be
removed from any burrows in areas flagged for
disturbance. Tortoises will be removed by hand when
temperatures are between 75 and 90° Fahrenheit. Between
March ]5 and October ]5, excavations will be done before
noon. All burrows located in disturbance areas will be
collapsed to prevent teentry.
L. The excavated tortoises will be relocated to artificial
burrows immediately after excavation. The artificial
burrows will be constructed approximately 100 yards from
the collapsed burrows. The artificial burrows will be
constructed, and individually fitted, based on
recommendations made by the TORT-Group, Inc. of Las
Vegas, Nevada.
M. During construction activities, construction personnel
will report any sightings of tortoises within the
construction zone to the on-site biologist. Tortoises
which are believed to be in jeopardy of harm, but not in
burrows, will be moved 100 yards into undisturbed
habitat. The tortoises will be placed in the shade of a
large shrub. Tortoises will be moved according to
approved practices for handling tortoises with proper
care to prevent the spread of disease and to minimize
stress on the tortoise. Under adverse conditions, the
biologist may hold a tortoise overnight according to
standard practices to minimize exposure to stressful
environmental factors.
N. Trash and food items will be removed daily by the
construction workers and placed in raven-proof
containers.
[E-11]
$t&ta Di=ecto= (1-E-91-;-¢6) EXHIBIT E 12
O. Firearms will be prohibited on aLL construction and
maintenance sites.
P. Construction and maintenance vehicles will not exceed
speed of 25 miles per hour in tortoise habitat.
No Later than 90 days after completion o£ construction
within tortoise habitat, the field contact
representative and on-site biologist will prepare a
report for the Bureau, Se~ice, and the State wiLdLife
agencies. The report wiLL document the effectiveness
the tortoise mitigation measures, the number of
tortoises excavated from burrows, and the n,,m~er of
tortoises moved from constz-uction sites. The report
will make recommendations for modifying or refining the
stipulations to enhance benefits to the tortoise or to
reduce needless hardship on the pro~ect proponent.
R. FOr all new access routes; and within tortoise habitat,
the access route will be closed by the proponent after
construction. Closure will be implemented b~
bar~icading~ scarifying roadway surfaces, recontou~ing,
etc. A road closure plan will be prepared for review
and approval by the Bureau, the State wildlife agencies
and Service for areas of new access in tortoise habitat.
S. A compensation plan was formulated for the California
portion of the pro~ect. Compensation in Nevada will be
in the foz~u of a per acre fee for area dist~Lrbed.
Compensation for residual impacts in California is based
on the acres of habitat disturbed and uses the formula
contained in the Bureau's Recommendations for manaaement
of the desert tortoise in the CaLifornia Desert (1988).
The total compensation for CaLifornia is ~,~03 acres.
~n Nevada, 274 acres of disturbed land would require
compensation.
Work LToas sha~l be inspected for tortoises within 24 hours
of the onset of construction at any site. To facilitate
imp~omontation o£ this condition, burrow inspaction and
excavation may begin no more than seven (7) days in advance
of con~¢t%on activities, as long as a final check for
tortoises is conducted at the time of construction.
Tortoises found at this time shall be moved as described
Te~ms 3L or 3M.
Only persons authorized by the Service under the auspices
this Biological Opinion shal~ be permitted to handle any
tortoises which may be found during the const~u¢:tion of this
pro~ect. The Bureau shall suppl~ the Service with the
name(s) and credentials o~ the b~ologist(s) at Least ~5 days
prior to the onset of any construction activities. All
[E-~2I
State oLrector (1-6-91-~-46) EXI--IIBITE 13
tortoise handling and relocation will be in accordance with
handling methods contained in the "Interim techniques
handbook for collecting and analyzing data on desert
tortoise populations and habitats" (Arizona Game and Fish
Department et al. 1990). This Opinion does not authorize
collection of blood samples, rehydration, or any other
manipulation of tortoises that are moved during powerline
construction.
7. A tortoise-proof fence shall be constructed around the
substation site. The fence shall consist of materials with
a mesh size no smaller than } inch mesh. The tortoise-
proof mesh shall be firmly attached to the barbed wire or
chain link fence surrounding the sites and extend from ]2
inches below to ]8 inches above the surface of the ground.
Any alterations in this design shall be submitted to the
Service's Reno Office for review and approval prior to
~/ installation.
8. The tortoise-proof fence shall he maintained and monitored
regularly by the proponent for the life of the project.
Monitoring and maintenance of the substation fence shall
include, but not be limited to, observations and
documentation to determine whether trash, sediment
accumulation, or erosion is compromising the fence's
function. Any indication of failure of the fence to exclude
tortoises from the project sites shall be reported to the
Service's Reno Office and Bureau within 10 days of this
discovery.
9. The authorized biologist(s) sh~ll he present during all
phases of construction to move tortoises out of harm's way.
Tortoises shall be purposefully moved only by biologists
~-' approved by the Service, solely for the purpose of moving
tortoises out of harm's way.
10. Only burrows within the right-of-way and which are at risk
shall he excavated. Burrows outside the right-of-way, but
which could be at risk from accidental crushing, shall be
protected by the placement of snow fencing between the
burrow and the right-of-way. The fencing shall be at least
20 feet long and shall be installed to direct any tortoise
leaving the burrow away from the right-of-way. The decision
to use snow fencing shall be at the discretion of the
~/' authorized biologist. Installation and removal of such
fencing shall be under the direction and supervision of the
authorized biologist.
11. The Bureau shall ensure that the compensation noted in Term
4.S for impacts to desert tortoise habitat in California
consists of the acquisition of ],603 acres of private land
in California within Bureau-designated Category I or II
desert tortoise habitat areas. The acquired lends ehal.~--dm~
trlnl£erred to the Bureau of Land ~anagteent and shall
manaqld for the benefit of desert tortsisal. The Bureau
shall ensure that lands which to be acquired are acceptable
to the Service's Ventura Office and the California
Department of Fish and 6ame. The land acquisition and
transfer shall be completed within two (2) years o£ the
completion of construction.
The Bureau shall ensure that the Lee Angeles Department of
Mater and Power deposits S63,224.40 in compensation funds
the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Fund Number 236-
8290, administered by Clark County, for tortoise habitat
losses in Nevada. The compensation amount shall be indexed
annually for inflation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index beginning January 1, 1992. These fur~
shall not be used for development of the Habitat
Conservation Plan and are independent of any .other fees
collected by Clark County for desert tortoise conservation
planning. These funds shall be held in an interest bearing
account.. These funds and the accrued interest shall be
expended for the purpose o£ securing tortoise management
areas and habitat enhancement. Proposed expenditures shall
he approved by the $ervice's Reno Office. Should the funds
not be expended within two years of their placement in the
fund, these funds shall be transferred to The Nature
Conaervancy for such purposes.
Payment shall be made prior to initiation of project
construction for the pro~ect proponent to be in compliance
with the provisions of the Act. Payment ihall be made
certified check or money order payable to Clark County
delivered to:
Cla-~k County
Departssent of Administrative Services
225 ~ridger Avenue, 6th Floor
Las Veg&s, Nevada 89155
(702) 455-3530
The pa~ent shall be accompanied by a cover letter £rom the
payee that identifies the project and the biological
that ia requiring the payment, the amount o~ payment
enclosed, and the check or money order number. The cove.
letter shall also identify the name and address of the
payee, the name and address of the Federal agency
responsible for authorizing the project, and the address o~
the Sex'vica's Southern Cali~ornia Field Station. This
information will be used to notify the payee, the
authorizing Federal agency, and the Service that the payme~
has been received.
EXH~ITE
State DiretOt (1-6-91-F-46) 15
If the Incidental Take authorized by this Opinion is met, the
Bureau shall i.~aidiately notify the Service in writing. I£ the
Incidental Take authorized by this Opinion is exceeded, the
Bureau shall imediarely notify the participants in the proposed
reinablate formal consultation with the Service.
Reportins Re~uirements
Upon locating dead, injured, or sick desert tortoises, initial
notification must be made to Ray Bransfield at the Service's
ventura Office at FTS 983-6040 or (805) 644o1766 within three
working days of its finding. Written notification must be made
within five calendar days and include the date, time, and
location of the carcass, a photograph, and any other pertinent
information. Care must be taken in handling sick or injured
animals to ensure effective treatment and care, and in handling
dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best
possible state. All tortoise remains shall be frozen immediately
and provided to one of the foileying institutions holding
appropriate State and Federal permits per their instructions:
Museum of Vertebrate ZOology, University of California,
Berkeley, California
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles,
California
San Bernardino County Museum, San Bernardino, California
University of Nevada, Department of Biology, Las Vegas,
Nevada
University of New Mexico, Albuguerqua, New Mexico
Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, Califo~nia
Arrangements regarding proper disposition of potential museum
specimens shall be ~ade with the institution by the Bureau
through a biologist prior to implementation of the action.
Injured ani~ala should be transported to a qualified
veterinarian. Should any treated tortoises survive, the Service
should be contacted regarding the final dis~eition of the
animals.
Conservation
In furtherance of the purposes of the Endangered Speoiee Act
(Sections 2(c) and ?(a)(1) that mandate Federal agencies to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of listed species, we recommend implmenting thm
foileying actions:
l, The Bureau should evaluate future right-of-way requirements
which may affect tortoise habitat, with particular emphasis on
areas that could be designated as tortoise management and
recovery areas. Where possible, rights-of-way should be located
EXI-I~IT E
St&re ~r~tor (1-6-91-~-46)
in areas ~J~at viii not adversely affeck ~he re=ove3:y o£
~o=CoiJe.
2. The Bureau should c~rdinltt i~o~l wi~ the EM~n~ o~
~a~eF ~d Power ~d o~e~ u~i~y c~iil to divelop
n~,g~en~ pl~ ~o~ c~n ravens. This p~ could include
remsvii of riven hefts which are ~o~d on ~e~ L~nel through
tortoise h~itat in the deler~. ~y ~e~val of riven nests would
re~ire a pe~i~ fr~ ~he Se~ice's D~vision o~ Law ~forcemen~.
The Se~ice re~e~ts notification of ~he impl~enta~ion o~ any
conse~ation rec~endations so we c~ ~ ke9~ info~ of
actions ~ha~ either minimize o= avoid adverse effects,
benefi~ lis~ed species or ~heir h~i~a~s. .~
Conclusion
This concludes focal consul~ation on ~he Mead/McCullough -
vic~o~ille/Adel~to Tr~Ja~ssion P~o~ec~. le~n~ia~ion o~
~oml coniulta~ion is =~i=~ if: 1) ~e ~ or extent of
inciden~al ~e is =each~ 2) n~ infom~ reveals e~fec~s
the agencF action ~ha~ ~ advetsel~ affec~ lis~ a~cies o~
critical h~i~a~ in a ~er o= ~o ~ ex~ no~ co:nside~
~his ~inion; 3) the agency action is s~i~tly ~i~ied in a
~ner that causes ~ e~ect to a list~ s~ie. or critical
h~itat that was not conaideF~ In ~is ~inA~; oF 4) a new
species ~s 1As~ oF critical h~a~ des~ ~a~ Uy be
af~ec~ by ~his action (S0 ~ 402.~6}. ~y pl~s ~o ex~end ~e
pro~sed active l~e~Xme oF ~o al~er ~he ~c~Xon of
facility ~uld be conaide~ reason ~o FeinA~ia~e
We would appreciate no~ca~on o~ ~our ~nal decision on
mat~er. ~y ~est~ofis or coments s~ould ~ directed
Br~ffield a2 the veat~a Office at ~S 983-6040 or (805) 644-
~766.
EXI-I~ITE
State Director (1-6-91-F-46) 17
Literature Cited
Arizona G~me and Fish Department. California State Resource
Agencies, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources. United States Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and ~ildlife
Service. ]990. Interim techniques handbook for collecting
and analyzing data on desert tortoise populations and
habitats. Chapter 3. Protocols for handling live
tortoises.
Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Recommendations for management
of the desert tortoise in the California Desert. Bureau of
Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside,
California.
Burge, B.L. ]978. Physical characteristics and patterns of
utilization of cover sites My Gooherus aaassizii in southern
Nevada. Proceedings 1978 Desert Tortoise Council Symposium.
pp. 80-]]].
Burge, B.L., and W.G. Bradley. ]976. Population density,
structure and feeding habits of the desert tortoise,
Gopherus aaaesizii, in a low desert study area in southern
Nevada. Proceedings ]976 Desert Tortoise Council Symposium.
pp. 5]-74.
Dames and Moore. ]990. Technical report. McCullough - Adelanto
angle tower clearance studies for desert tortoise. Prepared
for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Los
Angeles, California.
Hovik, D.C., and D.B. Hardenbrook. 1989. Summer and fall
activity and movements of desert tortoises in Pahrump
Valley, Nevada. Abstract of paper presented at Fourteenth
Arn~u&l Meeting a~ld Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council.
Luckenbach, ~.A. ]982. Ecology and management of the desert
tortoise (Gooherus aoassizii) in California. In: R.B. Bury
(ed.). North American Tortoises: Conservation and Ecology.
U.S. Fish an~ Wildlife Service, wildlife Research Report
]2, Washington, D.C.
Munz, P.A. ]974. A flora of southern1 California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Wainstain, M., K.N. Berry, and F.B. Turner. ]987. An analysis
of habitat relationships of the desert tortoise in
California. A report to Southern California Edison Co.
EXI-I-IB1T F
[FINAL
ENVIF~Ofi.MENTAL
A forecast of the environmental consciences of the ~ro~sed
Hne w~ derived through ~ ~rocess t~ f~rst ~dentif~, ~nd subse~ue~
evaluated and ~nt~rated, ~nitial (unmitigated) i~cts and a~ropr~ate
tlon ~easures. The process ~nvolved (r)assessing impacts b~ed uDon
com~rison of the pro~sed Pru;ect with the Drearajar environment:
(2) determining mitigation that wouJd =void, effectively reduce or el~i~te
~m~cts~ ~nd (3) ~dentifyinq "res;dual" ;mO~cts, or imD~Cts remaining Qfter the
~OOlic~tion of mitlg=tion meesures to which the Proj~t S~nsors here
cornmittS. T~ ~t~ti=l residu~ ~mOocts al~g the oreferr~ route
from the constr~tion, oDer~t~on end mQintena~e of the Dro~s~ Project =re
generally summarized in the ~olrowing discussi~. A ~re detailed descriotion
of im~cts c~ be reviewed ;n the ~r=ft ER.
Table 3-9F oresants a ~ont~tQtive Qn~lysiS of impacts for the final oreferrari
route, Alternatlve ~F. This t=ble ~s =n addedurn to Table 3-~ in the
volume of t~ Draft ~R and con be used to camera t~ fi~l Dreferred route
with other r~tlng alternatives. The d~ta and informati~ Dresented
Table 3-9~ were deriv~ from the ~r~ft ~R and su~rti~ T~hnic=l Re~rt,
Volumes I-IV, and fr~ an im~ct assessment c~d~ted for modified Link
(see ChaDtar 2).
E[arth resource iuuel include soil erosio~ Dote~tial, i~ti~ ~t~tial from
t~ I~-y~ fl~, ~ disturbance of ~l~ntol~ical r~rc~. ~ ~r~nial
water r~s ~ al~ the pro~s~ r~te t~t ~ld ~ aff~t~ by the
Proj~. ~ ~tl i~ C~terized by lOW erosi~ ~t~tial, ~ c~tai~ on'v
f;~ mi~ of fl~la~.
Pot~tt~ly si~ifi~t i~ts were Jdentifi~ f~ ~l~toi~ical res~rces.
T~ ~ t~ ~ate ~nd hi~ sensitivity f~l~i~ formati~s
~d a ~ of k~ fossil t~olitJ~ ~ue. Site-~ific mitigatJ~
~e~ur~ will ~ ~1~ to ~void or r~e im~tz to ~y i~ntifi~
,
ADDENDUM TO COMPARISON OF FINAL ROUTING ALTERNATIVES
Table 3-9F
~ioicxzicol ~sourc~s
$~gniRcant types of i~Dac~s relevant to bioi~ical resources include any
~pact that aff~ts officially regulated or protected s~cies, communities or
oreas~ ~nterferes with migration of wjldlife~ alters the diversity of biotic
communities or ~oulations of olant or animal s~cies= or affects i~portant
habitat.
The ~referred r~te crosses 80 miles of protected plant sD~Jes habitat.
