![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings; Bangor Hydro-Electric Company Northeast Reliability Interconnect
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 3)]
[Notices]
[Page 587-594]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05ja06-26]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PP-89-1]
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings; Bangor
Hydro-Electric Company Northeast Reliability Interconnect
AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD) and Floodplain Statement of Findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision to implement the Proposed Action
alternative, identified as DOE's preferred alternative in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company
Northeast Reliability Interconnect (DOE/EIS-0372). This alternative is
to amend Presidential Permit PP-89 to authorize Bangor Hydro-Electric
Company (BHE) to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a single-
circuit, 345,000-volt (345-kV) electric transmission line that would
originate at BHE's existing Orrington Substation, near Orrington,
Maine, extend eastward approximately 85 miles, cross the United States
(U.S.)-Canada border near Baileyville, Maine, and continue into New
Brunswick, Canada. The proposed transmission line, referred to as the
Northeast Reliability Interconnect (NRI), would be constructed along a
route identified as the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route in the EIS.
In reaching this decision, DOE considered the low environmental
impacts in the U.S. from constructing, operating, and maintaining the
NRI, the lack of adverse impacts to the reliability of the U.S.
electric power supply system, and the lack of major issues of concern
to the public.
This ROD and Floodplain Statement of Findings have been prepared in
accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality
(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part
1021), and DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental
Review Requirements (10 CFR part 1022).
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documents.html 
and on the project
Web site at http://web.ead.anl.gov/interconnecteis, and the
ROD will be 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 Dr.
Jerry Pell at the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
U.S. Department of Energy, OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at
202-586-3362, by facsimile at 202-318-7761, or by electronic mail at
Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the Bangor
Hydro-Electric Company Northeast Reliability Interconnect EIS, contact
Dr. Jerry Pell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. For general
information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director,
Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, at U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20585, by
telephone at 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Department of the Interior's U.S
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the U.S. Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Marine Fisheries Service were cooperating agencies in the preparation
of the EIS. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, DOE has
completed consultation with the USFWS regarding impacts on Federally-
listed threatened or endangered species in the area of the proposed
project.
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. 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, the project's impact on electric
reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would
adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system
under normal and contingency conditions, and any other factors that DOE
may consider relevant to the public interest.
On December 16, 1988, BHE applied to DOE for a Presidential permit
to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a single-circuit,
alternating current (AC) 345-kV electric transmission line that would
originate at
[[Page 588]]
BHE's existing Orrington Substation, located near Orrington, Maine,
extend approximately 84 miles eastward, and cross the U.S.-Canada
border near Baileyville, Maine. In August 1995, DOE published a Final
EIS (DOE/EIS-0166) for the proposed action of granting a Presidential
permit to BHE, issued a ROD on January 18, 1996 (61 FR 2244), and, on
January 22, 1996, issued Presidential Permit PP-89 to BHE for
construction of the proposed transmission line along a route identified
as the Stud Mill Road Route in the 1995 EIS.
In 1992, BHE received a permit from the State of Maine for
construction of the NRI along the Stud Mill Road Route. The State
subsequently granted extensions of its permit in 1994 and 1996. In
2001, BHE applied to the State for a third extension of its permit.
During that extension proceeding, the Maine Board of Environmental
Protection indicated a preference for a route other than the Stud Mill
Road Route, one that would be more closely aligned with existing linear
facilities in the area. BHE subsequently withdrew its request for the
permit extension and, on May 10, 2005, applied for a new State permit
to construct the NRI along a route for which the State had expressed a
preference. On October 27, 2005, the State of Maine granted a permit to
BHE for construction of the NRI along a route that has become known as
the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route.
On September 30, 2003, BHE had applied to DOE to amend Presidential
Permit PP-89 to allow for construction of the previously authorized
345-kV transmission line along a route different from the Stud Mill
Road Route or from the other alternative routes analyzed in the 1995
EIS. In its present application, BHE has requested authority to
construct the NRI along a route referred to as the Modified
Consolidated Corridors Route. Like the international transmission line
authorized by Presidential Permit PP-89, the NRI also would originate
at the Orrington Substation, extend eastward approximately 85 mi (137
km), and cross the U.S.-Canada border near Baileyville, Maine, but
would be more closely aligned with existing linear facilities than the
originally proposed route. At the U.S-Canada border, the NRI would
connect with a transmission line to be constructed, operated, and
maintained by New Brunswick Power Corporation (NB Power).
NEPA Review
DOE determined that amending Presidential Permit PP-89 as requested
by BHE would constitute a major Federal action that could have a
significant impact on the environment within the meaning of NEPA. For
this reason, DOE prepared an EIS to address potential environmental
impacts from DOE's proposed action of granting the amendment to the
Presidential permit and the range of reasonable alternatives. DOE
published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register
on November 2, 2004 (68 FR 63514). On August 26, 2005, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of
availability of the Draft EIS (70 FR 50346), which began a 45-day
public comment period that ended on October 11, 2005. In the Draft EIS,
DOE identified its proposed action and preferred alternative as
amending Presidential Permit PP-89 to allow BHE to construct the NRI
along the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route.
All comments received on the Draft EIS were considered in the
preparation of the Final EIS. However, because the nature of the
comments received required only minor text changes (factual
corrections, clarifications) to the Draft EIS, the Final EIS for the
proposed DOE action consists 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 the EPA in the Federal Register on November
25, 2005 (70 FR 71139).
The Proposed Project
The NRI would extend approximately 85 mi (137 km) eastward from the
Orrington Substation near Orrington, Maine, to the U.S.-Canada border
near Baileyville, Maine. There the NRI would cross the St. Croix River
into New Brunswick, Canada, and connect with a transmission line to be
constructed, operated, and maintained by NB Power. The proposed NRI is
intended to improve electricity delivery in Maine and the northeast and
would increase the north-to-south electric power transfer capacity by
300 megawatts (MW) over the existing capacity of 700 MW. It would also
increase the south-to-north power transfer capacity to 400 MW and would
reduce overall line losses in the regional transmission system.
The NRI would have a single-circuit configuration and would consist
of two overhead shield wires (to protect from lightning strikes) and
three phases with two conductors per phase (for a total of 8 wires).
Support structures would be self-supporting wood-pole H-frame
structures for straight stretches of the line. Angle or dead-end
structures would be used where the route of the line turns sharply or
ends or where they are needed to prevent cascading in long straight
stretches. These types of structures would consist of three wood or
three steel poles. The wood pole angle and dead-end structures would
require guy wire supports, while the steel pole structures would not.
The proposed 85-mile NRI would require a total of 610 support
structures with an average span of about 730 ft (223 m) between support
structures.
The right-of-way (ROW) width for various segments of the NRI would
vary depending on the proximity of the NRI to existing utility ROWs or
roads. The total area of the required ROW over the length of the
proposed NRI would encompass approximately 1,565 acres (633 ha).
In order to implement the NRI, BHE would need to make alterations
to four substations within Maine: The Orrington Substation near
Orrington; the Maxcys Substation in Windsor; the Gulf Island Substation
in Lewiston; and the Kimball Road Substation in Harrison. Changes made
to the Orrington and Kimball Road Substations would require the area of
those substations to be expanded by 0.8 acres (0.3 ha) and 0.2 acres
(0.1 ha), respectively. Changes to the Maxcys and Gulf Island
Substations would be made within the current fence lines.
The general activities that BHE would undertake in constructing the
NRI would include surveying; construction or upgrading of access roads,
as necessary; ROW clearing; and support structure installation,
framing, and stringing. No new permanent access roads would be built.
In areas where the NRI would be located near, parallel to, or
across a natural gas transmission pipeline constructed by Maritimes &
Northeast, L.L.C. (M&N pipeline), AC mitigation would be installed by
M&N to prevent shock hazards or induced currents in the pipeline. This
mitigation would consist of the placement of a zinc ribbon in a plowed
or excavated trench at a depth of at least 1.5 ft (0.5 m) and located
above and parallel to the existing unprotected pipeline, the top of
which is at least 3 ft (1 m) below the ground. After installation of
the zinc ribbon, the trench would be backfilled. Depending on the
alternative route, between 45 mi (72 km) and 68 mi (109 km) of zinc
ribbon would be installed by M&N along the pipeline. The zinc ribbon
would not be continuous in that it would not be installed within stream
crossings.
ROW maintenance would be performed by BHE on a 3- to 4-year cycle
and would consist of some of the same activities conducted during initial
[[Page 589]]
vegetation clearing in order to maintain a minimum 15-ft (4.6-m)
clearance between conductors and vegetation.
Alternatives
DOE analyzed four alternative routes for the NRI in the EIS. These
included: (1) The Modified Consolidated Corridors Route (Proposed
Action); (2) the Consolidated Corridors Route; (3) the Previously
Permitted Route (No Action); and the MEPCO South Route.
Although the ``no action'' alternative in an EIS usually results in
no project being built, in this instance ``no action'' means that DOE
would not amend PP-89 but that the existing permit would remain in
effect. This would result in the proposed NRI being constructed along
the Previously Permitted Route. In addition, the EIS evaluates the
alternative of Rescission of Presidential Permit (PP-89). Under this
alternative, the proposed NRI would not be constructed along any route.
Together, these alternatives represent the range of reasonable
alternatives under NEPA.
The alternative routes originate at the Orrington Substation, are
identical for the initial 12.2 mi (19.6 km), and all cross the St.
Croix River near Baileyville, Maine. All alternative routes would cross
primarily commercial forest land, 100-year floodplains and wetlands,
and both perennial and intermittent streams. The Modified Consolidated
Corridors, Consolidated Corridors, and Previously Permitted routes
would cross the Narraguagus and Machias Rivers; while the MEPCO South
Route would cross both the Passadumkeag River and the Penobscot River
at two locations. The four alternative routes are described below.
