[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 222 (Monday, November 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67860-67865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27187]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. PP-305]


Record of Decision; Montana Alberta Tie Ltd.

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), 
Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision to issue a Presidential permit to 
Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 
new single-circuit 230,000-volt (230-kV) electric transmission line 
across the U.S.-Canada border near Cut Bank, Montana, along the 
preferred alternative identified in the EIS, with the environmental 
mitigation measures and electric reliability conditions noted below. 
The environmental impacts that would be associated with the line were 
analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Montana Alberta 
Tie Ltd. (MATL) 230-kV Transmission Line (DOE/EIS-0399, MATL EIS). The 
transmission line, known as the MATL Project, would originate at an 
existing NorthWestern Energy (NWE) 230-kV Switchyard at Great Falls, 
Montana, and extend north to a new substation to be constructed 
northeast of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Approximately 130 miles of 
the 203-mile long transmission line would be constructed in the United 
States.
    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, the 
absence of adverse impacts to the reliability of the U.S. electric 
power supply system, the absence of major issues of concern to the 
public, and the favorable recommendations of the Departments of State 
and Defense.
    DOE has prepared this ROD in accordance with the regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and DOE's 
NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021).

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at 
http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/. This ROD also will be available on the 
same DOE NEPA Web site and on the OE Web site at http://www.oe.energy.gov/permits_pending.htm. In addition, this ROD may be 
requested by contacting Mrs. Ellen Russell, Senior 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 202-586-9624, by facsimile at 202-586-8008, or at 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the MATL 
EIS, contact Ellen Russell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. 
For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-20, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-
586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE and the State of Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality (DEQ) are the lead agencies in the preparation of 
the State of Montana Final EIS and DOE Federal Final EIS, entitled 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) 
230-kV Transmission Line (DOE/EIS-0399, MATL EIS). The Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, is a cooperating 
agency.

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.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 
in Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10C issued on May 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MATL, a private Canadian corporation owned by Tonbridge Power, is 
proposing to construct and operate an international 230-kV, alternating 
current merchant (i.e., private) transmission line that would originate 
at the existing NWE 230-kV Switchyard at Great Falls, Montana, and 
extend north to a new substation to be constructed northeast of 
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. The line would cross the U.S.-Canada 
international border north of Cut Bank, Montana. Approximately 130 
miles of the 203-mile long transmission line are proposed to be 
constructed in the United States. The proposed line would be 
constructed and owned by MATL. It would be part of the Western 
Interconnection (western grid) \2\. A

[[Page 67861]]

phase shifting transformer would be installed at the substation near 
Lethbridge to control the direction of power flows on the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There are three distinct power grids or ``interconnections'' 
within the United States: the Eastern Interconnection, the Western 
Interconnection, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. The 
three interconnections are electrically independent from each other 
except for a few low capacity direct current transmission lines that 
loosely link them. Within each interconnection, electricity is 
produced the instant it is used, and flows over virtually all 
transmission lines from generators to customer loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before constructing and operating the proposed transmission line, 
MATL must obtain a Presidential permit from DOE (10 CFR 205.320, et 
seq.) and a Certificate of Compliance (certificate) from DEQ under the 
Montana Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA)(75-20-101, et seq., Montana 
Code Annotated). In October 2005, MATL applied to DOE for a 
Presidential permit and to DEQ for a certificate.

NEPA Review

    Because of the similarities in NEPA and the Montana Environmental 
Policy Act (MEPA) requirements, DOE and DEQ (the ``agencies'') 
cooperated in the preparation of a single environmental review document 
that would satisfy both Federal and State requirements. Initially, DOE 
considered an environmental assessment (EA) to be the appropriate level 
of review under NEPA while DEQ considered the appropriate level of 
review under MEPA to be an EIS. DOE issued a Notice of Intent to 
Prepare an Environmental Assessment and to Conduct Public Scoping 
Meetings and Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement in the 
Federal Register on November 18, 2005 (70 FR 69962). Three scoping 
meetings were held in December 2005, and in March 2007 the agencies 
published a document titled Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) 230-kV Transmission Line that 
served as a Draft EIS for DEQ and an EA for DOE. Comments received on 
that document during the 55-day public comment period indicated that 
additional analysis was required to address land use and potential 
effects on farming caused by the MATL line and also to account for 
changes to State tax law that took place in Montana's April 2007 
special legislative session. Based on this new information, DOE 
determined that an EIS was now required to properly assess the 
environmental impacts.
    On June 7, 2007, DOE published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS 
and to Conduct Scoping in the Federal Register (72 FR 31569) and 
invited additional comments for a 30-day period. On July 27, 2007, MATL 
submitted to BLM an Application for Transportation and Utility Systems 
and Facilities on Federal Land. On September 6, 2007, DOE invited BLM 
to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS in 
order to address BLM's authority to consider whether to approve MATL's 
request for a right-of-way grant to cross Federal lands managed by BLM 
and the proposed project's relationship to relevant BLM land use plans. 
On October 12, 2007, BLM agreed to be a cooperating agency.
    On February 15, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 8869), which began a 45-day public comment 
period that ended on March 31, 2008. During the comment period, the 
agencies hosted three public hearings during which the public was 
invited to submit both oral and written comments. The agencies also 
accepted written comments from the public throughout the comment 
period.
    All comments received on the Draft EIS were considered in the 
preparation of the Final EIS. The agencies issued the Final EIS for the 
MATL 230-kV transmission line in September 2008. A notice of 
availability of the Final EIS was published by EPA in the Federal 
Register on October 3, 2008 (73 FR 57619).

Alternatives Considered

    The EIS evaluated the international transmission line as proposed 
by MATL, the No Action alternative, and two additional action 
alternatives, plus several Local Routing Options and minor variations 
to the Local Routing Options.
    The No Action alternative was designated Alternative 1. Under this 
alternative DOE would not grant a Presidential permit and DEQ would not 
grant a certificate and, therefore, the proposed MATL international 
transmission line would not be constructed. This alternative reflects 
the status quo and serves as a benchmark against which MATL's proposal 
and other action alternatives are evaluated. Since under the No Action 
alternative MATL's proposed transmission line would not be built, 
implementation of the No Action alternative would not cause impacts to 
the environment that the construction and operation of the proposed 
transmission line would. Therefore, the No Action alternative is the 
environmentally preferable alternative.
    The transmission line project as proposed by the applicant was 
designated Alternative 2. Under this alternative MATL would construct 
and operate a 230-kV transmission line in a 129.9-mile-long corridor 
between Great Falls, Montana, and the U.S.-Canada border, connecting 
across that border to the portion of the line to be constructed in 
Alberta, Canada. The interconnection of the line north of Great Falls 
would require NWE to enlarge its existing 230-kV Great Falls Switchyard 
to accommodate the new line and other potential future lines. The MATL 
line would extend from the expanded Great Falls Switchyard to a new 
substation that MATL would construct on agricultural land approximately 
10 miles south of Cut Bank, Montana. From that point the line would 
continue north to the U.S.-Canada border at the western edge of the Red 
Creek Oil Field. The proposed line would occupy a 105-foot-wide right-
of-way within a 500-foot-wide area that was analyzed in the EIS. The 
typical span between support structures would be about 800 feet, but 
could range from 500 feet to 1,600 feet depending upon the topography. 
Metal monopole support structures would be used on about 56 miles of 
the line where it would cross cropland and Conservation Reserve Program 
(CRP) land diagonally. On the remaining 74 miles wooden H-frame 
structures would be used.
    Alternative 3 was developed by MATL in response to a siting 
criterion under MFSA that gives consideration to paralleling existing 
utility corridors. Under this alternative a 121.6-mile-long 
transmission line would be built in a corridor that would generally 
parallel an existing 115-kV transmission line along the entire route 
from the 230-kV Great Falls Switchyard to a new substation near Cut 
Bank. From this substation Alternative 3 would continue north, crossing 
the border approximately 4 miles west of the border crossing for 
Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would be similar in most other respects to 
Alternative 2, but it would use only H-frame structures for the entire 
length of the line.
    Alternative 4 was developed by the agencies to address public 
concerns raised during the EIS process. It was designed to reduce 
transmission line interference with farming activities and reduce the 
proximity to residences. This alternative would be the longest of the 
three action alternatives at 139.6 miles. The alignment would use 
portions of the Alternative 2 alignment from north of Conrad to the 
Montana-Alberta border, but in other areas it would maximize the use of 
range and pasture land in order to avoid cultivated land. Where 
cultivated land would be crossed, the line would generally be located 
along field or strip boundaries. Alternative 4 would be similar in most 
other respects to Alternative 2, except that monopole structures would 
be used on all 88.9 miles where the line would

[[Page 67862]]

cross cropland and CRP land, not just where such lands would be crossed 
on the diagonal as in Alternative 2.
    Several Local Routing Options and minor variations, which could be 
applied to Alternative 2 and in some instances to Alternative 4, were 
developed by the agencies to address landowner concerns related to 
costs, impacts to farming, impacts to other land uses, and proximity to 
residences. The Local Routing Options and minor variations were also 
analyzed in the EIS.
    The preferred alternative identified by the agencies in the Final 
EIS consists of portions of Alternatives 2 and 4 and some Local Routing 
Options as described in detail in Section 2.7 of the EIS. It begins at 
the Great Falls Switchyard and follows Alternative 4 for 27.3 miles. 
From that point to Milepost 103.1, the preferred alternative primarily 
follows Alternative 2, but includes the Diamond Valley South, Teton 
River, Southeast of Conrad, Northwest of Conrad, Belgian Hill, Bullhead 
Coulee South, Bullhead Coulee North, and South of Cut Bank Local 
Routing Options. The preferred alternative crosses Federal land managed 
by BLM between Milepost 93.4 and Milepost 94.0. North of Milepost 103.1 
the preferred alternative coincides with Alternatives 2 and 4 to join 
with the border crossing approved by Canada. The total length of the 
preferred alternative is 133.5 miles and would contain about 83.6 miles 
of monopoles and 49.9 miles of H-frame structures.

Analysis of Environmental Impacts

    The EIS analysis found that no natural resources would experience a 
significant impact from implementation of any action alternative. 
Potential impacts in the 500-foot wide analysis area and cumulative 
impacts would be similar for all three action alternatives.
    The No Action alternative would not change any of the resource 
conditions in the region, but it would forgo the expected socioeconomic 
benefits of the proposed transmission line, as there would be no 
additional employment from construction and operation of the 
transmission line, and no increase in county or State tax revenue. 
There would be no additional impacts or compensation to farmers for use 
of their land. There would be no additional transmission capacity 
available for integrating new or existing power generators.
    All of the action alternatives would result in some loss of and 
interference with crop production. Alternative 3 would have the most 
impacts to crop production because it would include the most diagonal 
crossing of crop lands and because H-frame structures would be used on 
all cropland crossings. Alternative 3 would add to impacts associated 
with farming around transmission support structures because this 
alternative would closely parallel an existing 115-kV transmission line 
between Great Falls and Cut Bank. Alternative 4 would have less impact 
on crop production than the other action alternatives because it would 
include the least diagonal crossing of cropland and CRP land and would 
use monopoles wherever it would cross such land.
    Under all action alternatives, the proposed line would comply with 
the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code. On cultivated 
and CRP lands expected heights of the tallest farming equipment (i.e., 
20 feet), including antenna heights, would be used to determine the 
minimum ground clearance of 27.2 feet for the safe operation of such 
equipment under the line.
    Construction activities under all of the action alternatives could 
result in increased soil erosion and release of sediment to streams, 
lakes, and wetlands, although best management practices would reduce or 
avoid potential impacts. Alternative 4 was found to have the highest 
potential for soil erosion and sediment discharge to surface waters 
because the 500-foot-wide analysis corridor associated with this 
alternative would intersect the largest area of potentially unstable 
soils and the most streams. The analysis corridor associated with 
Alternative 2 would intersect the smallest area of unstable soils and 
the fewest wetlands, while the analysis area for Alternative 3 would 
intersect the fewest streams but the largest area of wetlands and the 
largest number of lakes. Other than the placement of one structure in 
Black Horse Lake under Alternative 2, transmission line structures 
would not be placed in wetlands. However, the agencies' preferred 
alternative avoids this impact by routing the transmission line away 
from Black Horse Lake.
    All action alternatives would produce some localized short-term 
emissions of particulate matter during construction. In addition, all 
action alternatives would emit very small amounts of greenhouse gases, 
principally from vehicle and equipment operations during construction. 
These construction-related greenhouse gas emissions were estimated and 
found to be negligible.
    Under all action alternatives, some bird mortality could result 
from collisions with transmission lines even after mitigating measures 
are applied; potential impacts would be somewhat less under Alternative 
4 than the other alternatives because Alternative 4 would not be 
located as close to the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Under all 
action alternatives portions of the transmission line would cross some 
potential habitat for special status species. Although no adverse 
effects to special status species are expected from any of the action 
alternatives, Alternative 2 would cross more potential habitat for 
special status species than Alternatives 3 and 4. No designated 
critical habitat would be crossed by any of the alternatives. In 
compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), DOE 
conducted a Biological Assessment and consulted with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS). On September 16, 2006, the FWS concurred with 
DOE's determination that the proposed line may affect, but will not 
adversely affect, any species listed as threatened or endangered under 
the ESA.
    Under any of the action alternatives, transmission line 
construction could disturb archaeological or historical resources. To 
avoid or reduce impacts to such resources, MATL would be required to 
implement project-specific cultural resource protection measures (e.g., 
using monitors when working in the vicinity of archeological sites, 
placing poles so as to avoid impacts to cultural resource sites, 
prohibiting development of access roads through cultural resource 
sites). Impacts to Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) would be 
minimized by avoiding disturbance to TCPs and potential locations 
identified by knowledgeable Tribal members.
    Short-term, localized construction noise would occur under any of 
the action alternatives. In general, operation of the transmission line 
would not add substantially to existing background noise levels, but 
noise from rain or wind on the transmission line could cause noise 
levels to exceed a State of Montana standard in one subdivided area 
near a short segment (0.16 mile) of the Alternative 4 alignment. 
However, the agencies' preferred alternative does not include this 
portion of Alternative 4.
    All action alternatives would provide socioeconomic benefits in the 
short term due to construction-related employment. In the long term 
there would be increased opportunities to import or export electric 
power, and the presence of the transmission line could help make it 
possible to build new generation facilities. State and local 
governments would receive additional tax revenue from the line. Under 
all action alternatives, farmers would incur additional costs due to 
the need to farm

[[Page 67863]]

around transmission line structures placed on their properties. MATL 
would compensate landowners with one-time easement payments for the 
right-of-way, annual per-pole payments, and annual flat fees for the 
additional costs of farming caused by the transmission line. Some 
agricultural landowners would also receive a State property tax 
exemption for property affected by the transmission line.
    Under all action alternatives, nearby residents and motorists using 
travel corridors would be exposed to views of a transmission line. 
Alternative 3 would expose the largest number of nearby residences and 
the longest length of travel corridors to near-field views within \1/2\ 
mile of the proposed line. Alternative 4 would have the lowest overall 
visibility to nearby residences and travel corridors, but Alternatives 
2 and 4 would be similar with respect to the number of residences 
within \1/4\ mile.
    The Notice of Intent that initiated the DOE NEPA review process (70 
FR 69962; November 18, 2005) also initiated a floodplain and wetlands 
assessment in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR Part 1022. The 
notice stated that DOE would issue a floodplain statement of findings 
at the conclusion of that assessment. The EIS considered potential 
impacts to floodplains and found that there would be no floodplain 
involvement under any of the action alternatives. Under all action 
alternatives, the line would cross floodplains of the Teton, Dry Fork 
Marias, and Marias river crossings, but there would be no placement of 
transmission line structures or other construction in any 100-year 
floodplain. Because no part of the action would be located in a 
floodplain, a floodplain statement of findings is not required.

