Record of Decision for Issuing a Presidential Permit to Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC, for the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission Line Project, 49789-49792 [2012-20234]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Notices
meeting agenda, as well as the staff
analyses pertaining to the meeting will
be posted on the Department of
Education’s Web site prior to the
meeting at https://www2.ed.gov/about/
bdscomm/list/ncfmea.html.
Reasonable Accommodations: The
meeting site is accessible to individuals
with disabilities. If you will need an
auxiliary aid or service to participate in
the meeting (e.g., interpreting service,
assistive listening device, or materials in
an alternate format), notify the contact
person listed in this notice by
September 28, 2012, although we will
attempt to meet a request received after
that date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Griffiths, Executive Director for
the NCFMEA, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room
8073, Washington, DC 20006–8129,
telephone: 202 219–7035; fax: 202 502–
7874, or email: Carol.Griffiths@ed.gov.
Electronic Access to this Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
David A. Bergeron,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary
Education.
[FR Doc. 2012–20282 Filed 8–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Docket No. PP–334]
Record of Decision for Issuing a
Presidential Permit to Energia Sierra
Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC, for the
Energia Sierra Juarez U.S.
Transmission Line Project
Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Aug 16, 2012
Jkt 226001
DOE announces its decision
to issue a Presidential permit to Energia
Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC
(ESJ), to construct, operate, maintain,
and connect a double-circuit, 230,000volt (230-kV) electric transmission line
across the U.S.-Mexico border in eastern
San Diego County, California. The
potential environmental impacts
associated with the transmission line
are analyzed in the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Energia Sierra
Juarez U.S. Transmission Line Project
(DOE/EIS–0414). The transmission line
would originate at San Diego Gas and
Electric’s planned East County
Substation (ECO Substation), and
extend southward approximately 0.65
miles to the U.S. border with Mexico,
near Jacumba, California, where it
would cross the border and connect
with a transmission line to be built in
Mexico.
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available
on the DOE NEPA Web site at https://
energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents and
on the project Web site at https://
esjprojecteis.org/, and the ROD will be
available on both Web sites in the near
future. Copies of the Final EIS and this
ROD may be requested by contacting
Brian Mills, Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE–20),
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, Phone (202)
586–8267, email
Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on the Energia
Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission Line
EIS, contact Brian Mills as indicated in
the ADDRESSES section above. For
general information on the DOE NEPA
process, contact Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585; by email at
askNEPA@hq.doe.gov; or by facsimile at
202–586–7031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
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 electricity transmission
facilities may be constructed, operated,
maintained, or connected at the U.S.
border. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49789
issuance of a permit for a proposed
action is in the public interest, DOE
considers the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed project, the
project’s impact on electricity 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 considers relevant to
the public interest.
On December 18, 2007, ESJ, a
subsidiary of Sempra U.S. Gas and
Power, applied to DOE for a Presidential
permit to construct, operate, maintain,
and connect either a single-circuit, 500kV electric transmission line or a
double-circuit 230-kV electric
transmission line across the U.S.Mexico border. The electric
transmission line would originate at San
Diego Gas and Electric’s planned ECO
Substation in San Diego County where
it would interconnect with the Imperial
Valley-Miguel segment of the Southwest
Powerlink (SWPL) 500-kV transmission
line. The transmission line would
extend approximately 0.65 miles
southward, crossing the U.S.-Mexico
border near Jacumba, California, then
continue approximately 1 mile (1.6 km)
to an interconnection point inside
Mexico. The total length of the
transmission line would be
approximately 1.65 miles (2.65 km),
0.65 miles of which would be within the
U.S. The proposed line would be
constructed and owned by ESJ.
The ESJ transmission line project
would connect to the planned 1,250
Megawatt (MW) ESJ Wind Project to be
located in the general vicinity of La
Rumorosa, Northern Baja California,
Mexico. Delivery within California of
the output of ESJ wind turbines in
Mexico would be scheduled by the
California Independent System Operator
(CAISO).
Consultation
Under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, DOE has completed
consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding impacts on
Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species in the area of the
proposed project. Consultation under
section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act was on-going at the
time the Final EIS was issued. Since
then, DOE has completed consultation
with the California State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding
potential impacts on historic properties,
as confirmed in a June 29, 2012, letter
of concurrence by California SHPO.
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
49790
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Notices
NEPA Review
DOE originally considered an
environmental assessment (EA) (Baja
Wind U.S. Transmission Environmental
Assessment; DOE/EA–1608) to be the
appropriate level of review under
NEPA. DOE published a Notice of Intent
to Prepare an Environmental
Assessment and to Conduct Public
Scoping Meetings in the Federal
Register on August 4, 2008 (73 FR
45218). In that notice DOE stated ‘‘if at
any time during preparation of the EA
DOE determines that an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is needed * * *
DOE will consider any comments on the
scope of the EA received during [the EA
scoping process] in preparing such an
EIS.’’ After considering public
comments on the EA, in January 2009,
DOE decided to stop work on the EA
and instead to prepare an EIS.
DOE published a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS in the Federal Register
on February 25, 2009 (74 FR 8518). The
County of San Diego was a cooperating
agency in the preparation of the EIS. On
September 17, 2010, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a Notice of Availability of the
Draft EIS in the Federal Register (75 FR
57005), which began a 45-day public
comment period that ended on
November 1, 2010. During the comment
period, DOE held three public hearings
on the Draft EIS. DOE considered all late
comments received on the Draft EIS,
including late comments received
through September 2011, in the
preparation of the Final EIS.
DOE revised its action alternatives in
the Final EIS to reflect a new location
for the planned ECO Substation. As a
result, four action alternatives were
analyzed in the Final EIS. In May 2012,
DOE published the Final EIS (DOE/EIS–
0414), and a Notice of Availability of the
Final EIS was published by the EPA in
the Federal Register on June 8, 2012 (77
FR 34041).
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Alternatives Considered
In the draft EIS, DOE analyzed a No
Action alternative and two action
alternative routes. Under the No Action
alternative (Alternative 1), DOE would
not issue a Presidential permit for the
proposed ESJ U.S. Transmission Line
and the line would not be built. Under
action alternative Alternative 2, the
proposed transmission line would be
constructed as a double-circuit 230-kV
line, while action alternative Alternative
3 would be constructed as a singlecircuit 500-kV line and would be
located to the east of Alternative 2. The
transmission lines analyzed in the
action alternatives would be constructed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Aug 16, 2012
Jkt 226001
with an overhead static ground wire
running above the conductors with a
fiber optic core for communication
between the ESJ Jacume Substation in
Mexico and the planned ECO Substation
in the U.S.
Following issuance of the Draft EIS,
the proposed location for the ECO
Substation was shifted approximately
700 feet (213 meters) east of the original
proposed location in order to avoid
impacts to cultural resources. Due to
these changes, revised alternative routes
were analyzed in the Final EIS. The
revised double-circuit 230-kV
transmission line route was identified as
Alternative 4A (DOE’s preferred
alternative), and the revised singlecircuit 500-kV transmission line route
was identified as Alternative 4B. All
action alternatives would be located
wholly within private property in
eastern San Diego County near the
unincorporated community of Jacumba.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The EIS analyzes potential impacts
associated with the alternatives for each
of the following resource areas:
biological resources, visual resources,
land use, recreation, cultural resources,
noise, transportation and traffic, public
health and safety, fire and fuels
management, air quality and climate
change, water resources, geology and
soils, socioeconomics, environmental
justice, and services and utilities.
Implementation of the No Action
alternative would not result in changes
to existing conditions in the various
resource areas.
i. Potential environmental impacts
from the action alternatives identified in
the EIS and discussed in this section are
based upon ESJ’s implementation of all
Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs)
and mitigation measures identified for
each resource area in Section 2.11 of the
Final EIS.
Biological Resources: All action
alternatives would result in permanent
disturbance to approximately 10 acres of
natural vegetation and wildlife habitat.
Minor temporary disturbances to
wildlife and breeding birds during
construction would be expected from
increased noise and traffic during
construction of the project. Under all
action alternatives, some bird mortality
could result from collisions with the
transmission line even after mitigating
measures are applied. No adverse effects
to special status species are expected
from any of the action alternatives. The
information available indicates that the
potential for impact on biological
resources within the U.S. as a result of
operation of the ESJ Wind Project in
Mexico is not significant.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Visual Resources: All action
alternatives would result in permanent
potentially moderate-to-major, longterm adverse visual impacts due to land
scarring. Views of construction
equipment and activity would result in
a temporary moderate adverse impact.
The long-term presence of the
transmission line would result in a
moderate adverse impact.
Wind turbines planned for
construction in Mexico as part of the
ESJ Wind Project, including associated
safety lighting, would be visible from
several viewing points in the U.S.,
resulting in a potential long-term impact
to individuals in the U.S.
