Categorical Exclusion Under Pressure

A CE is not supportable on the current record. Even if the agency has a CE category for minor utility installations, the agency must still screen for extraordinary circumstances. The route crosses emergent wetland, prime farmland, and a scenic river corridor, and the wetland may contain a listed frog. Those are precisely the kinds of resource sensitivities that can defeat a CE. There is no wetland delineation, no protocol survey for the frog, no cultural-resources survey, and no agency concurrence in writing. The county manager's instruction to 'document that there are no extraordinary circumstances' reverses the analysis: the agency must determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist based on evidence, not merely accept a negative statement. At minimum, the record needs a jurisdictional wetland delineation, a listed-species habitat assessment and protocol survey if appropriate, scenic-river consistency review, farmland conversion analysis, and cultural-resources review. If any extraordinary circumstance is present, the agency must prepare an EA or EIS. The six-month schedule does not justify skipping the screening; it may require the county to choose a less sensitive route or accept delay.

The two phases appear to be one project for environmental review because they are functionally interdependent: both serve the same data center, the 9-mile segment may not operate independently, and the 5-mile segment is described as future only to avoid reviewing the whole route. NEPA and similar state programs prohibit segmentation that arbitrarily divides a project to avoid significance findings. I would analyze the entire 14-mile corridor as the proposed action, including all wetland and farmland crossings, and treat the phases as connected actions. The cumulative-impact analysis should consider the data center's induced growth, other utility corridors in the watershed, past and reasonably foreseeable wetland losses, and the scenic river's cumulative visual and hydrological effects. If the 5-mile segment is genuinely independent and not reasonably foreseeable, that conclusion should be documented with evidence, not assumed. The agency should also consider alternatives that avoid the wetland and scenic river, including route shifts, reconductoring, or a different voltage/siting approach. The burden is on the applicant to show that the phasing is not an avoidance device.

Before a decision, I would recommend a jurisdictional wetland delineation and functional assessment, a protocol survey for the listed frog by a qualified biologist during the correct season, a scenic-river eligibility and consistency review, a prime-farmland conversion analysis, a cultural-resources survey, and a visual-impact analysis for the river segment. The agency should initiate informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if a listed species may be present and should coordinate with the state historic preservation officer. I would also recommend a alternatives analysis that compares the proposed route with at least one wetland-avoiding route and a no-action alternative. Documentation should include a written CE screening checklist with each extraordinary-circumstance category addressed, survey reports with dates and qualifications, agency correspondence, and a clear statement of any remaining data gaps. If the screening identifies extraordinary circumstances, the file should record the decision to prepare an EA and should not treat the CE as a default. The county should be advised in writing that the schedule cannot drive the resource surveys.