[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 198 (Friday, October 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53360-53364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25360]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision; Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facilities Improvements Project and Geysers Effluent Pipeline Project
AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Utility
Technologies, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's notice is issuing the United States Department of
Energy (the Department) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy's Record of Decision on the Southeast Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facilities Improvements Project and Geysers Effluent
Pipeline Project Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report prepared by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (the Bureau) and the Lake County California Sanitation
District. The Department, as a cooperating agency, adopted the
Environmental Impact Statement as DOE/EIS-0224 on January 11, 1995
after independent review. This Record of Decision is pursuant to the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 1500-1508), which implement the procedural provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Department's National
Environmental Policy Act regulations (10 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 1021). The document was also prepared to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act, hence the impacts; the proposed
project will be beneficial to the public by extending the life of the
Southeast Geysers Geothermal Field providing more electricity for
consumption, and the proposed project will be beneficial to the public
by bringing the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant into
compliance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste
Discharge Requirements and enable lifting of the Board's 1991 Cease and
Desist Order and associated moratorium. The final Environmental Impact
Statement was published August 25, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The Final Environmental Impact Statement is available for
public review at the following locations:
Bureau of Land Management - 2550 N. State St., Ukiah, California
Lake County Sanitation District - 230A Main St., Lakeport,
California
Lake County Planning Department - 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport,
California
Lakeport Public Library - 1425 N. High St., Lakeport, California
Redbud Public Library - 4700 Golf Ave., Lakeport, California
City of Clearlake Offices - 14360 Lakeshore Dr., Clearlake,
California
Lower Lake Water District - 16175 Main St., Lower Lake, California
South Lake Water District - 21095 State Hwy. 175, Middletown,
California
Sonoma County Public Library - 3rd & E Sts., Santa Rosa, California
Sonoma County Planning Dept. - 575 Administration Dr., Santa Rosa,
California
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Office - 575 Administration Dr.,
Santa Rosa, California
Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - 34274
State Hwy. 16, Woodland, California
U. S. Department of Energy Public Reading Room, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the
Department's involvement in this project and for copies of this Record
of Decision please contact the Southeast Geysers Environmental Impact
Statement Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 850 Energy
Drive, Mail Stop-1146, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401-1563, (208) 526-1483.
For information regarding the National Environmental Policy Act
process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of National
Environmental Policy Act Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
4600 or (800) 472-2756. To receive a copy of the final Environmental
Impact Statement and the Bureau Record of Decision please contact Mr.
Richard Estabrook, Project Manager, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
Ukiah District, 2550 North State Street, Ukiah, CA, 95482, (707) 468-
4052.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since early 1992, the Lake County Sanitation District has pursued a
joint venture with the geothermal industry, specifically the Northern
California Power Agency, Calpine Corporation (Calpine), and Pacific Gas
and Electric Company, to develop a plan for disposal of secondary-
treated effluent from the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
(the Plant) near the City of Clearlake, California, in the Southeast
Geysers Geothermal Steam Field. In early 1994, Union Oil Company also
became a partner in the joint venture. That plan includes upgrades to
treatment facilities at the Plant, construction of a pipeline to divert
raw lake water from Clear Lake to be added to the effluent,
construction of a 26-mile 24-inch diameter pipeline to the Southeast
Geysers, addition of effluent from the Middletown Wastewater Treatment
Plant, pump stations, secondary distribution lines for conveying the
effluent to injection wells in the steam field, and construction of
storage regulating tanks. The project is located primarily in Lake
County, California, and also in part of Sonoma County, California.
The project is intended to alleviate two circumstances. (1) It
would resolve treatment and disposal deficiencies and would provide
additional capacity at
[[Page 53361]]
the Plant, thereby bringing the Southeast Regional Wastewater System
into compliance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Waste Discharge Requirements and enable lifting of the Board's 1991
Cease and Desist Order and associated moratorium. Prior to development
of this plan, a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable means of
disposing treated wastewater effluent could not be identified. (2) The
project would also provide a dependable source of water for injection
into the Southeast Geysers steam field to support steam reservoir
pressure that is used to generate electric power. Since about 1987,
declines in steam production have occurred because of lower steam
pressure throughout the Southeast Geysers Geothermal Field. The
wastewater effluent, combined with diverted lake water, would mitigate
the decline and allow continued geothermal energy production in this
area for 25 or more years at higher production levels than would occur
otherwise.
Implementation of the plan involves multiple federal, state and
local agencies. Federal participation includes permitting by the
Bureau, as portions of the project in the Southeast Geysers require
granting of Rights of Ways on federal lands managed by the Bureau. The
Department will provide financial assistance grants to the Lake County
Sanitation District for construction of the project. The Department has
provided funding for the project in the past for early engineering
design work and for preparation of environmental documentation.
Additional funding may be provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development
Administration, and the Department of Commerce Economic Development
Administration. Other federal agencies with permitting or consultation
requirements include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Environmental Considerations
The Bureau serves as the lead federal agency under the National
Environmental Policy Act for the Environmental Impact Statement. The
Department is a cooperating agency. The Lake County Sanitation District
is the lead agency representing local authorities and assuming
responsibility for compliance with or coordination of State of
California requirements for the project including preparation of a
joint Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. The following summarizes the
specific key actions taken to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act.
Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register--March 11, 1993 (58
FR 13499)
Public scoping meetings in Sacramento and Lakeport, CA--March 25 & 26,
1993
Supplemental Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register--
September 9, 1993 (58 FR 47469)
Public scoping meeting in Lakeport on the Supplemental Notice of
Intent--August 23, 1993
Second Supplemental Notice of Intent--March 31, 1994
Public scoping meeting in Lakeport on the Second Supplemental Notice of
Intent--April 13, 1994
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report on the
Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Improvements Project
and Geysers Effluent Pipeline Project--May 26, 1994
Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report published in the Federal Register--June 10,
1994 (59 FR 30000)
Public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report in Lakeport--June 30 and July 14, 1994
Close of Public Comment Period on Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report--July 26, 1994
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report on the
Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Improvements Project
and Geysers Effluent Pipeline Project--August 25, 1994
Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report published in the Federal Register--August
26, 1994 (59 FR 44144)
Public Hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report before the Lake County Planning Commission
in Lakeport (Environmental Impact Report certification) and before the
Lake County Sanitation District Board of Directors in Lakeport
(Environmental Impact Report re-certification and project approval)--
August 25, 1994 and September 20, 1994, respectively.
Close of Public Comment Period on the Final Environmental Impact
Statement--September 26, 1994
Department of Energy Adopts the Environmental Impact Statement January
11, 1995
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision--February 16, 1995
Certification of the Environmental Impact Report by the Lake County
Planning Commission included recommendations for implementation of a
Mitigation, Monitoring and Operation Plan, pursuant to requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, and drawn from mitigation
measures identified in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report. The re-certification of the
Environmental Impact Report by the Lake County Sanitation District
Board of Directors includes the Mitigation, Monitoring and Operation
Plan, which establishes enforceable conditions of the County Use
Permit. Sonoma County also adopted mitigation measures which are
included in the Union Oil Company general use permit. The Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report did not distinguish
between mitigation and monitoring responsibilities of the Bureau of
Land Management and Lake and Sonoma Counties so the Bureau appended the
Mitigation, Monitoring and Operation Plans to their Record of Decision.
The Bureau Record of Decision is included here as Appendix A.
Mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report and designated mitigation measure
enforcement authorities are included in the Bureau Record of Decision.
Therefore, the Department will not prepare a separate mitigation action
plan.
The Bureau signed a Record of Decision for the project which
specifies that the right-of-way grants which implement the decision
would be issued only upon completion of the section 106 process under
the National Historic Preservation Act, and completion of conference
procedures with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the project. The
Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the California State
Water Resources Control Board, and the Lake County Sanitation District
entered into a Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and the California State Historic Preservation
Office for protection of cultural resources on all parts of the project
according to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The
Programmatic Agreement requires identification and
[[Page 53362]]
evaluation of cultural resources that may be disturbed by the action
and mitigation where significant resources would be disturbed in
consultation with historic preservation officials. Implementation of
this agreement completes the consultation requirements of sections 106
and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the project.
Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts are listed in the final
Environmental Impact Statement and the attached Bureau Record of
Decision. The Bureau has formally requested a conference with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to the California
red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). This species is proposed for
listing as endangered and was scheduled to be listed early in 1995.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires conferencing but not
formal consultation for proposed species. A proposed species is one
that has been proposed for listing as an endangered species. A
candidate species is under evaluation to determine whether to propose
it for listing as an endangered species. If the evaluation is in the
early stages it would be a candidate 2 species, when enough information
is available to propose the species for listing it would be called a
candidate 1 species. A biological assessment is not required for
proposed or candidate species. However, the Bureau prepared a
biological assessment of potential impacts to a number of species
including the California red-legged frog as well as federal candidate 1
plant species including the Lake County dwarf flax (Hesperolinon
didymocarpum), the Socrates Mine jewelflower (Streptanthus brachiatus
ssp. brachiatus), and the Freed's jewelflower (Streptanthus brachiatus
ssp. hoffmanii). The project impacts were determined to be ``not likely
to adversely affect'' the plant species listed above. Additional plant
and animal species are evaluated in the biological assessment resulting
in ``no effect'' determinations. Surveys for the red-legged frog have
discovered no specimens in the project impact area. If the species is
discovered in the impact area during construction, a number of
mitigation measures would be instituted to lessen the impact. Only one
potential habitat area, a stream crossing at Bear Creek, has the
potential to result in permanent loss of habitat. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service concurred with the Bureau determination that the
project is not likely to adversely affect the red-legged frog.
Mitigation measures reducing the project's potential impact to the red-
legged frog and other special status plant and animal species and their
habitats to less than significant levels are included in the final
Environmental Impact Statement and the Bureau Record of Decision.
Additional mitigation measures such as alterations to the pipeline
route or pipeline design to avoid or reduce impacts to the species or
their habitat may be implemented based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service requirements if new information reveals effects of the proposed
action that may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not
considered.
Alternatives Considered in the Decision-Making Process
Preferred Alternative and Supporting Rationale and Trade-offs
The preferred alternative is the proposed project identified in the
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report with
mitigation measures. This alternative was selected: (1) Because it will
provide a means for the Lake County Sanitation District to resolve its
treatment and effluent disposal deficiencies, bringing the Southeast
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant into compliance with its waste
discharge permit requirements, as required by law and (2) because it
will support continued geothermal steam energy production in the
Southeast Geysers, which has been in decline since 1987. The preferred
alternative meets the specific objectives of the project that are
consistent with provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 and other federal laws
regulating geothermal energy use in the Southeast Geysers. The area
currently contains extensive geothermal energy development that is
regulated by the Bureau. The project with mitigation provides a method
of continued long-term use of the natural heat resource for electrical
energy generation. Continued use of the geothermal resources of the
Southeast Geysers is consistent with federal policy for use of
alternative energy resources and the specific land management
objectives of the Bureau in this Resource Area. Additionally, this
alternative provides an effective means of treated effluent disposal,
which is consistent with federal policy promulgated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
By providing a remedy that would remove the current Cease and Desist
Order for the Plant, the project would support compliance with federal
law and EPA wastewater discharge requirements. Significant impacts of
the preferred alternative can be reduced to less-than-significant
levels through implementation of mitigation. Two impacts were
identified in the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report as significant and unavoidable. Impact 5.2.2.1 identified a
short-term impact on water quality by construction of a road and
placement of fill in an unnamed tributary of Bear Creek. The Bureau has
identified specific mitigation measures in the draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and final Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report which would reduce the
risk of slope erosion and silt deposition in the creek in the short
term and in the long term. Impact 5.2.3.13 identified long-term
cumulative loss of montane hardwood woodland, montane conifer woodland
and mixed chaparral that potentially provide habitat for the loggerhead
shrike, a federal candidate 2 species. The same area may also be
habitat for the Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, both California
species of concern and protected under State Code. Actual presence of
these species at the area of potential effect has not been determined
and, therefore, the impact is not definitive. Mitigation has been
included that would require preconstruction surveys to determine if the
species is present. Mitigation would potentially include establishing
habitat preservation plans in the region for these species. These
habitats are relatively widespread in the area, providing opportunities
for preservation.
Major public concerns relate to induced seismicity, spills and loss
of habitat. Seismicity: Evidence suggests that injection of water into
the Geysers steam field does induce seismicity in the form of
microseismic events which register less than 3.0 on the Richter Scale.
This magnitude of seismic event is not great enough to cause any damage
to a structure and therefore is not considered to have a significant
environmental impact. The Bureau noted in their Record of Decision that
injection may be stopped if the link to larger magnitude earthquakes
becomes clear. Spills: The public is concerned that effluent from a
pipeline break could result in damage to waterways and impacts to plant
and animal species. Pipeline monitoring, pipeline design and the
mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Statement and
mitigation plans will reduce the risk and impact of a spill to less
than significant levels. Loss of Habitat: There
[[Page 53363]]
will be temporary loss of habitat during construction and a permanent
loss along the pipeline corridor. Mitigation measures reduce habitat
loss to a minimum.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative and Rationale for Rejection
The environmentally preferred alternative identified in the
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report was the
proposed project with the exception that Route Alternative F would be
implemented. Route F differs from the preferred alternative only in the
location of a 5,000-foot segment of the pipeline. Route F included
construction of the Geysers Effluent Pipeline in about 3,700 feet of
existing roadway and without an access road for about 2,000 feet
between the Bear Canyon Power Plant and the Northern California Power
Agency M-Site. This alternative would have eliminated the need to
construct a new road and place fill in the course of the unnamed
tributary of Bear Creek, features which created a potential for
significant unavoidable environmental impacts.