Cultural Resources: Under all action
alternatives, the construction activity
would result in the potential for minor
impacts to currently unknown cultural
resources. ESJ has incorporated
measures into its project design to
eliminate potential impacts to eleven
(11) known prehistoric archaeological
sites in the Area of Potential Effect
(APE) defined for the proposed
transmission line.
Since ESJ plans to access water from
the Jacumba Community Services
District, a previously identified
potential for impact to Site CA–SDI–
4455, which is near the previously
proposed water well access road, is no
longer applicable.
Noise: Construction of the
transmission line would result in
temporary minor increases in ambient
noise levels. These levels would be
below the county noise ordinance at the
nearest receptor site located
approximately 1,600 feet west of the
construction area. Operation of the
transmission line would introduce a
sporadic low noise as a result of the
corona effect. The 230-kV configurations
would result in an approximate
maximum of 8.8 dBA (decibels on an Aweighted scale) at the property line.
This is below the County ordinance for
nighttime property line sound level
limit of 45 dBA. With regard to the 500kV route alternatives, two of the four
potential conductor configurations fall
below the county nighttime property
line sound level limit, at 35.4 dBA and
36.8 dBA. The preferred alternative
would not exceed the limits imposed by
the County of San Diego’s ordinance.
Transportation and Traffic: The
action alternatives would result in a
minor temporary increase in traffic on
local roadways, a minor potential for
adverse impacts to traffic safety at the
project’s ingress/egress, and a short-term
minor potential for roadway damage
from construction activities. ESJ is
working with the County of San Diego
to develop a traffic control plan, road
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Notices
improvements, and a site entrance in
accordance with the County of San
Diego’s traffic safety design standards.
The area near the proposed
transmission lines is frequented by lowflying aircraft operated by the U.S.
Border Patrol and by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection. The transmission line would
result in a minor potential for adverse
impacts to air traffic safety.
Public Health and Safety: There
would be little potential to expose the
public to hazardous materials or
contaminated soil as a result of
construction of the transmission line.
Construction materials would be
managed to minimize potential storm
water contact, and the small amounts of
potential hazardous waste would be
disposed in accordance with local, state,
and Federal regulations.
There are no public trails, recreation
areas, or other developments to cause
members of the public to linger near the
transmission lines. All action
alternatives incorporate grounding
features in accordance with industry
standards for electrical transmission
structures to reduce the potential impact
of induced currents and electrical field
interference. The highest
electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure at
the nearest residence would be far
below typical household levels.
Fire and Fuels Management:
Construction of the transmission line
would increase the potential risk
associated with wildfire as a result of
new ignition sources, introduction of
invasive non-native plants, and the
creation of a potential obstacle to
firefighting. The San Diego Rural Fire
Protection District has approved ESJ’s
Fire Protection Plan. Also, ESJ has
worked with the District to agree upon
methods to protect against fire.
Potential impacts to habitat and
vegetation in the U.S. could result from
a wildfire originating in Mexico and
spreading across the U.S.–Mexico
border.
Air Quality and Climate Change:
Maximum emissions resulting from any
of the action alternatives are estimated
to be well below applicable thresholds.
Temporary minor impacts from air
emissions during construction and
operation are expected due to minor
short-term increases in criteria
pollutants (organic gases, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
oxides and fugitive dust).
Because it will transmit electricity
generated from a renewable energy
generating source (wind turbines),
operation of the transmission line could
facilitate a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from other sources.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Aug 16, 2012
Jkt 226001
Geology and Soils: Under all action
alternatives construction of the
transmission line would result in a
minor temporary increase in soil
disturbance and erosion during
construction. There is potential for longterm minor erosion impacts during
operation of the proposed transmission
line. Onsite soils have a high potential
to corrode steel, but potential impacts of
corrosion on operation of the
transmission line would be minor.
During operations there would be a
minor potential for structural damage or
failure as a result of seismic groundshaking. However, the transmission line
and overhead structures are designed to
exceed earthquake loads, resulting in
minimal potential for damage. No
impacts related to soil liquefaction or
slope instability are anticipated.
The Environmentally Preferred
Alternative
DOE has determined that there are no
discernible differences in the
environmental impacts of the action
alternatives. Because DOE’s preferred
230-kV alternative would employ
slightly smaller towers, thereby
minimizing the overall footprint of the
proposed project, Alternative 4A is
identified as the environmentally
preferred alternative.
