[Federal Register: April 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21189-21196]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ap05-36]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. PP-234-1 and PP-235-2]
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings;
Imperial-Mexicali 230-kV Transmission Lines
AGENCY: Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance,\1\ U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On April 13, 2005, the Secretary of Energy transferred the
authority to grant Presidential permits from the Office of Fossil
Energy to the Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance.
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD) and Floodplain Statement of Findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision to implement the Proposed Action
alternative, identified as the preferred alternative, in the ``Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Imperial-Mexicali 230-kV
Transmission Lines'' (DOE/EIS-0365). That alternative is to grant a
Presidential permit to both Baja California Power, Inc. (BCP;
hereinafter referred to as Intergen \2\) and Sempra Energy Resources
(hereinafter referred to as Sempra \3\) for each to construct, operate,
maintain, and connect a double-circuit, 230,000-volt (230-kV) electric
transmission line that crosses the U.S.-Mexico border in the vicinity
of Calexico, California, and connects to the associated natural gas-
fired electric power plant located near Mexicali, Mexico. The permits
will authorize the transmission lines to connect to the respective
power plants as those plants are presently designed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Throughout court proceedings and the EIS process, BCP has
been referred to as Intergen. This naming convention was used to
avoid confusion and because that was the name by which the court
knew the permit applicant. This naming convention also will be used
throughout this ROD.
\3\ On August 29, 2002, Sempra and Termoel[eacute]ctrica U.S.,
LLC (T-US) jointly filed an application with DOE for the voluntary
transfer from Sempra to T-US of the facilities authorized by
Presidential Permit PP-235, which was issued to Sempra by DOE on
December 5, 2001. Sempra and T-US, both indirect wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Sempra Energy, a California corporation, requested
the transfer of Presidential Permit PP-235 to enable the parties to
effectuate an internal corporate reorganization that would result in
T-US owning, operating, and maintaining the international
transmission facilities as an exempt wholesale generator. After an
appropriate administrative proceeding, on November 12, 2002, DOE
issued Presidential Permit PP-235-1 to T-U.S. The name Sempra will
be used in this ROD because that was the name commonly used in the
court proceeding. However, the permit that DOE has decided to issue
will be issued in the name T-US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaching this decision, DOE considered the potential
environmental impacts in the U.S. from constructing and operating the
two transmission lines and from the related action of operating the two
associated Mexico power plants. DOE also considered the continuing need
for additional electrical supplies in the region, the low potential
environmental impacts, the lack of adverse impacts to the reliability
of the U.S. electric power supply system, the practicality or the
availability of the alternatives, and public comments provided during
the preparation of the EIS.
This ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings have been prepared in
accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality
(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part
1021), and
[[Page 21190]]
DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review
Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022).
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS and this ROD are available on the DOE NEPA Web
site at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documents.html and on the project Web site at http://web.ead.anl.gov/bajatermoeis. Copies of the Final
EIS and this ROD may be requested by toll-free telephone at 866-542-
5903, or by contacting Ellen Russell at the Office of Electricity and
Energy Assurance, TD-1, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or 202-586-9624, or by electronic
mail at ellen.russell@hq.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
Imperial-Mexicali 230-kV Transmission Lines EIS, contact Ellen Russell
as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. For general information on
the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance, EH-42, at U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, or 202-586-4600, or
leave a message at 800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the EIS DOE considers the environmental
impacts associated with granting Presidential permits to Sempra and
Intergen that would authorize the construction, operation, maintenance,
and connection of the proposed double-circuit 230-kV electric
transmission lines that would cross the U.S.-Mexico border in the
vicinity of Calexico, California. Because the proposed routes for these
lines cross Federal lands managed by the U.S. Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), BLM worked on the EIS with
DOE as a cooperating agency. BLM will issue a separate ROD, also based
upon the EIS, in which it will announce its decision whether to grant
rights-of-way (ROWs) for the proposed transmission lines.
Background
Executive Order (E.O.) 10485 (September 9, 1953), as amended by
E.O. 12038 (February 7, 1978), requires that DOE issue a Presidential
permit before an electric transmission facility may be constructed,
operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border.
DOE may issue a permit if it determines that the permit is in the
public interest and after obtaining favorable recommendations from the
U.S. Departments of State and Defense. In determining whether issuance
of a permit for a proposed action is in the public interest, DOE
considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to
NEPA, the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining
whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of
the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency
conditions, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant
to the public interest.
On February 27, 2001, Intergen applied to DOE for a Presidential
permit to construct a double-circuit 230-kV electric transmission line
across the U.S.-Mexico border in the vicinity of Calexico, California.
In a separate but similar application filed with DOE on March 7, 2001,
Sempra applied to DOE for a Presidential permit also proposing to
construct a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line across the U.S.-
Mexico border within the same existing utility corridor as the Intergen
line.
Each applicant sought to construct a line parallel to an existing
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) transmission line and both
would connect to the existing SDG&E Imperial Valley (IV) Substation
located approximately 6 miles (10 km) north of the U.S.-Mexico border
in Imperial County, California. The centerline of the Intergen line
would lie 120 feet (37 m) east of the centerline of the existing SDG&E
line, and the Sempra line would lie 120 feet (37 m) east of the
centerline of the Intergen line, each centered in adjacent 120-foot (37
m) wide ROWs. Because both proposed lines were intended to cross lands
managed by BLM, both Intergen and Sempra applied to BLM for ROW grants.
Previous NEPA Review and Litigation
Due to the similarities of these proposals, DOE and BLM decided to
cooperate on the environmental review and to consider both proposals in
a single environmental document. DOE and BLM originally determined that
the appropriate level of NEPA review for the Presidential permit
applications and the ROW grants was an environmental assessment (EA).
An EA is prepared to determine whether a proposed action would have a
significant impact on the human environment. If the EA shows that it
would, the agency would then prepare an EIS; if not, the agency would
issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).
DOE and BLM issued their EA in December 2001 (DOE/EA-1391), and on
December 5, 2001, DOE issued a FONSI together with the requested
permits. Similarly, on December 19, 2001, BLM issued two FONSIs, and
the next day granted the ROWs. Following these decisions, Intergen and
Sempra constructed the transmission lines and began commercial
operations, transmitting electricity to the U.S. from their respective
power plants in Mexico.
On March 19, 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group
(hereinafter referred to as Border Power) sued DOE and BLM in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 02-CV-
513-IEG (POR)), alleging violations of NEPA and the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). Border Power sought to have the EA, DOE's and
BLM's FONSIs, the Presidential permits, and the ROW grants determined
to be illegal and requested an injunction forbidding the use of the
transmission lines. After briefings and oral arguments in which
Intergen and Sempra participated as intervenors, the District Court
issued two orders. In its May 2, 2003, order, the court held that the
EA and the FONSIs did not comply with NEPA and the APA. On July 8,
2003, after a hearing to determine an appropriate remedy, the court
sent the matter back to DOE and BLM for additional NEPA review. At the
same time, the court declined to immediately enjoin operation of the
transmission lines; instead, it deferred setting aside the Presidential
permits and the FONSIs until July 1, 2004, or until such time as
superseding NEPA documents were issued, whichever was earlier. Thus,
the transmission lines could continue to provide electricity to
California while DOE and BLM conducted additional NEPA review. The
court has since extended the July deadline, and the lines continue to
operate.
In light of the concerns raised by the court and to increase
opportunities for public and stakeholder participation in the
environmental review process, DOE and BLM decided to prepare an EIS. In
its July 8, 2003, order, the court expressly prohibited DOE and BLM
from considering in the additional NEPA review or in their final
decisions the fact that the transmission lines had already been built
and were operating. The court also prohibited the Federal agencies from
relying upon the court's analyses of environmental impacts of the
proposed actions. DOE and BLM interpreted this language as requiring
that they conduct their NEPA review from a fresh slate. Thus, the
discussion of the transmission lines and the environmental analysis is
presented in the EIS as if the lines do not exist.
In contrast, DOE and BLM interpreted the court's ruling to allow
them to consider the associated power plants in Mexico as they have
been built. Assuming otherwise would limit DOE's
[[Page 21191]]
and BLM's ability to perform an analysis of sufficient detail to
effectively evaluate the Alternative Technologies alternative, which
would be implemented in the context of a retrofit of alternative
technologies to the existing plants. The agencies also believe that the
focus of the court's decision was directed to the decision before the
Federal agencies, that is, whether to permit the transmission lines
themselves. This interpretation allowed the agencies to perform a more
realistic evaluation of the Alternative Technologies alternative, that
is, the retrofit of existing plants, than could have been performed
with respect to hypothetical plants.
On October 30, 2003, DOE published a notice of intent to prepare an
EIS (68 FR 61796). On May 14, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) published a notice of the availability of the Draft EIS
(69 FR 26817), thereby beginning the public comment period on it.
During the comment period, DOE and BLM received over 4,800 comment
submissions in the form of mass e-mails and facsimiles, letters, and
oral statements at public hearings. In preparing the Final EIS, DOE and
BLM considered and responded to all of the comments received. EPA
announced the availability of the Final EIS on December 17, 2004 (69 FR
75535).
The Proposed Projects
Intergen's transmission line would connect SDG&E's IV substation
with the La Rosita Power Complex (LRPC), which consists of two separate
generating units: the EBC unit and the EAX unit. The EBC unit consists
of one 160-megawatt (MW) gas turbine operated in combined-cycle mode
with one 150-MW steam turbine, for a total electrical capacity of 310
MW. To reduce air emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX),
Intergen designed and built the EBC gas turbine with low-NOX
burners and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology. This unit
was built to export its full electrical output to the U.S. and, as
presently configured, could export only over Intergen's proposed
international transmission line.