The environmentally preferred alternative was rejected because the
advantages of having continuous road access to the pipeline in the
rugged terrain outweighed the environmental impacts. Mitigation
included in the Bureau Record of Decision reduces impacts
substantially. While residual impacts on water quality and permanent
loss of possible habitat of sensitive bird species would result from
the preferred alternative in this segment of the pipeline route, these
impacts are deemed acceptable in consideration of the advantages
offered by better access to the pipeline. The preferred project also
would result in connection of two roads that currently dead end.
Connection of the roads would provide improved access for emergency
vehicles to the Southeast Geysers.
Other Alternatives and Rationale for Rejection
The Lake County Sanitation District rejected all alternative forms
of wastewater disposal described in the Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report because of significant potential
environmental impacts and costs. These considerations were reviewed by
the Bureau and the Department. The Lake County Sanitation District had
primary responsibility for the rejection of other disposal method
alternatives. In making its decision about providing partial funding
for the project, the Department considered the environmental effects of
the project and all alternatives, including alternative disposal
options.
The No Action Alternative was rejected because it would not allow
the Lake County Sanitation District to resolve its wastewater treatment
deficiencies. Specifically, it would be unacceptable to take no action
and thereby continue conditions that have caused the existing Cease and
Desist Order to be in effect for the Plant with periodic violations of
the federal Clean Water Act. In addition, the No Action Alternative was
rejected by the Bureau because it would not provide a means to support
the continued economical use of the geothermal resource in the
Southeast Geysers and would not assist northern California in meeting
its present and forecast energy demand.
Alternative wastewater disposal locations considered in the
Environmental Impact Statement included injection at the Borax Lake
geothermal well, Audrey geothermal well or a new on-site disposal well.
These alternative locations are speculative and technically unproven
for sustaining the geothermal resource and thus would not meet the
objectives of the proposal. Engineers and geologists have determined
that the Southeast Geysers area is the best location to inject water
and sustain the resources, given geological conditions, topographical
features and environmental concerns.
A number of alternative facility designs and routes were evaluated
in the Environmental Impact Statement including differences in the
designs for pumping water from Clear Lake, pump stations and surge
tanks along the pipeline route, and alternative pipeline segment
routes. The discussion below relates the impacts from the alternative
to the impacts from the preferred alternative and why those
alternatives were not selected.
Alternative Facility Designs
The Lake Diversion Pumps and Pipeline on Pier alternative differs
from the preferred alternative in that the pumps and pipeline to the
Clear Lake shore would be located on a pier instead of locating the
pipe underwater and the pumps on shore. This alternative would
temporarily increase local water turbidity and local noise from driving
piles for the pier and would result in an unavoidable and significant
alteration of the visual environment.
The Bear Canyon Single Pump Station and One-Way Surge Tank in the
Geysers alternative would replace five pump stations with one large
pump station and require a surge tank to be located at the high point
of the pipeline in The Geysers. It would result in a significant noise
impact to residents near the larger pump station, the loss of several
large trees and valley oak woodland habitat which may provide habitat
for the Coopers's hawk and sharp-shinned hawks, and increased
degradation of the visual environment along a well-travelled highway.
The By-pass Pipeline at the Plant is an alternative to discharging
diverted lake water into the Plant reservoir. Instead, a pipeline would
be constructed to channel water to the pumps for the Geysers Effluent
Pipeline instead of to the reservoir. This alternative offered no
significant environmental benefits or detriments over the preferred
alternative. It was rejected for engineering reasons because it would
create inferior Plant operating conditions and efficiencies by limiting
the flexibility of Plant reservoir management.
The alternative site for the Childers Peak regulating tank would be
at the high point of the Geysers Effluent Pipeline between the Plant
and the Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant more to the east of the
saddle in the Big Canyon Creek watershed. This location would require a
substantial cut to be made into the hillside which would introduce some
potential slope instability and require a greater amount of grading and
possibly some blasting. There would possibly be impacts of greater
intensity to water quality because of increased silt generation from
the increase in grading. Two special status plant species specimens,
scarlet fritillary and thread-leaved miner's lettuce, could potentially
be lost.