Comments Received on the Final EIS
Comments on the Final EIS were
received from EPA Region IX on June
27, 2012, and from Stephen C. Volker
attorney for Backcountry Against
Dumps, the Protect Our Communities
Foundation, East County Community
Action Coalition, and Donna Tisdale
(Collectively, ‘‘Community Groups’’) on
July 10, 2012. Comments received on
the Final EIS are available on the project
Web site identified above.
The EPA Region IX comments on the
Final EIS acknowledge DOE’s responses
to EPA’s comments on the Draft EIS and
raise no new issues. EPA states its
appreciation for information added to
the Final EIS that supports
environmentally preferable outcomes.
The Community Groups’ comments
reiterate the Community Groups
November 2010 comments on the Draft
EIS. The comments and DOE responses
are identified as 401–1 through 401–17
in the Final EIS Comment and Response
Document (Volume 3). The Community
Group disagrees with the DOE
responses. DOE affirms its previous
responses to comments 401–1 through
401–17.
Decision
DOE has decided to issue Presidential
Permit PP–334 to authorize ESJ to
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49791
construct, operate, maintain, and
connect a Double-Circuit 230-kV
transmission line across the U.S. border.
This action, Alternative 4A, is identified
as DOE’s preferred alternative in the
EIS. The permit will include a condition
requiring ESJ to implement mitigation
measures identified in the EIS.
Before granting a Presidential permit,
DOE must determine if 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 electric
power transmitted over the proposed
line.
DOE reviewed the generation
interconnection studies conducted by
CAISO for the first phase of the ESJ
planned wind generation facility
currently in the CAISO interconnection
queue to connect to the U.S. grid. These
studies are available on the project Web
site.
CAISO completed the study for the
first phase of 400 MW of wind
generation and executed an
interconnection agreement with ESJ
U.S. Transmission (Standard Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement
(LGIA)—ESJ Wind (Queue No. 159A),
CAISO, October 26, 2011). The studies
for the second and third phases of the
planned ESJ wind generation have not
been completed.
Mitigation
Avoidance and minimization of
potential environmental impacts was a
consideration in the identification and
selection of the preferred alternative.
The alignment of DOE’s preferred
alternative avoids some cultural
resources potentially affected by
Alternatives 2 and 3. DOE’s Presidential
permit will contain a condition that
requires ESJ to implement projectspecific mitigation measures and
protective measures proposed by the
Applicant (APMs) that are identified in
the Final EIS. With the implementation
of the preferred alternative and
inclusion of the mitigation measures,
DOE has employed all practicable
means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the design,
construction and operation of the
preferred alternative.
Basis for Decision
In arriving at its decision, DOE has
considered the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed project, the
project’s impact on electricity reliability
by ascertaining whether the proposed
project would adversely affect the
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
49792
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Notices
operation of the U.S. electric power
supply system under normal and
contingency conditions, and any other
factors that DOE may consider relevant
to the public interest.
DOE has determined that the potential
impacts from the Route for the DoubleCircuit 230-kV Transmission Line are
expected to be small, as discussed
above.
For the reasons stated above, DOE
will issue Presidential Permit PP–334 to
authorize ESJ to construct, operate,
maintain, and connect the Energia
Sierra Juarez U.S. Double-Circuit 230-kV
Transmission Line across the U.S.
border. Presidential Permit PP–334 will
limit the project to a maximum of 400
MW.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13,
2012.
Patricia A. Hoffman,
Assistant Secretary of Energy Electricity,
Delivery and Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2012–20234 Filed 8–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–9004–5]
Environmental Impacts Statements;
Notice of Availability
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal
Activities, General Information (202)
564–7146 or https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements Filed 08/06/2012 Through
08/10/2012
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Notice
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act
requires that EPA make public its
comments on EISs issued by other
Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters
on EISs are available at: https://www.epa.
gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Starting
October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept
paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing
purposes; all submissions on or after
October 1, 2012 must be made through
e-NEPA. While this system eliminates
the need to submit paper or CD copies
to EPA to meet filing requirements,
electronic submission does not change
requirements for distribution of EISs for
public review and comment. To begin
using e-NEPA, you must first register
with EPA’s electronic reporting site—
https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp.
EIS No. 20120264, Final EIS, USFS, CA,
On Top Hazardous Fuels Reduction
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Aug 16, 2012
Jkt 226001
Project, To Disclose the
Environmental Effects of a Federal
Proposal on National Forest System
(NFS) Land, Plumas National Forest,
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas,
Butte Counties, CA, Review Period
Ends: 09/17/2012, Contact: Carol
Spinos 530–534–6500.
EIS No. 20120265, Draft EIS, FHWA,
MT, Billings Bypass Improvements,
Connecting Interstate 90 (I–90) east of
Billings with Old Highway (Old Hwy
312), Possible USACE Section 10 and
404 Permits, Yellowstone County,
MT, Comment Period Ends: 10/01/
2012, Contact: Brian Hasselbach 406–
441–3908.
EIS No. 20120266, Draft EIS, USFS, CO,
Village at Wolf Creek Access Project,
Conveyance of Non-Federal Land to
the U.S. in Exchange for National
Forest System Lands Managed by the
Rio Grande National Forest, Mineral
County, CO, Comment Period Ends:
10/01/2012, Contact: Harold Dyer
719–852–6215.
EIS No. 20120267, Draft EIS, USN, VA,
Outdoor Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation Activities within the
Potomac River Test Range and
Explosives Experimental Area
Complexes, the Mission Area and
Special-Use Airspace at Naval
Support Facility Dahlgren, Expansion,
Dahlgren, VA, Comment Period Ends:
10/01/2012, Contact: Jennifer Boyd
540–653–8695.
Amended Notices
EIS No. 20120184, Draft EIS, NOAA, 00,
Issuing Annual Quotas to the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC)
for a Subsistence Hunt on Bowhead
Whales for the Years 2013 through
2017/2018, Comment Period Ends:
08/31/2012, Contact: Ellen Sebastian
907–586–7247. Revision to FR Notice
Published 06/15/2012; Extending
Comment Period from 08/14/2012 to
08/31/2012.
EIS No. 20120197, Draft EIS, USFS, ID,
Golden Hand No. 1 and No. 2 Lode
Mining Claims Project, Krassel Ranger
District, Payette National Forest,
Valley and Idaho Counties, ID,
Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2012,
Contact: Jeff Hunteman 208–634–
0434. Revision to FR Notice Published
06/29/2012; Extending Comments
Period from 08/13/2012 to 09/17/
2012.
EIS No. 20120263, Final EIS, USFS, CA,
Barren Ridge Renewable
Transmission Project, Construct,
Operate, Maintain, and Upgrade
220kV Electrical Transmission Lines
and Switching Stations, Kern and Los
Angeles Counties, CA, Review Period
Ends: 09/10/2012, Contact: Justin
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Seastrand 626–574–5278(AFS),
Lynette Elser 951–697–5233(BLM).
Revision to FR Notice Published 08/
10/2012; Review Period ends 09/10/212.
More information on the U.S. Forest
Service’s appeal process is available at
https://www.ladwp.com/barrenridge.
Dated: July 14, 2012.
Aimee Hessert,
Deputy Director, NEPA Compliance Division,
Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012–20248 Filed 8–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0442; FRL–9356–5]
FIFRA Pesticide Registration Review
and ESA Consultation Processes;
Proposal Regarding Stakeholder Input;
Request for Comment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
EPA is seeking public
comment on a proposal to enhance
opportunities for stakeholders to
provide input during its review of
pesticide registrations under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and associated
consultations under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
proposal was jointly prepared by EPA,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) in the U.S. Department
of Commerce and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) in the U.S.
Department of Interior. The proposal
describes significant changes to EPA’s
registration review process which are
intended to facilitate ESA pesticide
consultations and coordination across
these Federal agencies, and calls for a
greater role for USDA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 16, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0442, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49789-49792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20234]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PP-334]
Record of Decision for Issuing a Presidential Permit to Energia
Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC, for the Energia Sierra Juarez
U.S. Transmission Line Project
AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision to issue a Presidential permit to
Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC (ESJ), to construct,
operate, maintain, and connect a double-circuit, 230,000-volt (230-kV)
electric transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico border in eastern San
Diego County, California. The potential environmental impacts
associated with the transmission line are analyzed in the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission Line
Project (DOE/EIS-0414). The transmission line would originate at San
Diego Gas and Electric's planned East County Substation (ECO
Substation), and extend southward approximately 0.65 miles to the U.S.
border with Mexico, near Jacumba, California, where it would cross the
border and connect with a transmission line to be built in Mexico.
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at
https://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents and on the project Web site at
https://esjprojecteis.org/, and the ROD will be available on both Web
sites in the near future. Copies of the Final EIS and this ROD may be
requested by contacting Brian Mills, Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone (202) 586-8267,
email Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the Energia
Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission Line EIS, contact Brian Mills as
indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. For general information on
the DOE NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office
of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; by email at
askNEPA@hq.doe.gov; or by facsimile at 202-586-7031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 electricity transmission facilities may be
constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. border. 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 potential environmental impacts of the proposed project,
the project's impact on electricity 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 considers relevant to the public
interest.
On December 18, 2007, ESJ, a subsidiary of Sempra U.S. Gas and
Power, applied to DOE for a Presidential permit to construct, operate,
maintain, and connect either a single-circuit, 500-kV electric
transmission line or a double-circuit 230-kV electric transmission line
across the U.S.-Mexico border. The electric transmission line would
originate at San Diego Gas and Electric's planned ECO Substation in San
Diego County where it would interconnect with the Imperial Valley-
Miguel segment of the Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) 500-kV transmission
line. The transmission line would extend approximately 0.65 miles
southward, crossing the U.S.-Mexico border near Jacumba, California,
then continue approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) to an interconnection point
inside Mexico. The total length of the transmission line would be
approximately 1.65 miles (2.65 km), 0.65 miles of which would be within
the U.S. The proposed line would be constructed and owned by ESJ.
The ESJ transmission line project would connect to the planned
1,250 Megawatt (MW) ESJ Wind Project to be located in the general
vicinity of La Rumorosa, Northern Baja California, Mexico. Delivery
within California of the output of ESJ wind turbines in Mexico would be
scheduled by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO).
Consultation
Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, DOE has completed
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding impacts
on Federally-listed threatened or endangered species in the area of the
proposed project. Consultation under section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act was on-going at the time the Final EIS was
issued. Since then, DOE has completed consultation with the California
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding potential impacts
on historic properties, as confirmed in a June 29, 2012, letter of
concurrence by California SHPO.
[[Page 49790]]
NEPA Review
DOE originally considered an environmental assessment (EA) (Baja
Wind U.S. Transmission Environmental Assessment; DOE/EA-1608) to be the
appropriate level of review under NEPA. DOE published a Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment and to Conduct Public
Scoping Meetings in the Federal Register on August 4, 2008 (73 FR
45218). In that notice DOE stated ``if at any time during preparation
of the EA DOE determines that an environmental impact statement (EIS)
is needed * * * DOE will consider any comments on the scope of the EA
received during [the EA scoping process] in preparing such an EIS.''
After considering public comments on the EA, in January 2009, DOE
decided to stop work on the EA and instead to prepare an EIS.
DOE published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal
Register on February 25, 2009 (74 FR 8518). The County of San Diego was
a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. On September 17,
2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice
of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register (75 FR 57005),
which began a 45-day public comment period that ended on November 1,
2010. During the comment period, DOE held three public hearings on the
Draft EIS. DOE considered all late comments received on the Draft EIS,
including late comments received through September 2011, in the
preparation of the Final EIS.
DOE revised its action alternatives in the Final EIS to reflect a
new location for the planned ECO Substation. As a result, four action
alternatives were analyzed in the Final EIS. In May 2012, DOE published
the Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0414), and a Notice of Availability of the Final
EIS was published by the EPA in the Federal Register on June 8, 2012
(77 FR 34041).
Alternatives Considered
In the draft EIS, DOE analyzed a No Action alternative and two
action alternative routes. Under the No Action alternative (Alternative
1), DOE would not issue a Presidential permit for the proposed ESJ U.S.
Transmission Line and the line would not be built. Under action
alternative Alternative 2, the proposed transmission line would be
constructed as a double-circuit 230-kV line, while action alternative
Alternative 3 would be constructed as a single-circuit 500-kV line and
would be located to the east of Alternative 2. The transmission lines
analyzed in the action alternatives would be constructed with an
overhead static ground wire running above the conductors with a fiber
optic core for communication between the ESJ Jacume Substation in
Mexico and the planned ECO Substation in the U.S.
Following issuance of the Draft EIS, the proposed location for the
ECO Substation was shifted approximately 700 feet (213 meters) east of
the original proposed location in order to avoid impacts to cultural
resources. Due to these changes, revised alternative routes were
analyzed in the Final EIS. The revised double-circuit 230-kV
transmission line route was identified as Alternative 4A (DOE's
preferred alternative), and the revised single-circuit 500-kV
transmission line route was identified as Alternative 4B. All action
alternatives would be located wholly within private property in eastern
San Diego County near the unincorporated community of Jacumba.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The EIS analyzes potential impacts associated with the alternatives
for each of the following resource areas: biological resources, visual
resources, land use, recreation, cultural resources, noise,
transportation and traffic, public health and safety, fire and fuels
management, air quality and climate change, water resources, geology
and soils, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and services and
utilities.
