[Federal Register: August 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 49447-49455]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21au08-38]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PP-304]
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings;
Generadora del Desierto SA de C.V. (GDD) San Luis Rio Colorado (SLRC)
Project
AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE),
Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD) and Floodplain Statement of Findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision to issue a Presidential Permit that
would authorize Generadora del Desierto SA de C.V. (GDD) to construct,
operate, maintain, and connect a new double-circuit 230,000-volt (230-
kV) electric transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico border into Yuma
County, southeast of San Luis, Arizona. The environmental impacts that
would be associated with the line were analyzed in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Luis Rio Colorado Project (DOE/EIS-
0395, SLRC EIS). The transmission line, known as the San Luis Rio
Colorado (SLRC) Project, would extend from a new gas-fired electric
power plant, known as the SLRC Power Center (to be constructed by GDD
approximately one mile south of the U.S.-Mexico border in San Luis Rio
Colorado, Sonora, Mexico), cross the U.S.-Mexico border, extend
approximately 21 miles north, and connect to the existing Gila
Substation that is owned and operated by the Western Area Power
Administration (Western), an organizational element within DOE. From
the Gila Substation, the line would extend an additional five miles
north and connect to the existing North Gila Substation that is owned
and operated by the Arizona Public Service Company (APS).
In reaching this decision, DOE considered the low environmental
impacts in the United States from constructing, operating, maintaining,
and connecting the proposed international transmission line and from
the construction and operation of the SLRC Power Center, the absence of
adverse impacts to the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply
system, and the absence of major issues of concern to the public. On
October 12, 2007, Western issued a ROD (72 FR 58074) in which it
decided to allow the proposed international transmission line and the
SLRC Power Center to interconnect with Western's transmission system at
the Gila Substation.
DOE has prepared this ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings in
accordance with the regulations of the
[[Page 49448]]
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE's NEPA
Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021), and DOE's Compliance with
Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR Part
1022).
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available from Western and can be requested
on its Web site at http://www.wapa.gov/transmission/intersanluis.htm.
The Western ROD is available on the Western Web site at http://
www.wapa.gov/fedreg/FRNpdfs/frn2007/72FR58074.pdf and on the DOE NEPA
Web site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/pub_rods_toc.html. This OE ROD
also will be available on both the Western Web site and the DOE NEPA
Web site. This ROD may be requested by contacting Dr. Jerry Pell,
Project Manager, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
U.S. Department of Energy, OE-20, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-586-3362, by facsimile at
202-586-8008, or at Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the SLRC
EIS, contact Dr. Jerry Pell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section
above, or Mr. John Holt, Environmental Manager, Desert Southwest
Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box
6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005, by telephone at 602-605-2592, or at
holt@wapa.gov. Copies of the EIS also are available from Mr. Holt. For
general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-20, U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585, by telephone at 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-
2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western and OE are the lead DOE offices
responsible for the SLRC EIS. The U.S. Department of the Navy (acting
through the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Yuma), the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM),\1\ the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the City of
Yuma, Arizona, are cooperating agencies. Western is the lead office for
complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. Section 1531, and for complying with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although BLM does not have a Federal action it must take for
the proposed project to be implemented, BLM is participating as a
cooperating agency because of its special expertise with respect to
environmental impacts in a flat-tailed horned lizard management
area, part of which would be crossed by any of the action
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Executive Order (E.O.) 10485 (September 9, 1953), as amended by
E.O. 12038 (February 7, 1978), requires that a Presidential Permit be
issued by DOE before electric transmission facilities may be
constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S.
international border.\2\ DOE may issue or amend a permit if it
determines that the permit is in the public interest and after
obtaining favorable recommendations from the U.S. Departments of State
and Defense. In determining whether issuance of a permit for a proposed
action is in the public interest, DOE considers the environmental
impacts of the proposed project pursuant to NEPA, determines the
project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the
proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S.
electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions,
and considers any other factors that DOE believes are relevant to the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The authority to administer the International Electricity
Regulatory Program through the regulation of electricity exports and
the issuance of Presidential Permits has been delegated to the
Assistant Secretary of OE in Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10C
issued on May 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 23, 2005, GDD, a Mexican corporation and wholly owned
affiliate of North Branch Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, filed an application with DOE for a Presidential Permit. GDD
proposed to construct a double-circuit 500-kilovolt (500-kV) electric
transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico border that would extend from
a new gas-fired electric power plant to be built by GDD approximately
one mile south of the U.S.-Mexico border in San Luis Rio Colorado,
Sonora, Mexico; cross the U.S.-Mexico border into Yuma County,
southeast of San Luis, Arizona; extend approximately 21 miles north;
and connect to the existing Gila Substation owned and operated by
Western. From the Gila Substation, the line would extend an additional
five miles north and connect to the existing North Gila Substation
owned and operated by APS. DOE published a notice of the application
for a Presidential Permit in the Federal Register on March 20, 2006 (71
FR 13970).