The second unit at LRPC, the EAX unit, consists of three 160-MW gas
turbines (EAX-A, EAX-B, and EAX-C) operating in combined-cycle mode
with one 270-MW steam turbine, for a total electrical capacity of 750
MW. Intergen originally equipped these turbines with low-NOX
burners and later decided to add SCR to further reduce NOX
emissions. SCR was added to the EAX-C turbine in March 2004.
Installation of SCR on the EAX-B turbine has been completed and the
turbine was placed back in operation on March 31, 2005. Installation of
SCR on the EAX-A turbine also has been completed and the turbine
returned to operation on or about April 10, 2005.
The electrical output of the EAX-C gas turbine (160 MW) is
designated for export to the U.S. but could be connected either to the
proposed new international transmission line or to the existing
(previously permitted) SDG&E transmission line. One-third (90 MW) of
the electrical output of the EAX steam turbine can be exported to the
U.S. only over SDG&E's existing transmission line. The remaining
electrical output of the EAX unit (EAX-A, EAX-B, and two-thirds [180
MW] of the EAX steam turbine, for a total capacity of 500 MW) is
designated to the Mexico market and is connected directly to the
Mexican electrical grid. However, at times, there may be as much as 40
to 50 MW of the capacity of the EAX unit designated to the Mexico
market that would be available for export to the U.S. over the existing
SDG&E transmission line.
Sempra's transmission line would connect SDG&E's IV substation with
the Termoel[eacute]ctrica de Mexicali (TDM) power plant, which consists
of two 170-MW gas turbines operated in a combined-cycle mode with one
310-MW steam turbine, for a total electrical capacity of 650 MW. To
limit emissions of NOX, the gas turbines are equipped with
low-NOX burners and SCR. The TDM power plant is not
connected to any other transmission line and, therefore, could export
all of its electrical output to the U.S. only over the proposed
transmission line.
Alternatives
DOE and BLM analyzed the following four alternatives in the EIS:
No Action: Deny both permit and corresponding ROW applications.
This presents the environmental impacts in the U.S. as if the lines had
never been constructed and provides a baseline against which the
impacts in the U.S. of the action alternatives can be measured in the
absence of Presidential permits and corresponding ROWs.
Proposed Action: Grant one or both permits and corresponding ROWs.
This sets forth the impacts in the U.S. of constructing and operating
the line(s) from the Mexico power plants, as those plants are presently
designed.
Alternative Technologies: Grant one or both permits and
corresponding ROWs to authorize transmission lines that connect to
power plants that would employ more efficient emission controls and
alternative cooling technologies.
Mitigation Measures: Grant one or both permits and corresponding
ROWs to authorize transmission lines whose developers would employ off-
site mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in the U.S.
DOE's preferred alternative in the EIS was to grant a Presidential
permit to both Sempra and Intergen as their projects are presently
designed.
In addition to the applicants' proposed transmission line routes,
DOE and BLM analyzed two alternatives, eastern and western, both of
which would be located on BLM land.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The EIS analyzes impacts in the U.S. from the four alternatives and
the three alternative transmission line routes for each of the
following resource areas: Geology, soils and seismicity; water
resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; land
use; transportation; visual resources; noise; socioeconomics; human
health; and minority and low-income populations, plus cumulative
impacts. The analysis includes issues that the court found
insufficiently developed in the EA: impacts from water consumption by
the power plants, particularly on the Salton Sea; impacts on air
quality from power plant emissions of ammonia; impacts on global
warming from carbon dioxide emitted from the power plants in Mexico;
and cumulative impacts from the operation of the power plants in
combination with existing and potential future power plants. DOE and
BLM made conservative assumptions in the EIS. Thus, the actual impacts
likely would be less than those estimated in the EIS.
For geology, soils and seismicity, land use, transportation, visual
resources, noise, socioeconomics, and minority and low-income
populations estimated impacts were generally low and very similar for
all alternatives, including the No Action alternative. Several resource
areas have been the subject of significant public concern, and while
the impacts to these areas are also low and very similar, they merit
additional explanation here.
Water Resources and Associated Biological Resources: The proposed
projects would cause impacts to two major water resources: the New
River and the Salton Sea. The New River originates in Mexico and flows
north to the Salton Sea in California. The Sea, which has no outlets,
is much saltier than the ocean and is increasing in salinity because
evaporation concentrates the dissolved salts that enter the Sea,
primarily in runoff from irrigated farmland. The fish that live in the
Sea are species that tolerate high salinity.
[[Page 21192]]
Water use by the power plants for cooling and steam generation
reduces flow in the New River and inflow to the Salton Sea, thus
increasing the salinity of these water bodies, a key environmental
issue for both. Most of the water withdrawn from the nearby sewage
lagoons (Zaragoza Oxidation Lagoons) for use in the power plants is
lost to evaporation, but about 20% of that withdrawn is discharged to
the New River. (If it were not withdrawn for use in the power plants,
the water lost to evaporation would enter the New River.) The water
treatment plants at the two power plants purify the untreated,
withdrawn water before use, and thus reduce the amount of pollutants,
including dissolved solids that contribute to salinity, entering the
New River. The resulting lower level of pollution in the river,
indicated by lower chemical oxygen demand, would improve the survival
of fish and invertebrates under all alternatives. However, because
water is used by the power plants and stream flow is reduced, the
salinity of the river is increased.
All alternatives would cause increases in New River salinity. Under
the No Action alternative, the estimated salinity increase in the New
River at the international boundary (where the river enters the U.S.)
would be less than 3.7%, due to operation of the EAX unit (three gas
turbines and a steam turbine), which is not associated with the
proposed transmission line. The Proposed Action alternative, with all
turbines at both power plants operating, would result in the greatest
salinity increase in the New River, 5.6%. The use of a parallel wet-dry
cooling system under the Alternative Technologies alternative would
reduce the amount of water used by the power plants by as much as 56%
and produce the smallest impact on salinity (an increase of about 2%)
in the river. These estimated salinity increases would not adversely
affect biological resources in the river or the adjacent constructed
wetlands that draw water from the river because salinity would remain
below the 4,000-milligrams per liter (mg/L) water quality objective for
the Colorado River Basin and would not exceed the salinity tolerances
of wetland plants.
The current salinity of the Salton Sea is about 44,000 mg/L.
Salinity is increasing by about 1% per year under baseline conditions.
Operation of both power plants under the Proposed Action alternative
would reduce inflow of water to the Salton Sea by about 0.8%, thus
reducing its volume by about 0.1%, lowering its elevation by an
estimated 0.6 inches (1.5 cm), and decreasing its surface area by about
97 acres. Other alternatives, including No Action, would cause smaller
reductions in the Sea's volume, elevation, and surface area. Under all
alternatives, the reduced surface area would reduce evaporation from
the Sea, offsetting water losses from the power plants, so the Sea
would stabilize at its slightly lower volume, elevation, and surface
area. The decrease in volume would increase the salinity of the Sea.
The Proposed Action would increase salinity by about 63 mg/L (0.14%);
other alternatives would cause smaller salinity increases.
After these initial changes, the Proposed Action alternative would
add 0.19 mg/L (0.04%) to the Sea's annual salinity increase. Lower
power plant water use due to fewer units operating under the No Action
alternative and use of wet-dry cooling under the Alternative
Technologies alternative would result in slightly smaller salinity
increases than under the Proposed Action alternative. Under the
Mitigation Measures alternative, water conservation measures in the
region (for example, lining irrigation canals, reducing evaporative
losses, or fallowing farmland) could offset water use by the power
plants and offset these salinity impacts by allowing more water to flow
into the Salton Sea.
The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation
considers a salinity level of 60,000 mg/L to be a value that would be
detrimental to Salton Sea fishery resources. Under baseline conditions
(with no power plants operating) DOE and BLM estimated that the Salton
Sea would reach this critical level of salinity in approximately 36
years. Under the Proposed Action alternative, the alternative that
would yield the greatest rate of increase in salinity, the Salton Sea
would reach this critical level approximately 4 days sooner.
Air Quality and Human Health: Under all of the alternatives,
emissions from three possible sources would have an impact on the air
quality in Imperial County: Power plant emissions blown into the U.S.
by the prevailing winds, emissions from the increase in the exposed
lakebed of the Salton Sea caused by reduced depth, and emissions caused
by the construction of the proposed transmission lines. It is important
to note that emissions from the power plants and from the exposed
lakebed are not subject to regulation under any portion of the Clean
Air Act. Only the direct emissions associated with construction of the
transmission lines are subject to the conformity provisions of the
Clean Air Act. The foregoing notwithstanding, DOE and BLM have used
parameters contained in Clean Air Act regulations as benchmarks against
which to measure the magnitude of the impacts. However, use of these
benchmarks is not intended to imply any regulatory applicability.
The public has shown more concern about impacts from the power
plants than from the transmission lines. The agencies' assessment, as
discussed below, indicates that both the power plants and the
transmission lines would have very small impacts on air quality and
human health in Imperial County.
California's Imperial Valley, the region in which the proposed
transmission lines would be built, is included within the Salton Sea
Air Basin, a California air management district. Air quality in the
Salton Sea Air Basin is generally poor due, in part, to windblown dust
from the natural features of the region (e.g., desert soils) combined
with human activities, such as construction, extensive agricultural
activities, and traffic on paved and unpaved roads. Imperial Valley is
in the same geographic air basin as the power plants in Mexico.
The Salton Sea Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for
ozone, a non-attainment area for particulate matter of less than or
equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), and a serious
non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10
micrometers in diameter (PM10). At the international border,
the City of Calexico is designated a non-attainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO). The area near the border crossing also shows increased
levels of NOX attributed to vehicles.
In addition to the pollutants listed above (i.e., ozone,
PM2.5, PM10, CO, and NOX), the
agencies considered potential impacts from the alternatives due to
emissions of other substances, including carbon dioxide
(CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia. Where
appropriate, DOE and BLM compared modeled maximum concentrations to
EPA's Significant Impact Levels (SLs), using the SLs as a benchmark.
Levels that fall below SLs can be regarded as having negligible impacts
on air quality and human health.
Particulate matter: Construction and maintenance of the
transmission lines, which would occur under all the action
alternatives, would be a source of dust (PM10). Over the
course of several months, traffic and other activities related to
construction along the proposed routes would result in the emission of
approximately 11.4 tons of PM10 that would be localized
mainly at the construction site. This emission rate
[[Page 21193]]
is less than the 70 tons/yr emission threshold below which activities
are exempt from review of conformity to the state implementation plan
for the Clean Air Act that applies in serious PM10
nonattainment areas. Long-term impacts associated with the lines would
be limited to generation of dust during periodic maintenance; these
impacts are expected to be negligible. The No Action alternative would,
of course, have no such impacts.
Under all alternatives the natural gas-fired power plants in Mexico
would emit PM10 from their stacks and cooling towers. Under
the Proposed Action alternative, direct emissions of PM10
are estimated to be 732 tons/yr, resulting in a concentration increase
at a maximum receptor point in the U.S. of less than half of the SL
value of 5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m 3) as a 24-
hour average. Under the Mitigation Measures alternative, of several
measures that DOE and BLM identified, road paving would have the
greatest potential for reductions in PM10 that could offset
power plant emissions. For example, paving 50 identified road segments
in Imperial County totaling 23 miles (37 km) is estimated to reduce
fugitive dust (PM10) emissions by about 650 tons/yr. Under
the Alternative Technologies alternative, use of a parallel wet-dry
cooling system would reduce power plant efficiency, requiring
additional fuel consumption for a given electrical output. This would
result in an increase in most emissions but a reduction in emissions of
PM10 from the wet cooling towers.
PM10 would also be formed under all alternatives when
NOX released by the power plants combines with ammonia
(either already in the ambient air or released in small amounts by the
power plants) under appropriate conditions to form ammonium nitrate
particles, but the increased concentration of PM10 is
expected to be small, less than 1 [mu]g/m 3 as a 24-hour
average. (Health impacts from ammonia emissions are discussed below
under Hazardous Air Pollutants and Ammonia.)
Another source of PM10 under all alternatives would be
wind-blown dust from lakebed exposed by a lower water level in the
Salton Sea. The agencies estimated that dust emissions from an increase
in exposed lakebed of the Salton Sea would be less than 10 tons/yr for
the Proposed Action alternative.
DOE and BLM assessed potential impacts of PM10 related
to the power plants on asthma rates in the U.S. in the Final EIS, after
public comments on the Draft EIS expressed concern that the project
would result in a large increase in the number of cases of asthma, many
of which would require hospitalization. The agencies' analysis showed
that the expected increase in asthma hospitalizations in Imperial
County from increases in PM10 attributable to power plant
emissions is conservatively estimated to be less than one case per
year.
Ozone, VOC, and NOX: Asthma and other upper respiratory
diseases are associated with high levels of ozone in areas such as
Imperial County. Ozone could be formed from combination of
NOX and VOC emitted by the gas-fired power plants in Mexico.
DOE and BLM determined that NOX and VOC emitted during
operation of the power plants under all alternatives would result in
minimal increases in ozone levels under typical meteorological
conditions. The maximum estimated increase in concentrations of ozone
would be generated by the Proposed Action alternative (0.8 parts per
billion (ppb) averaged over a one-hour period, or 0.9% of the 1-hour
California Standard of 90 ppb). Therefore, DOE and BLM expect no
adverse health impacts from additional ozone under any alternative.
Hazardous Air Pollutants and Ammonia: Analysis of the potential
cancer and non-cancer impacts in the U.S. from hazardous air pollutants
emitted by the power plants in Mexico showed that emission levels would
not be large enough to produce adverse human health impacts when
compared to California cancer and non-cancer impact thresholds. DOE and
BLM estimated that the increase in ammonia concentrations in the U.S.
from the SCRs installed at the power plants would be a maximum of 4.05
[mu]g/m 3 for any one-hour period and a maximum of 0.06
[mu]g/m 3 annually under the Proposed Action alternative.
This increased level of exposure would be less than 0.16% of the
significance threshold based on California risk assessment procedures
for acute exposure and less than 0.028% of the significance threshold
for chronic exposure, i.e., far below the levels that could result in
health impacts.
Carbon monoxide: The highest CO emissions from the power plants
would be under the Proposed Action alternative and would yield a
maximum estimated increased concentration of CO at any location in the
U.S. over an 8-hr period of 3.92 [mu]g/m 3. This is only
0.8% of the SL of 500 [mu]g/m 3, so no adverse impacts to
human health would be expected. Under the Alternative Technologies
alternative, the agencies analyzed the effect of adding an oxidation
catalyst on the LRPC gas turbines that would connect to Intergen's
proposed transmission line. (The turbines at the TDM power plant that
would connect to Sempra's transmission line are already so equipped.)
Installation of an oxidizing catalyst to the two LRPC export turbines
would reduce the maximum estimated increased concentration of CO at any
location in the U.S. over an 8-hr period to 0.647 [mu]g/m 3,
or 0.13% of the SL.
Carbon dioxide: CO2, a greenhouse gas, has been linked
to global warming. Emissions of CO2 would be produced by the
Mexico power plants under all alternatives. Under the Proposed Action
alternative, the export turbines at the power plants would produce an
estimated 5,186,000 tons of CO2 per year, which would be a
very small fraction of total U.S. (0.088%) and global emissions
(0.023%). The lowest amount of CO2 emissions would occur
under the No Action alternative, which would produce 3,889,500 tons per
year of CO2, or 0.066% of total U.S. and 0.017% of global
emissions. Expected impacts to global climate change from all
alternatives is expected to be negligible.
Alternative Transmission Line Routes: The agencies analyzed two
alternatives, western and eastern, to the proposed routes for the
transmission lines. The assessment showed that the choice of route
location would make small differences in PM10 emissions and
in impacts to biological and cultural resources. The assessment found
no potential adverse health effects from exposure of residents to
electric and magnetic fields under any of the action alternatives on
any route because the nearest residents would live outside the
influence of the lines.
PM10 emissions from transmission line construction would
be about 11.4 tons for the proposed routes, 14.4 tons for the western
alternative routes, and 12.3 tons for the eastern alternative routes.
Periodic maintenance activities would generate a maximum of 0.08 ton/yr
for the proposed route and slightly more for the longer alternative
routes.
No plant or animal species listed as proposed, threatened, or
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California
Department of Fish and Game were observed during surveys for this
project. No BLM-sensitive plant species were observed within the survey
corridor. Three BLM-sensitive animal species were observed within the
corridor: flat-tailed horned lizard, western burrowing owl, and prairie
falcon. The prairie falcon is not expected to nest on site. Potential
adverse impacts to plants and animals from the construction of the
transmission lines on BLM land would be similar but larger for the
alternative
[[Page 21194]]
transmission line routes than for the proposed routes. These impacts
would be small and short-term, lasting about five months, and in most
cases would be mitigated during construction. For example, the
applicants would be required to construct the proposed transmission
lines as much as possible during the flat-tailed horned lizard's
dormant period, November 15 to February 15.
Impacts to cultural resources from line construction under any
route would be small due to the relatively small footprint of the
transmission towers and the short length of the routes. Use of the
western or eastern alternative routes would be expected to have a lower
potential for impacts to cultural resources, because these routes are
not located along the shoreline of an ancient lake (Lake Cahuilla)
where there is a higher potential to encounter cultural resources. Any
potential impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated during
construction by following the treatment plan developed and approved by
the California State Historic Preservation Officer.
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts analysis in an EIS places
the effects of the proposed action into a broader context that includes
impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions potentially affecting the same environmental resources. The
principal ongoing projects that would affect the Salton Sea, reducing
its volume, elevation, and surface area and increasing its salinity,
are the Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation and Transfer
Project and the Mexicali II Wastewater Treatment Project.
A recent study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation indicates that the
Water Conservation and Transfer Project alone is projected to cause the
salinity of the Salton Sea to reach the critical level of 60,000 mg/L
four years sooner than under baseline conditions. The Mexicali II
Wastewater Treatment Project extracts waste water from the New River
and returns the water to a canal that does not flow back to the river.
Various projects, however, are contributing or are planned to
contribute positive changes to the New River and the Salton Sea. For
example, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has constructed a wetland
adjacent to the New River that is the first of 40 or more wetlands
proposed for construction. The wetlands, together with the Mexicali II
Wastewater Treatment Project and all alternatives, would reduce
pollutant loads and thus improve biological habitat in the New River.
Looking to the future, sponsors of the Salton Sea Restoration Project
hope to stabilize the Sea's elevation, reduce salinity levels, and
improve wildlife habitat, but restoration activities have not been
specified in sufficient detail to be assessed.
Concern has been expressed that numerous additional power plant
projects have been or will be planned for the border region. DOE and
BLM thoroughly researched this issue consulting with the California
Energy Commission, the Comision Federal de Electricidad in Mexico, and
other agencies and organizations in California and Mexico to identify
all existing and proposed power plant projects, and to identify trends
that could contribute to this kind of development. DOE and BLM found no
existing, planned or proposed plants in Mexico that would contribute
impacts to the Imperial Valley or the Salton Sea Air Basin. DOE and BLM
did identify and analyze the combined air quality impacts of three
Californian power plant projects: The CalEnergy Geothermal Project, a
project under development in the Salton Sea Air Basin, and two proposed
natural gas-fired power plants, Blythe Energy, located just north of
the Basin, and Wellton-Mohawk located 50 miles east of the Basin.
DOE and BLM also examined other planned and ongoing activities in
the region as well as population and industrial trends that could
contribute impacts to air quality in the Basin. Taken as a whole, the
Salton Sea Air Basin is projected to experience increases in
PM10, NOX, CO, and ammonia from sources other
than the TDM and LRPC power plants. As the total amount of these
pollutants from other sources increases, the small percentage
contribution of pollutants from the Proposed Action alternative will
become even smaller.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
DOE has identified the Mitigation Measures alternative as the
environmentally preferable alternative with the caveat that the
effectiveness of this alternative would depend on the extent to which
it is in fact possible to implement such measures. Implementation of
mitigation measures such as the paving of roads, expanding the use of
compressed natural gas in motorized vehicles, retrofitting emission
controls to Imperial Irrigation District power plants, and updating the
diesel engines of agricultural vehicles have the potential of
mitigating many of the potential impacts to air quality. Other
mitigation measures such as lining irrigation canals, fallowing
farmland, and transferring ground water into the New River and Salton
Sea have the potential of mitigating the potential impacts to the
Salton Sea.
Implementation of these and other measures described in the EIS
could result in the lowest overall impacts of all evaluated
alternatives. Whether, and the extent to which, these measures can in
fact be implemented, however, can depend in part on factors outside the
applicants' control. Most of the mitigation measures would require some
degree of approval and cooperation from local and state agencies for
their implementation. Also, existing local agreements could diminish
the positive effect of some of the measures.
DOE believes that the No Action alternative is less environmentally
preferable than the Mitigation Measures alternative. The No Action
alternative would not completely avoid the environmental impacts from
operation of the power plants in Mexico because it would not reduce any
impacts from the EAX turbines, which would operate even in the absence
of the proposed international transmission lines. Also, under the No
Action alternative, if Sempra and Intergen connected the export
turbines at their Mexico power plants only to the Mexican power grid,
Sempra and Intergen would not need Presidential permits and thus they
would not be subject to any permit conditions that could potentially
reduce environmental impacts.
Comments Received on the Final EIS
DOE received four comment documents on the Final EIS. EPA Region IX
commented that DOE and BLM had addressed EPA's earlier comments with
respect to water and air quality impacts: ``EPA is pleased that most of
the issues identified in the [Draft EIS] have been addressed in the
[Final EIS]. In response to comments from the EPA, DOE provided
additional discussion on water mitigation measures, and the cumulative
impacts of increased water usage and discharge by the increasing
population of Mexicali. The document also clarifies the limitation and
uncertainties of the ozone modeling analysis.''
EPA also noted that: ``* * * off-site mitigation measures to reduce
basin-wide air emissions remain as a separate alternative in the FEIS
and are not incorporated into the proposed action.'' EPA suggested that
one way to address the limitations in ozone modeling and to ensure that
there would be no net increase of air pollution in the Imperial County
Region would be for this ROD to include a commitment to continue to
work with stakeholders to support and
[[Page 21195]]
encourage off-site mitigation measures. DOE appreciates EPA's
recognition that the agencies have addressed EPA's earlier concerns and
has considered these new comments in decision making.
The Imperial County Air Pollution Control District again raised
issues that it had raised on the Draft EIS concerning air quality,
health, and mitigation. DOE and BLM specifically addressed these issues
in the responses to comments section of the Final EIS and also added
descriptions and explanations throughout the main text of the EIS.
A third commenter stated that the EIS was hard to read and
comprehend. DOE and BLM attempted to make a highly technical project as
understandable as was reasonable. A fourth commenter expressed concern
that the companies had overstated the cost of the SCR and wet-dry
cooling systems. DOE does not agree that costs are overstated and notes
that SCR systems have been installed regardless of cost.
Decision
DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action alternative, which
was identified as DOE's preferred alternative in the EIS. Accordingly,
DOE will grant a Presidential permit to both Sempra and Intergen that
allows each applicant to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a
separate double-circuit, 230-kV electric transmission line that extends
south from SDG&E's existing Imperial Valley substation, crosses the
U.S. international border in the vicinity of Calexico, California, and
connects to their respective natural gas-fired power plants, as those
plants are currently designed, located in Mexicali, Mexico. The permits
will specify that the permitted electric transmission lines must be
connected to power plants that are designed, constructed, and operated
in accordance with the specifications upon which DOE and BLM based the
analyses contained in the EIS. These specifications include the use of
wet cooling systems, water treatment plants, and all air pollution
control systems that already exist or are scheduled for installation.
Any permit issued may be modified or revoked by the President of the
United States without notice, and by DOE after public notice, and may
also be amended by DOE after proper application to DOE.
Before granting a Presidential permit, DOE also considers whether a
proposed international electric transmission line would have an adverse
impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In
reaching this determination, DOE considers the operation of the
electrical grid with a specified maximum amount of power transmitted
over the proposed line. In this instance, DOE is in receipt of
technical studies that demonstrate that the southern California
electrical grid would remain reliable with the existing capacity of the
TDM and LRPC export units connected to it. Therefore, each permit will
also contain an electric reliability condition that limits the
instantaneous rate of transmission (i.e., electric power) over the
permitted transmission lines to the existing generating capacity of the
respective power plants. Any change in the authorized operation or
connection of the permitted facilities requires prior approval by DOE.
Therefore, connection of additional generating capacity to either of
the permitted international transmission lines would require the owner
of the permitted facilities to notify DOE and to seek an amendment of
its Presidential permit. Amendment of a Presidential permit requires an
additional proceeding in which DOE would need to determine that the
proposed modification to the permitted facility or its operation or
connection is in the public interest. This determination would include
another review of the impact on electric reliability and on the
environment, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant
to the public interest.
Basis for Decision
In arriving at its decision, DOE has considered the continuing need
for additional electrical supplies in the region, the low potential
environmental impacts, the lack of adverse impacts to the reliability
of the U.S. electric power supply system, the practicality or the
availability of the alternatives, and public comments provided during
the preparation of the EIS
DOE did not select the No Action alternative because it would not
address the need for power in the region. The need for electric power
supplies in the southern California area has been well documented in
various ways over the past several years. Most recently, on January 19,
2005, the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) issued a
report entitled, ``2004 Cal-ISO Controlled Grid Study,'' in which it
notes that, ``In years 2006 and 2009, at the import levels modeled, and
with all generators (new and old) on-line there is barely enough
generation available in order to bring the system back within normal
operation after all single and double contingencies'' (that is, for
example, outage of one or more critical transmission lines,
transformers, or generating units).
DOE has determined that the potential impacts in the United States
from the Proposed Action alternative are expected to be small, as
discussed above.
Under the Alternative Technologies alternative, the only additional
technology identified that could reduce air emissions was the addition
of an oxidizing catalyst on the LRPC gas turbines. (The TDM power plant
already has an oxidizing catalyst installed.) The effect of this
additional technology would be to reduce maximum increases in
concentrations of CO in Imperial County. However, because the increase
in CO concentrations for the Proposed Action alternative is so far
below the SL for this pollutant, the addition of this technology to the
LRPC plant would not appreciably alter the potential for human health
impacts.
Incorporation of parallel wet-dry cooling systems under the
Alternative Technologies alternative would reduce consumption of water
by the Mexico power plants. However, this reduction of water use would
produce negligible improvements in the already small impacts associated
with the Proposed Action. Moreover, use of this technology would reduce
the efficiency of the Mexico power plants, requiring greater fuel input
for the same electrical output and increasing most emissions except for
PM10.
While the Mitigation Measures alternative presents a slate of
activities that might offset some of the impacts of the power plants,
it is not clear which, if any of them will be implementable in fact. In
the case of water mitigation measures, any water that may be conserved
if these measures could be implemented would likely be diverted to
other water uses in the region, and would not be used to offset the
reduced inflow of water to the Salton Sea attributable to the Proposed
Action. Given the low impacts to air and water expected from the power
plants, DOE does not believe that the expense of such measures, when
viewed in the light of the uncertainty of their results, warrants their
imposition.
For the foregoing reasons, DOE has decided to implement the
Proposed Action alternative as defined in the EIS, but with the
conditions noted in the Decision section above.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
In the EIS, DOE and BLM assessed the impacts of the proposed action
on floodplains. The proposed and alternative routes for the proposed
transmission line would cross Pinto Wash and its 100-year floodplain. A
map of this floodplain is provided in the
[[Page 21196]]
EIS. See ADDRESSES for information on obtaining a copy of the EIS. A
maximum of two lattice tower footings for each transmission line would
be in the Pinto Wash 100-year floodplain for the proposed or
alternative routes. Construction of footings for the support structures
would introduce temporary disturbance into this 100-year floodplain.
Cylindrical sections of the footings 3 to 4 ft (0.9 to 1.2 m) in
diameter would permanently protrude above the ground surface. There is
no practicable alternative to placement of structures in the
floodplain, but the floodplain assessment found that neither the
temporary disturbance during placement of these footings nor their
permanence would result in change to conditions in the floodplain,
flooding, or floodplain function.
With respect to the floodplain of the New River, the assessment
found that changes in water flow and depth produced by power plant
operations would lie well within the variability of the flows for the
New River. All alternatives, including No Action, could result in a
small reduction in maximum flood elevation, but this change would have
no practical effect on the incidence or extent of floods or floodplain
function.
Dated: April 18, 2005.
Kevin Kolevar,
Director, Office of Electricity and Energy Assurance.
[FR Doc. 05-8200 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P