Wildli~ b~tat traver~e~ includes desert tortoi~ (moderate to hiah de~s[tvi,
biqhorn sheeD, ~ila m~ster, ana ~olave ground s~irrel. After mitigation.
hiah im~cts w~ld result. Moderate im~cts would re~o~
Characteristically, direct and tonqoterm impact types for land uses include any
impact that displaces, alters or otherwise physically affects any existing
development of a planned residential, commercial, industrial or institutional
use or activity, utility line or facility, communications facility or related
activity, air facility or related activity; or affects official general or regional
olans, policies, goals or operations of communities or governmental agencies.
In general, the route would have no effect on existing or planned land use. A
hi.oh re~duo~ ]maact was assianed for two residences north of Harvard due to
the probable close proximity of the line, and O.S mile of rapaerate ~rn~ct
woula occur for recreaT,on uses alan9 the Barstow-i-as Vegas race route.
Impacts to the Baker Airport are not anticipated. Any interference with
abave-<Jround or buried utilities will be mitigated by the Project Sponsors.
Vl~u~l Resoure~l
TyDical visual iml~3et tYDeS include imlX!¢ts aff~ti~ t~ ~lity of ~y scenic
re.roe; ~y r~ ~essing r~e ~ uni~ val~l t~ vi~ fr~ or
m~ifyi~ t~ vi~l ~ttJ~ of any r~i~tial, c~rcial, i~tituti~al or
other vis~lly ~iti~ I~ use; t~ vi~ from a vis~l setti~ of ~Y tr~el
route; ~ t~ vi~ f~ a vis~l ~tti~ of ~y ~t~l;~, ~si~at~ or
ola~ r~r~ti~ ~i~, ~ati~l ~ ~i~tific f~ility, u~ ar~.
octivtW, vi~tnt ~ vista. Visual intrusi~ of t~ tr~i~i~ IJ~ ~ause
of st~ c~trmt (~ similar existi~ struturn), I~f~ c~trmt (new
or ~ ~ r~ ~d tow~ f~ti~ c~=t~ti~) ~ v~etati~
c~tr~ (~tati~ r~val), w~ld conti~ thr~t t~ life of t~
pr~ ~j~t. RaiMI ;m~ts us~llx ~ in ~ of hi~ ~ic
~ali~ ~ w~e t~ tr~smission li~ w~ld ~ in cl~ proximity to
resi~. tr~l r~t., ~ other s~si tire vi~i~ I~ti~.
~ Dreferr~ r~te ~ld r~ult in 6.6 mil~ of hi~ r~J~J i~t ~
70.~ roll. of ~ate im~t to resi~tial vi~ ~ 15.7 rail. of hi~ ~
5~.5 rail. of ~ate im~t for h;~hw~ vie~. ~r~ti~ J~tl i~l~
$-12
IF-3]
,. EX~I~.[T F
11.6 miles of high and ~,3.2 miles of moderate residual impacts. for scemc
quality, high impacts would remain for 6.6 miles and moderate impacts for
70.~, miles.
The socloeconomic impact analysis addressed potential positive and negative
effects an construction worker activities and expenditure and fiscal matters
that would result from the construction of the proposed facilities. The
maximum demand by construction workers for temporary accommodations
could be met with existing facilities in each community, and community
services would be adequate. Potential indirect tax revenues that would accrue
to communities and taxing jurisdictions in the study area would be minimal
durincJ construction, but would be a beneficial impact of the proposed Project.
Increases in property tax revenues during operation would be a significant
long-term beneficial impact without rec~ulring additional services.
Cultural Rasa,~ces
Impacts to archaeological resources, which are nonrenewable, would be
adverse and permanent.. Construction and operation activities could result in
physical or visual impact types affecting archaeological resources, sites or
districts included in or eligible for inclusion in the National F~egister of
Historic Places, or sites or areas identified as having special archaeological
value. Impact levels were identified based on the evaluation of levels of
sensitivity and access road requirements. High residual impacts to archae-
olocjical resources are predicted for 32.3 miles along the preferred route, and
moderate impacts would remain for 21.S miles.
Types of impacts to historical resources were identified as direct physical
impacts resulting from construction-related activities, indirect physical
impacts resulting from increased access, and visual impacts created by the
presence of towers and lines during the life of the proposed Project. Moderate
residual impacts are predicted for I 1.8 miles for historical resources.
Types of impacts to Native American cultural resources include physical and
aural (i.e.~ due to incre~secl noise that could affect the spiritual integrity of
the site). No specific identification of Native American cultural resources
will be disclosed in this document because of Native American concern for the
sacred nature, of many sites, end the desire to protect the resources.
However, with the exception of one area north of I-I$~ no potentially
significant impacts were identified. High residual impacts would remain for
this are~ (0.5 mile).
$-13
EXHIBIT F
r~o significant potential impacts to air resources or acoustical characteristics
~ere identified.
EX}~I~ F~ F
[ADDENDUM]
3.3 La~nd U~
Soma changes and proposals for change in land
jurisdiction or land use along and adjacent to the proposed route
have occurred since the certification of the Final ER. These
changes can be divided into: i) new commercial and residential
development, ii) proposed wilderness designations, iii) proposed
changes in military land uses, and iv) utility facilities.
New commercial and res£dantial developments have been
constructed in Adelanto since 1986, and additional developments
or trac~s are planned. Several new or planned developments
(residential and industrial) occur within the environmental study
corridor for this project. Although increased davalopman~ will
slightly increase the degree of impact the Project will have on
land use, ~he increased development does not pose new significant
environmental impacts for the Project. Land-ec~uiei=ion
procedures and land usa impacts for the Project are essentially
the same as described in the Draft ER. Mitigation measures set
forth in =he Draft and Final ER are applicable to such
developments.
The proposed California Desert Protection Act and other
Federal legislative proposals have the potential to daaignata
wilderness areas or national park land in the vicinity of the
proposed route. Provisions for utility corridors have been
considered during the development of boundaries for the proposed
wilderness areas and parks. Potential environmental impacts, if
any, cannot be quantified until legislation is passed.
Two changes in military land use have been formally
proposed since the certification of the Final ER. The changes
are the closure of George Air Force Base (AFB) near Adelanto and
the proposed expansion of Fort Irwin National Training Center
(Fort Irwin) northeast of Barstow. Although flight paths into
George AFB were a significant consideration in developing the
proposed route which was certified in the Final ER, the closure
of George AFB raises no new significant environmental impacts
with respect to the Project.
Five alternatives have been developed for the proposed
expansion of Fort Irwin and four of the them would encompass land
adjacent to the proposed route on both sides of the proposed
Project. Potential environmental impacts, if any, cannot be
quantified until the Fort Irwin expansion plans are mo~=~
definitive.
Addi'=ional utility facilities have been proposed or
constructed along the proposed route since the certification of
the Final ER. A new 230-kV transmission line adjacent to the
proposed Project route from Kramer Junction east to Harper Lake
has been constructed by the Luz Corporation to accommodate solar
energy. A double-circuit 230-kV transmission line from Kramer
Junction south to Adelanto is planned to be constructed by
Southern California Edison Company adjacent to the proposed
Project route. Also, a large-diameter natural gas pipeline
crossing the desert is undergoing construction. Provisions for
the proposed Project were made during the routing phase of these
utility facilities and no new significant environmental impacts
with respect to the construction and oper~aN:ion ~f the Project are
raised by construction of these additional utility facilities.
3.40~her Environmental Resources
No significant changes in soils, geology, water
resources or archaeology and paleontology are known to have
occurred since the Final ER was certified. Impacts to these
resources will be mitigated as described in the Draft and Final
ERs.
EXH~IT 0
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
MEAD-ADELANTO TRANSMISSION PROJECT
JULY 1991
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
In 1986, the City of Los Angeles Board of Water and
Power Commissioners (Board) certified the Final Environmental
Impact Report as lead agency for the Mead/McCullough-
Victorville/Adelanto Transmission Project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is
referred to herein as the Mead-Adelanto Transmission Project
(Project). This local agency is considered a responsible agency
under CEQA with respect to the Project. A joint Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(EIS/EIR), dated June 1985, and a joint Final EIS/EIR, dated May
1986, contain the environmental analyses upon which the CEQA
certification is based. In June 1991 the Board adopted an
Addendum to the Final EIS/EIR.
