[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 78 (Monday, April 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21189-21196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8200]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket Nos. PP-234-1 and PP-235-2]


Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings; 
Imperial-Mexicali 230-kV Transmission Lines

AGENCY: Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance,\1\ U.S. Department 
of Energy (DOE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 13, 2005, the Secretary of Energy transferred the 
authority to grant Presidential permits from the Office of Fossil 
Energy to the Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance.

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD) and Floodplain Statement of Findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision to implement the Proposed Action 
alternative, identified as the preferred alternative, in the ``Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Imperial-Mexicali 230-kV 
Transmission Lines'' (DOE/EIS-0365). That alternative is to grant a 
Presidential permit to both Baja California Power, Inc. (BCP; 
hereinafter referred to as Intergen \2\) and Sempra Energy Resources 
(hereinafter referred to as Sempra \3\) for each to construct, operate, 
maintain, and connect a double-circuit, 230,000-volt (230-kV) electric 
transmission line that crosses the U.S.-Mexico border in the vicinity 
of Calexico, California, and connects to the associated natural gas-
fired electric power plant located near Mexicali, Mexico. The permits 
will authorize the transmission lines to connect to the respective 
power plants as those plants are presently designed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout court proceedings and the EIS process, BCP has 
been referred to as Intergen. This naming convention was used to 
avoid confusion and because that was the name by which the court 
knew the permit applicant. This naming convention also will be used 
throughout this ROD.
    \3\ On August 29, 2002, Sempra and Termoel[eacute]ctrica U.S., 
LLC (T-US) jointly filed an application with DOE for the voluntary 
transfer from Sempra to T-US of the facilities authorized by 
Presidential Permit PP-235, which was issued to Sempra by DOE on 
December 5, 2001. Sempra and T-US, both indirect wholly-owned 
subsidiaries of Sempra Energy, a California corporation, requested 
the transfer of Presidential Permit PP-235 to enable the parties to 
effectuate an internal corporate reorganization that would result in 
T-US owning, operating, and maintaining the international 
transmission facilities as an exempt wholesale generator. After an 
appropriate administrative proceeding, on November 12, 2002, DOE 
issued Presidential Permit PP-235-1 to T-U.S. The name Sempra will 
be used in this ROD because that was the name commonly used in the 
court proceeding. However, the permit that DOE has decided to issue 
will be issued in the name T-US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reaching this decision, DOE considered the potential 
environmental impacts in the U.S. from constructing and operating the 
two transmission lines and from the related action of operating the two 
associated Mexico power plants. DOE also considered the continuing need 
for additional electrical supplies in the region, the low potential 
environmental impacts, the lack of adverse impacts to the reliability 
of the U.S. electric power supply system, the practicality or the 
availability of the alternatives, and public comments provided during 
the preparation of the EIS.
    This ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings have been prepared in 
accordance with the regulations of the 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

[[Page 21190]]

DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review 
Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022).

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS and this ROD are available on the DOE NEPA Web 
site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documents.html and on the project 
Web site at http://web.ead.anl.gov/bajatermoeis. Copies of the Final 
EIS and this ROD may be requested by toll-free telephone at 866-542-
5903, or by contacting Ellen Russell at the Office of Electricity and 
Energy Assurance, TD-1, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or 202-586-9624, or by electronic 
mail at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
Imperial-Mexicali 230-kV Transmission Lines EIS, contact Ellen Russell 
as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. For general information on 
the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 
Policy and Compliance, EH-42, at U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or 202-586-4600, or 
leave a message at 800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the EIS DOE considers the environmental 
impacts associated with granting Presidential permits to Sempra and 
Intergen that would authorize the construction, operation, maintenance, 
and connection of the proposed double-circuit 230-kV electric 
transmission lines that would cross the U.S.-Mexico border in the 
vicinity of Calexico, California. Because the proposed routes for these 
lines cross Federal lands managed by the U.S. Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), BLM worked on the EIS with 
DOE as a cooperating agency. BLM will issue a separate ROD, also based 
upon the EIS, in which it will announce its decision whether to grant 
rights-of-way (ROWs) for the proposed transmission lines.

Background

    Executive Order (E.O.) 10485 (September 9, 1953), as amended by 
E.O. 12038 (February 7, 1978), requires that DOE issue a Presidential 
permit before an electric transmission facility may be constructed, 
operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border. 
DOE may issue 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, 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 any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant 
to the public interest.
    On February 27, 2001, Intergen applied to DOE for a Presidential 
permit to construct a double-circuit 230-kV electric transmission line 
across the U.S.-Mexico border in the vicinity of Calexico, California. 
In a separate but similar application filed with DOE on March 7, 2001, 
Sempra applied to DOE for a Presidential permit also proposing to 
construct a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line across the U.S.-
Mexico border within the same existing utility corridor as the Intergen 
line.
    Each applicant sought to construct a line parallel to an existing 
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) transmission line and both 
would connect to the existing SDG&E Imperial Valley (IV) Substation 
located approximately 6 miles (10 km) north of the U.S.-Mexico border 
in Imperial County, California. The centerline of the Intergen line 
would lie 120 feet (37 m) east of the centerline of the existing SDG&E 
line, and the Sempra line would lie 120 feet (37 m) east of the 
centerline of the Intergen line, each centered in adjacent 120-foot (37 
m) wide ROWs. Because both proposed lines were intended to cross lands 
managed by BLM, both Intergen and Sempra applied to BLM for ROW grants.

Previous NEPA Review and Litigation

    Due to the similarities of these proposals, DOE and BLM decided to 
cooperate on the environmental review and to consider both proposals in 
a single environmental document. DOE and BLM originally determined that 
the appropriate level of NEPA review for the Presidential permit 
applications and the ROW grants was an environmental assessment (EA). 
An EA is prepared to determine whether a proposed action would have a 
significant impact on the human environment. If the EA shows that it 
would, the agency would then prepare an EIS; if not, the agency would 
issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).
    DOE and BLM issued their EA in December 2001 (DOE/EA-1391), and on 
December 5, 2001, DOE issued a FONSI together with the requested 
permits. Similarly, on December 19, 2001, BLM issued two FONSIs, and 
the next day granted the ROWs. Following these decisions, Intergen and 
Sempra constructed the transmission lines and began commercial 
operations, transmitting electricity to the U.S. from their respective 
power plants in Mexico.
    On March 19, 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group 
(hereinafter referred to as Border Power) sued DOE and BLM in the U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 02-CV-
513-IEG (POR)), alleging violations of NEPA and the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA). Border Power sought to have the EA, DOE's and 
BLM's FONSIs, the Presidential permits, and the ROW grants determined 
to be illegal and requested an injunction forbidding the use of the 
transmission lines. After briefings and oral arguments in which 
Intergen and Sempra participated as intervenors, the District Court 
issued two orders. In its May 2, 2003, order, the court held that the 
EA and the FONSIs did not comply with NEPA and the APA. On July 8, 
2003, after a hearing to determine an appropriate remedy, the court 
sent the matter back to DOE and BLM for additional NEPA review. At the 
same time, the court declined to immediately enjoin operation of the 
transmission lines; instead, it deferred setting aside the Presidential 
permits and the FONSIs until July 1, 2004, or until such time as 
superseding NEPA documents were issued, whichever was earlier. Thus, 
the transmission lines could continue to provide electricity to 
California while DOE and BLM conducted additional NEPA review. The 
court has since extended the July deadline, and the lines continue to 
operate.
    In light of the concerns raised by the court and to increase 
opportunities for public and stakeholder participation in the 
environmental review process, DOE and BLM decided to prepare an EIS. In 
its July 8, 2003, order, the court expressly prohibited DOE and BLM 
from considering in the additional NEPA review or in their final 
decisions the fact that the transmission lines had already been built 
and were operating. The court also prohibited the Federal agencies from 
relying upon the court's analyses of environmental impacts of the 
proposed actions. DOE and BLM interpreted this language as requiring 
that they conduct their NEPA review from a fresh slate. Thus, the 
discussion of the transmission lines and the environmental analysis is 
presented in the EIS as if the lines do not exist.
    In contrast, DOE and BLM interpreted the court's ruling to allow 
them to consider the associated power plants in Mexico as they have 
been built. Assuming otherwise would limit DOE's

[[Page 21191]]

and BLM's ability to perform an analysis of sufficient detail to 
effectively evaluate the Alternative Technologies alternative, which 
would be implemented in the context of a retrofit of alternative 
technologies to the existing plants. The agencies also believe that the 
focus of the court's decision was directed to the decision before the 
Federal agencies, that is, whether to permit the transmission lines 
themselves. This interpretation allowed the agencies to perform a more 
realistic evaluation of the Alternative Technologies alternative, that 
is, the retrofit of existing plants, than could have been performed 
with respect to hypothetical plants.
    On October 30, 2003, DOE published a notice of intent to prepare an 
EIS (68 FR 61796). On May 14, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) published a notice of the availability of the Draft EIS 
(69 FR 26817), thereby beginning the public comment period on it. 
During the comment period, DOE and BLM received over 4,800 comment 
submissions in the form of mass e-mails and facsimiles, letters, and 
oral statements at public hearings. In preparing the Final EIS, DOE and 
BLM considered and responded to all of the comments received. EPA 
announced the availability of the Final EIS on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 
75535).

