Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49447 

PRB Chair: Major General Arthur 

Morrill III, USAF. 

Members: Mr. Jeffrey Neal, Director, 

Human Resources. Mr. Larry Glasco, 

Deputy Director, Logistics Operations 

& Readiness. Mr. James McClaugherty, 

Deputy Commander, Defense Supply 

Center Columbus. 

Robert T. Dail, 

USA, Director, Defense Logistics Agency. 

[FR Doc. E8–19252 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3620–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management invites 

comments on the submission for OMB 

review as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

September 22, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, 

Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are 

encouraged to submit responses 

electronically by email to 

oiralsubmission@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax to (202) 395–6974. Commenters 

should include the following subject 

line in their response ‘‘Comment: [insert 

OMB number], [insert abbreviated 

collection name, e.g., ‘‘Upward Bound 

Evaluation’’]. Persons submitting 

comments electronically should not 

submit paper copies. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The IC Clearance 

Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, publishes that notice 

containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

Dated: August 18, 2008. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Type of Review: New. 

Title: National Study on Alternate 

Assessments Teacher Survey. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 600. 

Burden Hours: 1,335. 

Abstract: The National Study on 

Alternate Assessments (NSAA) Teacher 

Survey will examine the use of alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

achievement standards by surveying a 

sample of teachers who use these 

assessments with students who have 

significant cognitive disabilities. The 

survey will study motivation and 

expectations, professional capacity and 

support, instructional resources, and 

opportunity to learn academic content. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 3695. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection when making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. E8–19430 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[Docket No. PP–304] 

Record of Decision and Floodplain 

Statement of Findings; Generadora del 

Desierto SA de C.V. (GDD) San Luis 

Rio Colorado (SLRC) Project 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability (OE), Department 

of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD) and 

Floodplain Statement of Findings. 

SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision 

to issue a Presidential Permit that would 

authorize Generadora del Desierto SA 

de C.V. (GDD) to construct, operate, 

maintain, and connect a new doublecircuit 230,000-volt (230-kV) electric 

transmission line across the U.S.- 

Mexico border into Yuma County, 

southeast of San Luis, Arizona. The 

environmental impacts that would be 

associated with the line were analyzed 

in the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the San Luis Rio Colorado 

Project (DOE/EIS–0395, SLRC EIS). The 

transmission line, known as the San 

Luis Rio Colorado (SLRC) Project, 

would extend from a new gas-fired 

electric power plant, known as the 

SLRC Power Center (to be constructed 

by GDD approximately one mile south 

of the U.S.-Mexico border in San Luis 

Rio Colorado, Sonora, Mexico), cross the 

U.S.-Mexico border, extend 

approximately 21 miles north, and 

connect to the existing Gila Substation 

that is owned and operated by the 

Western Area Power Administration 

(Western), an organizational element 

within DOE. From the Gila Substation, 

the line would extend an additional five 

miles north and connect to the existing 

North Gila Substation that is owned and 

operated by the Arizona Public Service 

Company (APS). 

In reaching this decision, DOE 

considered the low environmental 

impacts in the United States from 

constructing, operating, maintaining, 

and connecting the proposed 

international transmission line and from 

the construction and operation of the 

SLRC Power Center, the absence of 

adverse impacts to the reliability of the 

U.S. electric power supply system, and 

the absence of major issues of concern 

to the public. On October 12, 2007, 

Western issued a ROD (72 FR 58074) in 

which it decided to allow the proposed 

international transmission line and the 

SLRC Power Center to interconnect with 

Western’s transmission system at the 

Gila Substation. 

DOE has prepared this ROD and 

Floodplain Statement of Findings in 

accordance with the regulations of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49448 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

1Although BLM does not have a Federal action 

it must take for the proposed project to be 

implemented, BLM is participating as a cooperating 

agency because of its special expertise with respect 

to environmental impacts in a flat-tailed horned 

lizard management area, part of which would be 

crossed by any of the action alternatives. 

2The authority to administer the International 

Electricity Regulatory Program through the 

regulation of electricity exports and the issuance of 

Presidential Permits has been delegated to the 

Assistant Secretary of OE in Redelegation Order No. 

00–002.10C issued on May 29, 2008. 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR Parts 1500–1508) for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), DOE’s NEPA Implementing 

Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021), and 

DOE’s Compliance with Floodplain and 

Wetland Environmental Review 

Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022). 

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available 

from Western and can be requested on 

its Web site at http://www.wapa.gov/ 

transmission/intersanluis.htm. The 

Western ROD is available on the 

Western Web site at http:// 

www.wapa.gov/fedreg/FRNpdfs/ 

frn2007/72FR58074.pdf and on the DOE 

NEPA Web site at http:// 

www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ 

pub_rods_toc.html. This OE ROD also 

will be available on both the Western 

Web site and the DOE NEPA Web site. 

This ROD may be requested by 

contacting Dr. Jerry Pell, Project 

Manager, Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department 

of Energy, OE–20, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 

by telephone at 202–586–3362, by 

facsimile at 202–586–8008, or at 

Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the SLRC EIS, 

contact Dr. Jerry Pell as indicated in the 

ADDRESSES section above, or Mr. John 

Holt, Environmental Manager, Desert 

Southwest Customer Service Region, 

Western Area Power Administration, 

P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005, by 

telephone at 602–605–2592, or at 

holt@wapa.gov. Copies of the EIS also 

are available from Mr. Holt. For general 

information on the DOE NEPA process, 

contact Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, 

Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, 

GC–20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 

202–586–4600, or leave a message at 

800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western 

and OE are the lead DOE offices 

responsible for the SLRC EIS. The U.S. 

Department of the Navy (acting through 

the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station 

Yuma), the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM),1 the Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR), and the City of Yuma, Arizona, 

are cooperating agencies. Western is the 

lead office for complying with Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 

Section 1531, and for complying with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). 

Background 

Executive Order (E.O.) 10485 

(September 9, 1953), as amended by 

E.O. 12038 (February 7, 1978), requires 

that a Presidential Permit be issued by 

DOE before electric transmission 

facilities may be constructed, operated, 

maintained, or connected at the U.S. 

international border.2 DOE may issue or 

amend a permit if it determines that the 

permit is in the public interest and after 

obtaining favorable recommendations 

from the U.S. Departments of State and 

Defense. In determining whether 

issuance of a permit for a proposed 

action is in the public interest, DOE 

considers the environmental impacts of 

the proposed project pursuant to NEPA, 

determines the project’s impact on 

electric reliability by ascertaining 

whether the proposed project would 

adversely affect the operation of the U.S. 

electric power supply system under 

normal and contingency conditions, and 

considers any other factors that DOE 

believes are relevant to the public 

interest. 