In 1989, CEQA was amended with the addition of Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6 which requires that a mitigation
reporting or monitoring program be established for the changes to
a project which have been added to or made a condition of Project
approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects to the
environment. Generic mitigation measures for this Project are
found in Table 3-6, Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS/EIR. More
specific, selective mitigation measures are found in Table 5-1,
Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Mitigation measures of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as described in the
Addendum to the Final EIS/EIR are also part of the Project. The
purpose of this monitoring program, referred to herein as the
Project Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Program (EMM Program),
is to describe how the Project mitigation measures will be
implemented, monitored, and how reporting will be conducted.
This EMM Program has been developed in view of the
procedures of a proposed Project mitigation monitoring program
developed by the Project Manager, Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power (LADWP). It is anticipated that the proposed Project
mitigation monitoring program will be adopted in substantially the
form of this EMM Program and will be undertaken as Construction
Work or Operating Work as defined in the Mead-Adelanto Project
Joint Ownership Agreement. This would avoid the cost to this
local agency of administering its EMM Program independent of the
Project mitigation monitoring program or any mitigation monitoring
program adopted by any other local agency participating in the
Project. To the extent this EMM Program requires measures in
addition to the mitigation monitoring program adopted by the
Project, the responsibility and costs to carry out such additional
measures will be borne by this local agency. This EMM Program may
be amended or supplemented from time to time to reflect new
information or changes in circumstances.
EX~IT G ~
Section 3.0 provides an outline of the mitigation
measures that apply to the Project. The specific, selective
mitigation measures from Table 5-1 of the Draft EIS/EIR are listed
and the methods by which they will be monitored and verified are
described. A general discussion of how the mitigation measures
will be incorporated into the Project EMM Program is also
included.
SECTION 2.0
POWER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
A mitigation monitoring program is required by CEQA
whenever mitigation measures or project changes are adopted or
made conditions of a proJect's approval.
The Construction Manager/Operation Manager (C~/OM) will
be responsible for implementing the Project EMM Program. A
Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) Form has been developed to be the
essential record keeping document for the EMM Program. The CM/OM
will implement the EMM Program as follows:
1. Assign unique record keeping numbers (MMP No's.)
applicable to the Project. If a mitigation measure
must be verified more than once, or if more than one
verifying organization is required, the CM/OM may
assign a number for each required verification or
organization.
2. Specify the monitoring or verification method on
each MMP Form. (The Environmental and Governmental
Affairs Subsection [EGAS] of the Conservation and
Planning Division of LADWP can be contacted for
assistance in selecting an appropriate monitoring or
verification method.)
3. Determine the appropriate verifying organizations
and enter this information on each MMP Form.
Governmental agencies can be utilized as verifying
organizations.
4. Schedule each verification activity and enter the
appropriate information on each MMP Form. Those
verification activities 'that are of significant
duration may be incorporated into the detailed
project schedule.
-2-
EXHIBIT 0
5. Submit the appropriate MMP Forms to each verifying
organization prior to the "Begin Verification" dates
show~ on the forms.
The CM/OM will maintain a record of all processed or
completed MMP Forms submitted. Each form will be
initialed and dated by the person who actually
verifies the implementation of each respective
mitigation measure. Completed forms will then be
returned to the CM/OM for record keeping. In some
cases, mitigation monitoring may involve
organizations outside of LADWP. For consistent
record keeping, applicable interorganizational
correspondence will be used with MMP Forms
attached.
RECORD KEEPING
Upon completion of the construction phase of the
Project, the CM will transmit all completed MMP Forms to EGAS for
record keeping. Responsibility for any mitigation measures that
remain to be verified will be carried out by the OM. All MMP
Forms and related records will be maintained by LADWP, as CM/OM of
the Project, for a minimum of seven years from the date of
completion of such form or record.
REPORTING
Beginning three months after the effective date of the
Mead-Adelanto Joint Ownership Agreement, and on a quarterly basis
thereafter, a summary statement and copies of all M~P Forms and
related records completed during that quarterly reporting period
will be provided to the Coordinating Committee representatives of
the individual Owners and Participants. Also, a listing which
identifies all established MMP Forms and corresponding status will
be maintained and updated throughout the Project. This listing
will be distributed to the Coordinating Committee representatives
of the individual Owners and Participants quarterly, or as needed.
-B-
EXI~I~BIT G
SECTION 3.0
MITIGATION MEASLrRES
Mitigation measures for the Project can be divided into
four categories as follows:
1. The generic mitigation measures listed in Table 3-6
of the Draft EIS/EIR attached as Exhibit A.
2. The selectively committed mitigation measures listed
in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIS/EIR attachsd as
Exhibit B.
3. The mitigation measures given in the United States
Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Biological Opinion, dated
February 22, 1991 attached as Exhibit C. (Some of
these are identical to the selectively committed
mitigation measures in Exhibit B.)
4. Other additional mitigation measures that may be
identified during preconstruction environmental
studies.
At this time, the selectively committed mitigation
measures of Category 2., above, have been sufficiently defined so
that a monitoring/verification method can be specified for them.
These measures are listed below in two groups (No. i 11 and
No. 12 and 13). Each group list is followed by the specified
monitoring/verification method that applies to all measures of the
group. (Note: The measure descriptions have been shortened here
for conciseness. Refer to Exhibit B for complete descriptions.)
No. SELECTIVELY COMMITTED MITIGATION MEASURES
1. "No new access will be constructed in designated areas;
2. "No widening or upgrading of existing access roads will
be undertaken ..."
3. "Alignment of new access roads will follow designated
area's landform contours, ..."
4. "All access roads not required for maintenance will be
permanently closed ..."
5. "Special tower designs may be utilized to minimize ground
disturbance, ..."
-4-
EXHIBIT G
6. "The finish on steel towers will be dulled in designated
areas to reduce visual contrast."
7. "In designated areas, conductors will be constructed of
nonspecular material ..."
8. "In designated areas, structures will be placed so as to
avoid sensitive features ..."
9. "Standard structure spacing will be modified to
correspond with spacing of existing transmission line
structures where feasible ..."
10. "Line will be re-routed where feasible to clearly avoid
unmitigable sensitive features ..."
11. "In designated areas, if deemed appropriate by
preconstruction surveys (See 13 below), construction
activities will be modified during breeding or non-
hibernation season of proposed threatened or endangered
species ..."
The monitoring/verification method to be used for
measures 1 - 11 is as follows:
i. The CM will verify that the mitigation measure
requirements are indicated on all appropriate
material and construction specifications, contracts,
drawings, plans, and schedules. The CM will then
complete the required verifying MMP Forms.
ii. Prior to construction, the Quality Assurance
Engineer (Field Inspector) will confer with the
Construction Engineer, Construction Contractor,
On-Site Environmental Specialists (Archaeologist,
Biologist, Paleontologist, etc.), U.S. Bureau of
Land Management Official, and USFWS Official, as
appropriate, and then complete the required
verifying MMP Forms.
iii. The Field Inspector will monitor all activities
during construction to insure compliance with all
applicable mitigation measures. During construction
the Field Inspector will periodically complete the
appropriate verifying MMP Forms.
-5-
EX~I~FF G
NO. SELECTIVELY COMMITTED MITIGATION MEASURES
12. "Prior to construction, a geotechnical field review of
tower and access road design will be conducted by a
qualified professional to identify site-specific soil
erosion impacts and determine the most effective means
of mitigating them ..."
13. "Prior to construction, an ecological field review of
tower and access road design will be conducted by a
qualified professional to identify site-specific
impacts to threatened, endangered or otherwise
sensitive vegetation and wildlife and to determine the
most effective means to mitigate those impacts..."
The monitoring/verification method to be used for
measures 12 and 13 is as follows:
i. The CM will be responsible for the arranging and
planning of all preconstruction field review and
study programs. The CM will incorporate all such
programs into the Project schedule.
ii. The CM will verify that all required pre¢:onstruction
reviews are carried out. The CM will confer with
the qualified professional specialists who perform
the reviews.
iii. The CM will incorporate the mitigation re~q~irements,
which result from the reviews, into all applicable
material and construction specifications, contracts,
drawings, plans and schedules. The CM will then
complete the required verifying MMP Forms.