The Proposed Projects

    Intergen's transmission line would connect SDG&E's IV substation 
with the La Rosita Power Complex (LRPC), which consists of two separate 
generating units: the EBC unit and the EAX unit. The EBC unit consists 
of one 160-megawatt (MW) gas turbine operated in combined-cycle mode 
with one 150-MW steam turbine, for a total electrical capacity of 310 
MW. To reduce air emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
Intergen designed and built the EBC gas turbine with low-NOX 
burners and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology. This unit 
was built to export its full electrical output to the U.S. and, as 
presently configured, could export only over Intergen's proposed 
international transmission line.
    The second unit at LRPC, the EAX unit, consists of three 160-MW gas 
turbines (EAX-A, EAX-B, and EAX-C) operating in combined-cycle mode 
with one 270-MW steam turbine, for a total electrical capacity of 750 
MW. Intergen originally equipped these turbines with low-NOX 
burners and later decided to add SCR to further reduce NOX 
emissions. SCR was added to the EAX-C turbine in March 2004. 
Installation of SCR on the EAX-B turbine has been completed and the 
turbine was placed back in operation on March 31, 2005. Installation of 
SCR on the EAX-A turbine also has been completed and the turbine 
returned to operation on or about April 10, 2005.
    The electrical output of the EAX-C gas turbine (160 MW) is 
designated for export to the U.S. but could be connected either to the 
proposed new international transmission line or to the existing 
(previously permitted) SDG&E transmission line. One-third (90 MW) of 
the electrical output of the EAX steam turbine can be exported to the 
U.S. only over SDG&E's existing transmission line. The remaining 
electrical output of the EAX unit (EAX-A, EAX-B, and two-thirds [180 
MW] of the EAX steam turbine, for a total capacity of 500 MW) is 
designated to the Mexico market and is connected directly to the 
Mexican electrical grid. However, at times, there may be as much as 40 
to 50 MW of the capacity of the EAX unit designated to the Mexico 
market that would be available for export to the U.S. over the existing 
SDG&E transmission line.
    Sempra's transmission line would connect SDG&E's IV substation with 
the Termoel[eacute]ctrica de Mexicali (TDM) power plant, which consists 
of two 170-MW gas turbines operated in a combined-cycle mode with one 
310-MW steam turbine, for a total electrical capacity of 650 MW. To 
limit emissions of NOX, the gas turbines are equipped with 
low-NOX burners and SCR. The TDM power plant is not 
connected to any other transmission line and, therefore, could export 
all of its electrical output to the U.S. only over the proposed 
transmission line.

Alternatives

    DOE and BLM analyzed the following four alternatives in the EIS:
    No Action: Deny both permit and corresponding ROW applications. 
This presents the environmental impacts in the U.S. as if the lines had 
never been constructed and provides a baseline against which the 
impacts in the U.S. of the action alternatives can be measured in the 
absence of Presidential permits and corresponding ROWs.
    Proposed Action: Grant one or both permits and corresponding ROWs. 
This sets forth the impacts in the U.S. of constructing and operating 
the line(s) from the Mexico power plants, as those plants are presently 
designed.
    Alternative Technologies: Grant one or both permits and 
corresponding ROWs to authorize transmission lines that connect to 
power plants that would employ more efficient emission controls and 
alternative cooling technologies.
    Mitigation Measures: Grant one or both permits and corresponding 
ROWs to authorize transmission lines whose developers would employ off-
site mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in the U.S.
    DOE's preferred alternative in the EIS was to grant a Presidential 
permit to both Sempra and Intergen as their projects are presently 
designed.
    In addition to the applicants' proposed transmission line routes, 
DOE and BLM analyzed two alternatives, eastern and western, both of 
which would be located on BLM land.

Analysis of Environmental Impacts

    The EIS analyzes impacts in the U.S. from the four alternatives and 
the three alternative transmission line routes for each of the 
following resource areas: Geology, soils and seismicity; water 
resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; land 
use; transportation; visual resources; noise; socioeconomics; human 
health; and minority and low-income populations, plus cumulative 
impacts. The analysis includes issues that the court found 
insufficiently developed in the EA: impacts from water consumption by 
the power plants, particularly on the Salton Sea; impacts on air 
quality from power plant emissions of ammonia; impacts on global 
warming from carbon dioxide emitted from the power plants in Mexico; 
and cumulative impacts from the operation of the power plants in 
combination with existing and potential future power plants. DOE and 
BLM made conservative assumptions in the EIS. Thus, the actual impacts 
likely would be less than those estimated in the EIS.
    For geology, soils and seismicity, land use, transportation, visual 
resources, noise, socioeconomics, and minority and low-income 
populations estimated impacts were generally low and very similar for 
all alternatives, including the No Action alternative. Several resource 
areas have been the subject of significant public concern, and while 
the impacts to these areas are also low and very similar, they merit 
additional explanation here.
    Water Resources and Associated Biological Resources: The proposed 
projects would cause impacts to two major water resources: the New 
River and the Salton Sea. The New River originates in Mexico and flows 
north to the Salton Sea in California. The Sea, which has no outlets, 
is much saltier than the ocean and is increasing in salinity because 
evaporation concentrates the dissolved salts that enter the Sea, 
primarily in runoff from irrigated farmland. The fish that live in the 
Sea are species that tolerate high salinity.

[[Page 21192]]

    Water use by the power plants for cooling and steam generation 
reduces flow in the New River and inflow to the Salton Sea, thus 
increasing the salinity of these water bodies, a key environmental 
issue for both. Most of the water withdrawn from the nearby sewage 
lagoons (Zaragoza Oxidation Lagoons) for use in the power plants is 
lost to evaporation, but about 20% of that withdrawn is discharged to 
the New River. (If it were not withdrawn for use in the power plants, 
the water lost to evaporation would enter the New River.) The water 
treatment plants at the two power plants purify the untreated, 
withdrawn water before use, and thus reduce the amount of pollutants, 
including dissolved solids that contribute to salinity, entering the 
New River. The resulting lower level of pollution in the river, 
indicated by lower chemical oxygen demand, would improve the survival 
of fish and invertebrates under all alternatives. However, because 
water is used by the power plants and stream flow is reduced, the 
salinity of the river is increased.
    All alternatives would cause increases in New River salinity. Under 
the No Action alternative, the estimated salinity increase in the New 
River at the international boundary (where the river enters the U.S.) 
would be less than 3.7%, due to operation of the EAX unit (three gas 
turbines and a steam turbine), which is not associated with the 
proposed transmission line. The Proposed Action alternative, with all 
turbines at both power plants operating, would result in the greatest 
salinity increase in the New River, 5.6%. The use of a parallel wet-dry 
cooling system under the Alternative Technologies alternative would 
reduce the amount of water used by the power plants by as much as 56% 
and produce the smallest impact on salinity (an increase of about 2%) 
in the river. These estimated salinity increases would not adversely 
affect biological resources in the river or the adjacent constructed 
wetlands that draw water from the river because salinity would remain 
below the 4,000-milligrams per liter (mg/L) water quality objective for 
the Colorado River Basin and would not exceed the salinity tolerances 
of wetland plants.
    The current salinity of the Salton Sea is about 44,000 mg/L. 
Salinity is increasing by about 1% per year under baseline conditions. 
Operation of both power plants under the Proposed Action alternative 
would reduce inflow of water to the Salton Sea by about 0.8%, thus 
reducing its volume by about 0.1%, lowering its elevation by an 
estimated 0.6 inches (1.5 cm), and decreasing its surface area by about 
97 acres. Other alternatives, including No Action, would cause smaller 
reductions in the Sea's volume, elevation, and surface area. Under all 
alternatives, the reduced surface area would reduce evaporation from 
the Sea, offsetting water losses from the power plants, so the Sea 
would stabilize at its slightly lower volume, elevation, and surface 
area. The decrease in volume would increase the salinity of the Sea. 
The Proposed Action would increase salinity by about 63 mg/L (0.14%); 
other alternatives would cause smaller salinity increases.
    After these initial changes, the Proposed Action alternative would 
add 0.19 mg/L (0.04%) to the Sea's annual salinity increase. Lower 
power plant water use due to fewer units operating under the No Action 
alternative and use of wet-dry cooling under the Alternative 
Technologies alternative would result in slightly smaller salinity 
increases than under the Proposed Action alternative. Under the 
Mitigation Measures alternative, water conservation measures in the 
region (for example, lining irrigation canals, reducing evaporative 
losses, or fallowing farmland) could offset water use by the power 
plants and offset these salinity impacts by allowing more water to flow 
into the Salton Sea.
    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation 
considers a salinity level of 60,000 mg/L to be a value that would be 
detrimental to Salton Sea fishery resources. Under baseline conditions 
(with no power plants operating) DOE and BLM estimated that the Salton 
Sea would reach this critical level of salinity in approximately 36 
years. Under the Proposed Action alternative, the alternative that 
would yield the greatest rate of increase in salinity, the Salton Sea 
would reach this critical level approximately 4 days sooner.
    Air Quality and Human Health: Under all of the alternatives, 
emissions from three possible sources would have an impact on the air 
quality in Imperial County: Power plant emissions blown into the U.S. 
by the prevailing winds, emissions from the increase in the exposed 
lakebed of the Salton Sea caused by reduced depth, and emissions caused 
by the construction of the proposed transmission lines. It is important 
to note that emissions from the power plants and from the exposed 
lakebed are not subject to regulation under any portion of the Clean 
Air Act. Only the direct emissions associated with construction of the 
transmission lines are subject to the conformity provisions of the 
Clean Air Act. The foregoing notwithstanding, DOE and BLM have used 
parameters contained in Clean Air Act regulations as benchmarks against 
which to measure the magnitude of the impacts. However, use of these 
benchmarks is not intended to imply any regulatory applicability.
    The public has shown more concern about impacts from the power 
plants than from the transmission lines. The agencies' assessment, as 
discussed below, indicates that both the power plants and the 
transmission lines would have very small impacts on air quality and 
human health in Imperial County.
    California's Imperial Valley, the region in which the proposed 
transmission lines would be built, is included within the Salton Sea 
Air Basin, a California air management district. Air quality in the 
Salton Sea Air Basin is generally poor due, in part, to windblown dust 
from the natural features of the region (e.g., desert soils) combined 
with human activities, such as construction, extensive agricultural 
activities, and traffic on paved and unpaved roads. Imperial Valley is 
in the same geographic air basin as the power plants in Mexico.
    The Salton Sea Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for 
ozone, a non-attainment area for particulate matter of less than or 
equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), and a serious 
non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 
micrometers in diameter (PM10). At the international border, 
the City of Calexico is designated a non-attainment area for carbon 
monoxide (CO). The area near the border crossing also shows increased 
levels of NOX attributed to vehicles.
    In addition to the pollutants listed above (i.e., ozone, 
PM2.5, PM10, CO, and NOX), the 
agencies considered potential impacts from the alternatives due to 
emissions of other substances, including carbon dioxide 
(CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia. Where 
appropriate, DOE and BLM compared modeled maximum concentrations to 
EPA's Significant Impact Levels (SLs), using the SLs as a benchmark. 
Levels that fall below SLs can be regarded as having negligible impacts 
on air quality and human health.
    Particulate matter: Construction and maintenance of the 
transmission lines, which would occur under all the action 
alternatives, would be a source of dust (PM10). Over the 
course of several months, traffic and other activities related to 
construction along the proposed routes would result in the emission of 
approximately 11.4 tons of PM10 that would be localized 
mainly at the construction site. This emission rate

[[Page 21193]]

is less than the 70 tons/yr emission threshold below which activities 
are exempt from review of conformity to the state implementation plan 
for the Clean Air Act that applies in serious PM10 
nonattainment areas. Long-term impacts associated with the lines would 
be limited to generation of dust during periodic maintenance; these 
impacts are expected to be negligible. The No Action alternative would, 
of course, have no such impacts.
    Under all alternatives the natural gas-fired power plants in Mexico 
would emit PM10 from their stacks and cooling towers. Under 
the Proposed Action alternative, direct emissions of PM10 
are estimated to be 732 tons/yr, resulting in a concentration increase 
at a maximum receptor point in the U.S. of less than half of the SL 
value of 5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m 3) as a 24-
hour average. Under the Mitigation Measures alternative, of several 
measures that DOE and BLM identified, road paving would have the 
greatest potential for reductions in PM10 that could offset 
power plant emissions. For example, paving 50 identified road segments 
in Imperial County totaling 23 miles (37 km) is estimated to reduce 
fugitive dust (PM10) emissions by about 650 tons/yr. Under 
the Alternative Technologies alternative, use of a parallel wet-dry 
cooling system would reduce power plant efficiency, requiring 
additional fuel consumption for a given electrical output. This would 
result in an increase in most emissions but a reduction in emissions of 
PM10 from the wet cooling towers.
    PM10 would also be formed under all alternatives when 
NOX released by the power plants combines with ammonia 
(either already in the ambient air or released in small amounts by the 
power plants) under appropriate conditions to form ammonium nitrate 
particles, but the increased concentration of PM10 is 
expected to be small, less than 1 [mu]g/m 3 as a 24-hour 
average. (Health impacts from ammonia emissions are discussed below 
under Hazardous Air Pollutants and Ammonia.)
    Another source of PM10 under all alternatives would be 
wind-blown dust from lakebed exposed by a lower water level in the 
Salton Sea. The agencies estimated that dust emissions from an increase 
in exposed lakebed of the Salton Sea would be less than 10 tons/yr for 
the Proposed Action alternative.
    DOE and BLM assessed potential impacts of PM10 related 
to the power plants on asthma rates in the U.S. in the Final EIS, after 
public comments on the Draft EIS expressed concern that the project 
would result in a large increase in the number of cases of asthma, many 
of which would require hospitalization. The agencies' analysis showed 
that the expected increase in asthma hospitalizations in Imperial 
County from increases in PM10 attributable to power plant 
emissions is conservatively estimated to be less than one case per 
year.
    Ozone, VOC, and NOX: Asthma and other upper respiratory 
diseases are associated with high levels of ozone in areas such as 
Imperial County. Ozone could be formed from combination of 
NOX and VOC emitted by the gas-fired power plants in Mexico. 
DOE and BLM determined that NOX and VOC emitted during 
operation of the power plants under all alternatives would result in 
minimal increases in ozone levels under typical meteorological 
conditions. The maximum estimated increase in concentrations of ozone 
would be generated by the Proposed Action alternative (0.8 parts per 
billion (ppb) averaged over a one-hour period, or 0.9% of the 1-hour 
California Standard of 90 ppb). Therefore, DOE and BLM expect no 
adverse health impacts from additional ozone under any alternative.
    Hazardous Air Pollutants and Ammonia: Analysis of the potential 
cancer and non-cancer impacts in the U.S. from hazardous air pollutants 