Cumulative Impacts

    Past and present facilities and activities that are potential 
sources of cumulative environmental impacts in the project vicinity 
include at least 17 pipelines and 8 transmission lines that transect 
the area; farming (irrigated and non-irrigated), grazing, weed 
management, hunting, and general recreation; growth of cities and 
towns, residential areas, and industrial and commercial areas; and 
development of Federal and State highways and county roads, railroads 
and railroad rights-of-way, communication facilities, military 
installations, conservation easements, airports, and national trails.
    Reasonably foreseeable future actions that could occur in the 
Project study area (i.e., an area that includes alternatives and areas 
where roads may be built or improved) include the development of wind 
farms, reconstruction and relocation of an existing electricity 
transmission line, two fossil-fueled power plants (250-megawatt (MW) 
coal-fired and 275-MW gas-fired) proposed to be built near Great Falls, 
additional irrigation systems on area farmland, and the potential for 
MATL to upgrade the capacity of the proposed line from 300 MW to 400 MW 
in each direction. Transmission rights on the proposed line have been 
sold to companies that are prospective developers of wind farms, but 
the transmission capacity could be sold and used for electricity 
generated by other means. For the purpose of assessing potential 
cumulative impacts in the EIS, it was conservatively estimated that the 
proposed transmission line would provide sufficient transmission 
capacity for 400 to 533 new wind turbines.
    Construction activities associated with reasonably foreseeable 
future actions, including new or expanded wind farms, would depend on 
the type, location, and design of development. Potential effects of 
this construction on soils, surface waters, air quality, wetlands, 
vegetation, wildlife, and cultural resources would be similar in kind 
to the potential impacts of building the proposed transmission line, 
but could differ in magnitude depending on the action. Operation of 
proposed coal- and gas-fired power plants would increase the emission 
of air pollutants, but ambient air pollutant concentrations resulting 
from these and other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities 
would continue to be well below applicable State and Federal ambient 
air quality standards. Generation of electricity by potential wind 
farms could contribute to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 
avoiding the need to generate equal amounts of electricity from fossil 
fuels, while the proposed coal- and gas-fired power plants near Great 
Falls could contribute greenhouse gases with global warming potential 
equivalent to more than 4 million tons/year of carbon dioxide, equal to 
about 10 percent of Montana's total emissions of greenhouse gases in 
2005. Wind turbines, meteorological towers and associated guy wires, 
and overhead distribution lines would be a potential collision hazard 
to birds and bats. Operation of wind turbines potentially built by 
developers with contracted capacity on the proposed MATL transmission 
line is estimated to result in approximately 720 to 960 bird fatalities 
and 30 to 7,100 bat fatalities per year. Operation of wind turbines 
would result in noise; noise levels would depend on the observer's 
location. Wind farms would be highly visible in the landscape because 
turbines would be introduced into rural landscapes with few other 
comparable structures.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    After publication of the Final EIS, DOE received a telephone 
comment from a member of the public and a written comment from the U.S. 
EPA. The telephone commenter expressed the belief that his prior 
comments had been censored and offered three assertions in support of 
his claim: (1) An attachment to a written comment he submitted on the 
Draft EIS had been excluded from the Final EIS; (2) a written document 
submitted by the commenter during a hearing on the Draft EIS had also 
been excluded from the Final EIS; and (3) he had been prevented from 
speaking at a hearing held in March 2007 to receive comments on the 
State Draft EIS and the Federal EA.
    With respect to the first claim, the attachment to the commenter's 
written comment was a letter sent to the commenter from a law firm 
representing MATL and discussed the acquisition of an easement across 
the commenter's property. DOE included the attachment in the 
administrative record but not in the comment response section of the 
Final EIS because the attachment contained no information or comments 
related to the Draft EIS. With regard to the second assertion, the 
document submitted by the commenter during the hearing on the Draft EIS 
in March 2008 contained a list of talking points circulated by a group 
that encouraged its members to present oral comments in support of the 
MATL project. Each of the talking points contained in the document 
submitted by the telephone commenter was in fact discussed by numerous 
individuals during the hearings on the Draft EIS. These talking points 
and comments were contained in the transcripts of the hearings and 
included in the comment response section of the Final EIS along with 
the agencies' responses.
    Concerning the third assertion, DOE generally does not conduct 
public hearings on an EA before it is approved, although DOE provides 
it to the State, and often to the public, before approval. Therefore, 
DOE did not participate in the hearings held by DEQ in March 2007 on 
the State Draft EIS and the Federal EA. Nonetheless, in light of the 
commenter's claim, DOE reviewed the audio transcripts of those hearings 
and determined that the commenter presented uncensored oral comments at 
the hearing held in Conrad on March 27,

[[Page 67864]]

2007, and attended the hearing in Cut Bank on March 28, 2007. Based on 
the review of the record, DOE has found no evidence of censorship on 
the part of the presiding officer and no attempt to prevent the 
commenter or anyone else from making a statement or presenting a 
comment at any of the public hearings held in this proceeding.
    The EPA Region 8 submitted written comments dated October 21, 2008, 
on the Final EIS acknowledging the agencies' responses to EPA's 
comments on the Draft EIS. In addition EPA stated its appreciation for 
information added to the Final EIS, including bird migration corridor 
maps and evaluation of potential avian impacts from the proposed 
transmission line. EPA did not oppose implementation of the MATL 
project and noted that the EIS ``* * * shows that complex 
considerations were involved in evaluation of alternative routing 
options, and significant effort was put into evaluating and comparing 
the many project trade-offs, and that many mitigation measures for 
environmental protection are included.''

Decision

    DOE has decided to issue Presidential Permit PP-305 authorizing 
MATL to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 230-kV electric 
transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border along the preferred 
alternative identified and analyzed in the EIS, with the environmental 
mitigation measures and electric reliability conditions noted below.

Mitigation

    Avoidance of potential environmental impacts was a consideration in 
identification and selection of the preferred alternative. The routing 
of this alternative avoids some wildlife habitat areas potentially 
affected by Alternative 2, and the routing and design of the 
alternative are intended to minimize adverse impacts to cultivated 
agricultural land uses. DOE's Presidential permit will contain a 
condition that requires MATL to implement all project-specific 
environmental protection measures it proposed in its MFSA application, 
as described in the EIS, and also the environmental specifications 
incorporated by reference in the Certificate of Compliance issued by 
DEQ on October 22, 2008. The permit condition will specify that, where 
there is a conflict between the MATL-proposed measures and the 
environmental specifications developed by DEQ, the more environmentally 
protective provision will apply. With the implementation of the 
preferred alternative and the inclusion of the mitigation measures that 
will be made a condition of the Presidential permit, DOE has employed 
all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. The DEQ 
Certificate of Compliance, the MATL-proposed protection measures, and 
the DEQ-developed environmental specifications can be found on the DEQ 
Web site at http://deq.mt.gov/MFS/MATL.asp.

Basis for Decision

    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, the 
absence of adverse impacts to the reliability of the U.S. electric 
power supply system, the absence of major issues of concern to the 
public, and the favorable recommendations of the Departments of State 
and Defense.
    DOE has determined that the potential environmental impacts from 
the DOE preferred alternative, 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 action 
alternatives. DOE's decision is also consistent with the Certificate of 
Compliance issued by DEQ on October 22, 2008, which authorized 
construction of the MATL project along the route identified as the 
preferred alternative and analyzed in the EIS, and represents a balance 
between avoidance of impacts to farmland, cost to farmers, avoidance of 
residences, public acceptance, and the use of public lands.
    DOE did not select the No Action alternative because it would forgo 
the expected benefits of the proposed transmission line to the economy 
of Montana and because it would not be consistent with the finding of 
the Montana DEQ that there is a need for the transmission capacity that 
would be provided by the MATL project.
    DOE has determined that granting a Presidential permit to MATL for 
construction of an international transmission line along the route 
identified as the preferred alternative in the EIS is consistent with 
the public interest based on the consideration of environmental 
impacts, the lack of adverse impacts on the reliability of the U.S. 
electric power supply system, the absence of major issues of concern to 
the public, and the favorable recommendations of the Departments of 
State and Defense. In reaching the finding on electric system 
reliability, DOE considered the information contained in the System 
Impact Study commissioned by NWE, dated September 26, 2006, and the 
Phase 2 Study Report accepted by the Project Review Group of the 
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) \3\, dated July 24, 
2007, both of which were submitted to DOE by MATL in support of its 
application for a Presidential permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Western Electricity Coordinating Council is one of 8 
regional electric reliability councils within the United States. It 
is responsible for coordinating and promoting electric reliability 
in all or part of the 14 western states, the Canadian Provinces of 
British Columbia and Alberta, and the northern portion of Baja 
California, Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the System Impact Study indicate that the proposed 
international transmission line can be interconnected to the NWE system 
at the Great Falls substation and operated without violating industry-
established reliability criteria provided that MATL mitigates potential 
overloads on two autotransformers identified in the contingency 
analysis and operates its shunt capacitor facilities in such a way as 
to avoid high voltages during all electric system operating conditions. 
The Presidential permit to be issued to MATL will contain a condition 
requiring it to comply with these interconnection requirements.
    The results of the WECC Phase 2 Study Report indicate that the 
proposed MATL line can be installed and operated without having an 
adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power system 
provided that MATL implements the mitigation plan described in that 
report. MATL has committed to implementing this mitigation plan which 
includes development and implementation of a remedial action scheme and 
related operating procedures and nomograms.\4\ The Presidential permit 
to be issued to MATL will contain a condition requiring MATL to develop 
and implement the mitigation and adhere to all other operating 
requirements that may be prescribed by WECC and/or NWE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Remedial action schemes and nomograms 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 station 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, DOE has decided to issue Presidential 
Permit PP-305 to MATL authorizing the construction, operation, 
maintenance, and connection of a 230-kV transmission line across the 
U.S.-

[[Page 67865]]

Canada border along the preferred alternative identified and analyzed 
in the EIS, with the environmental mitigation measures and electric 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reliability conditions noted above.

    Dated: November 12, 2008.
Kevin M. Kolevar,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability.
 [FR Doc. E8-27187 Filed 11-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P