Alternative One--Modified Consolidated Corridors Route: From the
Orrington Substation, the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route would
parallel the existing 345-kV Maine Electric Power Company (MEPCO)
transmission line to Blackman Stream in Bradley. The route would then
proceed northeast within a new corridor until meeting Stud Mill Road
and the M&N gas pipeline ROW; it would then proceed east-northeast,
generally paralleling the M&N gas pipeline and Stud Mill Road to the
international border near Baileyville, Maine. The total length of this
route would be about 85 mi (137 km) and would consist of 15 mi (24 km)
of new ROW, 58 mi (93 km) adjacent to the existing M&N gas pipeline
and/or Stud Mill Road, and 12 mi (19 km) adjacent to the existing MEPCO
345-kV transmission line, including portions that are co-located with
the M&N gas pipeline and/or other transmission lines.
Alternative Two--Consolidated Corridors Route: This route would be
similar to the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route, except for the
two deviations in the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route that total
about 14 mi (22.5 km). The first and longest route deviation occurs
between Blackman Stream and Stud Mill Road near Pickerel Pond, where
the Consolidated Corridors Route runs along the southeast edge of the
Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge but the Modified Consolidated
Corridors Route avoids the Refuge by running further south. The second
deviation occurs in the area of Myra Camps, just west of Dead Stream,
where the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route passes to the north of
Myra Camps whereas the Consolidated Corridors Route passes to the
south. After the second deviation, the Consolidated Corridors and the
Modified Consolidated Corridors routes would be identical to the
international border. The Consolidated Corridors Route would traverse a
total of 85 mi (137 km) and would consist of 2 mi (3 km) of new ROW, 68
mi (109 km) adjacent to the M&N gas pipeline and/or Stud Mill Road, and
15 mi (24 km) adjacent to the existing MEPCO 345-kV transmission line,
including portions co-located with the M&N gas pipeline and/or other
transmission lines.
Alternative Three--Previously Permitted Route: This route, formerly
known as the Stud Mill Road Route, would be identical to the Modified
Consolidated Corridors Route for the initial 18 mi (30 km) out of the
Orrington Substation, and then would proceed east-northeast along a
route generally paralleling the M&N gas pipeline and Stud Mill Road,
but deviating an average of 2,500 ft (762 m) from the road and crossing
it 13 times. After the initial 18 mi (30 km), the Previously Permitted
Route would share very little of the Modified Consolidated Corridors
Route, but would traverse the same general area, including the same
counties and municipalities as the Modified Consolidated Corridors
Route. The total length of the Previously Permitted Route would be
about 84 mi (135 km) and would consist of 62 mi (100 km) of new ROW, 10
mi (16 km) adjacent to the M&N gas pipeline and/or Stud Mill Road, and
12 mi (19 km) adjacent to the existing MEPCO 345-kV transmission line,
including portions co-located with the M&N gas pipeline and/or other
transmission lines.
This alternative route is also the No Action alternative. Under the
No Action alternative, DOE would deny BHE's request to amend
Presidential Permit PP-89 and the existing permit would remain in
effect. Because the existing permit authorizes BHE to construct a 345-
kV international transmission line only along the Stud Mill Road Route,
this is the only alternative that BHE could implement under No Action.
Alternative Four--MEPCO South Route: From the Orrington Substation,
this route would parallel the existing 345-kV transmission line to
Chester, Maine, roughly 40 mi (64 km) to the north. The MEPCO South
Route would then proceed generally eastward to Route 6 east of Lee,
Maine. It would then generally parallel, but not be co-located with,
Route 6 until just west of Route 1 at Topsfield, Maine. It would then
proceed southeast to the border crossing point near Baileyville, Maine.
The total length of the MEPCO South Route would be about 114 mi (183
km) and would consist of 39 mi (63 km) of new ROW, 54 mi (87 km)
adjacent to the existing MEPCO 345-kV transmission line, including
portions co-located with the M&N gas pipeline and/or other transmission
lines, and 21 mi (34 km) adjacent to an existing Eastern Maine Electric
Cooperative 69-kV transmission line. Except for the initial portion of
the route that leaves Orrington Substation, the MEPCO South Route would
run substantially to the north and would be longer than the other three
alternative routes.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The EIS analyzes impacts from the alternatives for each of the
following resource areas: air quality, land features (e.g., geology and
soils), land use, hydrological resources, ecological resources,
cultural resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice
considerations, visual resources, health and safety, and cumulative
impacts. The impacts of particular concern for the proposed project
were ecological resources impacts to wetlands, streams and rivers,
wildlife habitat, and endangered species, particularly the bald eagle
and Atlantic salmon.
The Rescission of Presidential Permit alternative would result in
no new impacts to any of the resource areas from construction,
operation, and maintenance of the NRI but would not necessarily result
in no environmental impacts. BHE or other entities in the region may
seek to undertake other actions that could achieve the intended purpose
of the NRI. However, these other possible actions and their resulting
environmental impacts are too speculative to be addressed in the EIS.