emitted by the power plants in Mexico showed that emission levels would 
not be large enough to produce adverse human health impacts when 
compared to California cancer and non-cancer impact thresholds. DOE and 
BLM estimated that the increase in ammonia concentrations in the U.S. 
from the SCRs installed at the power plants would be a maximum of 4.05 
[mu]g/m 3 for any one-hour period and a maximum of 0.06 
[mu]g/m 3 annually under the Proposed Action alternative. 
This increased level of exposure would be less than 0.16% of the 
significance threshold based on California risk assessment procedures 
for acute exposure and less than 0.028% of the significance threshold 
for chronic exposure, i.e., far below the levels that could result in 
health impacts.
    Carbon monoxide: The highest CO emissions from the power plants 
would be under the Proposed Action alternative and would yield a 
maximum estimated increased concentration of CO at any location in the 
U.S. over an 8-hr period of 3.92 [mu]g/m 3. This is only 
0.8% of the SL of 500 [mu]g/m 3, so no adverse impacts to 
human health would be expected. Under the Alternative Technologies 
alternative, the agencies analyzed the effect of adding an oxidation 
catalyst on the LRPC gas turbines that would connect to Intergen's 
proposed transmission line. (The turbines at the TDM power plant that 
would connect to Sempra's transmission line are already so equipped.) 
Installation of an oxidizing catalyst to the two LRPC export turbines 
would reduce the maximum estimated increased concentration of CO at any 
location in the U.S. over an 8-hr period to 0.647 [mu]g/m 3, 
or 0.13% of the SL.
    Carbon dioxide: CO2, a greenhouse gas, has been linked 
to global warming. Emissions of CO2 would be produced by the 
Mexico power plants under all alternatives. Under the Proposed Action 
alternative, the export turbines at the power plants would produce an 
estimated 5,186,000 tons of CO2 per year, which would be a 
very small fraction of total U.S. (0.088%) and global emissions 
(0.023%). The lowest amount of CO2 emissions would occur 
under the No Action alternative, which would produce 3,889,500 tons per 
year of CO2, or 0.066% of total U.S. and 0.017% of global 
emissions. Expected impacts to global climate change from all 
alternatives is expected to be negligible.
    Alternative Transmission Line Routes: The agencies analyzed two 
alternatives, western and eastern, to the proposed routes for the 
transmission lines. The assessment showed that the choice of route 
location would make small differences in PM10 emissions and 
in impacts to biological and cultural resources. The assessment found 
no potential adverse health effects from exposure of residents to 
electric and magnetic fields under any of the action alternatives on 
any route because the nearest residents would live outside the 
influence of the lines.
    PM10 emissions from transmission line construction would 
be about 11.4 tons for the proposed routes, 14.4 tons for the western 
alternative routes, and 12.3 tons for the eastern alternative routes. 
Periodic maintenance activities would generate a maximum of 0.08 ton/yr 
for the proposed route and slightly more for the longer alternative 
routes.
    No plant or animal species listed as proposed, threatened, or 
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California 
Department of Fish and Game were observed during surveys for this 
project. No BLM-sensitive plant species were observed within the survey 
corridor. Three BLM-sensitive animal species were observed within the 
corridor: flat-tailed horned lizard, western burrowing owl, and prairie 
falcon. The prairie falcon is not expected to nest on site. Potential 
adverse impacts to plants and animals from the construction of the 
transmission lines on BLM land would be similar but larger for the 
alternative

