Hooper Springs Transmission Project Supplemental Draft EIS
The following comments were submitted in response to the open comment period described below.
Comments are numbered consecutively as they are received. Breaks in the number sequence result when comments are deleted because they
were submitted in error or have inappropriate content (such as SPAM). If you do not see your comment two business days after
you submit it, please contact (800) 622-4519.
BPA is accepting comments on the supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) for the proposed Hooper Springs Transmission Project in Caribou County, Idaho. The project is needed to improve system reliability in the southern portion of Lower Valley Energy’s (LVE) transmission system and to address ongoing load growth in southeast Idaho and northwestern Wyoming. The project would include building a new 115-kilovolt transmission line that would extend from BPA’s proposed Hooper Springs Substation near the city of Soda Springs, Idaho, to either an existing Lower Valley Energy substation or a proposed BPA connection facility in northeastern Caribou County.
BPA released a supplemental draft EIS May 1, 2014 for public review and comment. An open-house public meeting was held on May 27, 2014 in Soda Springs, ID to answer questions and accept comments on the scope of the supplemental draft EIS.
For More Information: https://www.bpa.gov/goto/HooperSprings
Close of comment: 8/7/2014
- HSTP214 0001 -
Crane1Please see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0002 -
Crane2Please see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0003 -
Lewis/Lewis Bros. Inc.This comment is in conjunction with the meeting being held in Soda Springs, Idaho on May 27, 2014. My brother and I own Lewis Bros., Inc with farm ground located at Henry Idaho. We met with you about a year ago at Henry to discuss the transmission routes you were proposing through our farm ground. We were very much opposed to that route for your transmission lines. The new preferred 3A you are proposing is a better alternative and does not affect the local farmers by putting transmission lines through their farms, including our farm at Henry. We are fully in support of this route.
- HSTP214 0004 -
May 27 public meeting comments
These comments were recorded at the May 27 public meeting in Soda Springs, Idaho. Various parties commented. Please see attached document for comments.
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0005 -
Gomez
Hi,
My name is Jade Gomez. I grew up in Soda springs, and I still visit often. I heard there is a possibility of a power line going up out in hyway 34 and by the old China Hat store. Please don't allow this. It's so beautiful out there. We want to continue to enjoy the scenery - not the power lines. Please work with Monsanto and have it put up in the haul road. Thanks for your time. :)
Jade Gomez
- HSTP214 0006 -
Godfrey
I've been sitting on the sidelines thinking you all would come to the conclusion to take that power line down the haul road. the most sensible way to go.
Now it looks like I need to come and say it. TAKE IT TO THE HAUL ROAD!!!!!!!!!
We live and work out there and I have all my life.
If it takes please, You got it. I'll do what ever it takes to keep you from ruining our view out there.
I hope you will make the sensible choice and move it.
-- thanks for your cooperation,
- HSTP214 0007 -
Crane3
The meeting held at the Tigert Middle School in Soda Springs on May 27, 2014 was very informative. We do appreciate your time and effort in setting up this public meeting.
We were greatly surprised to hear Eric announce that the preferred route for the power line would be the one to encumber the China Hat area and our horse barn and the scenic byway. What was even more flabbergasting was to hear him say there was no special reason for this decision that it was just the way it is!
Our preference from the very beginning of Bonneville Power taking over for Lower Valley Energy was to have them follow the same general route on the haul road. This keeps the line out of sight, does not encumber the farm land and is not a safety issue for the public.
Monsanto, Jim Smith, seemed very willing to work with Bonneville Power to accomplish the haul road route. It appears that with Monsanto and Bonneville Power working together that all would benefit.
Having made our thoughts known again we will NOT be giving permission at this time to Bonneville Power or their associates for access to our barn area for any reason including soil samples or appraisals.
Karen and Keller Crane
- HSTP214 0008 -
Dredge/Mountain States Insurance
As a concerned rancher it is coming to my attention about the desire to run a power line down through the China Hat area. As a rancher in the area I don’t feel that would be very beneficial to us there where we are not even benefiting from the power line. I feel it will cause problems in farmers’ fields which we all work very hard to maintain and keep in the up most shape. We that maintain the ground there in the China Hat area want it kept very clean and pretty and a new big power line will not benefit the looks of the area. It has also come to my attention that Monsanto has agreed to let you guys run your power line along with theirs to run down to the Meadowville sub-station. I do know that going down through the China Hat area is probably cheaper to run the power line in a straight line and won’t be so costly as to run it along with Monsanto’s. With that said there is still easy access with Monsanto’s line and it is probably a little longer route but it keeps it out of the farmers way and we don’t want a big old power line or pole sticking out in the middle of a nice field planted with wheat or barley or even alfalfa. We like the look of our little area and we want it to stay that way so please listen to the concerned farmers and ranchers in the area, don’t just brush our comments aside please listen.
- HSTP214 0009 -
Perschon
We are property owners along the Hooper Springs Line being proposed.
We are very much against putting this line down highway 34. We think it should
go down the Haul Road.
We purchased our property not too many years ago. The realtor said one of the
greatest values of our property and for which we paid more was for development.
We have a mile of frontage on the highway, some very nice farm ground and a mile and
a half of the Blackfoot River that runs through our property. It is close to the Blackfoot Reservoir
and China Hat and China Cap. It is a very nice property in a beautiful area.
A big high tension line down that highway would ruin our property for development.
We feel that we have been misled about the problems of putting the line along highway
34. We were told it would run along the present fence line and more or less be a small
upgrade to the existing line. Now we find a100 feet easement is required and it would set at least 50 feet into the field. That would be 71/2 acres of our property and would ruin the frontage. We also worry about the health hazards of big power lines. It would destroy our investment.
Please do not ruin this beautiful little area with an ugly big power line.
- HSTP214 0010 -
Smith/Tucker Torgesen Farms
I am Susan Torgesen Smith of Tucker Torgesen Farms in Caribou County, Idaho. This is a small family farm operated by my husband, sons and myself. Sometime ago, my husband and I met with Mike Richardson to express our dismay at a possible power line through our barley acreage. The poles are an extreme danger to our family as many of them are novice equipment operators.
This past week, I have been contacted by surveyors and appraisers who are requesting access to our land. We will grant no access.
It is our opinion that Idaho has acres of state and government property through which this line could pass. Also, Commissioner Somsen and Jim Smith from Monsanto have alternative options. It is our hope that a route can be agreed upon which will not impact private property owners, decreasing property values and threatening the safety of farm families.
- HSTP214 0011 -
Godfrey
My name is Julianna and I am writing in concern of the prospective power line along Highway 34. I understand the line is a necessity and the benefits of it, but what I do not understand is the route in which it's being placed. According to Soda Springs mayor, Jim Smith, Monsanto is willing to work with you in running the power line along the Monsanto haul road. A more than viable solution.
I have family and friends who own land along Highway 34 & have spent much of my childhood in that particular area. My family and I continue to spend a lot of time near the Chine Hat and often take Sunday drives along Highway 34 simply because we love scenery and the drive. We do not want to clutter up Highway 34's beauty with the "industrial look," which is what your power line project would do.
Further more, I think it would be beneficial to Bonneville Power and yourself to have a good working relationship with the community, land owners, and Monsanto.
Again, I encourage you and the BPA team to collaborate with Monsanto in the routing of the power line and preserve the beauty along Hwy. 34. It would be much appreciated by our community, distant, and future generations.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
- HSTP214 0012 -
Case/Fall River Rural Electric CooperativeFall River is supportive of the Hooper Springs Transmission Project. Bryan Case
- HSTP214 0013 -
KackleyPlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0014 -
Wilde/Carter Family RepresentativePlease see attached for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0016 -
Torgesen1/Farmer/EngineerAugust 1, 2014 RE: Hooper Springs Transmission Project To Whom It May Concern, I am a long time resident of the Soda Springs area. I grew up on a farm on Highway 34 north of Soda. Later I married, graduated from college with a degree in Electrical Engineering and worked for a few years for Texas Instruments in Dallas, Texas. I returned to Soda Springs in 1986 and have been running a large farm in the area while also working in engineering at Monsanto Company. I place great value on the beautiful area in which we live and consider Soda Springs as great place to raise a family. My wife and I have seven sons with two of them living in the area. My farming and ranching background gives me an appreciation of nature and our natural resources that we are all blessed with in our nation. On the other hand, my engineering and industrial experience causes me to recognize the value and need for development and use of our natural resources in order to maintain and improve the quality of life of citizens. I also believe that an important responsibility of industry including utility companies is to pursue necessary development in a way that minimizes any negative impacts upon people or the environment. From my industrial experience I know that the solution that minimizes negative impacts is often not the least expensive option. As I study the alternatives that you have identified for the Hooper Springs Transmission Project, I believe that Option 3A is not the optimal choice. In my opinion, the original South Alternative or Option 1 would be a much better choice in minimizing negative impacts upon area residents, area farmers, people visiting the area, and the natural beauty of the area. Either the original South Alternative or Option 1 minimizes the distance that the power line impacts agricultural lands and the Scenic Highway 34. Option 3A places many more power poles and high voltage in fields of local farmers. These poles will be a permanent fixture causing inconvenience, risk of collision with farm implements, and an unpleasant distraction to local and visiting travelers on Highway 34. We own about one mile of frontage property on Highway 34 that our family plans to farm to many years. My sons and grandsons will operate equipment on that field along with others that we own. Having farmed for over 30 years I know the risks that obstructions in fields can cause, particularly for younger or inexperienced equipment operators. Sometimes there is limited visibility in dusty conditions or when working in the dark. This presents