Impacts identified in the EIS and discussed in this section are
based upon implementation by BHE of all mitigation
[[Page 590]]
measures named in the EIS (in Section 2.4 and Chapter 4, and in the
Wetland and Floodplain Assessment, the Biological Assessment, and the
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment contained, respectively, in
Appendices E, F, and G of the EIS).
Air Quality: No significant differences in air quality impacts
would occur for any of the four route alternatives. Localized, short-
term air quality impacts from fugitive dust and vehicular and
construction equipment emissions would result from construction. BHE's
commitment to construct during winter months, to the extent
practicable, would minimize fugitive dust emissions. During operation,
corona-produced ozone would be well below ozone standards. A conformity
review is not required because none of the four alternative routes
would be located within nonattainment areas for any of the criteria
pollutants.
Land Features: The construction of the NRI along any of the
alternative routes would not impact geologic resource availability.
Localized terrain changes could result from the installation of support
structures, substation expansions, or establishment or upgrading of
access roads. However, because of the relatively flat terrain,
topographic changes to the area would be negligible. Impacts on soils
from localized erosion and compaction would be negligible because BHE
would employ standard mitigation measures (Section 2.4 of the EIS) to
minimize soil erosion and promptly restore construction areas. As
practicable, BHE would conduct most of the construction activities in
sensitive areas during the winter when precipitation occurs as snowfall
and the soil surface is frozen. None of the alternative routes is
located in areas of relatively high seismic activity.
Land Use: All four alternative routes would cross primarily through
privately-owned commercially forested land. ROW clearance and support
structure installation would be the main activities that could result
in impacts on land use. The length of each of the alternative routes,
except the MEPCO South alternative, would be relatively similar (84 to
85 mi [135 to 137 km]). The MEPCO South Route would be 114 mi (183 km)
long.
Depending upon the alternative, between 1,391 and 1,513 acres (563
and 612 ha) of forested land could be impacted by ROW land-disturbing
activities. However, for any of the four alternative routes, this
represents less than 0.03% of the total acreage of forested lands (both
managed and unmanaged; approximately 4.3 million acres [1.7 million
ha]) within the project area of Hancock, Penobscot, and Washington
Counties. Although land within the ROW would be removed from commercial
forest production, the presence of the NRI would not restrict the
continuation of commercial forestry operations in areas adjacent to the
ROW. The Previously Permitted and MEPCO South Routes require notably
more new ROW, 62 mi (100 km) and 39 mi (63 km), respectively, than the
Consolidated Corridors and Modified Consolidated Corridors Routes, 2 mi
(3.2 km) and 15 mi (24 km), respectively. The Previously Permitted and
MEPCO South Routes would also require 21 acres (8.5 ha) and 32 acres
(13 ha), respectively, of clearing for new temporary access roads
compared to none for the other two routes.
The presence of the ROW under any of the four alternative routes
would not restrict continued land use for agriculture, except within
the immediate area of a support structure due to constraints on farm
equipment use. The total farm acreage removed from production would be
0.35 acre (0.14 ha) for the Modified Consolidated Corridors and
Consolidated Corridors Routes, 0.29 acre (0.12 ha) for the Previously
Permitted Route, and 1.32 acres (0.53 ha) for the MEPCO South Route.
This represents a very small percentage of the more than 300,000 acres
(120,000 ha) of farmland in the three-county area.
Recreational activities in the project area include all-terrain
vehicle (ATV) use, snowmobiling, canoeing, fishing, and hunting. The
Previously Permitted Route would open an estimated 19 access areas for
ATV use compared to 1 for the MEPCO South route and 0 for the Modified
Consolidated Corridors route. ROWs for all four alternative routes
would provide increased access for hunting.
The NRI could affect residential areas either visually or through
property being taken by condemnation through BHE's rights of eminent
domain as a public utility. The Modified Consolidated Corridors route
would not result in the taking of any dwellings. The MEPCO South route
would require the taking of 10 dwellings compared to 3 for the
Consolidated Corridors Route and 2 for the Previously Permitted route.
No potentially limiting land use issues were identified for the
Modified Consolidated Corridors, Consolidated Corridors, or MEPCO South
routes. Implementation of the Previously Permitted Route was viewed as
potentially disruptive to logging operations and also would require
negotiating with the State for an easement across the Machias River at
the proposed location or moving the crossing 3,400 ft (1,036 m) to an
existing utility corridor.
Hydrological Resources: No adverse impacts on surface water or
groundwater resources would occur from any of the alternative routes.
BHE would avoid placing support structures within 75 ft (23 m) from the
top of stream banks (or within 25 ft [7.6 m]
for the portion of the NRI
that would parallel the existing 345-kV transmission line). However,
support structures would be placed as close as possible to the edge of
the 75-ft buffers for Atlantic salmon streams of special concern to
minimize the amount of clearing required in order to maintain shade and
stream temperatures. The Modified Consolidated Corridors, Consolidated
Corridors, and Previously Permitted Routes would cross two designated
Outstanding River Segments on the Narraguagus and Machias Rivers. BHE
would place support structures farther away from these rivers to
minimize visual impacts, and, because the crossing locations for these
rivers are relatively open, no changes in water temperatures from
clearing the ROW would be expected.
Impacts on water bodies from erosion, sedimentation, loss of stream
shading, and fuel and herbicide contamination would be negligible for
all four alternative routes because of the standard mitigation measures
(Section 2.4 of the EIS) that BHE would employ. These measures also
would mitigate potential impact to ecological resources, particularly
the Atlantic salmon.
Ecological Resources: Vegetation would primarily be affected by
clearing to establish and maintain the ROW, install support structures,
create new temporary access roads, and install AC mitigation, as
required. Forest clearing would fragment habitat by creating a new ROW
through contiguous forest habitats or by expanding ROW width where the
NRI would be co-located with existing utility facilities. The acreage
of forest clearing for the ROW would be similar for all four routes
(between 1,391 and 1,513 acres [563 and 612 ha]), as discussed above
under Land Use.
Impacts to wildlife from construction and operation of the NRI
would be local and affect only individual animals. Population-level
impacts may not be detectable above natural population fluctuations and
from fluctuations resulting from other activities in the area such as
logging and hunting; but the potential exists for birds to collide with
the conductors and shield wires. This could occur where the NRI crosses
[[Page 591]]
through areas where birds would be most likely to congregate, such as
waterfowl and wading bird habitats. The acreage of waterfowl and wading
bird habitats that would be crossed by the NRI would be 133 acres (54
ha) for the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route, 113 acres (45 ha)
for the Consolidated Corridors Route, 93 acres (37 ha) for the Previously
Permitted Route, and 148 acres (60 ha) for the MEPCO South Route.
Impacts on special status species would be similar to those
described for other biota, but any impacts could affect their
populations because of the species' limited distribution and/or
abundance. The number of streams or waterbodies crossed that are of
importance to the Federally-endangered Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment would be similar for all
routes except the MEPCO South Route. These streams and waterbodies
include: The Narraguagus River; two tributaries to Fifth Machias Lake;
a tributary to Fletcher Brook; the Machias River; a tributary to Dead
Stream; Lanpher Brook; Huntley Brook; and Joe Brook. The number of
Atlantic salmon streams that would be crossed by the Modified
Consolidated Corridors, Consolidated Corridors, Previously Permitted,
and MEPCO South routes would be 37, 38, 33, and 6, respectively. Those
crossed by the MEPCO South Route would be within the initial 12.2 mi
(19.6 km) that are common to all four alternative routes.
Conversely, the MEPCO South Route would cross through one known
area of essential habitat for the Federally-endangered bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and two areas of shortnose sturgeon habitat,
while the other routes would not cross through or over these habitats.
Potential adverse impacts from construction and maintenance of the ROW
would be minimized or eliminated by the implementation of mitigation
practices for special status species. For example, ball markers would
be placed on the shield wires across the St. Croix River, Machias
River, Narraguagus River, Great Works Stream, and Penobscot River to
minimize the potential for bald eagles to collide with the wires.
By letter dated December 15, 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has concurred with DOE's finding that the proposed project is
not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle or Atlantic salmon \1\
within the project area. This conclusion is predicated upon BHE
employing a modified stream buffer vegetation maintenance program for
protection of the Atlantic salmon, as discussed above under
Hydrological Resources, and on conducting aerial surveys for bald eagle
nests during spring 2006 and 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In its comments on the Draft EIS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service suggested that DOE report on the completion of the Service's
recovery plan for the Atlantic salmon in the Final EIS. The recovery
plan had not been finalized by the time DOE published the Final EIS.
The Service finalized the plan on December 20, 2005, and it is
available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2005/051220.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very small amount of wetland fill would be required where support
structures would be located within wetlands. The number of support
structures that could be located in wetlands was conservatively
estimated at 73 for the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route, 62 for
the Consolidated Corridors Route, 77 for the Previously Permitted
Route, and 109 for the MEPCO South Route. The actual number of support
structures would probably be less, as adjustments could be made during
the final siting process. No more than 0.04 acre (0.02 ha) of wetlands
would be filled by support structures for any of the alternative
routes.
The greatest impact on wetlands would occur in areas where forested
wetlands would be cleared and subsequently converted to scrub-shrub or
emergent wetlands. The acreage so affected would be 70 acres (29 ha)
for the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route, 53 acres (21 ha) for the
Consolidated Corridors Route, 103 acres (41 ha) for the Previously
Permitted Route, and 73 acres (29 ha) for the MEPCO South Route. No
permanent adverse changes in wetland functions would be anticipated for
any of the alternative routes. Impacts to wetlands would be mitigated
by BHE conducting most of the construction activities in sensitive
areas during the winter when precipitation occurs as snowfall and the
soil surface is frozen. Impacts to aquatic biota would be negligible as
in-stream disturbance would not occur.
Cultural Resources: No impacts on cultural resources (including
archaeological sites and historic structures and features, as well as
properties of significance to traditional cultures and religions,
including Native American burial grounds) are expected from the
Modified Consolidated Corridors Route. The Maine Historic Preservation
Officer (MSHPO) has concurred in this finding. Impacts on cultural
resources are possible, but unlikely, for the Consolidated Corridors
and Previously Permitted Routes. Impacts on cultural resources would be
more probable for the MEPCO South Route than other alternative routes
because the Penobscot River drainage has been identified as an area of
high potential for containing significant archaeological material. A
cultural resource survey and approval of the survey results by the
MSHPO would be required if the Consolidated Corridors, Previously
Permitted, or MEPCO South routes were selected for the proposed
project. Surveys may also be required in areas designated for new
temporary access roads and some staging areas if evidence of cultural
material is observed during the initial selection of these sites. No
cultural resources are expected in areas where AC mitigation would be
required, since those areas were previously disturbed when the M&N gas
pipeline was installed.
Socioeconomics: Construction of the NRI along the Modified
Consolidated Corridors, Consolidated Corridors, or the Previously
Permitted Routes would create approximately 120 direct (construction)
jobs and about 110 indirect (service-related) jobs. The MEPCO South
Route would create approximately 150 direct jobs and 130 indirect jobs.
The jobs created by the construction of the NRI would primarily benefit
Hancock, Penobscot, and Washington Counties. No significant influx of
population or stress to community services would be expected from
construction of the NRI. No socioeconomic impacts would be expected
from its operation because most jobs created would be filled by current
residents.
Environmental Justice Considerations: None of the alternative
routes would have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on
minority or low-income populations.
Visual Resources: Visual impacts would primarily occur from the
introduction of support structures and transmission line wires into the
landscape, most notably in areas where more remote recreational
activities occur. The NRI would be visible to more residents if
constructed along the MEPCO South Route than the other alternative
routes because it is close to towns and roads along the Route 2 and
Route 6 corridors. The Modified Consolidated Corridors, Consolidated
Corridors, and Previously Permitted routes would be within the viewshed
of Outstanding River Segments on the Narraguagus and Machias Rivers,
which are rivers declared by the Maine Legislature to provide
irreplaceable social and economic benefits to people because of their
unparalleled natural and recreational values. However, BHE would place
support structures farther away from these rivers to minimize
[[Page 592]]
visual impacts. BHE would use similar means of mitigation at the U.S.
side of the St. Croix River, which would be crossed by all four
alternative routes.
Health and Safety: Potential impacts to human health and safety
from the proposed NRI include exposure to electric shocks from induced
currents, exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), and occupational
risks from the construction and maintenance of the line. For all
alternative routes, risks from such exposures and hazards would be very
low. Compliance with industry standards by BHE for construction and
operation and the implementation of AC mitigation by M&N would reduce
shock hazards to negligible levels. No health effects would occur to
members of the public from exposure to the low-level EMF produced by
the NRI.
There would be no significant differences in potential noise
impacts from any of the alternative routes. Noise levels would increase
above background during construction, primarily impacting residents and
recreationists close to the ROW. The number of dwellings in close
proximity (within 600 ft) to the ROW are: 40 for the Modified
Consolidated Corridors Route; 59 for the Consolidated Corridors Route;
39 for the Previously Permitted Route; and 131 for the MEPCO South
Route. Elevated noise levels during construction would only occur
during daytime. During operation, long-term noise from the corona
effect on transmission lines would generally be lost in background noise.
The potential risk to people with pacemakers and the potential for
radio and television interference would be negligible for all
alternative routes. What little potential there is would be slightly
greater for the MEPCO South Route because it has more dwellings within
100 ft (30 m) of the ROW and has more highway crossings than the other
alternative routes.
The potential human health risks from herbicide usage would be
negligible because BHE would adhere to regulations and implement
standard mitigation practices associated with the use of these
products. The potential for fatalities of, and injuries to,
construction and maintenance workers would be slightly greater for the
MEPCO South Route than for the other alternative routes because of its
greater length, which would require more clearing and more support
structures. Nevertheless, fatality risks are expected to be less than 1
fatality for all alternative routes. Nonfatal occupational injuries and
illnesses for construction of the NRI are estimated to be 9.7 for the
MEPCO South Route based on 140 construction workers required for
construction, and 6.9 for the other alternative routes based on 100
construction workers; nonfatal injuries and illnesses during
maintenance would be less than 1 per 10 full-time personnel for all
alternative routes.
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts analysis in an EIS places
the effects of the proposed action into a broader context that includes
impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions potentially affecting the same environmental resources. The
potential cumulative impacts are primarily related to long-term
development of land that is currently used for other activities such as
commercial timber production and recreation. If multiple projects are
under construction simultaneously, an increased amount of land could be
used temporarily for construction lay-down and staging areas, and an
increased amount of fugitive dust could be generated. The cumulative
change on land use could affect natural habitats, special status
species, and cultural resources, and could lead to an increase in soil
erosion. The cumulative effects on human health and safety could be an
increase in background EMF exposure to residents in the immediate
vicinity of the NRI. No long-term cumulative health impacts are
expected to occur. No disproportionately high and adverse impacts were
identified for minority and low-income populations for the proposed
project, and the NRI would not contribute cumulatively to any
environmental justice impacts. The NRI would result in only very small
incremental (cumulative) environmental impacts within east-central
Maine because most of it would be constructed within commercial timber
areas where impacts associated with harvesting of trees currently
occur. The NRI ROW would add to various ROWs and timber clearings that
currently exist in the region.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
In the EIS, DOE assessed the impacts of the NRI on floodplains. All
four alternative routes for the NRI would cross a number of 100-year
floodplains. Maps of the floodplains are provided in the wetland and
floodplain assessment in the EIS. There would be no practical
alternative to routing the NRI through wetlands or the placement of
some support structures in wetlands and floodplains.
Because of the small footprint for a support structure (15 ft\2\
[1.4 m\2\]
per pole), and the small number of support structures that
would be located in floodplains (e.g., only 13 poles within mapped 100-
year floodplains for the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route), the
placement of support structures in floodplains would not be expected to
result in any increase in flood hazard either as a result of increased
flood elevation or because of changes in the flow-carrying capacity of
the floodplain. The support structures would not exacerbate flooding
because they would not impede floodwater movement or reduce floodwater
storage capacity. In accordance with Maine Department of Environmental
Protection's Site Location Law, the NRI would not cause or increase
flooding, cause a flood hazard to any structure, nor have an
unreasonable effect on runoff infiltration. BHE would design,
construct, and maintain substation modifications so that flooding
extent and frequency of flooding to downstream waterbodies would not be
increased and so that the 100-year flood elevation would not be
adversely affected. Impacts on floodplain and flooding from the NRI are
therefore expected to be insignificant for any alternative route and
would not result in change to conditions in the floodplains, flooding,
or floodplain function.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
DOE has identified the Rescission of Presidential Permit
alternative as environmentally preferable. Although this alternative
would result in no international transmission line being developed and
would avoid all of the impacts identified from construction, operation,
and maintenance activities of the proposed transmission line, it may
not necessarily result in no impacts. Because this alternative would
not serve the electric reliability needs of the region, it is possible
that BHE or another entity in the region may take other actions to
achieve the purpose of the NRI. However, the nature of other possible
actions and their associated environmental impacts are too speculative
to be assessed in the EIS.
Because the Rescission of Presidential Permit alternative would not
serve the public interest with respect to the electricity needs of the
region, DOE has also identified the Modified Consolidated Corridors
Route as the environmentally preferable alternative among the
alternatives that would result in the construction of an international
transmission line. This alternative was selected because, as discussed
above in the Analysis of Environmental Impacts section, it would result
in the lowest impacts across most resource areas compared to the other
three alternative routes.
[[Page 593]]
Comments Received on the Final EIS
DOE received one comment letter on the Final EIS from the EPA
Region 1 in which it made suggestions in three areas: (1) Vernal Pool
Mapping: That DOE provide information on classification of wetland
types and the locations of vernal pools in the area of the NRI to help
EPA identify options to minimize impacts that would be relevant during
the Section 404 review; (2) Buffer Requirements: That DOE consider
mitigation measures such as buffer requirements for wetlands and vernal
pools not associated with stream corridors or standing water; and (3)
Compensatory Mitigation for Habitat Loss: That DOE consider
compensatory mitigation for wildlife habitat loss from ROW clearing.
Vernal Pool Mapping: DOE notes that BHE has provided detailed
information on the location of vernal pools to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) in a letter dated December 13, 2005. (A copy of this
letter has been forwarded to EPA.) Also, several project features and
mitigation measures that will be employed by BHE are designed to
protect wetlands in general and vernal pools and their associated
wetlands in particular. Some of these measures include: Not placing
permanent structures within potential vernal pools or their associated
wetlands; conducting clearing during frozen conditions to the maximum
extent practicable, which minimizes ground disturbance and excessive
rutting in the vicinity of the pools; utilizing timber mats when the
ground is not completely frozen during clearing and construction; not
grubbing tree stumps to further reduce the potential for ground
disturbance; and restoring to pre-clearing condition and stabilizing
any areas where clearing has resulted in rutting and soil disturbance.
In addition, because the ROW will remain vegetated, there should be no
long-term effects on vernal pools following construction. DOE considers
that the project plan and profiles, which was recently submitted to
EPA, provides sufficient information to determine the nature and
magnitude of wetland impacts of the NRI. Thus, DOE concludes that the
implementation of these and other measures will minimize direct and
indirect impacts to potential vernal pool basins during construction of
the NRI, and additional classification of wetland types within the area
of the proposed ROW is not necessary.
Buffer Requirements: Maintaining adequate clearance between
electrical conductors and vegetation is critical to the safe and
reliable operation of the NRI. The establishment of buffers to protect
wetlands not associated with stream corridors (e.g., many forested
wetlands and vernal pools) would require BHE to maintain the ROW with
different vegetation heights for stream corridor wetlands and forested
wetlands for the 85-mile length of the ROW. Mitigating the effects to
forested wetlands by establishing buffers of different vegetation
heights for these areas would result in a complicated ROW maintenance
program. This increased complexity would increase the possibility of
errors made in vegetation trimming (i.e., vegetation may be allowed to
grow too high) which would reduce the reliability of the NRI. However,
the entire length of the ROW will be maintained in a vegetated state,
effectively providing protective areas around all wetland resources.
DOE also notes that BHE's comprehensive vegetation management plan
balances electrical reliability and minimizes environmental impacts to
the maximum extent practicable. For these reasons, DOE concludes that
it is not necessary to incorporate additional mitigation measures for
non-stream corridor wetlands in this ROD. However, the USACE may choose
to include additional mitigation measures as part of its Section 404
review.
Compensatory Mitigation for Habitat Loss: DOE also concludes that
compensatory mitigation for wildlife habitat loss due to ROW clearing
is not necessary for the following reasons. First, forested wetlands
that will be affected are part of a much larger forested landscape and,
therefore, are not considered unique in this part of Maine. Second, BHE
has selected routes and located support structures so as to avoid or
minimize filling of wetlands. As a result there is no more than 0.04 ac
(0.02 ha) of permanent fill to wetlands for any of the alternative
routes. This amount of permanent fill typically would not require an
individual permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Third, while there may be temporary wetland impacts during
construction, BHE will be constructing during frozen conditions and/or
using timber mats in wetland areas to minimize impacts. DOE does not
consider that the temporary impacts associated with construction under
these conditions require further mitigation. Fourth, although BHE's
vegetation maintenance of the NRI will result in permanent conversion
of forested wetland habitat to emergent and/or scrub-shrub type wetland
habitats, no permanent loss of functions or values is expected because
the vegetated ROW will still provide wildlife habitat for a variety of
species. In summary, based on the aforementioned and specifically
because wetlands are being converted and are not being lost, DOE
concludes that there is not a basis for requiring compensatory mitigation.
Decision
DOE has decided to amend Presidential Permit PP-89 to authorize BHE
to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 345-kV international
transmission line along the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route. This
action is identified as DOE's preferred alternative in the EIS. The
amended permit will have a condition in it requiring BHE to implement
all mitigation measures identified in the EIS (Section 2.4, Chapter 4,
and Appendices E, F, and G of the EIS).
Before granting a Presidential permit, DOE also considers whether a
proposed international electric transmission line would have an adverse
impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In
reaching this determination, DOE considers the operation of the
electrical grid with a specified maximum amount of electric power
transmitted over the proposed line.
As part of its permit amendment application, BHE submitted
technical studies which demonstrated that the NRI, in combination with
the existing 345-kV MEPCO line (authorized by Presidential Permit PP-
43), can import up to 1,000 MW from, and export up to 400 MW to, New
Brunswick without adversely impacting the reliability of the regional
electrical grid. Therefore, the permit will contain an electric
reliability condition that limits operation of the NRI such that the
instantaneous rate of transmission (i.e., electric power) over a
combination of the NRI and the PP-43 facilities may not exceed 1,000 MW
in the import mode or 400 MW in the export mode.
Basis for Decision
In arriving at its decision, DOE has considered the electrical
needs of the region, the lack of adverse impacts to the U.S. electric
power supply system, the low potential for environmental impacts in the
U.S., the nature of potential impacts of the alternatives, and public
comments provided during the preparation of the EIS.
DOE has determined that the potential impacts from the Modified
Consolidated Corridors Route alternative are expected to be small, as
discussed above, and overall less than the expected impacts from any of
the other alternatives except the Rescission of Presidential Permit
[[Page 594]]
alternative. DOE did not select the Rescission of Presidential Permit
alternative because it would not address the need for additional
transmission capacity in the region.
DOE did not select the Previously Permitted Route alternative,
nominally the ``no action'' alternative, because it would not achieve
the consolidation of linear facility corridors as preferred by the
State. This alternative would also have somewhat higher, but still low,
impacts compared to the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route
alternative. DOE did not select the Consolidated Corridors Route
alternative because it would not avoid two areas addressed by route
modifications in the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route alternative.
DOE did not select the MEPCO South Route alternative because it had
generally the highest impacts of any of the route alternatives, while
providing no offsetting benefits to justify its selection.
For the foregoing reasons, DOE has decided to amend Presidential
Permit PP-89 to authorize BHE to construct, operate, maintain, and
connect the NRI along the Modified Consolidated Corridors Route as
defined in the EIS, but with the condition noted in the Decision
section above.
Dated: December 29, 2005.
Kevin M. Kolevar,
Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. E5-8305 Filed 1-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P