On September 23, 2005, GDD, a 

Mexican corporation and wholly owned 

affiliate of North Branch Holding, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company, 

filed an application with DOE for a 

Presidential Permit. GDD proposed to 

construct a double-circuit 500-kilovolt 

(500-kV) electric transmission line 

across the U.S.-Mexico border that 

would extend from a new gas-fired 

electric power plant to be built by GDD 

approximately one mile south of the 

U.S.-Mexico border in San Luis Rio 

Colorado, Sonora, Mexico; cross the 

U.S.-Mexico border into Yuma County, 

southeast of San Luis, Arizona; extend 

approximately 21 miles north; and 

connect to the existing Gila Substation 

owned and operated by Western. From 

the Gila Substation, the line would 

extend an additional five miles north 

and connect to the existing North Gila 

Substation owned and operated by APS. 

DOE published a notice of the 

application for a Presidential Permit in 

the Federal Register on March 20, 2006 

(71 FR 13970). 

In a related proceeding, North Branch 

Resources, LLC (NBR), also a wholly 

owned subsidiary of North Branch 

Holding, LLC, has applied to Western to 

connect the proposed international 

transmission line and the SLRC Power 

Center to Western’s transmission 

system. (GDD and NBR are referred to, 

collectively, as the ‘‘Applicants’’ in this 

ROD.) Relying on the SLRC EIS, on 

October 12, 2007 (72 FR 58074), 

Western issued a ROD allowing the 

proposed international transmission 

line and the SLRC Power Center to 

interconnect with Western’s 

transmission system. 

NEPA Review 

Given the length of the transmission 

line proposed for the United States, 

DOE determined that issuing a 

Presidential Permit, as requested by 

GDD, and authorizing the 

interconnection to the Western 

transmission system, as requested by 

NBR, would likely constitute major 

Federal actions that could significantly 

affect the quality of the human 

environment within the meaning of 

NEPA (Pub. L. 91–190, as amended). 

Experience with proposed transmission 

line projects of a similar nature has 

indicated the probability of significant 

environmental impacts that would 

appropriately be analyzed in an EIS. For 

this reason, DOE prepared an EIS to 

address potential environmental 

impacts from a range of reasonable 

alternatives that would satisfy DOE’s 

purpose and need. DOE also examined 

a No Action alternative. On February 10, 

2006, DOE published in the Federal 

Register (71 FR 7033) a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS and to hold 

public scoping meetings in Yuma and 

San Luis. DOE also announced these 

meetings locally, in both English and 

Spanish. 

On November 9, 2006, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a notice of availability of the 

Draft EIS in the Federal Register (71 FR 

65812), which began a two-month 

public comment period that ended on 

January 10, 2007. All comments 

received on the Draft EIS were 

considered in the preparation of the 

Final EIS. Because the Draft EIS 

required only minor text changes 

(factual corrections and clarifications) in 

response to comments, the Final EIS for 

the proposed DOE actions consist of a 

Comment-Response Addendum together 

with the Draft EIS (40 CFR 1503.4 (c)). 

A notice of availability of the Final EIS 

was published by EPA in the Federal 

Register on August 3, 2007 (72 FR 

43271). 

Applicants’ Proposed Action 

In their respective applications to OE 

and Western, the Applicants proposed a 

double-circuit 500-kV transmission line 

that would originate at the SLRC Power 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49449 

Center in Sonora, Mexico, interconnect 

with Western’s transmission system at 

the existing Gila Substation, and 

continue to APS’s North Gila 

Substation. The Proposed Action would 

require expanding the Gila Substation 

with a 500/69-kV transformer and 

associated switchgear adjacent to the 

Substation and constructing a doublecircuit 500-kV transmission line 

between the Gila and the North Gila 

Substations. All of the proposed 

transmission components within the 

United States would be located in Yuma 

County. In addition, modifications 

would be made to the North Gila 

Substation based on an agreement 

between Western and APS, and that 

substation would remain under the 

operational control of APS. 

The total length of the proposed 

transmission line within the United 

States would be approximately 26 miles: 

21 miles from the international border 

to the Gila Substation and 5 miles from 

the Gila Substation to the North Gila 

Substation. Portions of the proposed 

transmission line would cross private 

lands and lands owned and/or managed 

by the BOR, the U.S. Department of the 

Navy, and the State of Arizona. In 

Mexico, GDD plans to construct and 

operate the SLRC Power Center, a new 

550-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, 

combined-cycle power plant located 

approximately 3 miles east of San Luis 

Rio Colorado, Sonora, Mexico, and 

about 1 mile south of the U.S.-Mexico 

border. This facility is not subject to 

U.S. regulatory requirements; however, 

the EIS evaluates impacts that would 

occur within the United States from its 

construction and operation. 

The Alternatives 

The Applicants’ Proposed Action was 

presented at stakeholder and scoping 

meetings to provide a basis for 

discussion of issues to be considered in 

the EIS and to assist with identifying 

potential alternatives. Based on the 

suggestions received at those meetings, 

DOE identified and analyzed two 

additional alternatives that either 

responded to public issues and concerns 

or were directly recommended by the 

public. Alternatives proposed by the 

public were evaluated to determine 

whether they were consistent with the 

Applicants’ stated purpose and need 

and were technically and economically 

feasible. Based on these criteria, DOE 

identified and added to its analysis a 

‘‘Route Alternative’’ and a ‘‘230-kV 

Alternative,’’ both of which vary from 

the Applicants’ Proposed Action. 

Route Alternative 

Under the Route Alternative, the 

proposed transmission line would be 

constructed as a 500-kV line and the 

transmission system components would 

be identical to those of the Applicants’

Proposed Action, but the route of the 

proposed transmission line would be 

modified. During the public meetings, 

commenters identified various routing 

options for numerous segments of the 

proposed transmission line. The Route 

Alternative was developed by 

combining the suggested routing 

segments that would avoid engineering 

constraints associated with existing and 

proposed development, including 

recreational vehicle (RV) and trailer 

parks that are encroaching upon the 

existing transmission line rights-of-way 

(ROWs) into the North Gila Substation. 

230-kV Alternative 

Under the 230-kV Alternative, the 

transmission system components would 

follow the route of the Applicants’

Proposed Action, but be constructed to 

operate at 230 kV instead of 500 kV. The 

230-kV Alternative would meet the 

Applicants’ objectives to transport 

electric power and create additional 

transmission capacity in the Yuma area. 

This alternative would require 25 

percent less ROW area and shorter, less 

massive support structures than a 500- 

kV line, and smaller substation 

modifications. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, OE 

would not issue the Presidential Permit 

and Western would not approve an 

interconnection agreement. In this 

instance, no transmission line would 

cross the U.S.-Mexico border; the 

proposed transmission lines, substation 

additions and modifications, and access 

roads within the United States would 

not be constructed; and the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

their construction and operation would 

not occur. 