[[Page 21194]]

transmission line routes than for the proposed routes. These impacts 
would be small and short-term, lasting about five months, and in most 
cases would be mitigated during construction. For example, the 
applicants would be required to construct the proposed transmission 
lines as much as possible during the flat-tailed horned lizard's 
dormant period, November 15 to February 15.
    Impacts to cultural resources from line construction under any 
route would be small due to the relatively small footprint of the 
transmission towers and the short length of the routes. Use of the 
western or eastern alternative routes would be expected to have a lower 
potential for impacts to cultural resources, because these routes are 
not located along the shoreline of an ancient lake (Lake Cahuilla) 
where there is a higher potential to encounter cultural resources. Any 
potential impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated during 
construction by following the treatment plan developed and approved by 
the California State Historic Preservation Officer.
    Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts analysis in an EIS places 
the effects of the proposed action into a broader context that includes 
impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 
actions potentially affecting the same environmental resources. The 
principal ongoing projects that would affect the Salton Sea, reducing 
its volume, elevation, and surface area and increasing its salinity, 
are the Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation and Transfer 
Project and the Mexicali II Wastewater Treatment Project.
    A recent study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation indicates that the 
Water Conservation and Transfer Project alone is projected to cause the 
salinity of the Salton Sea to reach the critical level of 60,000 mg/L 
four years sooner than under baseline conditions. The Mexicali II 
Wastewater Treatment Project extracts waste water from the New River 
and returns the water to a canal that does not flow back to the river.
    Various projects, however, are contributing or are planned to 
contribute positive changes to the New River and the Salton Sea. For 
example, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has constructed a wetland 
adjacent to the New River that is the first of 40 or more wetlands 
proposed for construction. The wetlands, together with the Mexicali II 
Wastewater Treatment Project and all alternatives, would reduce 
pollutant loads and thus improve biological habitat in the New River. 
Looking to the future, sponsors of the Salton Sea Restoration Project 
hope to stabilize the Sea's elevation, reduce salinity levels, and 
improve wildlife habitat, but restoration activities have not been 
specified in sufficient detail to be assessed.
    Concern has been expressed that numerous additional power plant 
projects have been or will be planned for the border region. DOE and 
BLM thoroughly researched this issue consulting with the California 
Energy Commission, the Comision Federal de Electricidad in Mexico, and 
other agencies and organizations in California and Mexico to identify 
all existing and proposed power plant projects, and to identify trends 
that could contribute to this kind of development. DOE and BLM found no 
existing, planned or proposed plants in Mexico that would contribute 
impacts to the Imperial Valley or the Salton Sea Air Basin. DOE and BLM 
did identify and analyze the combined air quality impacts of three 
Californian power plant projects: The CalEnergy Geothermal Project, a 
project under development in the Salton Sea Air Basin, and two proposed 
natural gas-fired power plants, Blythe Energy, located just north of 
the Basin, and Wellton-Mohawk located 50 miles east of the Basin.
    DOE and BLM also examined other planned and ongoing activities in 
the region as well as population and industrial trends that could 
contribute impacts to air quality in the Basin. Taken as a whole, the 
Salton Sea Air Basin is projected to experience increases in 
PM10, NOX, CO, and ammonia from sources other 
than the TDM and LRPC power plants. As the total amount of these 
pollutants from other sources increases, the small percentage 
contribution of pollutants from the Proposed Action alternative will 
become even smaller.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    DOE has identified the Mitigation Measures alternative as the 
environmentally preferable alternative with the caveat that the 
effectiveness of this alternative would depend on the extent to which 
it is in fact possible to implement such measures. Implementation of 
mitigation measures such as the paving of roads, expanding the use of 
compressed natural gas in motorized vehicles, retrofitting emission 
controls to Imperial Irrigation District power plants, and updating the 
diesel engines of agricultural vehicles have the potential of 
mitigating many of the potential impacts to air quality. Other 
mitigation measures such as lining irrigation canals, fallowing 
farmland, and transferring ground water into the New River and Salton 
Sea have the potential of mitigating the potential impacts to the 
Salton Sea.
    Implementation of these and other measures described in the EIS 
could result in the lowest overall impacts of all evaluated 
alternatives. Whether, and the extent to which, these measures can in 
fact be implemented, however, can depend in part on factors outside the 
applicants' control. Most of the mitigation measures would require some 
degree of approval and cooperation from local and state agencies for 
their implementation. Also, existing local agreements could diminish 
the positive effect of some of the measures.
    DOE believes that the No Action alternative is less environmentally 
preferable than the Mitigation Measures alternative. The No Action 
alternative would not completely avoid the environmental impacts from 
operation of the power plants in Mexico because it would not reduce any 
impacts from the EAX turbines, which would operate even in the absence 
of the proposed international transmission lines. Also, under the No 
Action alternative, if Sempra and Intergen connected the export 
turbines at their Mexico power plants only to the Mexican power grid, 
Sempra and Intergen would not need Presidential permits and thus they 
would not be subject to any permit conditions that could potentially 
reduce environmental impacts.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    DOE received four comment documents on the Final EIS. EPA Region IX 
commented that DOE and BLM had addressed EPA's earlier comments with 
respect to water and air quality impacts: ``EPA is pleased that most of 
the issues identified in the [Draft EIS] have been addressed in the 
[Final EIS]. In response to comments from the EPA, DOE provided 
additional discussion on water mitigation measures, and the cumulative 
impacts of increased water usage and discharge by the increasing 
population of Mexicali. The document also clarifies the limitation and 
uncertainties of the ozone modeling analysis.''
    EPA also noted that: ``* * * off-site mitigation measures to reduce 
basin-wide air emissions remain as a separate alternative in the FEIS 
and are not incorporated into the proposed action.'' EPA suggested that 
one way to address the limitations in ozone modeling and to ensure that 
there would be no net increase of air pollution in the Imperial County 
Region would be for this ROD to include a commitment to continue to 
work with stakeholders to support and

[[Page 21195]]

encourage off-site mitigation measures. DOE appreciates EPA's 
recognition that the agencies have addressed EPA's earlier concerns and 
has considered these new comments in decision making.
    The Imperial County Air Pollution Control District again raised 
issues that it had raised on the Draft EIS concerning air quality, 
health, and mitigation. DOE and BLM specifically addressed these issues 
in the responses to comments section of the Final EIS and also added 
descriptions and explanations throughout the main text of the EIS.
    A third commenter stated that the EIS was hard to read and 
comprehend. DOE and BLM attempted to make a highly technical project as 
understandable as was reasonable. A fourth commenter expressed concern 
that the companies had overstated the cost of the SCR and wet-dry 
cooling systems. DOE does not agree that costs are overstated and notes 
that SCR systems have been installed regardless of cost.

