skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Bonneville Power Administration Transmission System Vegetation Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Abstract

Bonneville is responsible for maintaining a network of 24,000 kilometers (km) or 15,000 miles (mi.) of electric transmission lines and 350 substations in a region of diverse vegetation. This vegetation can interfere with electric power flow, pose safety problems for us and the public, and interfere with our ability to maintain these facilities. We need to (1) keep vegetation away from the electric facilities; (2) increase the program efficiency and consistency; (3) review herbicide use (under increased public scrutiny); and (4) maximize the range of tools we can use while minimizing environmental impact (Integrated Vegetation Management). This DEIS establishes Planning Steps for managing vegetation for specific projects (to be tiered to this EIS). In addition to No Action (current practice), alternatives are presented for Rights-of-way, Electric Yards, and Non-electric Facilities (landscaping, work yards). Four vegetation control methods are analyzed: manual, mechanical, herbicide, and biological. Also evaluated are 24 herbicide active ingredients and 4 herbicide application techniques (spot, localized, broadcast, and aerial). For rights-of-way, they consider three sets of alternatives: alternative management approaches (time-driven or establishing low-growing plant communities); alternative method packages; and, if herbicides are in a methods package, alternative vegetation selections (noxious weeds, deciduous, or any vegetation). For electricmore » yards, one herbicide-use alternative is considered. For non-electric facilities, two method package alternatives are considered. For rights-of-way, the environmentally preferred alternative(s) would use manual, mechanical, and biological control methods, as well as spot and localized herbicide applications for noxious and deciduous plant species; the BPA-preferred alternative(s) would add broadcast and aerial herbicide applications, and would use herbicides on any vegetation. Both would factor a management approach that fosters low-growing plant communities.« less

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (US)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42) (US)
OSTI Identifier:
823384
Report Number(s):
DOE/EIS-0285
TRN: US200427%%341
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: PBD: 20 Aug 1999
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION; 29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY; BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION; COMMUNITIES; EFFICIENCY; ELECTRIC POWER; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; HERBICIDES; LANDSCAPING; MANAGEMENT; PLANNING; PLANTS; POWER TRANSMISSION LINES; SAFETY; EIS; BPA; VEGETATION MANAGEMENT; CA; ID; MT; OR; UT; WA; WY

Citation Formats

N /A. Bonneville Power Administration Transmission System Vegetation Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement. United States: N. p., 1999. Web. doi:10.2172/823384.
N /A. Bonneville Power Administration Transmission System Vegetation Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement. United States. doi:10.2172/823384.
N /A. Fri . "Bonneville Power Administration Transmission System Vegetation Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement". United States. doi:10.2172/823384. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/823384.
@article{osti_823384,
title = {Bonneville Power Administration Transmission System Vegetation Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement},
author = {N /A},
abstractNote = {Bonneville is responsible for maintaining a network of 24,000 kilometers (km) or 15,000 miles (mi.) of electric transmission lines and 350 substations in a region of diverse vegetation. This vegetation can interfere with electric power flow, pose safety problems for us and the public, and interfere with our ability to maintain these facilities. We need to (1) keep vegetation away from the electric facilities; (2) increase the program efficiency and consistency; (3) review herbicide use (under increased public scrutiny); and (4) maximize the range of tools we can use while minimizing environmental impact (Integrated Vegetation Management). This DEIS establishes Planning Steps for managing vegetation for specific projects (to be tiered to this EIS). In addition to No Action (current practice), alternatives are presented for Rights-of-way, Electric Yards, and Non-electric Facilities (landscaping, work yards). Four vegetation control methods are analyzed: manual, mechanical, herbicide, and biological. Also evaluated are 24 herbicide active ingredients and 4 herbicide application techniques (spot, localized, broadcast, and aerial). For rights-of-way, they consider three sets of alternatives: alternative management approaches (time-driven or establishing low-growing plant communities); alternative method packages; and, if herbicides are in a methods package, alternative vegetation selections (noxious weeds, deciduous, or any vegetation). For electric yards, one herbicide-use alternative is considered. For non-electric facilities, two method package alternatives are considered. For rights-of-way, the environmentally preferred alternative(s) would use manual, mechanical, and biological control methods, as well as spot and localized herbicide applications for noxious and deciduous plant species; the BPA-preferred alternative(s) would add broadcast and aerial herbicide applications, and would use herbicides on any vegetation. Both would factor a management approach that fosters low-growing plant communities.},
doi = {10.2172/823384},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {1999},
month = {8}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share: