[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 163 (Thursday, August 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49447-49455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19392]


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

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 [email protected].

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 
[email protected]. 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