are very real risk of damage to expensive equipment and perhaps physical injury to an operator. I certainly don’t want any more power poles than absolutely necessary placed in my fields or those of my neighbors in this county. In my opinion, any money received in compensation would not at all balance out the negative consequences of the power line. On the other hand, I believe that the original South Alternative or Option 1 minimizes negative impacts. By following those routes, the new power lines would travel near other lines that already disturb that immediate area. The lines would travel in a route already impacted by industry. In the area of concern near Monsanto’s Blackfoot Bridge Mine, I know from public comments made by Monsanto leadership that Monsanto is willing to cooperate in any way they can to enable passage of the power line. I’m confident that if BPA worked with Monsanto a solution to that area of concern could be found. As a last resort, I know that power lines can be routed underground and that the cost of doing so for a relatively short distance should not have an unacceptable cost impact as a percentage of total project cost. For these reasons, I urge you to sincerely consider favoring the original South Alternative or Option 1. Doing so would have far less negative consequences that my family, others in the area and travelers through the area will have to deal with for many years to come. I also believe that routing through a more industrial area (original South Alternative) could reduce cost as opposed to negotiating with a number of farmers who like me are less than enthusiastic about having the power lines on our land. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Greg Torgesen
- HSTP214 0018 -
Bauer/AgriumPlease see attached for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0019 -
DrewienThe following are my comments on the supplemental draft EIS for Hooper Springs Transmission project. You provide volumes of data regarding the potential impacts upon the North and South alternative routes. With a goal of reducing negative impacts of the alternatives, I suggest selecting the South Alternative, Option #1. Simply put, Option #1 traversing a proposed route from Hooper Springs substation eastward to near Conda, northward near or following the Monsanto Haul Road along the west side of Woodall Mountain to the junction of the Blackfoot River (mile #11) and eastward could significantly reduce impacts upon owners of agricultural lands compared to options 3 and 3A, greatly minimize impacts on migratory birds (especially cranes and waterfowl) that traditionally use the area east and south of Blackfoot Reservoir, and avoid impacts upon scenic and recreational values along state highway 34, with the powerline situated on the eastside hills. Your review of these subjects appears to be incomplete and superficial. Why would you suggest Options 3 and 3A knowing your proposed powerline would negatively impact and materially inconvenience agricultural landowners, negatively impact migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and disregard values associated with scenic byway Highway 34. For example, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Denver, flies these areas annually in September to survey cranes, and pinpoints crane locations by GPS. How could you possibly completely ignore these key data in your voluminous analysis? In addition to completely ignoring the large volume of crane data that the US Government has collected at considerable expense, your project relies on 20th century technology while attempting to meet 21st century needs. You state (2.5.7) that underground high-voltage transmission cables typically are used only for relatively short distances. A check of the internet reveals greatly expanded use of underground technology in recent and proposed projects by other power companies. Many of the complaints that I hear regarding your proposed project would be greatly reduced or eliminated if you would employ updated methodologies. Ultimately the users who would benefit from this line should bear the financial cost of such improvements, not BPA. I believe it is time for BPA to modernize the approach for this proposal and reduce conflicts with the citizens of Caribou County, wildlife, and other uses. Roderick C. Drewien Hornocker Wildlife Institute, U of Idaho (retired)
- HSTP214 0020 -
Prouty/J.R. Simplot CompanyPlease see atttached for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0021 -
Mladenka/Idaho Department of Environmental QualityPlease see attached for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0022 -
Somsen/Caribou County CommissionersPlease see attached for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0023 -
Rinaldi/Greater Yellowstone CoalitionPlease see attached document for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0024 -
Torgesen3To whom it may concern, I have received and reviewed the proposals for the Hooper Springs Transmission project. I would like to suggest that you consider and choose the South option or Option 1 that goes along the Monsanto haul road. Monsanto has graciously said that they would work with BPA. Also the east side of the haul road against the mountain is very solid ground with little or no marsh land. Where there may be marsh land, going with an underground wire might need to be considered. The major plus in taking option 1 is: 1. It is a safer option where you won't have a lot of farmers with high voltage wires in their fields to contend with. 2. It won't disturb a scenic hwy and will leave a beautiful view of our area. 3. May be more cost effective since you won't have to make deals with several farmers who really don't want the line on their property. Thank you for your time and consideration!!! Irene
- HSTP214 0025 -
Cole1To whom it may concern. My family and I have farm ground that would be affected with the northern route. My family, as well as the other farmers affected with this route rely on that farm ground to make a living. Putting power poles takes away ground and puts one more thing we have to worry about going around. It also affects our gps signal every time we have to go under the wires. I am asking that you please consider the Monsanto haul road route.
- HSTP214 0026 -
Torgesen4My name and Ben Torgesen I grew up here then moved away for a while obtaining a college degree in civil engineering. Then after being laid off moved back to help my father out on the farm. The issue with the power lines running close to or through land owners property is a concern. These lines running through farmers personal property and defacing their property and possibly putting them in danger is a concern. I believe it would be in the best interest of the utility company to find another way to run the power lines on state land rather than personal property thank you for considering my comments.
- HSTP214 0027 -
Cole2Please listen to the farmers who's land will be greatly affected by the proposed BPA Transmissions Line, the Towers,and the Right-of-ways starting at the Threemile Knoll Substation. Why do you think Farmers oppose power lines going through their property? As I have verbally said before If Monsanto has voiced that a better route would be to run the power poles along their haul road why wouldnt the BPA be in agreement. Rethink your route and take Jim Smith serious!!. Don't take valuable ground away from a Farmer and a Rancher who's livehihood depends on their ground. Have you ever watched a Farmer or Rancher work on their land. They spend many long hard hours working with high dollar equipmnet. Their time frame is short and they need to be productive to get their crops planted and harvested in the Spring, Summer and Fall. Farming around power lines isnt a Soultion, It's an Inconvenience. I DO NOT want power poles & your Right-of-Aways on my property. Please choose the haul road.
- HSTP214 0028 -
Torgesen5/Student/Mentor/FarmerGood Evening BPA/Whomever Else This May Concern: My name is Jeremiah Torgesen. I grew up in a farming family whose land is primarily located north of the city of Soda Springs. Upon reviewing the comments submitted on your website, I find that the majority of them are in favor of Option #1 rather than Option #3 which is the option currently being proposed by your organization. I only found one comment supporting your current option, and he/she had only one line of supporting information - it would affect his/her farmland. Having grown up in the Soda Springs area in a farming family, I am very familiar with the farmers who own a lot of land in the area and this farmer is not one of them; therefore, if he/she is affected it would be in a much smaller proportion than the dozen other farmers who would be affected by Option #3 (Browns, Torgesens, Murdocks, Cranes, etc.). Operating equipment is already tough enough with obstructions in the way, and every obstruction in the field causes a good amount of farmland around it to remain unused, because too tight of a turn could cause a collision. Being an operator of equipment myself, I would greatly appreciate it if the obstructions could be placed somewhere outside of the fields I will be working in. In addition, Option #3 goes along a major highway! The major highway used by tourists in and out of Soda Springs to go to Jackson Hole etc. It would significantly decrease the beauty of the drive for tourists traveling through Soda Springs, which may impact the route used by tourists to get to their location of choice, and I can tell you from the conversations I have had with local store owners that a decrease in tourists through the area would greatly impact their sales (and the businesses in Soda Springs are already struggling enough). Also, Option #3 would impact the bird population because it is on a bird migration route. I learned in school that Grays Lake is an important nesting grounds for sandhill cranes and a good possible location for a nesting grounds for whooping cranes as well. Whooping crane populations are low and it would be good to keep any obstructions to this population as far out of their way as possible. Finally, Option #3 does not look like it will even be possible. Have you viewed the comments by the other farmers in the area? Many have stated that they will not allow BPA to run lines through their farmland. In conclusion, it is up to you what choice you will make. However, from the research that is presented in the majority of the comments listed on your website, it appears that Option #1 (the southern route) will be a much safer, cheaper, and, perhaps, the only possible solution. Sincerely, Jeremiah Torgesen
- HSTP214 0029 -
Cole3/Cole FarmsBPA, Please agree with our County Commissioners and support all comments that the "South Route" is the most feasible Route to place power lines. Respect the Farmers and Rancher's land, the Migratory Waterfowl Flyways and the Beautiful Country Scenery that God gave to us to enjoy for many generations to come. Please stop the discontent of all those involved with the North Route and let us have the peace of mind knowing our land won't be affected with power poles!!! Sincerely Tami Cole
- HSTP214 0030 -
Robison1/Idaho Conservation LeaguePlease see attached for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0034 -
OBrien/Department of the Interior
- HSTP214 0035 -
Mbabaliye/Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
- HSTP214 0037 -
Chatburn/Idaho Office of Energy Resources
- HSTP214 0038 -
Anonymous commentPlease see attached for comment
View Attachment
- HSTP214 0039 -
Martinez/The Shoshone Bannock TribesPlease see attached for comment
View Attachment
|
|
|