In a related proceeding, North Branch Resources, LLC (NBR), also a
wholly owned subsidiary of North Branch Holding, LLC, has applied to
Western to connect the proposed international transmission line and the
SLRC Power Center to Western's transmission system. (GDD and NBR are
referred to, collectively, as the ``Applicants'' in this ROD.) Relying
on the SLRC EIS, on October 12, 2007 (72 FR 58074), Western issued a
ROD allowing the proposed international transmission line and the SLRC
Power Center to interconnect with Western's transmission system.
NEPA Review
Given the length of the transmission line proposed for the United
States, DOE determined that issuing a Presidential Permit, as requested
by GDD, and authorizing the interconnection to the Western transmission
system, as requested by NBR, would likely constitute major Federal
actions that could significantly affect the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of NEPA (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended).
Experience with proposed transmission line projects of a similar nature
has indicated the probability of significant environmental impacts that
would appropriately be analyzed in an EIS. For this reason, DOE
prepared an EIS to address potential environmental impacts from a range
of reasonable alternatives that would satisfy DOE's purpose and need.
DOE also examined a No Action alternative. On February 10, 2006, DOE
published in the Federal Register (71 FR 7033) a Notice of Intent (NOI)
to prepare an EIS and to hold public scoping meetings in Yuma and San
Luis. DOE also announced these meetings locally, in both English and
Spanish.
On November 9, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a notice of availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal
Register (71 FR 65812), which began a two-month public comment period
that ended on January 10, 2007. All comments received on the Draft EIS
were considered in the preparation of the Final EIS. Because the Draft
EIS required only minor text changes (factual corrections and
clarifications) in response to comments, the Final EIS for the proposed
DOE actions consist of a Comment-Response Addendum together with the
Draft EIS (40 CFR 1503.4 (c)). A notice of availability of the Final
EIS was published by EPA in the Federal Register on August 3, 2007 (72
FR 43271).
Applicants' Proposed Action
In their respective applications to OE and Western, the Applicants
proposed a double-circuit 500-kV transmission line that would originate
at the SLRC Power
[[Page 49449]]
Center in Sonora, Mexico, interconnect with Western's transmission
system at the existing Gila Substation, and continue to APS's North
Gila Substation. The Proposed Action would require expanding the Gila
Substation with a 500/69-kV transformer and associated switchgear
adjacent to the Substation and constructing a double-circuit 500-kV
transmission line between the Gila and the North Gila Substations. All
of the proposed transmission components within the United States would
be located in Yuma County. In addition, modifications would be made to
the North Gila Substation based on an agreement between Western and
APS, and that substation would remain under the operational control of
APS.
The total length of the proposed transmission line within the
United States would be approximately 26 miles: 21 miles from the
international border to the Gila Substation and 5 miles from the Gila
Substation to the North Gila Substation. Portions of the proposed
transmission line would cross private lands and lands owned and/or
managed by the BOR, the U.S. Department of the Navy, and the State of
Arizona. In Mexico, GDD plans to construct and operate the SLRC Power
Center, a new 550-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined-cycle power
plant located approximately 3 miles east of San Luis Rio Colorado,
Sonora, Mexico, and about 1 mile south of the U.S.-Mexico border. This
facility is not subject to U.S. regulatory requirements; however, the
EIS evaluates impacts that would occur within the United States from
its construction and operation.
The Alternatives
The Applicants' Proposed Action was presented at stakeholder and
scoping meetings to provide a basis for discussion of issues to be
considered in the EIS and to assist with identifying potential
alternatives. Based on the suggestions received at those meetings, DOE
identified and analyzed two additional alternatives that either
responded to public issues and concerns or were directly recommended by
the public. Alternatives proposed by the public were evaluated to
determine whether they were consistent with the Applicants' stated
purpose and need and were technically and economically feasible. Based
on these criteria, DOE identified and added to its analysis a ``Route
Alternative'' and a ``230-kV Alternative,'' both of which vary from the
Applicants' Proposed Action.
Route Alternative
Under the Route Alternative, the proposed transmission line would
be constructed as a 500-kV line and the transmission system components
would be identical to those of the Applicants' Proposed Action, but the
route of the proposed transmission line would be modified. During the
public meetings, commenters identified various routing options for
numerous segments of the proposed transmission line. The Route
Alternative was developed by combining the suggested routing segments
that would avoid engineering constraints associated with existing and
proposed development, including recreational vehicle (RV) and trailer
parks that are encroaching upon the existing transmission line rights-
of-way (ROWs) into the North Gila Substation.
230-kV Alternative
Under the 230-kV Alternative, the transmission system components
would follow the route of the Applicants' Proposed Action, but be
constructed to operate at 230 kV instead of 500 kV. The 230-kV
Alternative would meet the Applicants' objectives to transport electric
power and create additional transmission capacity in the Yuma area.
This alternative would require 25 percent less ROW area and shorter,
less massive support structures than a 500-kV line, and smaller
substation modifications.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, OE would not issue the
Presidential Permit and Western would not approve an interconnection
agreement. In this instance, no transmission line would cross the U.S.-
Mexico border; the proposed transmission lines, substation additions
and modifications, and access roads within the United States would not
be constructed; and the potential environmental impacts associated with
their construction and operation would not occur.
The selection of the No Action Alternative would not preclude
development of the SLRC Power Center. In the EIS, the Applicants state
that two of their objectives are to transmit electric power from the
SLRC Power Center across the border into the United States and to
transmit power to the Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE), the
national electric system in Mexico. Furthermore, correspondence from
NBR dated July 22, 2008, asserts that, `` * * * if the [Presidential]
permit is not granted, the [SLRC] Project would be built pursuant to
the permits it has received from Mexican governmental authorities and
the power output of the Project would be provided within Mexico since
the cross border sale of power would not be available. The Mexican
government has identified a significant need for power in the area
where the Project will be built and the project would help meet this
demand.'' Therefore, if the Presidential Permit were not granted, as
would be the case under the No Action Alternative, the SLRC Power
Center would still be constructed, maintained, and operated solely for
the purpose of serving electric power needs within Mexico, and impacts
in the United States would be similar to those described in the EIS
from the construction and operation of the SLRC Power Center, which is
not subject to United States regulation because these activities would
occur entirely within Mexico.
The DOE Preferred Alternative
In the Draft EIS, DOE identified the Route Alternative and the 230-
kV Alternative as the environmentally preferable alternatives, and
stated that its preferred alternative was a combination of these two
alternatives, whereby the final project would use the route from the
Route Alternative, but be constructed to 230-kV standards. The
Applicants' Proposed Action was not selected as the preferred
alternative in the Draft EIS because of higher impacts on flat-tailed
horned lizard habitat, increased engineering constraints, and increased
impacts on residential dwellers as compared to the DOE Preferred
Alternative.
The DOE Preferred Alternative would include:
1. A new 21-mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line
constructed between the international border and Western's existing
Gila Substation along the Route Alternative defined in the EIS;
2. A new 230/69-kV transformer and associated switchgear addition
constructed adjacent to Gila Substation as identified in the 230-kV
Alternative in the EIS;
3. A new 5-mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line
constructed between Gila Substation and APS' North Gila Substation
along the Route Alternative defined in the EIS. (The majority of this
portion of the alignment would utilize existing ROW; Western
anticipates that the existing double-circuit 69-kV line would be
underbuilt; i.e., placed below the new line on the same poles or
towers.)
4. Modifications to North Gila Substation necessary to interconnect
the 230-kV transmission lines into the substation as identified in the
230-kV Alternative in the EIS (these
[[Page 49450]]
modifications will be made through an agreement with APS); and
5. Associated access roads, as needed.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts
This section summarizes the environmental impacts of all of the
alternatives. In the discussion below, the impacts of the 230-kV
Alternative are based on following the alignment in the Applicants'
Proposed Action.
The only potential for adverse impacts from the No Action
Alternative are those that might occur if the SLRC Power Center were
constructed, maintained, and operated solely for the purpose of serving
electric power needs within Mexico. Such potential impacts are
identified only for water resources and air quality. Thus, the
environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative are discussed only
in relation to those resources.
The DOE Preferred Alternative, a 230-kV line along the alignment of
the Route Alternative, would combine the favorable features of the
Route Alternative and the 230-kV Alternative; overall, its impacts
would be lower than those of the other action alternatives. The DOE
Preferred Alternative would avoid conflicts with military aviation
operations, would avoid potential impacts to the Yuma Lakes recreation
area, and would meet local concerns about 500-kV transmission lines.
Land requirements and impacts to biological and visual resources would
be smaller than under the Applicants' Proposed Action and the other
action alternatives.
Land Use and Recreation: Under all action alternatives, portions of
the ROW could be shared with existing ROWs, but new ROWs would be
required on BOR, State of Arizona, and private lands, and a permit
would be required to cross the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR). Under
the 230-kV Alternative and the DOE Preferred Alternative, the 150-foot
wide ROW would require 25 percent less land than needed for the 200-
foot wide ROW under the Applicants' Proposed Action and the Route
Alternative.
Yuma Lakes is the only recreational facility in the project area.
Located southeast of the North Gila Substation, it includes RV parks
and Redondo Pond, a lake used for fishing and small boats. Existing and
proposed development of the RV parks is encroaching upon the existing
transmission ROW. Widening the existing 230-kV ROW within Yuma Lakes
for a 500-kV ROW would impact the RV parks by causing the relocation of
the recreational activities that currently occur within the existing
ROW. However, this is not considered to be a significant impact because
the recreational activities could occur within other areas of Yuma
Lakes. The DOE Preferred Alternative and the Route Alternative would
not traverse the RV and trailer park area; therefore, impacts would be
less than under the Applicants' Proposed Action and the 230-kV
Alternative.
Geology, Paleontology, Seismicity, and Soils: There are no unique
or important geologic features within the project area. All of the
action alternatives would use locally abundant sand and gravel
resources to make concrete footings for the transmission support
structures; the routes would be located near, but not within, an active
sand and gravel operation. Geologic and seismic risks are well-
understood and are addressed by building codes and utility industry
standards. To minimize potential damage from earth shaking, structures
would be constructed and maintained to Federal Uniform Building Code
standards for Zone 4 areas, the highest category of risk for seismic
activity. Structures would be designed to withstand an earthquake
measuring 8.0 on the Richter scale. The potential for direct geologic
or seismic impacts under all action alternatives would, thus, be
mitigated by proper engineering design and construction of all proposed
project structures. Although vegetation clearing and soil disruption
during construction would result in an increased potential for wind and
water erosion of surface soils, none of the action alternatives would
result in appreciable soil erosion.
Water Resources: Under all alternatives, the SLRC Power Center
would obtain its potable water by converting an existing groundwater
withdrawal from agricultural irrigation use to power plant use, so
there would be no change in the pumping or consumptive use of
groundwater. Cooling water for the proposed power plant would be
obtained from the San Luis Rio Colorado municipal wastewater treatment
plant in Mexico, so there would be no effect on water resources in the
United States.
Temporary sedimentation of water resources resulting from
transmission line construction would be managed by erosion control
measures required pursuant to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan,
such that construction under any of the action alternatives would not
result in discharges of contaminants or sediment into water or
watercourses or substantially alter the flow of a water body. A
``Waters of the United States'' delineation and characterization survey
was completed for DOE's Preferred Alternative and the report was
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for review. In a
letter dated March 1, 2007, USACE determined that DOE's Preferred
Alternative would not discharge dredged or fill material into a water
of the United States or adjacent wetland. Therefore, the Preferred
Alternative will not require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act or a Section 401 water quality certification.
Temporary dewatering of the ground might be necessary during
construction in the Gila Valley under any of the action alternatives
due to high groundwater levels, but dewatering would be short-term and
localized, and the water would be returned to the ground, thus it would
not substantially deplete groundwater resources.
Air Quality Impacts within the United States: Assessment of
potential impacts to air quality considered impacts in the United
States from activities both within the United States (transmission line
construction) and outside the United States (construction and operation
of the associated SLRC Power Center in Mexico). For all action
alternatives, construction and maintenance of the proposed transmission
line and associated modifications at the Gila Substation would generate
fugitive dust from construction activities and emissions from motor
vehicles. With proposed dust control mitigation, these impacts would be
temporary and minor. Emissions of PM10 (i.e., particles less
than 10 microns in diameter) within the Yuma PM10 non-
attainment area would be 22 tons per year, which is 0.2 percent of
total PM10 emissions for Yuma County, and is below the 100
tons-per-year threshold for applicability of Clean Air Act general
conformity requirements. Therefore, there would be no issue with regard
to conformity with State air quality implementation plans.
For all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative,
dispersion modeling results indicate that ambient air quality impacts
in the United States from the SLRC Power Center located in Mexico would
be low relative to both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration criteria. The
estimated contribution from the SLRC Power Center would be no higher
than 0.3 percent of the NAAQS for any pollutant. The effects of
anticipated SLRC Power Center emissions combined with the existing
background levels would be below 20 percent of the annual NAAQS for any
pollutant, except PM10. PM10 is of particular
concern because the area of the proposed project has been designated a
non-attainment area for PM10 due to the
[[Page 49451]]
high existing background levels. However, monitoring has demonstrated
compliance with the NAAQS standard for PM10 since 1990 and
the results of dispersion modeling have demonstrated that anticipated
SLRC Power Center PM10 emissions combined with the existing
background levels would result in concentrations of 78 percent of the
annual NAAQS.
Global Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Climate change has evolved into a matter of global concern because
it is expected to have widespread adverse effects on natural resources
and systems. A growing body of evidence points to anthropogenic (man-
made) sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide
(CO2), as major contributors to climate change. Here, DOE's
decision to permit a transmission line and grant an interconnection
does not itself authorize activities that emit CO2 or any
other GHG. However, the SLRC Power Center, where the proposed
transmission line would originate, does emit CO2. The SLRC
Power Center is not a ``connected action'' because it is not dependent
on the Proposed Action. Further, it is located in Mexico and, as such,
its construction and operation are not subject to NEPA.
Nonetheless, DOE has examined impacts to the United States from the
SLRC Power Center in the Final EIS.
Impacts of Climate Change on the Environment
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC Report), published in 2007, global
climate change is consistent with observed changes to the world's
natural systems and the IPCC expects these changes to continue.
Changes that are consistent with global warming include warming of
the world's oceans to a depth of 3,000 meters (9,840 feet); global
average sea level rise at an average rate of 1.8 mm (0.07 inches) per
year from 1961 to 2003; loss of annual average Arctic sea ice at a rate
of 2.7 percent per decade, changes in wind patterns that affect extra-
tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns, increases in intense
precipitation in some parts of the world, as well as increased drought
and more frequent heat waves in many locations worldwide, and numerous
ecological changes.
Looking forward, the IPCC describes continued global warming of
about 0.2 [deg]C (0.36 [deg]F) per decade for the next two decades
under a wide range of emission scenarios for carbon dioxide
(CO2), other GHGs, and aerosols. After that period, the rate
of increase is less certain. The IPCC Report describes increases in
average global temperatures of about 1.1 [deg]C (1.98 [deg]F) to 6.4
[deg]C (11.52 [deg]F) at the end of the century relative to today.
These increases vary depending on the model and emissions scenarios.
Causes of Global Climate Change
The IPCC Report states that the world has warmed by about 0.74
[deg]C (1.33 [deg]F) in the last 100 years. The IPCC Report finds that
most of the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the increase in anthropogenic emissions of CO2
and other long-lived GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide in the
atmosphere, rather than from natural causes.
The IPCC Report estimates that CO2 makes up about 77
percent of the total CO2-equivalent \3\ global warming
potential in GHGs emitted from human activities, with the vast majority
(74 percent) of the CO2 attributable to fossil fuel use. For
the future, the IPCC Report describes a wide range of GHG emissions
scenarios, but under each scenario CO2 would continue to
comprise above 70 percent of the total global warming potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GHGs differ in their global warming potential (GWP;
radiative forcing) on a global climate system due to their different
radiative properties and lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming
influences may be expressed through a common metric based on the
radiative forcing of CO2, i.e., CO2-
equivalent. CO2-equivalent emission is the amount of
CO2 emission that would cause the same-time integrated
radiative forcing, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount
of other long-lived GHG or mixture of GHGs. Accordingly, for
comparative purposes, the GWP of CO2 is normalized to 1,
against which all other GHG are measured. For example, as compared
to CO2, the GWP of methane (CH4) over a 100-
year time horizon is 25, for nitrous oxide (N2O) is 298,
and for sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is 22,800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Incremental Impact of the SLRC Project on Global Climate Change
The SLRC Power Center would generate a maximum of 1.3 million
metric tons of CO2 per year. The United States'
CO2 emissions from energy consumption were estimated by
DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) to be about 5.9 billion
metric tons in 2006, about 15 percent of which comes from combustion of
natural gas.
Based on EIA information, the CO2 emissions from the
SLRC Power Center would represent about 0.0000026 percent (2.6 x
10-6 percent), or 2.6 millionths of one percent of the
estimated 49 billion metric tons of global anthropogenic emissions of
CO2.
It is difficult to correlate specific emission rates with
atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and specific atmospheric
concentrations with future temperatures because the IPCC Report
describes a clear lag in the climate system between any given
concentration of CO2 (even if maintained for long periods)
and the subsequent average worldwide and regional temperature,
precipitation, and extreme weather regimes. For example, a major
determinant of climate response is ``equilibrium climate sensitivity,''
a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative
forcing. It is defined as the global average surface warming following
a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. The IPCC Report describes
its estimated, numeric value as about 3 [deg]C (5.40 [deg]F), but the
likely range of that value is 2 [deg]C (3.60 [deg]F) to 4.5 [deg]C
(8.10 [deg]F), with cloud feedbacks the largest source of uncertainty.
Thus, climate sensitivity is a key uncertainty for CO2
mitigation scenarios that aim to meet specific temperature levels.
Because of the complexity of global climate systems, it is
difficult to know to what extent and when particular CO2
emissions rates will impact global warming, much less to foresee how
this contribution to warming will impact the United States. However,
the SLRC Power Center does contribute CO2 emissions that
will have an incremental impact on global CO2 emissions,
however small. Those emissions will, in combination with global
CO2 emissions from a variety of different sources, very
likely impact global warming and its related environmental impacts. As
such, even though it is not currently possible to measure the degree of
impact that the SLRC Power Center's emissions has on climate change, or
where the related environmental impacts will occur, those emissions may
contribute to climate change and its related environmental impacts.
Some of those impacts very likely will occur in the United States.
Biological Resources: Impacts to biological resources from the 230-
kV Alternative and the DOE Preferred Alternative would be similar to,
but slightly less than, those from the Applicants' Proposed Action and
the Route Alternative because the ROW would be narrower and the area of
the structural footprint would be slightly smaller. Impacts to specific
biological resources are described below.
Vegetation
All of the action alternatives would cause some disturbance to
vegetation, but the disturbance would be a small fraction of the total
area of similar resources in the immediate proposed project area.
Construction of any of the action alternatives would neither result
[[Page 49452]]
in the long-term loss of riparian vegetation, nor result in a long-term
loss of habitat causing the listing of, or jeopardizing the continued
existence of, any plant species. Overall, the construction of the DOE
Preferred Alternative would have the lowest level of impacts on
vegetation resources among the action alternatives because it would
have a narrower ROW and smaller footprint of disturbance than a 500-kV
line and fewer new access roads than would be needed along the
alignment of the Applicants' Proposed Action.
Special Status Species
The flat-tailed horned lizard is identified as a species of concern
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the U.S. Department of
the Interior, a BLM sensitive species, and an Arizona Game and Fish
Department wildlife species of special concern. The relevant regulatory
agencies have authorized only minimal surface disturbing activities in
the Yuma Desert FWS Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Management Area (FTHL
MA), which is in the western part of the BMGR and adjacent BOR land, in
order to conserve sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of
this species. The Route Alternative and the DOE Preferred Alternative
use more existing access roads than the Applicants' Proposed Action and
the 230-kV Alternative in the FTHL MA, thus resulting in less impact on
this area. The Route Alternative and the DOE Preferred Alternative
would permanently disturb 0.07 acres in the FTHL MA from the steel
monopoles, as compared to 0.15 acres for the Applicants' Proposed
Action and the 230-kV Alternative.
All of the action alternatives would avoid construction at the Gila
River crossing during nesting season of two endangered birds, the Yuma
clapper rail and southwestern willow flycatcher. All of the action
alternatives would also incorporate mitigation identified in the FTHL
Rangewide Management Strategy of the FWS.
All action alternatives would be sited and constructed following
the guidelines of the Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (http://
www.aplic.org) for standard raptor protection (i.e., a horizontal
separation of 60 inches and a vertical separation of 48 inches).
A Biological Assessment for compliance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act was prepared and submitted to the FWS with a
determination that the Proposed Project ``may affect but is not likely
to adversely affect'' any candidate, proposed, or listed species. In a
reply dated March 26, 2007, FWS concurred with this determination.
Cultural Resources: For all of the action alternatives, impacts to
cultural resources such as prehistoric properties, historic properties,
and cultural landscapes could not be determined until a 100-percent
Class III cultural resources survey as defined by the NHPA is
available. The applicant has submitted a draft survey report for the
DOE Preferred Alternative, but it has not been issued in final form as
of this writing. DOE's mitigation goal is to avoid any identified
sites. A Programmatic Agreement has been developed and signed by
Western, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, affected
Federal agencies, the Applicants, and the 22 interested Native American
Tribes. Compliance with the Programmatic Agreement provisions would
ensure that requirements of Section 106 (Protection of Historic
Properties) of NHPA are met.
Transportation: For all action alternatives, use of local highways
during construction would result in a less than one percent increase in
annual average daily vehicular traffic. All of the action alternatives
would be sited to avoid adverse impact to the civilian-use aviation
corridor, which is located in open space between the areas of
restricted airspace associated with the Marine Corps Air Station Yuma/
Yuma International Airport and the BMGR. The Applicants' Proposed
Action and the 230-kV Alternative would go through the intersection of
County 19th and Avenue 4E. In that location transmission support
structures would have to be taller to comply with safety clearances for
the proposed County 19th overpass of the planned Area Service Highway
(ASH) \4\. Support structures of that height would, however, conflict
with military aviation operations within the area. The lower structures
that would be used for the 230-kV Alternative would result in the same
conflicts. Either conflict would, thus, result in a significant
transportation impact from the Applicants' Proposed Action and the 230-
kV Alternative. The Route Alternative and the DOE Preferred Alternative
would avoid that intersection and would thus avoid these conflicts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Yuma Area Service Highway (ASH) is a proposed direct
transportation route between the Greater Yuma Port Authority's
future commercial International Port of Entry (POE) near San Luis,
Arizona, and Interstate 8 (I-8). Greater detail is available at
http://www.azdot.gov/EEG_common/documents/files/planning/195_ash_
highway/fonsi_main_text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual Resources: For the majority of the proposed alignments under
both the Applicants' Proposed Action and the Route Alternative, the
transmission facilities would not substantially modify the overall
existing visual character of the area. Visual changes would remain
subordinate within the existing visual landscape. There is an area of
increased viewer sensitivity near the northwest corner of the BMGR.
However, because the Applicants are proposing to use steel monopoles as
support structures for the entire length of the proposed project, the
impacts to this visually sensitive area are expected to be minimal. The
Route Alternative would be farther from this area of increased
sensitivity than the Applicants' Proposed Action and would thus appear
smaller and be less noticeable. For the 230-kV Alternative and the DOE
Preferred Alternative, impacts would be less than for the other action
alternatives because structures would be 25 feet shorter and less
massive than 500-kV structures. Thus, the DOE Preferred Alternative
would have overall lower visual impacts than the other action
alternatives.
Noise: The estimated construction noise level from the Applicants'
Proposed Action and the 230-kV Alternative at the nearest existing
residence, 420 feet away, would be 65.6 dBA. For the Route Alternative
and the DOE Preferred Alternative, the estimated construction noise
level at the nearest existing residence, 145 feet away, would be 74.8
dBA. (As a point of reference, busy traffic has a noise level of about
75 dBA.) EPA has established 70 dBA as the highest level of
environmental noise that will prevent any measurable hearing loss over
the course of a lifetime. Construction noise levels at the nearest
existing residence would be reduced below 70 dBA by designing the
transmission line such that structures would be sited and construction
activities would occur a minimum of 260 feet away from that residence.
Under all action alternatives construction noise from substation
modifications would be 61.9 dBA at the nearest residence, which is 642
feet away. Construction noise under all action alternatives would be
temporary and with the careful siting of transmission structures would
not be significant.
Socioeconomics: Due to the small construction workforce (30 to 40
workers) and availability of existing resources, impacts from all the
action alternatives to population size, housing availability,
employment and pay rates, governmental services, and infrastructure
services would be
[[Page 49453]]
minimal. An increase to the local economy would be expected from any
action alternative of about $4.7 million for the year of construction
($3.2 million for payroll and $1.5 million for materials).
Environmental Justice: For all of the action alternatives, no
minority or low-income populations within the area of influence were
identified based on Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) criteria
(Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy
Act, 1997; http://www.nepa.gov). There would be no disproportionately
high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations.
Health and Safety
Electric and Magnetic Fields
No Federal regulations have been established specifying
environmental limits on the strengths of electric and magnetic fields
from electric transmission lines. Under the Applicants' Proposed Action
and the Route Alternative, the electric field of the 500-kV
transmission line on and at the edge of the ROW would be higher than
that for the 230-kV lines under the other action alternatives. Human
health and safety impacts from electric and magnetic fields remain
controversial, but field strengths decrease rapidly with distance, such
that they are expected to pose little or no increased exposure at and
beyond the edge of the ROW for all action alternatives.
Worker Health and Safety
For all action alternatives, worker health and safety impacts from
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project
would be related to typical work-related injuries and fugitive dust.
Risk associated with the action alternatives would be minimized through
facility design, safe work practices, and continuous maintenance in
compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration and State
of Arizona regulations.
Public Health and Safety
For all action alternatives temporary fences would be placed
wherever feasible to control public access to construction areas. In
addition, construction equipment would be secured at night. Therefore,
the potential for injury due to trespassing in construction areas would
be minimal.
Environmentally Preferable and DOE Preferred Alternative
As described above, in the process of preparing the Draft EIS, DOE
identified a combination of the Route Alternative and the 230-kV
Alternative as both the Environmentally Preferable Alternative and also
the DOE Preferred Alternative. In this case, the DOE Preferred
Alternative would adopt the route from the Route Alternative as
described in the EIS and be constructed to 230-kV standards. The
Applicants' Proposed Action was not selected as the DOE Preferred
Alternative because of higher impacts on flat-tailed horned lizard
habitat, increased engineering constraints, and increased visual
impacts on residential dwellers as compared to the DOE Preferred
Alternative.
Comments Received on the Final EIS
After publication of the Final EIS, three additional comments were
received that expressed concerns about property values, visual impacts,
lack of notification about the Applicant's Proposed Action, and
potential interference with radio, television, and amateur radio signal
reception and transmission. Property value issues are addressed in the
EIS; potential effects generally range from somewhat positive to a
negative impact of up to 15 percent. Studies find that property value
impacts can be quite different from case to case, and that perceptions
of impacts on value vary depending on the individual. Furthermore, the
presence of a transmission line is generally not the major determinant
of property values, and any impact of its existence generally
diminishes over time.
Visual impacts are also addressed in the EIS and are closely linked
to property value concerns. Like perceptions of property value impacts,
visual impacts are also highly subjective, depending on the individual.
DOE conducted a visual impact analysis using the BLM Visual Resource
Management (VRM) system to determine the level of visual impact. The
VRM system imposes a somewhat artificial structure on very subjective
visual values, and looks at visual impacts from more of a societal
view. However, the VRM system is the best and most widely accepted tool
now available for impartial analysis of visual impacts. The analysis
found that visual impacts would result from constructing the Proposed
Project, but that they would not be significant. However, due to the
subjective nature of visual impacts and personal perceptions, DOE
acknowledges that some residents may consider the impact of the
proposed project on them to be more significant than on others.
A few comments were received from residents who had not previously
heard about the project, and who felt they had not had the opportunity
for meaningful input. Following the 2006 issuance of the NOI, DOE held
12 stakeholder meetings, four public scoping meetings, and two public
hearings in the area that would be affected by the ``Applicants''
Proposed Action.'' The public scoping meetings were announced in the
Federal Register, paid advertisements in the Yuma Sun and Bajo el Sol,
and direct newsletter/local NOI mailings in both English and Spanish to
the project mailing list. Additional paid advertisements and direct
mailings announced the public hearings. In addition, the Yuma Sun
published several articles, editorials, and letters to the editor about
the proposed project during the EIS process. The project mailing list
included landowners up to 0.5 miles from the centerline of all
identified alternative routes, as identified from the county assessor
records. The mailing list was updated as new mailings were prepared.
While DOE regrets that some residents feel that they were not
effectively notified, it believes that its public outreach effort was
adequate.
Potential interference with radio and television transmission and
reception is also addressed in the EIS. Most cases of interference are
directly related to spark gap discharges, also known as coronal
discharges, due to loose, worn, or defective transmission line
hardware. Western operates about 17,000 miles of transmission lines,
and interference issues are rarely reported. In the unlikely event that
an interference problem is encountered, Western has committed in its
ROD to work with the affected party to eliminate the interference (72
FR 58074).
The Environmental Protection Agency did not comment on the Final
EIS, and the proposed project has not been controversial beyond the
concerns of local residents and property owners.
Mitigation Measures
All mitigation measures identified in the EIS to minimize impacts
from the transmission system additions are adopted in this ROD.
Sections 2.1.1.8 and 2.1.1.9 of the EIS list Western's standard
mitigation measures and additional mitigation measures included as part
of the DOE Preferred Alternative. Some of Western's standard measures
include restricting vehicular traffic to existing access roads or
public roads, recontouring and reseeding disturbed areas, environmental
awareness training for all construction and supervisory personnel, and
mitigation of radio and television interference generated by
transmission lines. Additional measures
[[Page 49454]]
identified for the DOE Preferred Alternative include mitigation methods
within flat-tailed horned lizard habitat and measures identified in the
Arizona Administrative Code pertaining to fugitive dust control to be
employed during transmission line construction.
Western is the lead DOE element for compliance with Section 106 of
the NHPA. Western's preferred form of mitigation for cultural resources
is to avoid all identified sites. To the extent possible, cultural
sites determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
in consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and
interested tribes will be avoided by the DOE Preferred Alternative
project activities. Impacts on cultural sites that cannot be avoided
will be mitigated in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement
developed for the DOE Preferred Alternative, which will govern all
remaining activities necessary for Section 106 compliance.
Mitigation Action Plan
Although Western stated in its 2007 ROD an intention to prepare a
mitigation action plan to explain how mitigation will be planned and
implemented, DOE has now determined that a mitigation action plan is
not needed because the mitigation measures identified in the Western
ROD and above either have been incorporated into the selected
alternative or are included among Western's standard construction
practices.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, OE considered the potential
impacts of the DOE Preferred Alternative on floodplains and wetlands.
The DOE Preferred Alternative project area is located in an arid region
of low annual precipitation (less than 4 inches annually) with
relatively low runoff potential, currently consisting primarily of open
desert and agriculture interspersed with residences. Construction of
the DOE Preferred Alternative would not substantially alter the normal
drainage patterns or affect runoff rates because the DOE Preferred
Alternative project area typically does not experience runoff following
a heavy rainfall due to the soils and geology of the area.
All transmission system alternatives, including the DOE Preferred
Alternative, would traverse the 100-year floodplain of the Gila River.
DOE has found no practical alternative to locating or conducting the
action in the floodplain. The DOE Preferred Alternative will be
designed to span the width of the 100-year floodplain; accordingly, no
new structures are expected to be placed within the Gila River channel
or associated 100-year floodplain. If transmission would be
consolidated and a 69-kV circuit underbuilt on the proposed
transmission line, removal of two existing 69-kV transmission line
structures would result in a temporary disturbance of the Gila River
floodplain, but this would have no impact on the normal flow of the
water body and would remove objects currently within the floodplain.
Structures located adjacent to the floodplain would be constructed with
additional concrete reinforcement around the footing to withstand
potential flood flow-rates. The footings would not present a barrier to
flood flows if they should exceed the 100-year floodplain and reach
these locations. If, after final project design, additional new
structures are needed in the floodplain, they will be designed to
conform to applicable Federal, State, and local floodplain protection
standards. No wetlands would be affected by the DOE Preferred
Alternative.
Decision
OE has decided to issue Presidential Permit PP-304 authorizing GDD
to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 230-kV electric
transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico border along the Route
Alternative identified and analyzed in the EIS. This action is
identified as the DOE Preferred Alternative in the EIS. The
Presidential Permit will require GDD to implement all of Western's
standard and additional mitigation measures which are described in
Sections 2.1.1.8 and 2.1.1.9 of the EIS.
Basis for Decision
In reaching this decision, DOE considered the low environmental
impacts in the U.S. from constructing, operating, maintaining, and
connecting the proposed international transmission line and from the
construction and operation of the associated Mexico power plant, the
absence of adverse impacts to the reliability of the U.S. electric
power supply system, and the absence of major issues of concern to the
public.
OE has determined that the potential impacts from the DOE Preferred
Alternative, i.e., the Route Alternative combined with the transmission
line constructed to 230-kV standards (the 230-kV Alternative), and with
implementation of the stipulated mitigation measures, are expected to
be small, as discussed above, and overall less than the expected
impacts from any of the other alternatives except the No Action
Alternative, which would deny the issuance of the Presidential Permit,
hence prohibiting construction of the line across the international
border. OE did not select the No Action Alternative because it would
neither satisfy the Applicants' stated purpose and need nor address the
need for additional transmission capacity in the region. Also, the DOE
Preferred Alternative has been determined to be consistent with the
public interest based on the consideration of environmental impacts,
the lack of adverse impacts on electric reliability, and the favorable
recommendations of the Departments of State and Defense.
In reaching this decision, OE also considered the project's impact
on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project
would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply
system under normal and contingency conditions. In reaching this
determination, DOE considered the information contained in the System
Impact Study dated June 25, 2007, which was submitted by the Applicants
in support of their application for a Presidential Permit. The results
of the System Impact Study indicate that the proposed international
transmission line is capable of delivering the entire electrical output
of the SLRC without violating any industry-established reliability
criteria provided that the transmission line and the SLRC are operated
consistent with the operating nomograms and remedial action schemes \5\
that will be developed by Western during the Project's Operating
Studies prior to energizing the proposed transmission line. The
Presidential Permit to be issued to GDD will contain a condition
requiring it to adhere to these operating requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Nomograms and remedial action schemes are operating
procedures that establish limits on the amount of electric power
that may be transmitted over a particular transmission line or
produced by a generating unit under varying electric system
conditions of load and equipment availability. These operating
procedures establish a means of avoiding or mitigating any
reliability problems that are expected to exist under various system
contingencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the foregoing reasons, OE has decided to issue Presidential
Permit PP-304 to authorize GDD to construct, operate, maintain, and
connect the San Luis Rio Colorado Project across the international
border at the 230-kV operating voltage level along the Route
Alternative as defined in the EIS, with the mitigation conditions noted
above.
[[Page 49455]]
Dated: August 15, 2008.
Kevin M. Kolevar,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
[FR Doc. E8-19392 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P