Decision

    DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action alternative, which 
was identified as DOE's preferred alternative in the EIS. Accordingly, 
DOE will grant a Presidential permit to both Sempra and Intergen that 
allows each applicant to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 
separate double-circuit, 230-kV electric transmission line that extends 
south from SDG&E's existing Imperial Valley substation, crosses the 
U.S. international border in the vicinity of Calexico, California, and 
connects to their respective natural gas-fired power plants, as those 
plants are currently designed, located in Mexicali, Mexico. The permits 
will specify that the permitted electric transmission lines must be 
connected to power plants that are designed, constructed, and operated 
in accordance with the specifications upon which DOE and BLM based the 
analyses contained in the EIS. These specifications include the use of 
wet cooling systems, water treatment plants, and all air pollution 
control systems that already exist or are scheduled for installation. 
Any permit issued may be modified or revoked by the President of the 
United States without notice, and by DOE after public notice, and may 
also be amended by DOE after proper application to DOE.
    Before granting a Presidential permit, DOE also considers whether a 
proposed international electric transmission line would have an adverse 
impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In 
reaching this determination, DOE considers the operation of the 
electrical grid with a specified maximum amount of power transmitted 
over the proposed line. In this instance, DOE is in receipt of 
technical studies that demonstrate that the southern California 
electrical grid would remain reliable with the existing capacity of the 
TDM and LRPC export units connected to it. Therefore, each permit will 
also contain an electric reliability condition that limits the 
instantaneous rate of transmission (i.e., electric power) over the 
permitted transmission lines to the existing generating capacity of the 
respective power plants. Any change in the authorized operation or 
connection of the permitted facilities requires prior approval by DOE. 
Therefore, connection of additional generating capacity to either of 
the permitted international transmission lines would require the owner 
of the permitted facilities to notify DOE and to seek an amendment of 
its Presidential permit. Amendment of a Presidential permit requires an 
additional proceeding in which DOE would need to determine that the 
proposed modification to the permitted facility or its operation or 
connection is in the public interest. This determination would include 
another review of the impact on electric reliability and on the 
environment, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant 
to the public interest.

Basis for Decision

    In arriving at its decision, DOE has considered the continuing need 
for additional electrical supplies in the region, the low potential 
environmental impacts, the lack of adverse impacts to the reliability 
of the U.S. electric power supply system, the practicality or the 
availability of the alternatives, and public comments provided during 
the preparation of the EIS
    DOE did not select the No Action alternative because it would not 
address the need for power in the region. The need for electric power 
supplies in the southern California area has been well documented in 
various ways over the past several years. Most recently, on January 19, 
2005, the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) issued a 
report entitled, ``2004 Cal-ISO Controlled Grid Study,'' in which it 
notes that, ``In years 2006 and 2009, at the import levels modeled, and 
with all generators (new and old) on-line there is barely enough 
generation available in order to bring the system back within normal 
operation after all single and double contingencies'' (that is, for 
example, outage of one or more critical transmission lines, 
transformers, or generating units).
    DOE has determined that the potential impacts in the United States 
from the Proposed Action alternative are expected to be small, as 
discussed above.
    Under the Alternative Technologies alternative, the only additional 
technology identified that could reduce air emissions was the addition 
of an oxidizing catalyst on the LRPC gas turbines. (The TDM power plant 
already has an oxidizing catalyst installed.) The effect of this 
additional technology would be to reduce maximum increases in 
concentrations of CO in Imperial County. However, because the increase 
in CO concentrations for the Proposed Action alternative is so far 
below the SL for this pollutant, the addition of this technology to the 
LRPC plant would not appreciably alter the potential for human health 
impacts.
    Incorporation of parallel wet-dry cooling systems under the 
Alternative Technologies alternative would reduce consumption of water 
by the Mexico power plants. However, this reduction of water use would 
produce negligible improvements in the already small impacts associated 
with the Proposed Action. Moreover, use of this technology would reduce 
the efficiency of the Mexico power plants, requiring greater fuel input 
for the same electrical output and increasing most emissions except for 
PM10.
    While the Mitigation Measures alternative presents a slate of 
activities that might offset some of the impacts of the power plants, 
it is not clear which, if any of them will be implementable in fact. In 
the case of water mitigation measures, any water that may be conserved 
if these measures could be implemented would likely be diverted to 
other water uses in the region, and would not be used to offset the 
reduced inflow of water to the Salton Sea attributable to the Proposed 
Action. Given the low impacts to air and water expected from the power 
plants, DOE does not believe that the expense of such measures, when 
viewed in the light of the uncertainty of their results, warrants their 
imposition.
    For the foregoing reasons, DOE has decided to implement the 
Proposed Action alternative as defined in the EIS, but with the 
conditions noted in the Decision section above.

Floodplain Statement of Findings

    In the EIS, DOE and BLM assessed the impacts of the proposed action 
on floodplains. The proposed and alternative routes for the proposed 
transmission line would cross Pinto Wash and its 100-year floodplain. A 
map of this floodplain is provided in the

[[Page 21196]]

EIS. See ADDRESSES for information on obtaining a copy of the EIS. A 
maximum of two lattice tower footings for each transmission line would 
be in the Pinto Wash 100-year floodplain for the proposed or 
alternative routes. Construction of footings for the support structures 
would introduce temporary disturbance into this 100-year floodplain. 
Cylindrical sections of the footings 3 to 4 ft (0.9 to 1.2 m) in 
diameter would permanently protrude above the ground surface. There is 
no practicable alternative to placement of structures in the 
floodplain, but the floodplain assessment found that neither the 
temporary disturbance during placement of these footings nor their 
permanence would result in change to conditions in the floodplain, 
flooding, or floodplain function.
    With respect to the floodplain of the New River, the assessment 
found that changes in water flow and depth produced by power plant 
operations would lie well within the variability of the flows for the 
New River. All alternatives, including No Action, could result in a 
small reduction in maximum flood elevation, but this change would have 
no practical effect on the incidence or extent of floods or floodplain 
function.

    Dated: April 18, 2005.
Kevin Kolevar,
Director, Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance.
[FR Doc. 05-8200 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P