As preconstruction environmental resource studies for
the Project progress, the generic mitigation measures in Table 3-1
of the Draft EIS/EIR and the mitigation measures given in the
USFWS Opinion will become specifically defined in terms of the
locations where they apply. Also, other additional mitigation
measures may be identified. Record keeping numbers and MMP Forms
will be created and monitoring/verification methods speoified for
all such mitigation measures as soon as they are sufficiently
defined.
The CM will coordinate closely with the environmental
specialists (Archaeologists, Biologists, Paleontologists, etc.) in
determining the appropriate monitoring/verification methods for
mitigation methods defined prior to the start of construction.
For mitigation measures defined after construction begins, either
the CM or Field Inspector will coordinate with the environmental
specialists to determine the appropriate methods.
-6-
Ex~m~T G
To the extent possible, all applicable mitigation
measure requirements will be incorporated into material,
construction, or other Project specifications, draw£ngs, plans,
and schedules prior to contractor bidding. Mitigation measure
requirements identified or defined after' award and execution of
contracts will be incorporated into the contracts by change orders
as appropriate.
-7-
EXI-IIBIT A
TABLE 3~
GE!,~d~!C MITIGATION MEASURES
GF_.hrd~lC MITIGATION
I. All construction vehicle movement outside the right-of-way will normally
be restricted to predesignated access~ contractor acquired access or public
roads.
2. The areal limits of construction activities will normally be predetermined,
with activity restricted to and confined within those limits. No paint or
permanent discoloring agents will be applied to rocks or vegetation to
indicate survey or construction activity limits.
3. In construction areas where recontouring is not required, vegetation will be
left In place wherever possible and original contour will be maintained to
avoid excessive root damage and ~11ow for re,routing.
~,. In construction areas where recantouring is required, revegetation and/or
reseeding will occur as required by the landowner.
$. Watering facilities will be repaired or replaced if they are damaged or
destroyed by construction activities.
6. Towers over 200 feet in height and conductors will be marked with high-
visibility devices where required by governmental agencies (Federal
Aviation Administration).
7. On agricultural land, right-of-way will be aligned, insofar as practical, to
reduce the impact to form operations and agricultural production.
8. Prior
· to construction, all supervlscry construction personnel will .be
~,~ ~nstructed on the protection of cultural and ecological re~urces. To assist
in this effort, the construction contract will addrein (a) Federal and state
laws reg~ding ontlquitles and plants and wildlife, including collection
removalt (b)the importance of these resources and the purpose
neceulty of protecting them.
9. Precar~truction Cultural Resource Studies
Intenlive culh~ral-res~srce surveys will be conducted on the preferred
route by on .a~.ro~riat. ely qualified profes~ional to identify specific
progertles subject to ~rngact from the construction, operation and
maintenance of the proposed project. The cultural re~curce sur~eys will
include historical, ethnagraphic, architectural and a~chaeclagical elements.
I of~,
Table 3-& (continued) E~TT A
Generic Mitigation Measures
A. The historical element will ~nclude, but not be limited to, development
of the narrative history of the study area. The purpose of the narrative
history will be to provide a framework in which to evaluate individual
historic properties.
[3. The ethnographic elements will include, but not be limited to, the
identification of general and/or specific heritage or ethnic concerns.
The purpose of the ethnographic study will be to provide a framework in
which to evaluate the concerns of local ,Nlative Americans for historic
and prehistoric properties in the study area and to assess the effect
that the proposed action will have.
C. The architectural element of the cultural resource study will focus on,
but may not be limited to, the identiflcatlan of properties within the
study area that may be of architectural Importance.
D. The archaeological element will include, but will not be limited to,
identification and evaluation of prehistoric archaeological resources,
within the study area. The archaeological study will compile sufficient
background information on the prehistory of the study area in order to
assess and/or provide a framework in which to evaluate individual
prehistoric properties.
~.. An intensive archaeological survey will be condu~tod an the proposed
right-of-way, access roads and any other areas that will be disturbed by
the construction and/or operation of the proposed transmission line.
The purpose of the survey will be to identify specific proporties within
the survey area that may have cultural resource values. The survey will
be established in consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) or his/her designated representative within each state.
F'. Following Identification of the cultural resources within the survey
study area, a preliminary report(s) will be prepared and maps with site
locations will be compiled. The preliminary report will include a brief
description and evaluation of the cultural resources located within the
survey study area and recommendations for avoidance. The preliminary
report and ~ will be submitted to the Project Sponsors' l~ransmission
line engineers. The site information will be used in siting towers,
access roads and other construction areas to avoid, to the extent
pa~lble, the cultural resources along the route.
G. A report or seporate section of a report(s) will be prepared for each
element. Eoch report will include, but will not be Ilmitod to, a
desoriptlan of background research and evaluation of existing data, a
desoriptian of field i~spection methods, a substantive assessment of the
EXItBIT A
Table 3-6 (continued)
Ceneric Mitigation Measures
results of the sur~ey, recommendations of testing or further analysis
and an evaluation of the significance of each property.
H. A preservation plan will be prepared. The plan will address all four
elements - archaeology, history, ethnology and architecture. The
preservation plan will include, but not be limited to, the following=
(a) identification of those cultural resource properties that are not
considered to be eligible for the inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places and the rationale for such an evaluation, (b) identifi-
cation of those cultural resource properties that are considered to be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the
rationale of such an evaluation, (c)a detailed description of the type
and degree of impact the proposed project will have with regard to
those properties identified above, (d)reoammendations for mitigating
any adverse effects that are expected to occur, (e) recommendations
for general protective procedures to be followed during construction,
maintenance and operation of the proposed transmission line.
I. BLM will follow the procedures prescribed in 36 CFR800.0, and
36 CFR 63 and will consult with the SHPO and ACHP regarding
determination of eligibility, determination of effect, and identification
of measures which will avoid or mitigate any adverse effects.
J. Project Sponsors will sotlsfoctorily avoid or mitigate the adverse
effects to cultural resources resulting from the proposed project in
accordance with measures agreed upon by the ~LM, SHPO and ACHP.
10. The Project Sponsors will respond to complaints of line-generated radio or
television interference by investigating the complaints and implementing
appropriate mitigation measures.
I I. The Project Sponsors will apply necessary mitigation to eliminate problems
of induced currents and voltages onto conductive objects shoring a right-
of-way~ to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved.
12. The Project Sponsors will continue to monitor studies performed to
det~rmirm the effects of audible noise and electrostatic and electro-
magnetic fields In order to ascertain whether these effects are significant.
13. Roads would be built as near as possible at right angles to the streams and
washes. Culverts would be installed where necessary. In addition, road
construction would include dust-control measures during construction in
sensitive areas. All existing roads would be left in a condition equal to or
better than their condition prior to the construction of the tran~ission
line.
3 of o,
Table 3-6 .(continued) £X~i]~IT A
Generic Mitigation Measures
I~. All requirements of those entities having jurisdiction over air quality
matters will be adhered to and any neceszary permits for construction
activities will be obtained. Open burning of construction brash will not be
allowed unless permitted by appropriate authorities,
EXHIBIT B
TABLE $-I
SELECTIVF. LY COMMITTED MITIGATION MEASLJRES
Note.. These selective mitigation measures apply only to the specific locations
indicated on Table 5-2 in the/~op Volume.
SELECTIV~ MITIGATION
Access Roods
I. No new access will be constructed in designated areas; e;g., construction
and maintenance will be accomplished without benefit of new access in
designated area~. This would minimize ground disturbance, limit new or
improved accessibility. No helicopter constructJan or pptrol is assumed.
~.. No widening or upgrading of existing access roads will be undertaken (~ame
benefits as I above).
3. The alignment of any new access roads will follow the designated areo's
landform contours, providing that such allgnme~t does ~t additlanally
;mpact resource volue~. This would minimize ground distu¢oance and/or
reduce scarring (visual contrast).
~,. All access roads not required for maintenance will be permanently closed
using the rn~t effective and lea~t environmentally damaging methods
appropriate to that area with concurrence of the landowner. This would
limit new or improved accessibility into the area.
Tower (red Camkmtm O~ign
S. Special tower design may be utilized to minimize .ground disturbance,
operational cenflict~ visual contrast and/or arian canflints.
6. The finish an steel towers will be dulled in designated areas to reduce
visual canh'ast.
7. In designated areas conductors will be can~t~,mted of non~pecular material
to reduce visual contrast.
8. In designated are,,-s structures will be placed se as to avoid sensitive
features m~d/or to allow conductors to clearly sgan the features, within
limits of standard tower design. This would minimize ame~mt af sensitive
feature disturbed artdior reduce visual contrast.
~. Standard structure spacing will be modified to ¢m'relgand with ,l~3Cing of
existing transmission line structures where feas~le and within limits of
standard st~,.,=ture design. This would reduce visual cantrot.
EX~J~T B
Table 5-1 (continued)
Selectively Committed Miticjatlon Measures
10. Line will be re-routed where feasible to clearly avoid unmitigable sensitive
features. This would eliminate or severely reduce visual or physical
conflict with feature.
Car~tru~ti~n
I ~. In designated areast if deemed appropriate by pre..~onstr~ction surveys (see
13 I~1ow), construction activities will be m~ifi~ ~url~ brairig or ~on-
~ibemati~ of ~nsltive, Ilst~ or pr~ ~r~te~ or
~a~er~ ~I~ ~is w~ld r~e distulle to ~sit~ve ~cie~
a. C~str~ti~ ~tivitles ~n ~no~ delft bloom ~ h~itat w~ld be
limit~ to ~ ~mmer and ~all m~s ~ ~ ~ are restrict~ to
their small; i~lat~ cr~ial ~itatl a~ from ~tent~ai distun--es
from ~str~ti~ ~tJvitie~
b. C~st~¢ti~ ~tlvJties in ~tontial delft tortoi~ h~itat wit~
d~zitiel (IS0 to 250 i~Ividuals ~r ~re mile) ~ ve~ hi~ densities
(grater th~ 250 I~Ivld~ls ~r ~re mile) w~ld ~ restrict~ to the
~ri~ of ~t~er to ,~arch ~ tortol~s are undergr~ and
hiber~t~. H~e~ c~str~tl~ ~tivities ~ vehicular ~vements
~ ~e gr~ ~rf~e w~ld not gr~tly dlstu~ ~ tort'oi~ a~ w~ld
eliminate ~e ~t~tial for ~tal~ by v~icular colllsion~
Pr~t~ S~ P~
12. Prior to c~zt~tl~ a g~t~hnical field review of tour ~ ~ce~r~
desi~ will ~ c~t~ by a ~alifi~ profe~i~l to identi~ site-
sp~ific~ ~il~r~i~ imp~ts ~ determi~ ~e ~st effe:tive ~s of
mitl~ti~ ~ ~ ~l~tol~tcal ~rc~ a fle~ r~iew o~ tower
a~ ~ce~ r~ ~sign a~ I~oti~ will be c~t~ by a q~lifi~
p~fessi~l ~ i~ti~ fossil I~al~ties ~t ~ld ~t be disturb.
P~le miti~ti~ ~res c~ld i~l~e minor ~justm~ts in tower ~
r~ I~ati~ restrlcti~ ~ce~ duri~ ~ri~s of hi~ moisture, and
13. Pri~ to cmlt~ti~t on ~ol~lcal fiel~ r~iew of tour ~
desi~ w~11 ~ c~t~ by a qualifi~ ~rofe~l~l to i~ti~ site-~ifi~
imp~ts to ~r~te~, ~d~r~ or o~i~ ~itive v~tati~ ~
wildlife ~ to det~mine ~e ~t eff~tlve ~ to mitigate ~o~
Jmp~ts. Po~ible mitigation ~res ¢~ld i~lude mi~ ~justments in
tower ~ r~ I~atl~ closi~ ~ce~ r~ rel~ati~ ~sitive ~ies,
~Jtat impr~em~ts, etc.
a. ~ pre~e of ~ial-interest plants in ar~s likely to provide
suit~le h~itat w~ld be evaluat~ by ~al ~eys prior to
2of3
EXHIBIT B
Table $-I (continued)
Selectively Committed Mitigation Measures
construction. Populations in potentlal dlstutbonce zones would be
identified and the locations of towers~ construction yards~ and new
access roads would be altered to avoid the pog~lations*
b. During construction actlvttles in high and very high densit-/ desert
tortoise habltats~ a qualified biologist would be on*site to locate and
mark any tortoise dens that would be adversely affected by
construction activities.
3of3
EXHIBIT C
Reaaonab~e and Prudent Heaeuree
The Sez~-ice bl~ievee that the following Reasonable and Prudent
~ing a~iz~ b~ ~hia Biol~ical Opinion:
~. ~ork~ ~uca~ion ~r~s~ de~imed coas~ion a~eaa, ~d
~ell~e~im~ o~a~ional procedures shall be imple~en~ed,
~i~ ~e c~ration of quali~i~ on-site biol~isks, ~o
avoid ~e t~e o~ desert kor~oisea and tortoise
dufinq conoC~cClon and opera~ion o~ the t~aaiasion line.
2. A22rac2ion o~ ravens to ~he cons2~c2ion a~ea ~hall
c~uc~ to 2he m~im~ ex~en~
Tem ud Conditions
The ~oll~inV Tem ~d Condi~ions are es2~lish~ 2o implement
2he Reaaon~le ~d P~denC Heasures describ~ ~ve:
1 oE 9
State D:Lrector (1-6-9;-F-46)
1. If the pro ect proponent fails to comply with any of the
Reasonable and Prudent Measures or To~II and Co~itions of
this Opinion, the Bureau shall suspend the right-of-way
permit for the Mead/McCullough o Victorville transmission
line until such time that the proponent is in compliance
with these Terms and Conditions. The Bureau shall also
notify the proponent at that time that failure to comply
will lead to revocation of the Plan of Operations. This
Condition applies to the period of transmission line
operation, as well as during construction.
2. The project proponent shall designate an individl~al as a
field contact representative who will have the authority to
ensure compliance with protective stipulations for the
desert tortoise and be responsible for coordination with the
Bureau, the Service, and the State wildlife agencies. The
field contact representative will have the authority to halt
activities of construction equipment which may be in
violation of stipulations.
3. All pre-construction activities which could take tortoises
in any manner (e.g., driving off an established road,
clearing vegetation, etc.) shall occur in the presence of a
qualified biologist. A biologist shall travel with each
work crew to ensure that all tortoises and their burrows are
avoided during these activities. This Condition does not
authorize handling of any tortoises during pre-construction
activities. Any hazards to tortoises that may be created by
this activity, such as auger holes or any steep-sided
depressions, shall be eliminated each day prior to the work
crew leaving the site.
4. The Bureau shall ensure that the mitigation measures
contained in the environmental assessment are implemented by
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. These
measures are:
A. NO i~rmanent widening or up~rading of existing access
roads will be undertaken in areas of biological concern.
B. The alignment of any new access roads will follow the
designated area's landform contours, providing that suc~
alignment does not additionally affect resource values.
C. All access roads not required for maintenance will be
permanently closed using the most effective .and least
environmental damaging methods appropriate to that area
with concurrence of the landowner. This would limit new
or improved accessibility into the area.
2 of 9
E~-HBITC
$~a~e Director (1-6-91-F-46)
D. Specia~ towe~ placement may be used to m~nimize g~ound
d~stu~bance,
~/ E. The pro~ect proponent will designate a field contact
representative. The field contact representative will
be responsible for overseeing compli&nce with protective
stipulations for the desert tortoise and for
coordination on compliance with the Bureau. The field
contact Fapresentative will have authority to halt
activities of construction equipment which may be in
violation of the stipulations.
F. All construction and maintenance ~o~kers will
participate in a tortoise education program. The
pFogram will be developed by the pro~ect proponent prior
to beginning of const~uction. The program will be
submitted to the Service and the St&re wildlife agencies
'""" for review and approval prior to implementation. The
program w~ll include, at a minimum, the following
topiCS: occurrence of desert tortoise, lensitivity of
the species to human activities, ~egal protection for
desert tortoises, penalties for violations of Federal
and State la~s, general tortoise activity patterns,
reporting re~uirements, measures to protect tortoises,
and personal measures employees can take to promote the
conservation of the desert tortoise.
O. A biologist will be assigned to the pre-construction
survey team. The biologist will be responsible for
ensuring that ne~ access routes, spur road an~ tower
sites a~e placed in a manner that will a£fect as few
tortoise burrows as possible. These areas will be
designated by flagging. The placement of access routes
· ~, and spuF Foutas w~ll be as direct as possible to
minimize habitat distu~bance while minimize destruction
of tortoise burrows. Other ~or~ areas (e.g., splicing,
tensioning, pulling, batch sites) will also be reviewed
by · bio~ogist as constz~2ction proceeds. potential wo~k
~eas will be flagged several days prior to construction
£oF review by a b~o~ogist.
H. Ove~'~light paFking and storage of equipment and material
will be in previously disturbed a~aas (i.e., ~acking
vegetation). These areas will also be designated by the
, pre-construction survey teas. These areas could be
~ batch sites, pullin~ sites, and tower sites. ~£
previously disturbed areas are not &variable, these
activities ~ill be restricted to the right-of-way and
~il~ be cleared o~ tortoises by the on-site biologist
prior to use.
3 of 9
State OLrector (1-6-91-F-46) EXH!~ITC
I. Within desert tortoise habitat, construction and
maintenance workers will strictly limit their activities.~
and vehicles to construction areas and routes of travel
which have been flagged to eliminate adverse impacts to
desert tortoises and their habitat. Aside from these
areas, workers may not drive cross-country even within
the right-of-way. All workers will' be instructed that
their activities are restricted to flagged and cleared
areas.
J. To the extent possible, blading will not be done on spur
roads, and at tower, splicing, and tensioning sites.
The field contact representative will ensure that
blading is conducted only where necessary. However, due
to construction constraints, a result of equipment size
and personnel safety, most spur roads and tower sites
may need to be bladed.
K. Within 30 days of construction, tortoises will be
removed from any burrows in areas flagged for
disturbance. Tortoises will be removed by hand when
temperatures are between 75 and 90e Fahrenheit. Between
March 15 and October 15, excavations will be done before
noon. All burrows located in disturbance areas will be
collapsed to prevent teentry.
L. The excavated tortoises will be relocated to artificial
burrows immediately after excavation. The artificial
burrows will be constructed approximately 100: yards from
the collapsed burrows. The artificial burrows will be
constructed, and individually fitted, based on
recommendations made by the TORT-Group, Inc. of Las
Vegas, Nevada.
M. During construction activities, construction personnel
will report any sightings of tortoises within the
construction zone to the on-site biologist. Tortoises
which are believed to be in jeopardy of harm, but not in
burrows, will be moved ]00 yards into undisturbed
habitat. The tortoises will be placed in the shade of a
large shrub. Tortoises will be moved according to
approved practices for handling tortoises with proper
care to prevent the spread of disease and to minimize
stress on the tortoise. Under adverse conditions, the ~
biologist may hold a tortoise overnight according to
standard practices to minimize exposure to stressful
environmental factors.
N. Trash and food items will be removed daily by the
construction workers and placed in raven-proof
containers.
4 of 9
State Diz~to= (1-6-91-;-46) E~IBITC
O. rireaz~a will be prohibited on all construction and
naintenance sites~
~"' P. Cons~c~on ~d maintenance vehicles will no~ exceed a
speed o~ 25 miles pe~ houz in ~o~oise habi~ab.
No la~e~ ~han 90 da~s a~e~ complebion o~ cons~c~ion
within ~o~oise habiba~, ~he field conbac~
rep~esenbabive and on-sibe biol~isb will p~epa~e a
~e~ ffo~ bhe Bu~eau~ Se~ice, ~d ~he Sba~e wildlife
agencies. The ~e~z~ will doc~en~ ~he effectiveness
bhe ~o~oise mitigation measures, bhe n-m~e~ of
bo~oises excavabed ~o~ burrows, ~d ~he n~e~
bo~boiaea moved ~om cons~c~ion ai~ea. The
will make zeco~endabions ~o~ m~i~Ming o~ ~e~ininV ~he
abipula~iona bo enh~ce bene~iba bo bhe ~o~oise
~educe needless hardship on bhe p~oJec~ p~o~nen~.
R. Fo~ all new access roubes, and wibhin bo~oise h~i~a~,
bhe access ~ou~e will be closed by ~he p~o~nenb a~e~
cona~ucbion. Closure will be implemenbed b~
barricading, sca~ifMinv ~oadway su~aces, ~econ~ou~ing,
e~c. A ~oad closure plan will be p~epa~ed ~o~ ~evie~
~d approval by bhe Buzeau, bhe S~abe wildlife agencies
and Se~ice ~o~ a~eas o~ new access in ~o~oise habitat.
S. A compensabion plan was ~o~ula~ed ~oc bhe Cali~o~ia
~ion o~ bhe p~ojec~. Compensabion in Nevada will be
in bhe ~o~ o~ a pe~ ac~e ~ee ~or a~ea disbu~bed.
Compensabion fo~ residual impacbs in Cali~o~nia is based
on bhe ac~es o~ h~ibab disbumMed ~d uses bhe ~o~ula
conbained in ~he Buzeau*s Reco~enda~ions ~o~ manaaemenb
o~ ~he dese~ ~o~bois~ in ~he Cali~o~ia Deser~
~ The ~obal c~pensabion fo~ Cali~o~ia is 1~603 ac~es.
In Nevada, 274 ac~es o~ dis~u~b~ l~d ~uld ~e~i~e
compensation.
5. Wock ~eaa shall be inspec~ed ~o~ ~o~oiaes ~i~hin 24 hours
o~ ~ ~ae~ o~ consb~uc~ion a~ any sibe. To ~acilibabe
i~l~ba~ion of bhis condibion, bu~ ~na~c~ion
exca~tim ~ ~in no ~o~e ~h~ seven (7) da~e in advice
of ~~ion ac~ivi~ies, aa long as a ~inal check ~o~
bor~olaeo is co~uc~ a~ ~he bine o~ cons~c~ion.
To~oiaea ~o~d ab bhis bime shall be ~v~ as described in
Te~a 3L oc
'~'
6. OnlM ~sona au~ho~ized b~ bhe $e~ice ~der ~he auspices
bhis Biol~ical Opinion shall be pe~ib~ed ~o h~dle
~o~oiaea ~hich ~M be ~ound du~ing bhe cons~c~ion of ~his
p~o~ecb. The Bureau shall suppl~ ~he Se~ice ~i~h ~he
n~e(s) and c~edenbials of ~he biolo~isb(s) ab leas~ 15 da~s
p~ior ~o bhe onse~ of an~ construction ac~ivibies. All
5 oE 9
State Director (1-6-91-F-46) EXHIB1TC
tortoise handling and relocation will be in accordance with
handling methods contained in the "Interim techniques
hanoibook for collecting and analyzing data on desert
tortoise populations and habitats" (Arizona Game and Fish
Department et el. ~990). This Opinion does not authorize
collection of blood samples, rehydration, or any other
manipulation of tortoises that are moved during powerline
construction.
7. & tortoise-proof fence shall be constructed around the
substation site. The fence shall consist of materials with
a mesh size no smaller than ~ inch mesh. The tortoise-
proof mesh shall be firmly attached to the barbed wire or
chain link fence surrounding the sites and extend from 12
inches below to 18 inches above the sur£ace of t:he ground.
Any alterations in this design shall be submitted to the
Service's Reno Office for review and approval prior to
installation.
8. The tortoise-proof fence shall be maintained and monitored
regularly by the proponent for the life of the project.
Monitoring and maintenance of the substation fence shall
include, but not be limited to, obse~vations and
documentation to determine whether trash, sediment
accumulation, or erosion is compromising the fence's
function. Any indication of failure of the fence to exclude
tortoises from the project sites shall be reported to the
Se~vice's Reno Office and Bureau within 10 days of this
discoverF.
9. The authorized biologist(s) sh~ll be present during all
phases of construction to move tortoises out of haz~'s way.
Tortoises shall be purposefully moved only by biologists
approved by the Service, solely for the purpose of moving
tortoises out of harm's way.
]0. Only burrows within the right-of-way and which are at risk
shall be excavated. Burrows outside the right-of-way, but
which could be at risk from accidental c~ushing,, shall be
protected by the placement of snow fencing between the
burrow and the right-of-way. The fencing shall be at least
20 feet long and shall be installed to direct any tortoise
leaving the burrow away from the right-of-way. The decision
to use snow fencing shall be at the discretion of the
authorized biologist. Installation and removal of such
fencing shall be under the direction and supervision of th~
authorized biologist.
]]. The Bureau shall ensure that the compensation noted in Term
4.S for impacts to desert tortoise habitat in California
consists of the acquisition of ],603 acres of private land
in California within Bureau-designated Category
6 of 9
State Director (1-6-91-~-46)
desert tortoise habitat areas. The acquired lands shell be
~r~e~ ~o the Bureau o~ L~ ~ag~en~ ~d
~g~ ~or ~he ~ne~ o~ desert ~orto~ses. ~e Bureau
sha~l ensure that l~ds which to be ac~red are acceptable
~o ~he Se~ce's Ventura 0~ce and ~he Caledonia
~epa:~men~ of F~sh and ~e. ~e l~d ac~Ls~tLon ~d
kr~sfeF shal~ be c~pleted vi2hLn t~ (2) ye~s o~ the
completion of cons~ct~on.
~2. The Bureau sha~l ensure ~hat the Los
Vator ~d Power de~s~2s $63,224.40
2he Desert TorteLse Habitat Conse~at~on ~d ~er 236-
8290, a~LnLs2ef~ by Clark Co~ty, ~or tortoise
losses Ln Nevada. The compensation ~t shall be ~ndexed
a~ually ~or ~nf~a~on based on BuFeau o~ Lair StatLs2~cs
Coaster Price ~ndex beg~ng J~ua~ 1, 1992. These ~ds
sha~l no~ be used ~or development o~ the Habitat
Consedation Plan and are ~ndependent o~ ~y o2her ~ees
co~lec~ed by Clark Co~2y for deseF~ toF2oise conse~at~on
pl~nLng. ~heso ~unds shall be he~d Ln ~ ~nteres~ bea~ng
acco~.. ~ese ~ds ~d the acc~ interest shall
expend~ ~or the pu~se of securing torreLee ~ag~en~
areas nd h~ito~ e~cenen~. PFO~I~ expenditures shall
be appFoved by ~he Se~ice's Reno 0f~ice. Should ~he ~unds
no~ be expended within ~o yeaFs o~
~d, ~hese ~unds shall be ~sfeF~ ~o The Ha~u~e
Conse~ancy ~or such pu~ses.
~3. Pa~en~ shall be ude pFioF ~o ~nA~ia~ioa of proJec~
cons~c~ion ~or ~he pFoJec~ pro~nen~ ~o be ~n compliance
wi~h ~he pFovisions o~ ~he Ac~. Pa~en~ shall be
ce~i~ied check oF ~ney OFdeF pay~le ~o Cla~k Co~y and
delAveF~ ~o:
meparmn~ o~ A~inis~a~ive Se~ices
225 ~ridge~ Avenue, 6~h
LaB V~, Nevada 891SS
(702) 4SS-3S30
· he ~ shall be acconpanA~ b~ a cov~F le~er ~Fom ~he
pay~ ~a~ iden~i~ies ~he pro~ec~
~ha~ As r~i~ing ~he pa~en~, ~he ~ o~ pa~en~
enclose, ~d ~he check oF money o~deE n~. The coveF
le~eF sha~ a~so ~den~y ~he ~-~ ~d ad~ess o~
payee, ~he n~e ~d address of ~he Federa~ agency
res~nsib~e ~or authorizing ~he project, ~d
2he Se~co*o Southe~ Ca~o~a F~old S2a2~on. This
· u~hoFizing ZedeF8~ a~ency, and
has been Fece~ved.
7 of 9
State Diretot (1-6-91-~-46)
If the Incidental Take authorized by this Opinion is met, the
Bureau shall immediately notify the Service in writing. If the
Incidental Take authorized by this Opinion is exceeded, the
Bureau shall imediarely notify the participants in the proposed
project to cease the activity resulting in ~he take ~nd shall
reinirises formal consultation with the Service.
Revertins Recuirements
Upon locating dead, in~ured, or sick desert tortoises, initial
notification must be made to Ray Bransfield at the Service'z
ventura Office at FTS 983-6040 or (805) 644-1766 within three
working days of its finding. Written notification must he made
within five calendar days and include the date, time,. and
location of the carcass, a photograph, and any other pertinent
information. Care must he taken in handling sick or in~urod
animals to ensure effective treatment and care, and in handling
dead specimens to preserve hiolo~ical material in the best
possible state. All tortoise remains shall be frozen immediately
and provided to one of the following institutions holding
appropriate State and Federal permits per their inatz~ctions:
Muse,,- of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California,
Berkeley, California
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles,
california
San Bernardino County Museum, San Bernardino, C&li£ornia
University of Nevada, Department of Biology, Las Vegas,
Nevada
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bureau of Land ~anagemant, Riversidea California
Arrangements regardin9 proper disposition of potential museum
specimens shall be mde with the institution by the Bureau
through a biologist prior to implementation of the action.
In~ured &nimble should be transported to a qualified
veterinarian. ShotLid any treated tortoises survive, the Service
should be contacted regarding the final disposition of the
animals.
Conservation Rec~endations
In furtherance of the purposes of 2he Endangered Species Act
(Sections l(c) and ?(a)(l) tAa~ mandate Federal agencies to
utilize their authorities ~o carry out progrm for the
conservation of listed species, we recommend implementing the
following actions:
~. The Bureau should evaluate future right-of-way requirements
which may affect tortoise habitat, w~h particular emphasis on
areas that could be designated as ~ortoise ~anegement and
recovery areas. Where possible, rights-o£-w~Y should be located
8 of 9
£X~IB~ C
State Director (1-6-91-F-46)
in areas that will not adversely effect the recovery of tam
tortoise.
2. The Bureau should coordinate efforts with the Department of
water ~d Power ~d other u~ty cmp~es to develop a
m~aquent pl~ for c~n ravens. Th~s p~ could ~nc~ude
re~v~ of raven nests ~h~ch are ~o~d on ~or L~nos through
tortoise h~itat in 2he desert. ~y re~val of raven nests would
re~ire a pe~i~ fr~ the Se~ice's Division of Law ~forcement.
The Se~ice redesis notification o~ the impl~enta2ion o~ any
conse~ation reco~endations so we c~ ~ keg2 info~ of
actions that either minimize or avoid adverse effects, or that
benefit listed species or their h~itats.
Conclusion
This conclude~ fo~al consultation on the Mead/McCullough -
victo~ille/~el~o Transmission Project. ~initiation of
fo~l consultation is r~l=~ if: ~) the ~t or extent of
incidental t~e is reechO; 2) n~ infQ~ti~ reveals effects of
the agency action that ~y adversely a~t lis~ o~cies or
cr{~cal h~itat ~n a ~er or to ~ ext~t not cons~der~ ~n
tA~s ~n~on; 2) the agency action ~s s~s~ently ~{~ed ~n a
affoct~ by 2h~s action (S0 ~ 402.~6). ~y plus 2o extend the
pressed active lifetime or to alter the f~ction of this
facility ~uld be conaider~ reason to reinAtiate consultation.
We would appreciate notification of your final decision on ~his
matter. ~y ~eotions or cements should ~ direc~ to ~y
Br~sfield at the Ventu=a Office at ~S 983-6040 or (805) 644-
~766.
9 of 9
EXHIBIT H
NOTICE OF DETER541NAT~ON
TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Anaheim
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Public Utilities Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108
or 21152 of the Public Resources Code
Proiect Title: Mead-Adelanto Transmission Une Project
Proiect Location: The California portion of the transmission line will be constructed from the
California/Nevada state line in the vicinity of Interstate 15 to an electrical switching station near the
City of Adelanto, California. The route of a substantial portion of the transmission line will generally
parallel the route of Interstate 15. The California portion of the transmission line will be located
entirely within San Bernardino County.
Proiect Description: A 500 kV AC transmission line and associated equipment and facilities.
This is to advise that the City Council of the City of Anaheim has reviewed the Final Environmental
Report, as updated by an addendum, and has approved the above-described project on
, 1991, and has made the following determinations regarding the above-
described project:
1. The project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions
of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. Findings were made pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project.
This is to certify that the final EIR, with comments and responses, the addendum to the final EIR, the
record of the project approval and the mitigation monitoring plan is available to the General Public
at:
City of Anaheim
Office of the Public Utilities General Manager
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805
~vDate Received for Filing and Posting at OPR:
Edward K. Aghjayan
Public Utilities General Manager
City of Anaheim