```

[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 
http://energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents and on the project Web site at  
http://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
```