Implementation of the No Action alternative would not result in
changes to existing conditions in the various resource areas.
i. Potential environmental impacts from the action alternatives
identified in the EIS and discussed in this section are based upon
ESJ's implementation of all Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs) and
mitigation measures identified for each resource area in Section 2.11
of the Final EIS.
Biological Resources: All action alternatives would result in
permanent disturbance to approximately 10 acres of natural vegetation
and wildlife habitat. Minor temporary disturbances to wildlife and
breeding birds during construction would be expected from increased
noise and traffic during construction of the project. Under all action
alternatives, some bird mortality could result from collisions with the
transmission line even after mitigating measures are applied. No
adverse effects to special status species are expected from any of the
action alternatives. The information available indicates that the
potential for impact on biological resources within the U.S. as a
result of operation of the ESJ Wind Project in Mexico is not
significant.
Visual Resources: All action alternatives would result in permanent
potentially moderate-to-major, long-term adverse visual impacts due to
land scarring. Views of construction equipment and activity would
result in a temporary moderate adverse impact. The long-term presence
of the transmission line would result in a moderate adverse impact.
Wind turbines planned for construction in Mexico as part of the ESJ
Wind Project, including associated safety lighting, would be visible
from several viewing points in the U.S., resulting in a potential long-
term impact to individuals in the U.S.
Cultural Resources: Under all action alternatives, the construction
activity would result in the potential for minor impacts to currently
unknown cultural resources. ESJ has incorporated measures into its
project design to eliminate potential impacts to eleven (11) known
prehistoric archaeological sites in the Area of Potential Effect (APE)
defined for the proposed transmission line.
Since ESJ plans to access water from the Jacumba Community Services
District, a previously identified potential for impact to Site CA-SDI-
4455, which is near the previously proposed water well access road, is
no longer applicable.
Noise: Construction of the transmission line would result in
temporary minor increases in ambient noise levels. These levels would
be below the county noise ordinance at the nearest receptor site
located approximately 1,600 feet west of the construction area.
Operation of the transmission line would introduce a sporadic low noise
as a result of the corona effect. The 230-kV configurations would
result in an approximate maximum of 8.8 dBA (decibels on an A-weighted
scale) at the property line. This is below the County ordinance for
nighttime property line sound level limit of 45 dBA. With regard to the
500-kV route alternatives, two of the four potential conductor
configurations fall below the county nighttime property line sound
level limit, at 35.4 dBA and 36.8 dBA. The preferred alternative would
not exceed the limits imposed by the County of San Diego's ordinance.
Transportation and Traffic: The action alternatives would result in
a minor temporary increase in traffic on local roadways, a minor
potential for adverse impacts to traffic safety at the project's
ingress/egress, and a short-term minor potential for roadway damage
from construction activities. ESJ is working with the County of San
Diego to develop a traffic control plan, road
[[Page 49791]]
improvements, and a site entrance in accordance with the County of San
Diego's traffic safety design standards.
The area near the proposed transmission lines is frequented by low-
flying aircraft operated by the U.S. Border Patrol and by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The transmission
line would result in a minor potential for adverse impacts to air
traffic safety.
Public Health and Safety: There would be little potential to expose
the public to hazardous materials or contaminated soil as a result of
construction of the transmission line. Construction materials would be
managed to minimize potential storm water contact, and the small
amounts of potential hazardous waste would be disposed in accordance
with local, state, and Federal regulations.
There are no public trails, recreation areas, or other developments
to cause members of the public to linger near the transmission lines.
All action alternatives incorporate grounding features in accordance
with industry standards for electrical transmission structures to
reduce the potential impact of induced currents and electrical field
interference. The highest electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure at the
nearest residence would be far below typical household levels.
Fire and Fuels Management: Construction of the transmission line
would increase the potential risk associated with wildfire as a result
of new ignition sources, introduction of invasive non-native plants,
and the creation of a potential obstacle to firefighting. The San Diego
Rural Fire Protection District has approved ESJ's Fire Protection Plan.
Also, ESJ has worked with the District to agree upon methods to protect
against fire.
Potential impacts to habitat and vegetation in the U.S. could
result from a wildfire originating in Mexico and spreading across the
U.S.-Mexico border.
Air Quality and Climate Change: Maximum emissions resulting from
any of the action alternatives are estimated to be well below
applicable thresholds. Temporary minor impacts from air emissions
during construction and operation are expected due to minor short-term
increases in criteria pollutants (organic gases, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and fugitive dust).
Because it will transmit electricity generated from a renewable
energy generating source (wind turbines), operation of the transmission
line could facilitate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from
other sources.
Geology and Soils: Under all action alternatives construction of
the transmission line would result in a minor temporary increase in
soil disturbance and erosion during construction. There is potential
for long-term minor erosion impacts during operation of the proposed
transmission line. Onsite soils have a high potential to corrode steel,
but potential impacts of corrosion on operation of the transmission
line would be minor.
During operations there would be a minor potential for structural
damage or failure as a result of seismic ground-shaking. However, the
transmission line and overhead structures are designed to exceed
earthquake loads, resulting in minimal potential for damage. No impacts
related to soil liquefaction or slope instability are anticipated.
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative
DOE has determined that there are no discernible differences in the
environmental impacts of the action alternatives. Because DOE's
preferred 230-kV alternative would employ slightly smaller towers,
thereby minimizing the overall footprint of the proposed project,
Alternative 4A is identified as the environmentally preferred
alternative.
Comments Received on the Final EIS
Comments on the Final EIS were received from EPA Region IX on June
27, 2012, and from Stephen C. Volker attorney for Backcountry Against
Dumps, the Protect Our Communities Foundation, East County Community
Action Coalition, and Donna Tisdale (Collectively, ``Community
Groups'') on July 10, 2012. Comments received on the Final EIS are
available on the project Web site identified above.
The EPA Region IX comments on the Final EIS acknowledge DOE's
responses to EPA's comments on the Draft EIS and raise no new issues.
EPA states its appreciation for information added to the Final EIS that
supports environmentally preferable outcomes.
The Community Groups' comments reiterate the Community Groups
November 2010 comments on the Draft EIS. The comments and DOE responses
are identified as 401-1 through 401-17 in the Final EIS Comment and
Response Document (Volume 3). The Community Group disagrees with the
DOE responses. DOE affirms its previous responses to comments 401-1
through 401-17.
Decision
DOE has decided to issue Presidential Permit PP-334 to authorize
ESJ to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a Double-Circuit 230-
kV transmission line across the U.S. border. This action, Alternative
4A, is identified as DOE's preferred alternative in the EIS. The permit
will include a condition requiring ESJ to implement mitigation measures
identified in the EIS.
Before granting a Presidential permit, DOE must determine if 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 electric power
transmitted over the proposed line.
DOE reviewed the generation interconnection studies conducted by
CAISO for the first phase of the ESJ planned wind generation facility
currently in the CAISO interconnection queue to connect to the U.S.
grid. These studies are available on the project Web site.
CAISO completed the study for the first phase of 400 MW of wind
generation and executed an interconnection agreement with ESJ U.S.
Transmission (Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement
(LGIA)--ESJ Wind (Queue No. 159A), CAISO, October 26, 2011). The
studies for the second and third phases of the planned ESJ wind
generation have not been completed.
Mitigation
Avoidance and minimization of potential environmental impacts was a
consideration in the identification and selection of the preferred
alternative. The alignment of DOE's preferred alternative avoids some
cultural resources potentially affected by Alternatives 2 and 3. DOE's
Presidential permit will contain a condition that requires ESJ to
implement project-specific mitigation measures and protective measures
proposed by the Applicant (APMs) that are identified in the Final EIS.
With the implementation of the preferred alternative and inclusion of
the mitigation measures, DOE has employed all practicable means to
avoid or minimize environmental harm from the design, construction and
operation of the preferred alternative.
Basis for Decision
In arriving at its decision, DOE has considered the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project, the project's impact on
electricity reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project
would adversely affect the
[[Page 49792]]
operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and
contingency conditions, and any other factors that DOE may consider
relevant to the public interest.
DOE has determined that the potential impacts from the Route for
the Double-Circuit 230-kV Transmission Line are expected to be small,
as discussed above.
For the reasons stated above, DOE will issue Presidential Permit
PP-334 to authorize ESJ to construct, operate, maintain, and connect
the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Double-Circuit 230-kV Transmission Line
across the U.S. border. Presidential Permit PP-334 will limit the
project to a maximum of 400 MW.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2012.
Patricia A. Hoffman,
Assistant Secretary of Energy Electricity, Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2012-20234 Filed 8-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P