Alternative Pipeline Routes
Route Alternatives A-1 and A-2 would avoid placement of the
pipeline in existing private driveways by taking short diversions from
the proposed route. They would produce silt that would be conveyed into
the Clear Lake Outlet Channel. These routes would add 400 and 450 feet
respectively to the length of the proposed route. These were rejected
due to the siltation potential and higher construction costs.
Route Alternative B would avoid crossing Clayton Creek on the
bridge by spanning the deeply incised channel upstream of the bridge
and crossing the large meander loop of Clayton Creek. This alternative
could result in a significant erosion hazard and the hazard of stream
erosion undermining the pipeline, potentially significant short term
silt deposition in Clayton Creek and potentially significant short term
impact to Northwestern pond
[[Page 53364]]
turtles and the habitat of the black-shouldered kite.
Route Alternative C would cross Highway 29 about 150 feet south of
a fruit and vegetable stand as proposed in the preferred alternative.
This route would result in no increase in negative environmental
impacts and would preserve several large conifers and deciduous trees
along the east side of the road, providing a beneficial impact on
visual resources. This alternative was rejected because of engineering
and cost benefits in implementing the preferred alternative.
Route Alternative D would reduce the length of the pipeline by 250
feet by cutting across the longer turn of the existing road leading
down from Childers Peak Saddle. This would likely produce high erosion
hazards and potentially significant erosion with silt deposition
ultimately in Big Canyon Creek.
Route Alternative E would reduce the need for easement acquisition
by continuing in a southerly direction on the Big Canyon Road to its
intersection with Harbin Springs Road and then proceeding northwesterly
on Harbin Springs Road. The preferred alternative route would cut
across the northern edge of a pasture. The alternative would require
the pipeline to be 900 feet longer than the proposed route and would be
located entirely within or on the shoulder of public roads, but would
not result in any significant change in environmental impacts. It was
rejected because it would result in higher construction costs with no
substantial environmental benefits.
Route Alternative F would not follow a new road connecting the
Northern California Power Agency M-Pad but follow the Bear Canyon
Access Road to the Bear Canyon Power Plant, cross the creek in the fill
above the culvert and trend uphill to the M-pad. This route would
result in higher erosion hazards, potentially significant impacts on
runoff and water quality and would contribute to the permanent
cumulative loss of mixed chaparral and montane hardwood habitat of the
Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawk.
Route Alternative G was a small deviation from the proposed route
near the end of the Geysers Effluent Pipeline to avoid construction in
the area of the Northern California Power Agency main gate, which
receives heavy vehicle traffic. The road is the Northern California
Power Agency's private road. The alternative route was rejected because
it offered no substantial environmental advantages and because the
construction disturbance for the preferred alternative route could be
accommodated.
Consideration of Other Alternatives
The preferred project is a preliminary plan. As the project has
been approved by the Lake County Sanitation District Board of
Directors, the phase of final engineering design will soon be started.
At present, the project sponsors are considering a number of design and
route alternatives that would represent modifications of the plan as
presented in the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report. One of the primary reasons for these potential modifications is
to reduce mitigation costs by avoiding environmentally sensitive areas
altogether. These alternatives include (1) evaluation of isolation
valve placement; (2) relocation of the main pump station site on
private land within the City of Clearlake (on Robin Lane); (3) a new
pump station located near Highway 29 by project station 58 on private
land; and (4) an alternative pipeline route between the southern end of
the City of Clear Lake and Morgan Valley Road on private land and
county roads to avoid the proposed route in Lake Street which is
heavily constrained by cultural resources, traffic and other
infrastructure. All of these alternatives, if advanced to a specific
proposal, would require completion of supplemental review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Non-Environmental Factors Affecting The Decision-Making Process,
Rationale and Trade-Offs
Non-environmental factors that entered into the Department's
decision-making process included the mission of contributing to the
research and development of alternative energy resources and a desire
to perform that mission while contributing to resolution of the
municipal wastewater treatment problems in Lake County. Cost
considerations were a significant consideration on the part of The Lake
County Sanitation District in selecting alternatives.
Decision
After consideration of the entire record and attachments (including
the conditions for right-of-way grants in the Bureau of Land
Management's Record of Decision) the Department has decided to provide
additional funding to the Lake County Sanitation District through
financial assistance awards for this project. The project encompasses
upgrades to the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and
construction of a pipeline to transport treated municipal wastewater
treatment plant effluent and water from Clear Lake in Lake County,
California, to the Southeast Geysers Geothermal Field for injection
into the steam field.
Issued at Washington DC, this 2nd day of October, 1995.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 95-25360 Filed 10-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P