Implementation plan for the Hawaii Geothermal Project environmental impact statement

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that identifies and evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Hawaii Geothermal Project (HGP), as defined by the State of Hawaii in its 1990 proposal to Congress (ref). The EIS U, being prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as implemented by the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and the DOE NEPA Implementing Regulations (10 CFR 1021), effective May 26, 1992, which now require Mitigation Action Plans. Mitigation Action Plans, completed in conjunction with the EIS and its Record of Decision (ROD), explain how measures designed to mitigate adverse impacts will be planned and implemented. This draft Implementation Plan (IP) identifies the issues raised in the scoping process and describes the approach to be used in preparing the EIS. The State's proposal for the four-phase HGP consists of (1) exploration and testing of the geothermal resource beneath the slopes of the active Kilauea volcano on the Island of Hawaii (Big Island), (2) demonstration of deep-water power cable technology in the Alenuihaha Channel between the Big Island and Maui, (3) verification and characterization of the geothermal resource on the Big Island, and (4) construction and operation of commercial geothermal power production facilities on the Big Island, with overland and submarine transmission of electricity from the Big Island to Oahu and other islands. DOE prepared appropriate NEP A documentation for separate federal actions related to Phase 1 and 2 research projects, which have been completed. This EIS will consider Phases 3 and 4, as well as reasonable alternatives to the HGP. In this regard, in addition to considering non-geothermal alternative energy resources for power production (including, but not necessarily limited to, coal, solar, biomass, and wind), the HGP EIS will consider the reasonable alternatives among submarine cable technologies; geothermal extraction, production, and power generating technologies; pollution control technologies; overland and submarine power transmission routes; sites reasonably suited to support project facilities in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner; and nonpower generating alternatives such as demand side management.