The selection of the No Action 

Alternative would not preclude 

development of the SLRC Power Center. 

In the EIS, the Applicants state that two 

of their objectives are to transmit 

electric power from the SLRC Power 

Center across the border into the United 

States and to transmit power to the 

Comisio ́n Federal de Electricidad (CFE), 

the national electric system in Mexico. 

Furthermore, correspondence from NBR 

dated July 22, 2008, asserts that, ‘‘ * * * 

if the [Presidential] permit is not 

granted, the [SLRC] Project would be 

built pursuant to the permits it has 

received from Mexican governmental 

authorities and the power output of the 

Project would be provided within 

Mexico since the cross border sale of 

power would not be available. The 

Mexican government has identified a 

significant need for power in the area 

where the Project will be built and the 

project would help meet this demand.’’

Therefore, if the Presidential Permit 

were not granted, as would be the case 

under the No Action Alternative, the 

SLRC Power Center would still be 

constructed, maintained, and operated 

solely for the purpose of serving electric 

power needs within Mexico, and 

impacts in the United States would be 

similar to those described in the EIS 

from the construction and operation of 

the SLRC Power Center, which is not 

subject to United States regulation 

because these activities would occur 

entirely within Mexico. 

The DOE Preferred Alternative 

In the Draft EIS, DOE identified the 

Route Alternative and the 230-kV 

Alternative as the environmentally 

preferable alternatives, and stated that 

its preferred alternative was a 

combination of these two alternatives, 

whereby the final project would use the 

route from the Route Alternative, but be 

constructed to 230-kV standards. The 

Applicants’ Proposed Action was not 

selected as the preferred alternative in 

the Draft EIS because of higher impacts 

on flat-tailed horned lizard habitat, 

increased engineering constraints, and 

increased impacts on residential 

dwellers as compared to the DOE 

Preferred Alternative. 

The DOE Preferred Alternative would 

include: 

1. A new 21-mile, double-circuit, 230- 

kV transmission line constructed 

between the international border and 

Western’s existing Gila Substation along 

the Route Alternative defined in the EIS; 

2. A new 230/69-kV transformer and 

associated switchgear addition 

constructed adjacent to Gila Substation 

as identified in the 230-kV Alternative 

in the EIS; 

3. A new 5-mile, double-circuit, 230- 

kV transmission line constructed 

between Gila Substation and APS’ North 

Gila Substation along the Route 

Alternative defined in the EIS. (The 

majority of this portion of the alignment 

would utilize existing ROW; Western 

anticipates that the existing doublecircuit 69-kV line would be underbuilt; 

i.e., placed below the new line on the 

same poles or towers.) 

4. Modifications to North Gila 

Substation necessary to interconnect the 

230-kV transmission lines into the 

substation as identified in the 230-kV 

Alternative in the EIS (these 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49450 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

modifications will be made through an 

agreement with APS); and 

5. Associated access roads, as needed. 

Analysis of Environmental Impacts 

This section summarizes the 

environmental impacts of all of the 

alternatives. In the discussion below, 

the impacts of the 230-kV Alternative 

are based on following the alignment in 

the Applicants’ Proposed Action. 

The only potential for adverse 

impacts from the No Action Alternative 

are those that might occur if the SLRC 

Power Center were constructed, 

maintained, and operated solely for the 

purpose of serving electric power needs 

within Mexico. Such potential impacts 

are identified only for water resources 

and air quality. Thus, the environmental 

impacts of the No Action Alternative are 

discussed only in relation to those 

resources. 

The DOE Preferred Alternative, a 230- 

kV line along the alignment of the Route 

Alternative, would combine the 

favorable features of the Route 

Alternative and the 230-kV Alternative; 

overall, its impacts would be lower than 

those of the other action alternatives. 

The DOE Preferred Alternative would 

avoid conflicts with military aviation 

operations, would avoid potential 

impacts to the Yuma Lakes recreation 

area, and would meet local concerns 

about 500-kV transmission lines. Land 

requirements and impacts to biological 

and visual resources would be smaller 

than under the Applicants’ Proposed 

Action and the other action alternatives. 

Land Use and Recreation: Under all 

action alternatives, portions of the ROW 

could be shared with existing ROWs, 

but new ROWs would be required on 

BOR, State of Arizona, and private 

lands, and a permit would be required 

to cross the Barry M. Goldwater Range 

(BMGR). Under the 230-kV Alternative 

and the DOE Preferred Alternative, the 

150-foot wide ROW would require 25 

percent less land than needed for the 

200-foot wide ROW under the 

Applicants’ Proposed Action and the 

Route Alternative. 

Yuma Lakes is the only recreational 

facility in the project area. Located 

southeast of the North Gila Substation, 

it includes RV parks and Redondo Pond, 

a lake used for fishing and small boats. 

Existing and proposed development of 

the RV parks is encroaching upon the 

existing transmission ROW. Widening 

the existing 230-kV ROW within Yuma 

Lakes for a 500-kV ROW would impact 

the RV parks by causing the relocation 

of the recreational activities that 

currently occur within the existing 

ROW. However, this is not considered 

to be a significant impact because the 

recreational activities could occur 

within other areas of Yuma Lakes. The 

DOE Preferred Alternative and the 

Route Alternative would not traverse 

the RV and trailer park area; therefore, 

impacts would be less than under the 

Applicants’ Proposed Action and the 

230-kV Alternative. 

Geology, Paleontology, Seismicity, 

and Soils: There are no unique or 

important geologic features within the 

project area. All of the action 

alternatives would use locally abundant 

sand and gravel resources to make 

concrete footings for the transmission 

support structures; the routes would be 

located near, but not within, an active 

sand and gravel operation. Geologic and 

seismic risks are well-understood and 

are addressed by building codes and 

utility industry standards. To minimize 

potential damage from earth shaking, 

structures would be constructed and 

maintained to Federal Uniform Building 

Code standards for Zone 4 areas, the 

highest category of risk for seismic 

activity. Structures would be designed 

to withstand an earthquake measuring 

8.0 on the Richter scale. The potential 

for direct geologic or seismic impacts 

under all action alternatives would, 

thus, be mitigated by proper engineering 

design and construction of all proposed 

project structures. Although vegetation 

clearing and soil disruption during 

construction would result in an 

increased potential for wind and water 

erosion of surface soils, none of the 

action alternatives would result in 

appreciable soil erosion. 

Water Resources: Under all 

alternatives, the SLRC Power Center 

would obtain its potable water by 

converting an existing groundwater 

withdrawal from agricultural irrigation 

use to power plant use, so there would 

be no change in the pumping or 

consumptive use of groundwater. 

Cooling water for the proposed power 

plant would be obtained from the San 

Luis Rio Colorado municipal 

wastewater treatment plant in Mexico, 

so there would be no effect on water 

resources in the United States. 

Temporary sedimentation of water 

resources resulting from transmission 

line construction would be managed by 

erosion control measures required 

pursuant to a Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan, such that construction 

under any of the action alternatives 

would not result in discharges of 

contaminants or sediment into water or 

watercourses or substantially alter the 

flow of a water body. A ‘‘Waters of the 

United States’’ delineation and 

characterization survey was completed 

for DOE’s Preferred Alternative and the 

report was submitted to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) for review. 

In a letter dated March 1, 2007, USACE 

determined that DOE’s Preferred 

Alternative would not discharge 

dredged or fill material into a water of 

the United States or adjacent wetland. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will 

not require a permit under Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act or a Section 401 

water quality certification. 

Temporary dewatering of the ground 

might be necessary during construction 

in the Gila Valley under any of the 

action alternatives due to high 

groundwater levels, but dewatering 

would be short-term and localized, and 

the water would be returned to the 

ground, thus it would not substantially 

deplete groundwater resources. 

Air Quality Impacts within the United 

States: Assessment of potential impacts 

to air quality considered impacts in the 

United States from activities both 

within the United States (transmission 

line construction) and outside the 

United States (construction and 

operation of the associated SLRC Power 

Center in Mexico). For all action 

alternatives, construction and 

maintenance of the proposed 

transmission line and associated 

modifications at the Gila Substation 

would generate fugitive dust from 

construction activities and emissions 

from motor vehicles. With proposed 

dust control mitigation, these impacts 

would be temporary and minor. 

Emissions of PM10 (i.e., particles less 

than 10 microns in diameter) within the 

Yuma PM10 non-attainment area would 

be 22 tons per year, which is 0.2 percent 

of total PM10 emissions for Yuma 

County, and is below the 100 tons-peryear threshold for applicability of Clean 

Air Act general conformity 

requirements. Therefore, there would be 

no issue with regard to conformity with 

State air quality implementation plans. 

For all alternatives, including the No 

Action Alternative, dispersion modeling 

results indicate that ambient air quality 

impacts in the United States from the 

SLRC Power Center located in Mexico 

would be low relative to both the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration criteria. The 

estimated contribution from the SLRC 

Power Center would be no higher than 

0.3 percent of the NAAQS for any 

pollutant. The effects of anticipated 

SLRC Power Center emissions combined 

with the existing background levels 

would be below 20 percent of the 

annual NAAQS for any pollutant, 

except PM10. PM10 is of particular 

concern because the area of the 

proposed project has been designated a 

non-attainment area for PM10 due to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49451 

3 GHGs differ in their global warming potential 

(GWP; radiative forcing) on a global climate system 

due to their different radiative properties and 

lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming 

influences may be expressed through a common 

metric based on the radiative forcing of CO2, i.e., 

CO2-equivalent. CO2-equivalent emission is the 

amount of CO2 emission that would cause the sametime integrated radiative forcing, over a given time 

horizon, as an emitted amount of other long-lived 

GHG or mixture of GHGs. Accordingly, for 

comparative purposes, the GWP of CO2 is 

normalized to 1, against which all other GHG are 

measured. For example, as compared to CO2, the 

GWP of methane (CH4) over a 100-year time horizon 

is 25, for nitrous oxide (N2O) is 298, and for sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6) is 22,800. 

high existing background levels. 

However, monitoring has demonstrated 

compliance with the NAAQS standard 

for PM10 since 1990 and the results of 

dispersion modeling have demonstrated 

that anticipated SLRC Power Center 

PM10 emissions combined with the 

existing background levels would result 

in concentrations of 78 percent of the 

annual NAAQS. 

Global Climate Change and Carbon 

Dioxide Emissions 

Climate change has evolved into a 

matter of global concern because it is 

expected to have widespread adverse 

effects on natural resources and 

systems. A growing body of evidence 

points to anthropogenic (man-made) 

sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), 

such as carbon dioxide (CO2), as major 

contributors to climate change. Here, 

DOE’s decision to permit a transmission 

line and grant an interconnection does 

not itself authorize activities that emit 

CO2 or any other GHG. However, the 

SLRC Power Center, where the proposed 

transmission line would originate, does 

emit CO2. The SLRC Power Center is not 

a ‘‘connected action’’ because it is not 

dependent on the Proposed Action. 

Further, it is located in Mexico and, as 

such, its construction and operation are 

not subject to NEPA. 

Nonetheless, DOE has examined 

impacts to the United States from the 

SLRC Power Center in the Final EIS. 

Impacts of Climate Change on the 

Environment 

According to the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth 

Assessment Report (IPCC Report), 

published in 2007, global climate 

change is consistent with observed 

changes to the world’s natural systems 

and the IPCC expects these changes to 

continue. 

Changes that are consistent with 

global warming include warming of the 

world’s oceans to a depth of 3,000 

meters (9,840 feet); global average sea 

level rise at an average rate of 1.8 mm 

(0.07 inches) per year from 1961 to 

2003; loss of annual average Arctic sea 

ice at a rate of 2.7 percent per decade, 

changes in wind patterns that affect 

extra-tropical storm tracks and 

temperature patterns, increases in 

intense precipitation in some parts of 

the world, as well as increased drought 

and more frequent heat waves in many 

locations worldwide, and numerous 

ecological changes. 

Looking forward, the IPCC describes 

continued global warming of about 0.2 

°C (0.36 °F) per decade for the next two 

decades under a wide range of emission 

scenarios for carbon dioxide (CO2), 

other GHGs, and aerosols. After that 

period, the rate of increase is less 

certain. The IPCC Report describes 

increases in average global temperatures 

of about 1.1 °C (1.98 °F) to 6.4 °C (11.52 

°F) at the end of the century relative to 

today. These increases vary depending 

on the model and emissions scenarios. 

Causes of Global Climate Change 

The IPCC Report states that the world 

has warmed by about 0.74 °C (1.33 °F) 

in the last 100 years. The IPCC Report 

finds that most of the temperature 

increase since the mid-20th century is 

very likely due to the increase in 

anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and 

other long-lived GHGs such as methane 

and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, 

rather than from natural causes. 

The IPCC Report estimates that CO2

makes up about 77 percent of the total 

CO2-equivalent 3 global warming 

potential in GHGs emitted from human 

activities, with the vast majority (74 

percent) of the CO2 attributable to fossil 

fuel use. For the future, the IPCC Report 

describes a wide range of GHG 

emissions scenarios, but under each 

scenario CO2 would continue to 

comprise above 70 percent of the total 

global warming potential. 

The Incremental Impact of the SLRC 

Project on Global Climate Change 

The SLRC Power Center would 

generate a maximum of 1.3 million 

metric tons of CO2 per year. The United 

States’ CO2 emissions from energy 

consumption were estimated by DOE’s 

Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) to be about 5.9 billion metric tons 

in 2006, about 15 percent of which 

comes from combustion of natural gas. 

Based on EIA information, the CO2

emissions from the SLRC Power Center 

would represent about 0.0000026 

percent (2.6 × 10¥6 percent), or 2.6 

millionths of one percent of the 

estimated 49 billion metric tons of 

global anthropogenic emissions of CO2. 

It is difficult to correlate specific 

emission rates with atmospheric 

concentrations of CO2 and specific 

atmospheric concentrations with future 

temperatures because the IPCC Report 

describes a clear lag in the climate 

system between any given concentration 

of CO2 (even if maintained for long 

periods) and the subsequent average 

worldwide and regional temperature, 

precipitation, and extreme weather 

regimes. For example, a major 

determinant of climate response is 

‘‘equilibrium climate sensitivity,’’ a 

measure of the climate system response 

to sustained radiative forcing. It is 

defined as the global average surface 

warming following a doubling of carbon 

dioxide concentrations. The IPCC 

Report describes its estimated, numeric 

value as about 3 °C (5.40 °F), but the 

likely range of that value is 2 °C (3.60 

°F) to 4.5 °C (8.10 °F), with cloud 

feedbacks the largest source of 

uncertainty. Thus, climate sensitivity is 

a key uncertainty for CO2 mitigation 

scenarios that aim to meet specific 

temperature levels. 

Because of the complexity of global 

climate systems, it is difficult to know 

to what extent and when particular CO2

emissions rates will impact global 

warming, much less to foresee how this 

contribution to warming will impact the 

United States. However, the SLRC 

Power Center does contribute CO2

emissions that will have an incremental 

impact on global CO2 emissions, 

however small. Those emissions will, in 

combination with global CO2 emissions 

from a variety of different sources, very 

likely impact global warming and its 

related environmental impacts. As such, 

even though it is not currently possible 

to measure the degree of impact that the 

SLRC Power Center’s emissions has on 

climate change, or where the related 

environmental impacts will occur, those 

emissions may contribute to climate 

change and its related environmental 

impacts. Some of those impacts very 

likely will occur in the United States. 

Biological Resources: Impacts to 

biological resources from the 230-kV 

Alternative and the DOE Preferred 

Alternative would be similar to, but 

slightly less than, those from the 

Applicants’ Proposed Action and the 

Route Alternative because the ROW 

would be narrower and the area of the 

structural footprint would be slightly 

smaller. Impacts to specific biological 

resources are described below. 

Vegetation 

All of the action alternatives would 

cause some disturbance to vegetation, 

but the disturbance would be a small 

fraction of the total area of similar 

resources in the immediate proposed 

project area. Construction of any of the 

action alternatives would neither result 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49452 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

4The Yuma Area Service Highway (ASH) is a 

proposed direct transportation route between the 

Greater Yuma Port Authority’s future commercial 

International Port of Entry (POE) near San Luis, 

Arizona, and Interstate 8 (I–8). Greater detail is 

available at http://www.azdot.gov/EEG_common/ 

documents/files/planning/195_ash_highway/ 

fonsi_main_text.pdf. 

in the long-term loss of riparian 

vegetation, nor result in a long-term loss 

of habitat causing the listing of, or 

jeopardizing the continued existence of, 

any plant species. Overall, the 

construction of the DOE Preferred 

Alternative would have the lowest level 

of impacts on vegetation resources 

among the action alternatives because it 

would have a narrower ROW and 

smaller footprint of disturbance than a 

500-kV line and fewer new access roads 

than would be needed along the 

alignment of the Applicants’ Proposed 

Action. 

Special Status Species 

The flat-tailed horned lizard is 

identified as a species of concern by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, a 

BLM sensitive species, and an Arizona 

Game and Fish Department wildlife 

species of special concern. The relevant 

regulatory agencies have authorized 

only minimal surface disturbing 

activities in the Yuma Desert FWS FlatTailed Horned Lizard Management Area 

(FTHL MA), which is in the western 

part of the BMGR and adjacent BOR 

land, in order to conserve sufficient 

habitat to maintain viable populations 

of this species. The Route Alternative 

and the DOE Preferred Alternative use 

more existing access roads than the 

Applicants’ Proposed Action and the 

230-kV Alternative in the FTHL MA, 

thus resulting in less impact on this 

area. The Route Alternative and the 

DOE Preferred Alternative would 

permanently disturb 0.07 acres in the 

FTHL MA from the steel monopoles, as 

compared to 0.15 acres for the 

Applicants’ Proposed Action and the 

230-kV Alternative. 

All of the action alternatives would 

avoid construction at the Gila River 

crossing during nesting season of two 

endangered birds, the Yuma clapper rail 

and southwestern willow flycatcher. All 

of the action alternatives would also 

incorporate mitigation identified in the 

FTHL Rangewide Management Strategy 

of the FWS. 

All action alternatives would be sited 

and constructed following the 

guidelines of the Avian Powerline 

Interaction Committee (http:// 

www.aplic.org) for standard raptor 

protection (i.e., a horizontal separation 

of 60 inches and a vertical separation of 

48 inches). 

A Biological Assessment for 

compliance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act was prepared 

and submitted to the FWS with a 

determination that the Proposed Project 

‘‘may affect but is not likely to adversely 

affect’’ any candidate, proposed, or 

listed species. In a reply dated March 

26, 2007, FWS concurred with this 

determination. 

Cultural Resources: For all of the 

action alternatives, impacts to cultural 

resources such as prehistoric properties, 

historic properties, and cultural 

landscapes could not be determined 

until a 100-percent Class III cultural 

resources survey as defined by the 

NHPA is available. The applicant has 

submitted a draft survey report for the 

DOE Preferred Alternative, but it has not 

been issued in final form as of this 

writing. DOE’s mitigation goal is to 

avoid any identified sites. A 

Programmatic Agreement has been 

developed and signed by Western, the 

Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Office, affected Federal agencies, the 

Applicants, and the 22 interested Native 

American Tribes. Compliance with the 

Programmatic Agreement provisions 

would ensure that requirements of 

Section 106 (Protection of Historic 

Properties) of NHPA are met. 

Transportation: For all action 

alternatives, use of local highways 

during construction would result in a 

less than one percent increase in annual 

average daily vehicular traffic. All of the 

action alternatives would be sited to 

avoid adverse impact to the civilian-use 

aviation corridor, which is located in 

open space between the areas of 

restricted airspace associated with the 

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma/Yuma 

International Airport and the BMGR. 

The Applicants’ Proposed Action and 

the 230-kV Alternative would go 

through the intersection of County 19th 

and Avenue 4E. In that location 

transmission support structures would 

have to be taller to comply with safety 

clearances for the proposed County 19th 

overpass of the planned Area Service 

Highway (ASH) 4. Support structures of 

that height would, however, conflict 

with military aviation operations within 

the area. The lower structures that 

would be used for the 230-kV 

Alternative would result in the same 

conflicts. Either conflict would, thus, 

result in a significant transportation 

impact from the Applicants’ Proposed 

Action and the 230-kV Alternative. The 

Route Alternative and the DOE 

Preferred Alternative would avoid that 

intersection and would thus avoid these 

conflicts. 

Visual Resources: For the majority of 

the proposed alignments under both the 

Applicants’ Proposed Action and the 

Route Alternative, the transmission 

facilities would not substantially modify 

the overall existing visual character of 

the area. Visual changes would remain 

subordinate within the existing visual 

landscape. There is an area of increased 

viewer sensitivity near the northwest 

corner of the BMGR. However, because 

the Applicants are proposing to use 

steel monopoles as support structures 

for the entire length of the proposed 

project, the impacts to this visually 

sensitive area are expected to be 

minimal. The Route Alternative would 

be farther from this area of increased 

sensitivity than the Applicants’

Proposed Action and would thus appear 

smaller and be less noticeable. For the 

230-kV Alternative and the DOE 

Preferred Alternative, impacts would be 

less than for the other action 

alternatives because structures would be 

25 feet shorter and less massive than 

500-kV structures. Thus, the DOE 

Preferred Alternative would have 

overall lower visual impacts than the 

other action alternatives. 

Noise: The estimated construction 

noise level from the Applicants’

Proposed Action and the 230-kV 

Alternative at the nearest existing 

residence, 420 feet away, would be 65.6 

dBA. For the Route Alternative and the 

DOE Preferred Alternative, the 

estimated construction noise level at the 

nearest existing residence, 145 feet 

away, would be 74.8 dBA. (As a point 

of reference, busy traffic has a noise 

level of about 75 dBA.) EPA has 

established 70 dBA as the highest level 

of environmental noise that will prevent 

any measurable hearing loss over the 

course of a lifetime. Construction noise 

levels at the nearest existing residence 

would be reduced below 70 dBA by 

designing the transmission line such 

that structures would be sited and 

construction activities would occur a 

minimum of 260 feet away from that 

residence. Under all action alternatives 

construction noise from substation 

modifications would be 61.9 dBA at the 

nearest residence, which is 642 feet 

away. Construction noise under all 

action alternatives would be temporary 

and with the careful siting of 

transmission structures would not be 

significant. 

Socioeconomics: Due to the small 

construction workforce (30 to 40 

workers) and availability of existing 

resources, impacts from all the action 

alternatives to population size, housing 

availability, employment and pay rates, 

governmental services, and 

infrastructure services would be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49453 

minimal. An increase to the local 

economy would be expected from any 

action alternative of about $4.7 million 

for the year of construction ($3.2 million 

for payroll and $1.5 million for 

materials). 

Environmental Justice: For all of the 

action alternatives, no minority or lowincome populations within the area of 

influence were identified based on 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) criteria (Environmental Justice 

Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, 1997; http:// 

www.nepa.gov). There would be no 

disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority or low-income 

populations. 

Health and Safety 

Electric and Magnetic Fields 

No Federal regulations have been 

established specifying environmental 

limits on the strengths of electric and 

magnetic fields from electric 

transmission lines. Under the 

Applicants’ Proposed Action and the 

Route Alternative, the electric field of 

the 500-kV transmission line on and at 

the edge of the ROW would be higher 

than that for the 230-kV lines under the 

other action alternatives. Human health 

and safety impacts from electric and 

magnetic fields remain controversial, 

but field strengths decrease rapidly with 

distance, such that they are expected to 

pose little or no increased exposure at 

and beyond the edge of the ROW for all 

action alternatives. 

Worker Health and Safety 

For all action alternatives, worker 

health and safety impacts from the 

construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the proposed project 

would be related to typical work-related 

injuries and fugitive dust. Risk 

associated with the action alternatives 

would be minimized through facility 

design, safe work practices, and 

continuous maintenance in compliance 

with Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration and State of Arizona 

regulations. 

Public Health and Safety 

For all action alternatives temporary 

fences would be placed wherever 

feasible to control public access to 

construction areas. In addition, 

construction equipment would be 

secured at night. Therefore, the 

potential for injury due to trespassing in 

construction areas would be minimal. 

Environmentally Preferable and DOE 

Preferred Alternative 

As described above, in the process of 

preparing the Draft EIS, DOE identified 

a combination of the Route Alternative 

and the 230-kV Alternative as both the 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

and also the DOE Preferred Alternative. 

In this case, the DOE Preferred 

Alternative would adopt the route from 

the Route Alternative as described in 

the EIS and be constructed to 230-kV 

standards. The Applicants’ Proposed 

Action was not selected as the DOE 

Preferred Alternative because of higher 

impacts on flat-tailed horned lizard 

habitat, increased engineering 

constraints, and increased visual 

impacts on residential dwellers as 

compared to the DOE Preferred 

Alternative. 

Comments Received on the Final EIS 

After publication of the Final EIS, 

three additional comments were 

received that expressed concerns about 

property values, visual impacts, lack of 

notification about the Applicant’s 

Proposed Action, and potential 

interference with radio, television, and 

amateur radio signal reception and 

transmission. Property value issues are 

addressed in the EIS; potential effects 

generally range from somewhat positive 

to a negative impact of up to 15 percent. 

Studies find that property value impacts 

can be quite different from case to case, 

and that perceptions of impacts on 

value vary depending on the individual. 

Furthermore, the presence of a 

transmission line is generally not the 

major determinant of property values, 

and any impact of its existence 

generally diminishes over time. 

Visual impacts are also addressed in 

the EIS and are closely linked to 

property value concerns. Like 

perceptions of property value impacts, 

visual impacts are also highly 

subjective, depending on the individual. 

DOE conducted a visual impact analysis 

using the BLM Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) system to 

determine the level of visual impact. 

The VRM system imposes a somewhat 

artificial structure on very subjective 

visual values, and looks at visual 

impacts from more of a societal view. 

However, the VRM system is the best 

and most widely accepted tool now 

available for impartial analysis of visual 

impacts. The analysis found that visual 

impacts would result from constructing 

the Proposed Project, but that they 

would not be significant. However, due 

to the subjective nature of visual 

impacts and personal perceptions, DOE 

acknowledges that some residents may 

consider the impact of the proposed 

project on them to be more significant 

than on others. 

A few comments were received from 

residents who had not previously heard 

about the project, and who felt they had 

not had the opportunity for meaningful 

input. Following the 2006 issuance of 

the NOI, DOE held 12 stakeholder 

meetings, four public scoping meetings, 

and two public hearings in the area that 

would be affected by the ‘‘Applicants’’

Proposed Action.’’ The public scoping 

meetings were announced in the 

Federal Register, paid advertisements in 

the Yuma Sun and Bajo el Sol, and 

direct newsletter/local NOI mailings in 

both English and Spanish to the project 

mailing list. Additional paid 

advertisements and direct mailings 

announced the public hearings. In 

addition, the Yuma Sun published 

several articles, editorials, and letters to 

the editor about the proposed project 

during the EIS process. The project 

mailing list included landowners up to 

0.5 miles from the centerline of all 

identified alternative routes, as 

identified from the county assessor 

records. The mailing list was updated as 

new mailings were prepared. While 

DOE regrets that some residents feel that 

they were not effectively notified, it 

believes that its public outreach effort 

was adequate. 

Potential interference with radio and 

television transmission and reception is 

also addressed in the EIS. Most cases of 

interference are directly related to spark 

gap discharges, also known as coronal 

discharges, due to loose, worn, or 

defective transmission line hardware. 

Western operates about 17,000 miles of 

transmission lines, and interference 

issues are rarely reported. In the 

unlikely event that an interference 

problem is encountered, Western has 

committed in its ROD to work with the 

affected party to eliminate the 

interference (72 FR 58074). 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

did not comment on the Final EIS, and 

the proposed project has not been 

controversial beyond the concerns of 

local residents and property owners. 

Mitigation Measures 

All mitigation measures identified in 

the EIS to minimize impacts from the 

transmission system additions are 

adopted in this ROD. Sections 2.1.1.8 

and 2.1.1.9 of the EIS list Western’s 

standard mitigation measures and 

additional mitigation measures included 

as part of the DOE Preferred Alternative. 

Some of Western’s standard measures 

include restricting vehicular traffic to 

existing access roads or public roads, 

recontouring and reseeding disturbed 

areas, environmental awareness training 

for all construction and supervisory 

personnel, and mitigation of radio and 

television interference generated by 

transmission lines. Additional measures 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

49454 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 

5Nomograms and remedial action schemes are 

operating procedures that establish limits on the 

amount of electric power that may be transmitted 

over a particular transmission line or produced by 

a generating unit under varying electric system 

conditions of load and equipment availability. 

These operating procedures establish a means of 

avoiding or mitigating any reliability problems that 

are expected to exist under various system 

contingencies. 

identified for the DOE Preferred 

Alternative include mitigation methods 

within flat-tailed horned lizard habitat 

and measures identified in the Arizona 

Administrative Code pertaining to 

fugitive dust control to be employed 

during transmission line construction. 

Western is the lead DOE element for 

compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA. Western’s preferred form of 

mitigation for cultural resources is to 

avoid all identified sites. To the extent 

possible, cultural sites determined 

eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places in consultation with the 

Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Office and interested tribes will be 

avoided by the DOE Preferred 

Alternative project activities. Impacts on 

cultural sites that cannot be avoided 

will be mitigated in accordance with the 

Programmatic Agreement developed for 

the DOE Preferred Alternative, which 

will govern all remaining activities 

necessary for Section 106 compliance. 

Mitigation Action Plan 

Although Western stated in its 2007 

ROD an intention to prepare a 

mitigation action plan to explain how 

mitigation will be planned and 

implemented, DOE has now determined 

that a mitigation action plan is not 

needed because the mitigation measures 

identified in the Western ROD and 

above either have been incorporated 

into the selected alternative or are 

included among Western’s standard 

construction practices. 

Floodplain Statement of Findings 

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, 

OE considered the potential impacts of 

the DOE Preferred Alternative on 

floodplains and wetlands. The DOE 

Preferred Alternative project area is 

located in an arid region of low annual 

precipitation (less than 4 inches 

annually) with relatively low runoff 

potential, currently consisting primarily 

of open desert and agriculture 

interspersed with residences. 

Construction of the DOE Preferred 

Alternative would not substantially alter 

the normal drainage patterns or affect 

runoff rates because the DOE Preferred 

Alternative project area typically does 

not experience runoff following a heavy 

rainfall due to the soils and geology of 

the area. 

All transmission system alternatives, 

including the DOE Preferred 

Alternative, would traverse the 100-year 

floodplain of the Gila River. DOE has 

found no practical alternative to 

locating or conducting the action in the 

floodplain. The DOE Preferred 

Alternative will be designed to span the 

width of the 100-year floodplain; 

accordingly, no new structures are 

expected to be placed within the Gila 

River channel or associated 100-year 

floodplain. If transmission would be 

consolidated and a 69-kV circuit 

underbuilt on the proposed 

transmission line, removal of two 

existing 69-kV transmission line 

structures would result in a temporary 

disturbance of the Gila River floodplain, 

but this would have no impact on the 

normal flow of the water body and 

would remove objects currently within 

the floodplain. Structures located 

adjacent to the floodplain would be 

constructed with additional concrete 

reinforcement around the footing to 

withstand potential flood flow-rates. 

The footings would not present a barrier 

to flood flows if they should exceed the 

100-year floodplain and reach these 

locations. If, after final project design, 

additional new structures are needed in 

the floodplain, they will be designed to 

conform to applicable Federal, State, 

and local floodplain protection 

standards. No wetlands would be 

affected by the DOE Preferred 

Alternative. 

Decision 

OE has decided to issue Presidential 

Permit PP–304 authorizing GDD to 

construct, operate, maintain, and 

connect a 230-kV electric transmission 

line across the U.S.-Mexico border along 

the Route Alternative identified and 

analyzed in the EIS. This action is 

identified as the DOE Preferred 

Alternative in the EIS. The Presidential 

Permit will require GDD to implement 

all of Western’s standard and additional 

mitigation measures which are 

described in Sections 2.1.1.8 and 2.1.1.9 

of the EIS. 

Basis for Decision 

In reaching this decision, DOE 

considered the low environmental 

impacts in the U.S. from constructing, 

operating, maintaining, and connecting 

the proposed international transmission 

line and from the construction and 

operation of the associated Mexico 

power plant, the absence of adverse 

impacts to the reliability of the U.S. 

electric power supply system, and the 

absence of major issues of concern to 

the public. 

OE has determined that the potential 

impacts from the DOE Preferred 

Alternative, i.e., the Route Alternative 

combined with the transmission line 

constructed to 230-kV standards (the 

230-kV Alternative), and with 

implementation of the stipulated 

mitigation measures, are expected to be 

small, as discussed above, and overall 

less than the expected impacts from any 

of the other alternatives except the No 

Action Alternative, which would deny 

the issuance of the Presidential Permit, 

hence prohibiting construction of the 

line across the international border. OE 

did not select the No Action Alternative 

because it would neither satisfy the 

Applicants’ stated purpose and need nor 

address the need for additional 

transmission capacity in the region. 

Also, the DOE Preferred Alternative has 

been determined to be consistent with 

the public interest based on the 

consideration of environmental impacts, 

the lack of adverse impacts on electric 

reliability, and the favorable 

recommendations of the Departments of 

State and Defense. 

In reaching this decision, OE also 

considered the project’s impact on 

electric reliability by ascertaining 

whether the proposed project would 

adversely affect the operation of the U.S. 

electric power supply system under 

normal and contingency conditions. In 

reaching this determination, DOE 

considered the information contained in 

the System Impact Study dated June 25, 

2007, which was submitted by the 

Applicants in support of their 

application for a Presidential Permit. 

The results of the System Impact Study 

indicate that the proposed international 

transmission line is capable of 

delivering the entire electrical output of 

the SLRC without violating any 

industry-established reliability criteria 

provided that the transmission line and 

the SLRC are operated consistent with 

the operating nomograms and remedial 

action schemes 5 that will be developed 

by Western during the Project’s 

Operating Studies prior to energizing 

the proposed transmission line. The 

Presidential Permit to be issued to GDD 

will contain a condition requiring it to 

adhere to these operating requirements. 

For the foregoing reasons, OE has 

decided to issue Presidential Permit PP–

304 to authorize GDD to construct, 

operate, maintain, and connect the San 

Luis Rio Colorado Project across the 

international border at the 230-kV 

operating voltage level along the Route 

Alternative as defined in the EIS, with 

the mitigation conditions noted above. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Notices 49455 

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Kevin M. Kolevar, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

[FR Doc. E8–19392 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings # 1 

August 13, 2008. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER99–3665–008; 

ER02–1947–009. 

Applicants: Occidental Power 

Marketing LP; Occidental Power 

Services, Inc. 

Description: Occidental Power 

Marketing, LP et al. submits an updated 

market power analysis and rate 

schedule revisions pursuant to Order 

697 and 697–A. 

Filed Date: 08/12/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0157. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER00–3080–003. 

Applicants: Otter Tail Power 

Company. 

Description: Otter Tail Power 

Company submits revisions to 

Substitute First Revised Sheet 2 to FERC 

Electric Tariff, Original Volume 9 to 

comply with Order 697 and 697–A. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0158. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER01–2636–004. 

Applicants: ALLETE, Inc. 

Description: ALLETE, Inc. submits 

revisions to its Wholesale Coordination 

Sales Tariff 2 to participate in the 

Midwest Independent Transmission 

System Operator, Inc.’s Ancillary 

Services Market etc. pursuant to Order 

697 and 697–A. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0106. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER01–3103–015. 

Applicants: Astoria Energy LLC. 

Description: Astoria Energy LLC 

submits a revised original Tariff 

submitted on 6/30/08 with a red-line 

and designated in the fashion requested 

by FERC staff. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0160. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER04–452–002. 

Applicants: PurEnergy, LLC. 

Description: Pure Energy, Inc. submits 

its Order 697 Compliance Filing and 

Application for Category 1 Status. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0114. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER06–270–001; 

ER06–271–001. 

Applicants: Solios Power LLC, Solios 

Asset Management LLC; Solios Power 

LLC. 

Description: Solios Power, LLC et al. 

submits Substitute Original Sheet 3 to 

First Revised Rate Schedule 1, which 

includes a full citation to the order 

granting waivers and blanket 

authorizations. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0161. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER07–515–001. 

Applicants: Domtar Corporation. 

Description: Domtar Corporation 

submits Substitute First Revised Sheets 

1 and 2 to Rate Schedule FERC 1 to 

clarify its 6/27/08 triennial market 

power update etc. 

Filed Date: 08/07/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080811–0002. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, August 28, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER08–824–002. 

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. 

Description: PJM Interconnection, 

LLC submits First Revised Sheet 388F et 

al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised 

Volume 1 in compliance with FERC’s 6/ 

12/08 Order. 

Filed Date: 08/12/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0108. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER08–1189–001. 

Applicants: Indeckyerkes Ltd 

Partnership. 

Description: Indeck-Yerkes Limited 

Partnership submits an amendment to 

their 6/30/08 application for order 

accepting initial tariff and granting 

Category 1 Status, Certain Waivers, and 

Blanket Approvals. 

Filed Date: 08/07/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080811–0088. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, August 28, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER08–1243–001. 

Applicants: New York Independent 

System Operator, Inc. 

Description: Amendment to request 

for limited waiver and request for 

waiver of notice and comment 

procedures of the New York 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0103. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER08–1293–001; 

ER08–1294–001; ER08–1296–001; 

ER08–1297–001; ER08–1300–001. 

Applicants: Crystal Lake Wind, LLC; 

Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC; Osceola 

Windpower II, LLC; Ashtabula Wind, 

LLC; Story Wind, LLC. 

Description: Crystal Lake Wind, LLC 

et al. submits a revised Appendix B–1 

to the applications filed on 7/25/08 for 

market-based rate authority and 

generation assets. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0101. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER08–1340–001; 

ER08–1341–001; ER08–1342–001. 

Applicants: Florida Power & Light 

Company; Progress Energy Florida; 

Tampa Electric Company. 

Description: Tampa Electric Co et al. 

submits omitted signature pages for 

Homestead Energy Services and 

Progress Energy—Florida of the Florida 

Reserve Sharing Group Agreement. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0104. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER08–1383–000. 

Applicants: Golden Spread Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. 

Description: Golden Spread Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. submits Special 

Facilities Agreement with Country 

Electric Cooperative, Inc, First Revised 

Sheet 221–299 to Golden Spread’s First 

Revised Rate Schedule 28. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0107. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Docket Numbers: ER98–2640–028. 

Applicants: Northern States Power 

Company—Wisconsin, Northern States 

Power Company—Minnesota, Northern 

States Power Company and Northe. 

Description: Northern States Power 

Co—Minnesota and Northern States 

Power Co—Wisconsin submits 

compliance filing to include language in 

NSP market-based rate tariff, Fourth 

Revised Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Tariff, 

Original Volume 6. 

Filed Date: 08/11/2008. 

Accession Number: 20080813–0105. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, September 02, 2008. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric securities 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ES08–58–000. 

Applicants: AEP Texas Central 

Company. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES