Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Susquehanna to Roseland 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line, Appalachian National Scenic Trail; Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, 63856-63871 [2012-25457]
Download as PDF
63856
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The OMB Control Number is
1076–0141 and expires December 31,
2012.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has determined that
these rate adjustments do not constitute
a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment and that no detailed
statement is required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370(d)).
Information Quality Act
In developing this notice, we did not
conduct or use a study, experiment, or
survey requiring peer review under the
Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–
554).
Dated: October 11, 2012.
Michael R. Smith,
Acting Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012–25477 Filed 10–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLES956000–L19100000–BK0000–
LRCMM0E04162]
Eastern States: Filing of Plats of
Survey
AGENCY:
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plat of
Survey; Alabama, Louisiana.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
The plat of survey represents the
remonumentation of the corner of
Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, of the
Huntsville Meridian, in the State of
Alabama, and was accepted July 29,
2012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
survey was requested by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Midwest Region.
Louisiana Meridian, Louisiana
T 5 N., R 1 W.
The plat of survey represents the
survey of a parcel of land held in trust
for the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians
within Lot 6, Pine Heights Subdivision
in Section 9, of the Louisiana Meridian,
in the State of Louisiana, and was
accepted September 17, 2012.
We will place copies of the plats we
described in the open files. They will be
available to the public as a matter of
information.
If BLM receives a protest against these
surveys, as shown on the plats, prior to
the date of the official filing, we will
stay the filing pending our
consideration of the protest. We will not
officially file the plats until the day after
we have accepted or dismissed all
protests and they have become final,
including decisions on appeals.
Dated: October 5, 2012.
Dominica Van Koten,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
BILLING CODE 4310–GJ–P
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) will file the plats of
survey of the lands described below in
the BLM-Eastern States office in
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days
from the date of publication in the
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Land Management-Eastern
States, 7450 Boston Boulevard,
Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn:
Cadastral Survey. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
to contact the above individual during
normal business hours. The FIRS is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
to leave a message or question with the
above individual. You will receive a
reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
survey was requested by the Bureau of
Land Management, Eastern States,
Branch of Cadastral Survey.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Huntsville Meridian, Alabama
T. 18 S., R 7 E.
[FR Doc. 2012–25573 Filed 10–16–12; 8:45 am]
ACTION:
SUMMARY:
The lands surveyed are:
and right-of-way permits to PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation and the Public
Service Electric and Gas Company
(applicant) for the Susquehanna to
Roseland 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission
line to pass through the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail, Delaware Water
Gap National Recreation Area, and
Middle Delaware National Scenic and
Recreational River. The ROD is based on
the Susquehanna to Roseland 500-kV
Transmission Line Right-of-Way and
Special Use Permit Final Environmental
Impact Statement (Final EIS) which was
released for a 30-day no action period
beginning on September 1, 2012 and
ending September 30, 2012. The ROD
describes the selected alternative; other
alternatives considered; the basis for the
decision to grant the permit requested
by the applicant; and mitigation
measures. The ROD is not the final
agency action for those elements of the
decision that require the issuance of a
permit or additional ROW. Final agency
action to implement the decision will
occur when a permit and ROWs
incorporating these terms are completed
and issued to the applicant.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ROD
is provided below.
United States Department of the
Interior
National Park Service
Record of Decision
Susquehanna to Roseland 500-kV
Transmission Line Right-of-Way and
Special Use Permit Environmental
Impact Statement
National Park Service
Appalachian National Scenic Trail,
Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, Middle Delaware
National Scenic and Recreational
River, Pennsylvania and New Jersey
[NPS–NER–HPPC–11442; 4320–pplb–318]
Introduction
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Record of Decision for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Susquehanna to Roseland 500Kilovolt Transmission Line,
Appalachian National Scenic Trail;
Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area and Middle Delaware
National Scenic and Recreational River
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended, and its
implementing regulations (40 CFR parts
1500–1508), the Northeast Regional
Director, National Park Service (NPS),
signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on
October 1, 2012, granting construction
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Department of the Interior,
National Park Service (NPS), has
prepared this Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Susquehanna to Roseland 500kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way and
Special Use Permit Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for Appalachian
National Scenic Trail (APPA), Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area
(DEWA), and Middle Delaware National
Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR)
in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This
ROD states what the decision is,
identifies the other alternatives
considered, identifies the
environmentally preferable alternative,
discusses the basis for the decision, lists
measures to minimize and/or mitigate
environmental harm, and briefly
describes public and agency
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
involvement in the decision-making
process. The Non-Impairment
Determination and final Statement of
Findings (SOF) for wetlands and
floodplains for the selected action are
attached to this ROD. The ROD also
concludes the NPS’s responsibilities
under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, and its
implementing regulations at 36 CFR
800.8, by committing to the mitigation
of adverse effects to historic properties.
Project Background
In 2007, the regional transmission
operator, PJM Interconnection (PJM),
identified a 500-kV transmission line
between the Susquehanna Substation in
Pennsylvania and the Roseland
Substation in New Jersey as the
preferred and most effective solution for
reliability violations forecasted as part
of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission-approved Regional
Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP)
process. Responding to this assessment,
the applicant proposed to construct a
500-kV transmission to connect the two
substations on a route that included
crossings of DEWA, APPA, and MDSR.
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
(PPL) and Public Service Electric and
Gas Company (PSE&G), jointly known
as the applicant, applied for a permit to
allow the construction, maintenance,
and operation of the Susquehanna to
Roseland line (S–R Line) across three
units of the national park system, the
expansion of the existing right-of-way
(ROW), and the replacement of an
existing 230-kV transmission line it
owns. The existing 230-kV transmission
line runs from the Bushkill substation to
the Kittatinny substation (B–K Line),
crossing DEWA, APPA, and MDSR. It
also crosses a small panhandle of DEWA
en route to and northwest of the
Bushkill Station. The B–K Line towers
are approximately 80 feet in height and
the deeded ROW varies from 100 to 380
feet in width through the parks. The
applicant proposes to replace the B–K
Line towers with new towers up to 195
feet tall, install an additional circuit (the
S–R Line), and widen the ROW to
accommodate these new facilities. The
new replacement B–K Line will be
capable of carrying 500-kV, though it
would be initially energized at only 230kV. The applicant’s proposal includes
both the construction of the S–R Line
and the replacement of the B–K Line as
part of the project. References in this
document to ‘‘the line’’ refer to both
lines and the single set of towers they
share.
The applicant’s purpose for the
proposed S–R Line is to strengthen the
reliability of the grid at the direction of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
the regional transmission operator, PJM.
PJM oversees the overall movement of
wholesale electricity between many
electric utilities in all or parts of 13
states and the District of Columbia. The
PJM 2007 load forecast model identified
23 projected grid reliability criteria
violations starting in 2012. PJM advised
that an upgrade to this line would aid
in resolving several violations and
issues related to reliability and
congestion. The need for the proposed
S–R Line has been expressed several
times by PJM in planning documents.
PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion
Plans from 2007 to 2010 have identified
the proposed S–R Line as an important
project on what was termed by PJM as
a ‘‘backbone’’ line. The North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
also identified the proposed S–R Line as
a ‘‘backbone,’’ while the applicant has
repeatedly noted the need for and
importance of increased electrical
transmission capacity between Berwick,
Pennsylvania and Roseland, New Jersey.
If constructed, the new S–R Line would
make the current transmission line
corridor an even more important link in
the regional grid than it is now. The two
new lines proposed would require a
much higher level of access roads and
activity to monitor and maintain.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission (PAPUC) and the New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU)
have approved the S–R Line, although
the approval included conditions and
the NJBPU decision is being challenged
in court.
Whether there is a need for the
proposed S–R Line project is not for the
NPS to decide, nor is it a factor in the
preparation of the EIS; that question is
within the purview of the PAPUC and
NJBPU. The NPS prepared an EIS to
determine whether to grant or deny the
applicant’s request for a construction
and ROW permit within NPS lands.
Decision (Selected Action)
The National Park Service will
implement alternative 2, which was
identified as the agency’s preferred
alternative in the Susquehanna to
Roseland 500-kV Transmission Line
Right-of-Way and Special Use Permit
Final EIS, with mitigation as described
herein. The complete description of the
selected alternative can be found in
Chapter 2 of the final EIS in the
following sections: Description of the
Alternatives, Elements Common to All
Action Alternatives, and Alternative 2:
Applicant’s Proposed Route. A
summary of the key points of the
selected alternative is provided below.
Under the selected alternative, the
NPS will take final agency action when
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63857
it issues a permit to grant a ROW and
construction permit to PSEG and PPL
for the expansion of the B–K Line to a
new double-circuit line through NPS
lands in accordance with this decision.
The selected alternative will include the
installation of a double-circuit 500-kV
transmission line (consisting of new
towers and conductors) and associated
telecommunications infrastructure. Two
static lightning and communications
fiber lines will be installed on top of the
structures; these lines, respectively, will
protect the transmission lines from
electrical interruptions and will serve as
a communication link between existing
substations. This telecommunications
infrastructure will not be highly visible,
and will not include cell towers.
Telecommunications infrastructure will
only be used for electrical transmission
purposes and will not be sold to a third
party. Existing structures in the B–K
Line ROW between the Bushkill
Substation and the eastern boundary of
DEWA will be removed. Removal of the
existing B–K line will require the
removal of vegetation to permit the
construction of spur roads to allow
equipment access.
Spur roads will be 20 feet wide and
will be surfaced with compacted dirt or
gravel. Grading will occur to backfill
over the existing tower foundations,
counterpoises, and ground wires, to
create a natural cover. Crane pads,
approximately 200 feet by 200 feet will
be constructed to provide a safe, level
pad for large cranes to mobilize, set
outriggers, and aid in the removal of
transmission line towers. Wire pulling
locations, approximately 200 feet by 200
feet, will be used for coiling conductors
after they have been cut. Lattice towers
will be disassembled at each tower
location and placed on a tractor-trailer
or hoisted by an air crane and shipped
to a staging area for eventual recycling.
The route for the selected alternative
follows the corridor of the B–K Line,
which traverses approximately 4.3 miles
of DEWA. Within DEWA boundaries,
the route crosses MDSR and APPA
approximately perpendicularly. Within
the study area, the alternative 2
alignment is approximately 5.6 miles
long. The alignment will enter DEWA
from the west in Pennsylvania
approximately 0.25 mile east of Big
Bushkill Creek. The alignment will
cross approximately 0.6 mile of DEWA
land and then exit the park. In the next
approximately 0.68-mile section of the
study area, the alignment will travel to
the Bushkill Substation, cross a small
(0.06-mile) portion of DEWA, cross the
Fernwood Golf Course, and then reenter
DEWA south of the South Zone Ranger
Station and north of DEWA
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63858
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
Headquarters. The alignment will travel
southeast within DEWA for
approximately 0.85 mile, then cross 0.10
mile of MDSR just north of Depew
Island. The route will continue
southeast approximately 2.4 miles past
the Watergate Recreation Site and cross
APPA. The route will then traverse
another 0.25 mile from APPA to the
eastern DEWA boundary. Beyond the
boundary, the alignment will travel
southeast approximately 0.7 mile to a
Visual Split Location (VSL) which was
used in the EIS to identify the
geographical point outside the parks at
which it becomes physically possible
for the applicant to route the line as it
sees fit.
The width of the existing B–K Line
ROW ranges from 100 to 380 feet in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; however,
the ROW is only cleared to a width
between approximately 80 and 150 feet.
In the FEIS, this alternative was
analyzed assuming it would require
clearing of vegetation for an additional
50 to 200 feet of ROW. To avoid and
reduce impacts caused by clearing and
construction activities, the applicant has
agreed to limit clearing of the ROW and
construction activities to no more than
200 feet, with clearing limited to 150
feet in some areas. The area to be
cleared is specified in the Statement of
Findings, Attachment B of this ROD.
Low impact tree clearing will be used
to remove vegetation from the proposed
ROW. Trees will be cut close to the
ground, and stumps and root systems
will be left in place to provide
additional soil stability. A 50-foot buffer
will be used near intermittent streams
and wetlands and a 100-foot buffer near
perennial streams.
Alternative 2 will require new access
roads, because old trails and roadbeds
on which the access roads are based are
overgrown and will not allow access by
large vehicles. Generally, access roads
will fall within the transmission line
ROW, but in some instances, it will be
necessary for access roads to extend
outside the ROW. Alternative 2 will
require a total of 5.3 miles of access
roads, 1.9 miles of which will be outside
the ROW (1.5 miles in Pennsylvania and
0.4 mile in New Jersey). Access roads
will initially be 20 feet wide to
accommodate large construction
vehicles. Following construction, access
roads will be narrowed to 15 feet wide
and will continue to be used for
maintenance and vegetation
management for the line. Access roads
will be composed of gravel or
compacted dirt.
Crane pads will be used for assembly
and erection at each new tower location.
Crane pad sites will be graded or cleared
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
to provide a reasonably level pad free of
any vegetation that could hinder tower
construction. Some tower sites will
require grading either to widen the pads
from the existing structures or to create
new pads, while other sites will be on
relatively level areas that will only
require some vegetation removal. At
locations with steep topography,
extensive excavation may be required to
create a level pad. New towers will be
constructed on a concrete foundation.
Foundation dimensions will depend on
topography, tower height, span length,
and soil properties; however, tower
foundations will generally extend below
grade for 15 to 30 feet or more, with a
diameter of 6 to 9 feet. On average, a
typical concrete foundation will extend
approximately 3 feet above ground
level. If monopoles are feasible, they
will be used. If monopoles are not
feasible for these structures, it may be
necessary to use lattice towers.
Wire installation includes all
activities associated with the
installation of conductor wire onto the
new towers, such as the installation of
primary conductor and ground wire,
vibration dampeners, weights, spacers,
and suspension and dead-end hardware
assemblies. For stringing equipment that
cannot be positioned at either side of a
dead-end transmission tower, anchoring
and dead-end hardware will be
temporarily installed to sag conductor
wire to the correct tension. Wirestringing activities would be conducted
as described in Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers Standard
524–1992, Guide to the Installation of
Overhead Transmission Line
Conductors.
Construction of transmission facilities
will also consist of the establishment of
staging yards for construction materials
and equipment, completion of any
roadwork, and removal of the B–K Line
that currently crosses the parks. Staging
yards for materials and equipment will
be approximately 3 to 4 acres each.
Efforts will be made to locate staging
areas on previously disturbed property,
abandoned excavations, or abandoned
parking areas. Construction activities
will last for approximately 8 months.
Maintenance of the S–R Line will be
performed on an as-needed basis, but is
expected to occur at least once annually,
and will include maintenance of access
roads and erosion/drainage control
structures. Maintenance of vegetation
will be performed by the applicant. NPS
will require an NPS-specific, NPSapproved vegetation management plan.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
Mitigation measures will be
implemented to minimize the impacts
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on resources from construction,
operation, and maintenance activities.
The NPS will also establish mechanisms
to ensure that all mitigation obligations
are met, mitigation measures are
monitored for effectiveness, and
unsuccessful mitigation is quickly
remedied. In instances where impacts
cannot be avoided and other mitigation
is not feasible, compensation for
resources lost or degraded through
project construction, operation, and
maintenance will be required. Examples
of items that cannot be directly
remedied through other mitigation
include impacts that degrade the scenic
and other intrinsic values of the parks
or impacts that result in the loss of
recreational use and visitor enjoyment.
Compensation will be used to mitigate
these items by improving the
stewardship of other natural, cultural,
scenic, and recreational resources
similar to those impacted.
The NPS will require the applicant to
follow certain Best Management
Practices (BMPs)/mitigation measures
for the selected alternative. Mitigation
measures and BMPs specific to the
impact topics, where applicable, are
presented below. Mitigation measures
are identified as BMPs NPS will require
during construction and measures NPS
will require over the life of the project.
Compensatory mitigation measures are
required for certain resources and are
identified as applicable.
Geology
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
• Submit a detailed drilling plan for
NPS review and approval for all drilling
activities prior to drilling and
construction activities.
• Complete geotechnical boring
before construction to determine the
appropriate depth needed to remove
soils and weathered bedrock before
reaching sound material where
substantial excavation will occur. This
will reduce the impacts of drilling in
unstable material.
• Haul all tailings from geotechnical
borings and drillings offsite, unless the
NPS determines that there is a park
need for the tailings.
• Use excavated rock as substrate for
the access roads.
• Complete a preconstruction surface
assessment prior to disturbance. Work
will be completed by a qualified
geologist. If any paleontological
resources are found, they will be
avoided. If the resources are
unavoidable, they will be collected and
properly cared for before the start of
construction. Any paleontological
resources collected will be properly
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
documented and turned over to the
park.
• Monitor areas with potential
paleontological resources during
construction activities.
• NPS will analyze or approve any
water sources for drilling operations.
Measure the NPS will require that will
Avoid and Minimize Impacts over the
Life of the Project:
• Develop a buffer zone around areas
of sensitive geologic resources. No
activities will occur within the buffer
zone. This buffer zone will protect these
areas from drilling and excavation
activities, limiting impacts.
Water and Soil Resources
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
• Prepare a spill prevention and
response plan (SPRP) to reduce impacts
on surface water, ground water, and
aquatic species if equipment leaks or
hazardous spills occur. The goal of the
plan is to minimize the potential for a
spill, contain any spillage to the
smallest area possible, and to protect
environmentally sensitive areas,
including streams, rivers, and wetlands.
The SPRP will include the following:
b Procedures for fuel storage
location, fueling activities, and
construction equipment maintenance.
b Lines of communication to
facilitate the prevention, response,
containment, and cleanup of spills
during construction activities.
• Construct spur roads using
geotextile fabric and stone, which will
be removed at the conclusion of
construction and will be revegetated
using park approved species or seed
mixes.
• Inspect potential erosion areas
weekly. Additionally inspect potential
erosion areas immediately after storm
events. The applicant will smooth out
ruts and spread gravel to stabilize the
roadway and prevent erosion.
• Implement erosion control
methods, such as silt fences during and
after construction to reduce impacts of
increased soil runoff on water resources.
By retaining soil on-site, sediment and
attached nutrients are prevented from
leaving disturbed areas and polluting
streams. The use of BMPs is estimated
to reduce total suspended solids (TSS)
by 40 percent, total nitrogen by 25
percent, and total phosphorus by 40
percent (Baldwin n.d., 1).
• Drill during winter months (when
not in areas with known snake dens) to
reduce impacts of drilling on aquatic
communities. Winter is when the least
number of aquatic species and
individuals are present in nearby water
bodies. Measures the NPS will require
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
that will Avoid and Minimize Impacts
over the Life of the Project:
• Construct access roads with a gravel
surface that is semipermeable to reduce
the amount of stormwater runoff. A
reduction in sheet flow will decrease
the amount of sedimentation, total
suspended soils, contaminants,
nutrients, and turbidity in surface
waters and impacts on aquatic species.
• Construct road grades and
alignments to follow the contour of the
land with smooth, gradual curves; this
will reduce the runoff potential of soils
along the access roads outside the ROW.
• Develop and implement soil and
erosion control plans as mandated in
state permits for Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) and New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
• Use only those herbicides approved
by the NPS for aquatic environments for
removal of vegetation.
• Establish a 150-foot buffer near
intermittent or perennial streams and
wetlands. No activities will occur
within the buffer. The buffer will reduce
impacts on water quality and aquatic
species.
Floodplains
Required mitigation measures are
described in detail in the SOF,
Attachment B of this ROD. All
mitigation measures identified in the
SOF are hereby incorporated by
reference as mitigation measures
required by this ROD.
Wetlands
Required mitigation measures are
described in detail in the SOF,
Attachment B of this ROD. All
mitigation measures identified in the
SOF are hereby incorporated by
reference as mitigation measures
required by this ROD.
Vegetation
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
• Promptly seed areas disturbed
during construction of the transmission
line with a conservation mix approved
by NPS, and monitor these areas for the
spread of invasive plant species.
• All areas where vegetation is to be
removed will be clearly delineated and
NPS approval of the limits of vegetation
clearing will be obtained prior to any
action taking place.
• Minimize disturbance to native
plant species during construction to
prevent the spread of non-native
species.
• Clean equipment after leaving areas
where invasive species are known to
occur and before entering sensitive
areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63859
• Use construction materials (e.g.,
gravel) from sources that have been
inspected and found to be free of
invasive species and approved by NPS.
• Use timber mats during
construction in areas outside the access
roads to minimize soil compaction.
Measures the NPS will require that
will Avoid and Minimize Impacts over
the Life of the Project:
• Develop and implement an NPSapproved, long-term, park-specific
vegetation management plan for the
operation and maintenance of the line.
Separate vegetation management plans
are needed from PSE&G and PPL. These
plans will focus on retaining habitat
within the constraints of the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) guidelines, and the
control of invasive species. These plans
will address invasive species
management, including early detection,
monitoring, and treatment for target
invasive species using an integrated pest
management approach. Additionally, an
invasive species management plan will
address the possible spread of invasive
species via wooden spools used to
supply wire. Other topics in the
vegetation management plan will
include vegetation restoration (native
seeding and plantings, with annual
monitoring and re-treatment as needed
to achieve minimum acceptable
outcomes, including an increase in
biodiversity); management of sensitive
species and sensitive habitats during
routine maintenance; management of
the ROW vegetation that will increase
habitat for scrub shrub species; the use
of best management practices to include
restrictions on use of machinery and
equipment time-of-year restrictions on
vegetation in sensitive areas; preapproval by NPS on pesticide and
herbicide use; and off-site
compensation. The vegetation
management plan will also include an
equipment cleaning plan that will
address techniques for removal of any
invasive seed sources prior to entering
the parks.
• Use existing roads with minimal
development of new access roads.
• Require that maintenance crews
enter the ROW on foot and use
handheld equipment for vegetation
maintenance in sensitive areas.
• Clean equipment after leaving areas
where invasive species are known to
occur and before entering sensitive
areas.
• All woody vegetation (including
chips) will be removed from the parks
unless instructed otherwise by NPS
staff.
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
63860
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
• Complete measures for the annual
suppression of invasive plants within
the ROW for the life of the project.
Landscape Connectivity, Wildlife
Habitat, and Wildlife
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
• Consult with NPS on deposition of
brush piles. Where approved by NPS,
leave brush piles alongside the ROW to
provide habitat for wildlife species
following the clearing of vegetation.
• Remove spur roads following
construction and maintain the ROW to
provide bird habitat.
• Vegetation clearing will occur
outside the breeding season of migratory
birds to reduce the likelihood of
disturbing nesting birds.
• The applicant will avoid take and
minimize disturbance to eagles during
construction and operation of the line.
• Construction within 660 feet of any
important eagle use area (breeding,
foraging or roosting) will be completed
outside the season of use.
• Loud and disruptive impacts such
as pile driving or blasting will not occur
within one-half mile of an important
eagle use area during the season of use.
Measures the NPS will require that
will Avoid and Minimize Impacts over
the Life of the Project:
• Impose a seasonal restriction on
maintenance activities from March 15
through July 31 to prevent unauthorized
take of nests and unfledged chicks
protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA). An avian protection
plan (APP) will be developed and will
be a condition of the applicant’s permit.
• Impose a seasonal restriction on
maintenance activities in March and
April in areas of known amphibian
migration to prevent direct mortality of
spring peepers, wood frogs, spotted
salamanders, red spotted newts, and
Jefferson salamanders.
• Consult with NPS on deposition of
brush piles. Where approved by NPS,
leave brush piles alongside the ROW to
provide habitat for a variety of wildlife
species following the clearing of
vegetation.
• The applicant will submit an
application to FWS for a permit to cover
the applicant’s liability under the
BGEPA.
• Diverters will be placed on the
shield or static wire from the bank of the
Delaware River on the New Jersey side
of the line, to the top of the Hogback
Ridge in Pennsylvania. Diverters
suggested for use by the USFWS are
yellow, coiled-PVC avian flight diverters
or flapper diverters placed at roughly
50-foot intervals on the shield wire with
communications wire to increase the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
visibility of the line within the
Kittatinny Ridge Migratory Corridor.
• Tower lighting will only be
permitted on the four towers where
recommended by FAA, and only via
AVWS system, such that lighting is only
triggered by the approach of aircraft,
minimizing the amount of time towers
will be lit.
Special-Status Species
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
• Obtain a qualified biologist to
conduct preconstruction surveys before
any ground-disturbing or vegetation
clearing activities. Surveys will be to
determine the presence of special-status
species, habitat, nests, dens, and new
hibernacula, and to determine if
relocation will be an appropriate
mitigation measure for any species
found. Some species such as reptiles,
amphibians, and mussels could be
collected and relocated prior to or
during construction activities, if this is
found to be beneficial or appropriate to
the species found at the site. If
relocation is undertaken, a plan for the
relocation of special-status species will
be designed in consultation with the
appropriate federal and state agencies
and a qualified and permitted biologist
will collect and relocate individuals to
nearby suitable habitat. Preconstruction
surveys are particularly important
because construction may not occur for
some time following the completion of
the NEPA process and special-status
species could begin using habitat
between site surveys and construction
activity. If special-status species, nests,
dens, or habitats are found, then
consultation measures will be
developed and implemented in
consultation with state and federal
regulatory agencies.
• Develop and implement (by
recognized and qualified zoologists
including individuals certified by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or state
conservation agencies and approved by
NPS) species-specific conservation and
mitigation plans if special-status
wildlife species or occupied habitat
cannot be avoided. These individuals
will complete on-site monitoring. The
plans will include:
b Conservation measures, such as
time-of-year restrictions.
b Pre-construction surveys.
b Construction monitoring.
b Habitat preservation and habitat
restoration components.
b Post-construction monitoring as
needed.
• Ensure that park staff, their
representatives, or representatives from
appropriate state or federal agencies
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
who are experienced in managing or
monitoring special-status species are on
site to monitor for special-status species
during the construction activities to
verify that special-status species are not
in the active construction area.
• Implement road closures and/or
patrols prior to and during construction
activities at locations where it was
deemed effective.
• Install barrier fencing along streams
to keep wood turtles from entering
construction sites.
• Implement seasonal restrictions to
reduce impacts on special-status
species. Seasonal restrictions will be
site-specific, based on species present
and their use of the site and include the
following:
b Seasonal restrictions on vegetation
clearing from March 15 through July 31
will prevent the unauthorized take of
nests and unfledged chicks of birds
protected by the MBTA (USFWS 2010).
This seasonal restriction will protect the
majority of the special-status bird
fledglings that may occur in the study
areas for each alternative. Therefore, the
permanent and seasonal resident
nesting special-status bird species will
not be forced to abandon nests or young,
because vegetation clearing will not
occur during the nesting season; no
direct mortality of eggs, young, or adults
will occur as a result.
b Seasonal restrictions for
disturbance of bald eagles will include
a restriction within 1,000 feet of bald
eagle nests between December 15 and
August 31, the bald eagle nesting
period. This restriction is recommended
in the Bald Eagle Guidelines (USFWS
2007).
b Seasonal restrictions for tree
clearing and construction will be
implemented from December 15 to
March 31 in the vicinity of bald eagle
roosts.
b To prevent cutting of potential
roost trees for the Indiana bat, a season
restriction from April 1 through
September 30, which includes the
restriction of cutting trees with a
diameter at breast height (DBH) greater
than 8.7 inches will be implemented.
b A seasonal restriction from April 1
through October 31 preventing the
cutting of all trees or snags with a DBH
greater than 5 inches will be
implemented to avoid potential impacts
on northern myotis and other treeroosting bats.
b Seasonal restrictions on project
activities will be implemented in
venomous snake basking, birthing, and
foraging habitat during the active
season. Safe dates for project activities
span from November 1 through March
31. Further timing restrictions for
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
drilling and excavation activities will be
required in the vicinity of overwintering
dens.
b Seasonal restrictions for
neotropical birds and bats will also
benefit nesting and birthing reptile
species in the spring and summer.
b Seasonal restrictions will be
implemented on project activities in
wood turtle foraging habitat during the
active season. Safe dates for project
activities are November 15 through
March 31.
b Seasonal restrictions on project
activities in bog turtle wetlands and
300-foot buffer during active season will
be implemented. Safe dates for project
activities are November 1 through
March 31.
Measures the NPS will require that
will Avoid and Minimize Impacts over
the Life of the Project:
• Develop and implement NPSapproved, long-term, park-specific
vegetation management plans for the
operation and maintenance of the line.
Separate vegetation management plans
are needed for both from PSE&G and
PPL. These plans will help reduce
impacts to special-status species and the
habitats they utilize.
• Provide construction plans (as
described in the general Construction
and Restoration Plan) for each set of
construction activities in order to
facilitate modification of construction
activities that may adversely impact
areas that support special-status species.
• The applicant will submit an
application to FWS for a permit to cover
the applicant’s liability under the
BGEPA.
• The applicant will either conduct
monitoring or will provide NPS the
funding to conduct monitoring in the
vicinity of the line during construction
and operation of the line in order to
determine the level of hazard to eagles.
If the likelihood of take is determined to
be low, the standard permit will not
require renewal, and the operation of
the line will be consistent with BGEPA.
If the monitoring suggests that take is
likely to occur, the applicant will
initiate the development of a
programmatic permit to cover their
liability during the operational life of
the line.
• Consult with appropriate federal
and state agencies if special-status plant
populations cannot be avoided,
depending on the listing status of the
species present. These consultations
will determine appropriate mitigation
measures for any populations affected
by the proposed project. Appropriate
measures could include the creation of
offsite populations through seed
collection or transplanting,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
preservation, and enhancement of
existing populations, or restoration or
creation of suitable habitat in sufficient
quantities to compensate for the impact.
b Translocation includes digging up
plants and moving them to appropriate
portions of the corridor that will not be
affected by the proposed construction
activities.
b Seeds can also be collected from
plants that will be removed and either
planted directly or germinated in a
nursery and then planted in appropriate
locations.
• Develop and implement (by
recognized and qualified zoologists
including individuals certified by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or state
conservation agencies) species-specific
conservation and mitigation plans if
special-status wildlife species or
occupied habitat cannot be avoided.
These individuals will complete on-site
monitoring. The plans will include:
b Conservation measures, such as
time-of-year restrictions.
b Pre-construction surveys.
b Construction monitoring.
b Habitat preservation and habitat
restoration components.
b Post-construction monitoring as
needed.
• Complete an APP in accordance
with the Bald Eagle Guidelines (USFWS
2007) and APLIC standards.
b The APP will include elements
that provide for training for all utility
and contractor personnel on compliance
with applicable regulations, procedures
to be implemented for avoidance and
minimization of disturbance, reporting
bird mortality, required permits,
accepted construction standards for
reducing bird impacts, methodology for
evaluation of risks to migratory birds,
opportunities for enhancement of bird
populations or habitat, public awareness
and education, and identification of key
resources.
b The standards described in APLIC
(1994) will be followed and will also
comply with the APLIC Suggested
Practices for Avian Protection on Power
Lines: The State of the Art in 2006
(APLIC 2006).
b Proposed construction and
maintenance activities will follow and
adhere to the Bald Eagle Guidelines
(USFWS 2007), which will minimize
the potential for ‘‘take’’ on the bald
eagle.
b To reduce impacts on birds from
collisions with the transmission line,
the APP (PSE&G 2010) will be written
in compliance with APLIC standards
and will use the current best available
technologies.
• Continue to identify and control
invasive plant species through the
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63861
applicant’s invasive plant management
plans. In addition, an aggressive
invasive plant management plan
developed and implemented by the
applicant will include ongoing
monitoring and treatment.
• Close access roads to the public to
reduce the impacts of illegal collection.
It has been demonstrated by Garber and
Burger (1995, at 1152 and 1158) that
when formerly intact, undisturbed,
forested areas are opened to human
recreation, the extinction of specialstatus species can occur in that
particular area. Rare species, especially
plants and small reptiles and
amphibians, are vulnerable to illegal
collecting, and even small numbers
collected annually for a number of years
could jeopardize the local population.
• NPS law enforcement will monitor
visitor activities in these areas,
including the use of remote surveillance
to assess the need for and effectiveness
of area closures. There will be an
increase in patrols along the access
roads and any new ROW. Existing and
proposed new access roads, especially
access roads, could act as an attractive
nuisance and/or recreation opportunity,
by inviting visitors to areas inhabited by
rare species and increasing visitor
encounters with these species.
• NPS law enforcement and resource
staff will monitor closed areas for
invasive species, vegetation, wildlife,
and erosion, and the presence of park
staff may dissuade visitors from entering
these illegal areas.
• Implement seasonal restrictions to
reduce impacts on special-status
species. Seasonal restrictions will be
site-specific, based on species present
and their use of the site and include the
following:
b Seasonal restrictions on vegetation
clearing from March 15 through July 31
will prevent the unauthorized take of
nests and unfledged chicks of birds
protected by the MBTA (USFWS 2010).
This seasonal restriction will protect the
majority of the special-status bird
fledglings that may occur in the study
areas for each alternative. Therefore, the
permanent and seasonal resident
nesting special-status bird species will
not be forced to abandon nests or young,
because vegetation clearing will not
occur during the nesting season; no
direct mortality of eggs, young, or adults
will occur as a result.
b Seasonal restrictions for
disturbance of bald eagles will include
a restriction within 1,000 feet of bald
eagle nests between December 15 and
August 31, the bald eagle nesting
period. This restriction is recommended
in the Bald Eagle Guidelines (USFWS
2007).
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63862
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
b Seasonal restrictions for tree
clearing and construction will be
implemented from December 15 to
March 31 in the vicinity of bald eagle
roosts.
b To prevent cutting of potential
roost trees for the Indiana bat, a season
restriction from April 1 through
September 30, which includes the
restriction of cutting trees with a
diameter at breast height (DBH) greater
than 8.7 inches, will be implemented.
b A seasonal restriction from April 1
through October 31 preventing the
cutting of all trees or snags with a DBH
greater than 5 inches will be
implemented to avoid potential impacts
on northern myotis and other treeroosting bats.
b Seasonal restrictions on project
activities will be implemented in
venomous snake basking, birthing, and
foraging habitat during the active
season. Safe dates for project activities
span from November 1 through March
31. Further timing restrictions for
drilling and excavation activities will be
required in the vicinity of overwintering
dens.
b Seasonal restrictions for
Neotropical birds and bats will also
benefit nesting and birthing reptile
species in the spring and summer.
b Seasonal restrictions will be
implemented on project activities in
wood turtle foraging habitat during the
active season. Safe dates for project
activities are November 15 through
March 31.
b Seasonal restrictions on project
activities in bog turtle wetlands and
300-foot buffer during active season will
be implemented. Safe dates for project
activities are November 1 through
March 31.
Measures to specifically protect bog
turtles will be undertaken in accordance
with the Bog Turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii) Northern Population
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001), and the
bog turtle conservation zones presented
in the ‘‘Special-status Species’’ section
of chapter 3 of the final EIS. These
actions will be undertaken where
appropriate as mitigation measures.
Future coordination with appropriate
federal and state agencies will clarify
the extent to which adverse effects to
the bog turtle will be likely to occur and
will determine whether a biological
assessment (BA) will be required. Other
conservation and/or mitigation
measures to protect the bog turtle
suggested by the Recovery Plan include
the restoration of disrupted wetland
hydrology, the control of invasive
species, reconnection of fragmented
habitat, population monitoring, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
protection of nests from collection and
predation (USFWS 2001).
Cultural Resources
Mitigation measures for cultural
resources are described in the Section
106 discussion, below, and are
incorporated by reference.
Infrastructure, Access and Circulation
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
Prior to construction activities, the
applicant will complete the following:
• Develop a construction staging plan
with NPS.
• Develop a traffic control plan in
conjunction with NPS.
• Work with NPS to develop a plan
for the control of unauthorized public
access and use on NPS lands that could
result from the proposed project. The
agreement will address various
provisions related to unauthorized
access, such as the following:
b Additional measures to be taken to
discourage unauthorized use of the
project corridor and associated access
roads.
b Periodic inspection for
unauthorized access and any resulting
damage.
b Repair of any damage from
unauthorized access.
• Develop a media strategy/
notification plan as a means to notify
local residents, businesses, and officials
of closures and changes in traffic
patterns.
• Develop an off-highway vehicle/allterrain vehicle (OHV/ATV) deterrent
plan prior to construction activities.
During construction activities:
• Design and construct new access
roads to minimize runoff and soil
erosion.
• Install gates at the entrances to
access roads to reduce unauthorized
use; coordinate gate locks with NPS.
• Restore public roadways to their
pre-construction conditions or better
upon completion of project construction
activities.
• Reclaim any road-related
disturbance areas after construction is
completed.
• Permanently close and revegetate
spur roads to discourage OHV/ATV use.
For roads still in use, restrict access by
unauthorized users as identified in the
OHV/ATV deterrent plan.
Visual Resources
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
During construction activities:
• Restrict construction vehicle
movement outside the ROW to NPSapproved routes. Should additional road
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
access be required, permission be
sought from the NPS prior to
disturbance, and appropriate
remuneration fees will be assessed.
• Keep areas around the towers clean
and free of debris.
• Maintain a clean construction site
and remove all related equipment,
materials, and litter following
construction.
• Revegetate disturbed areas with
approved species.
• Provide regular maintenance of
access roads and fences within and
leading to the corridor.
• Cut stumps close to ground.
• Implement ‘‘low-impact tree
clearing’’ which involves directional
tree-felling, both mechanically and by
hand.
• Rehabilitate or restore disturbed
areas, as applicable.
Measures the NPS will require that
will Avoid and Minimize Impacts over
the Life of the Project:
During Project Design several
mitigation measures will be undertaken.
It should be noted that, in some cases,
visual resource mitigation measures
may directly contradict mitigation
measures under APLIC that make the
lines more visible to birds in order to
decrease bird collisions and
electrocutions; in these cases, the APLIC
guidelines will prevail:
• Locate new access roads within
previously disturbed areas.
• Route the alignment of new access
roads to follow landform contours
where practicable, providing that such
alignment does not impact additional
resource values, to minimize ground
disturbance and/or reduce scarring
(visual contrast) of the landscape.
• Place structures in designated areas
so as to avoid sensitive features such as,
but not limited to, riparian areas, water
courses, and cultural sites, and/or to
allow conductors to clearly span the
features, within limits of standard tower
design. If the sensitive features cannot
be completely avoided, towers will be
placed so as to minimize the
disturbance.
• Place tower structures at the
maximum feasible distance from
roadway and trail crossings, and where
preservation of existing vista(s) is
particularly important. Distances will be
within the limits of standard tower
structure design.
• Use non-reflective neutral colored
paints and coatings approved by the
NPS to reduce reflection, glare, and/or
contrast on structures.
• Use non-reflective insulators (i.e.,
non-ceramic or porcelain).
• Use non-specular conductors to
reduce reflectivity.
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
• Locate construction staging areas
away from visually sensitive locations.
• Conceptual landscaping in the form
of vegetation planted outside but along
the utility ROW.
• Tower lighting will only be
permitted on the four towers where
recommended by FAA, and only via
AVWS system, such that lighting is only
triggered by the approach of aircraft,
minimizing the amount of time towers
will be lit.
During maintenance activities:
• Restrict construction vehicle
movement outside the ROW to NPSapproved routes. Should additional road
access be required, permission must be
sought from the NPS prior to
disturbance, and appropriate
remuneration fees will be assessed.
• Keep areas around the towers clean
and free of debris.
• Maintain a clean construction site
and remove all related equipment,
materials, and litter following
construction.
• Revegetate disturbed areas with
approved species.
• Provide regular maintenance of
access roads and fences.
• Cut stumps close to ground.
• Implement ‘‘low-impact tree
clearing’’ which involves directional
tree-felling, both mechanically and by
hand, and add buck trees to promote
decomposition.
• Rehabilitate and/or restore
disturbed areas.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Soundscapes
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
• Comply with county and city noise
ordinances.
• Install sound-control devices on all
construction equipment.
• Install muffled exhaust on all
construction equipment and vehicles
except helicopters, if used.
Visitor Use and Experience
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
• Coordinate construction schedules
with NPS to avoid peak visitor use
periods and notify visitors of
construction.
• The applicant must develop a plan
to avoid or minimize impacts to park
visitors, including visitors using roads,
trails, the river and other areas affected
by construction. The applicant must
assure visitor safety while keeping
recreation areas open to the greatest
extent possible. NPS must approve the
timing and duration of all closures.
• Prior to construction develop a
media strategy/notification plan as a
means to notify local residents and
visitors of closures.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Health and Safety
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and
Minimize Impacts during Construction:
• Develop safety and emergency
plans for the project prior to
construction activities.
• Fully train operators of the
construction equipment and vehicles to
reduce the chance of accidents.
• Inspect construction equipment for
malfunctions or faulty parts to reduce
the risk of leaking fluids that could
harm the environment or humans from
contact.
• Put in place safety devices such as
traveling grounds, guard structures, and
radio-equipped public safety roving
vehicles and lineman prior to the
initiation of wire stringing activities.
• Install guard poles or guard
structures at all transportation, flood
control, and utility crossings. Guard
poles are temporary facilities designed
to stop the travel of the conductor
should it momentarily drop below a
conventional stringing height.
• Restrict use of the immediate area
in which construction will occur for
safety reasons (PPL and PSE&G 2008,
A10–6) to minimize impacts on park
visitors during construction of the line
within the parks.
• Fence off construction areas in
areas outside of the park, but inside the
study area, where the public could
access the construction site.
• Station a safety representative at
APPA crossings during any and all
construction to maintain public safety.
• Station a safety watchman on the
river during stringing operations to stop
any boat traffic if an incident does occur
or if conditions otherwise warrant (PPL
and PSE&G 2008, 6).
• Implement road closures and traffic
control to minimize the risk of accidents
from occurring during the construction
period.
• Regularly maintain and inspect
helicopters and employ operators
certified/licensed in helicopter aviation.
• Operators conducting aerial work in
support of the utility may encounter
hazards from the various types of flight
profiles, terrain, infrastructure, weather,
and operation at low levels and speeds.
b To reduce the potential risk of a
collision, the crew will identify
potential collision hazards and make
corrective actions prior to taking flight.
b While in flight, the crew will
exercise concentration, maintain
situational awareness, be knowledgeable
of their area of operations, maintain
effective communications, and establish
clear roles and responsibilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63863
Compensatory Mitigation
The applicants have offered, and NPS
will require as a permit condition, that
they deposit at least fifty-six million
dollars ($56,000,000) into a Middle
Delaware Compensation Fund, as will
be described in a memorandum of
agreement to be entered with and
managed by The Conservation Fund, to:
• Acquire lands from willing sellers
that can be included in the boundaries
of APPA and DEWA as compensatory
mitigation for lands over which ROW
rights are granted.
• Carry out wetlands restoration
projects elsewhere within APPA and
DEWA as compensatory mitigation for
wetlands impacted by ROW clearing
and maintenance.
• Carry out historic preservation
projects elsewhere within APPA and
DEWA as compensatory mitigation for
historic properties impacted by line
construction.
Other Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1—No Action
Under the no-action alternative, the
NPS would deny the applications for
ROWs and construction permits to
expand the B–K Line to a new doublecircuit line through NPS lands. The
existing B–K Line traverses
approximately 4.3 miles of DEWA. The
line initiates at the Susquehanna
Substation and enters DEWA in
Pennsylvania approximately 0.25 mile
east of Big Bushkill Creek. The line then
exits the park, connects to the Bushkill
Substation, travels through developed
areas, including Fernwood Golf Course,
and reenters DEWA south of the South
Zone Ranger Station and north of DEWA
Headquarters, crossing MDSR just north
of Depew Island. The line continues
southeast past the Watergate Recreation
Site and across APPA to the eastern
DEWA boundary. There are 22 existing
transmission towers located within
DEWA boundaries for the existing B–K
Line, and there are no existing access
roads to the ROW. This alternative
assumes that the existing line within the
parks would remain in place without
expansion or replacement. In essence, it
assumes that current conditions on the
ground will continue indefinitely into
the future. However, the applicant could
seek to expand or replace the existing
utility lines within the existing
easements through the parks. There are
no proposals to do so at this time.
Alternative 2b—Applicant’s Alternate
Proposal
The alignment for the applicant’s
alternate proposal would follow the
same route as described for alternative
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
63864
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2 (the selected alternative). The
difference between alternative 2 and
alternative 2b is that the former would
require widening the existing ROW,
while the latter would be constructed
within the existing ROW. The towers for
alternative 2b would be the same height
as those described for alternative 2, but
alternative 2b would require two
additional towers within NPS lands
compared to alternative 2. These towers
would be constructed within the 100foot-wide portion of the alignment.
Because the ROW under alternative 2b
is narrow, the applicant’s plans require
these additional towers to protect
against fire hazards presented by the
risk of conductor blowout. The
minimum horizontal clearance to the
edge of the ROW under high wind
conditions to prevent conductor
blowout was determined to be greater
than 100 feet, and the NPS has
expressed concern about the safety of
constructing within the existing ROW.
The applicant’s proposal is based upon
the controversial assumption that they
have a right to clear danger trees on NPS
property outside any deeded ROW (PPL
2010b). It is assumed that larger
individual trees outside the ROW would
be removed periodically.
Access roads for alternative 2b are
similar as those described for alternative
2, with a slight difference in
Pennsylvania between the Bushkill
Substation and the Delaware River.
Alternative 2b would require a total of
5.3 miles of access roads, of which 2.4
miles would occur outside the ROW.
Alternative 3
The alternative 3 alignment would
pass through DEWA along the ROW of
existing transmission and distribution
lines. The existing transmission and
distribution lines would be removed
prior to construction of the S–R Line.
The existing transmission line ROW is
cleared to 100 feet wide, and this
alternative would require clearing of
vegetation for an additional 50 to 200
feet of ROW. The structures of the
transmission and distribution lines
would be constructed so that these lines
and the S–R Line would run parallel to
one another within the expanded ROW.
That is, two separate sets of structures
would be constructed, one set for the
proposed S–R Line and one set for the
existing transmission and distribution
lines along the alternative 3 alignment.
Alternative 3 would cross a total of 5.4
miles within the DEWA boundary. The
route would cross about 1.3 miles of
DEWA within the study area and about
1.7 miles of the northern end of
Worthington State Forest, which is
located within DEWA’s exterior
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
boundaries. The alignment for this
alternative also crosses MDSR within
DEWA, and APPA within Worthington
State Forest.
The alternative 3 alignment is
approximately 6.9 miles long within the
study area. The alternative 3 alignment
would follow the alignment of the B–K
Line for 0.6 mile from the western
boundary of DEWA to the Bushkill
Substation. The alignment would leave
the study area and travel southwest to
reenter the study area via the VSL point
located in Monroe County,
Pennsylvania, outside DEWA. From the
western VSL, the alignment would cross
River Road and the McDade Trail about
1.0 mile southwest of the Smithfield
Beach Picnic Area and 0.75 mile
northeast of the Hialeah Picnic Area.
The alignment would continue
southeast within DEWA approximately
0.8 mile to MDSR. On the east side of
MDSR, the route would travel northeast
approximately 0.49 mile to the
boundary of Worthington State Forest;
the remainder of the alignment within
DEWA boundaries would also be
encompassed by Worthington State
Forest’s boundaries. The alignment
would travel southeast approximately
1.69 miles to the eastern edge of DEWA,
perpendicularly crossing APPA. The
alignment would travel another 0.24
mile beyond the DEWA boundary to the
VSL. The alternative 3 alignment would
reenter DEWA beyond the eastern VSL
as well. In the path to join the alignment
of the B–K Line in New Jersey,
alternative 3 could travel along the
border of DEWA for 1.8 miles,
paralleling APPA for this entire
distance. Alternative 3 would require
approximately 3.5 miles of access roads,
of which 0.9 mile would occur outside
the ROW.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would pass through
three portions of DEWA; the section of
the park from the western boundary
along the B–K Line to the Bushkill
substation; through the southwestern
boundary of the park, where the
alignment leaves the boundary of the
park for 0.51 mile, then re-enters the
park. On the southernmost portion of
DEWA, alternative 4 runs along the path
of an existing distribution line ROW,
and would also pass through a section
of the park along the alignment of the
B–K Line. The existing ROW is cleared
from 100 to 200 feet wide, and this
alternative would require permanent
clearing of vegetation for an additional
100 to 200 feet of ROW. This line along
alternative 4 would be removed prior to
construction of the S–R Line. The
structures of the existing distribution
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
line would be replaced so that this line
and the double-circuited S–R Line
would run parallel to one another
within the expanded ROW. The route
would cross about 1.5 mile of NPS
lands, including DEWA and APPA. This
alternative would also cross the Lower
Delaware River; however, the crossing
of the Delaware River would occur
outside DEWA and MDSR boundaries
and outside the study area.
Alternative 4 would have a north–
south orientation and would be
approximately 2.3 miles long within the
study area. As with alternative 3, the
alternative 4 alignment follows the
alignment of the B–K Line for 0.6 mile
from the western boundary of DEWA to
the Bushkill Substation. The alignment
would leave the study area and travel
southwest to reenter the study area via
the VSL point at the edge of DEWA,
near the southwestern boundary of the
park. Upon entering DEWA from the
north, the alternative 4 alignment would
cross about 0.42 mile of DEWA land,
roughly following the DEWA boundary,
and would cross Mountain and Totts
Gap roads. The alignment would then
leave the boundary of DEWA for
approximately 0.51 mile, before reentering the park. Upon reentering
DEWA, the alignment would
immediately cross APPA, then extend
approximately 0.50 mile south to the
southern boundary of DEWA. South of
DEWA, the alternative 4 alignment
would extend another 0.24 mile before
the southern VSL. The designated
boundary of Cherry Valley National
Wildlife Refuge borders the existing
ROW of the alternative 4 alignment
north of APPA for approximately 0.73
mile. Alternative 4 would require a total
of approximately 2.5 miles of access
roads, with approximately 1.6 miles
within NPS boundaries. Alternative 4
would use 0.9 mile of existing roads as
access roads and would require
construction of 1.6 miles of new access
roads, of which 0.5 mile would occur
outside the ROW.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 would run along the
path of an existing distribution line
ROW in the southernmost portion of
DEWA. The existing ROW is cleared to
100 feet wide, and this alternative
would require permanent clearing of
vegetation for an additional 200 feet of
ROW. This line along alternative 5
would be removed prior to construction
of the S–R Line. The structures of the
existing distribution line would be
replaced so that this line and the
double-circuited S–R Line would run
parallel to one another within the
expanded ROW. The route would cross
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
about 1.5 mile of NPS lands, including
DEWA and APPA. This alternative
would also cross the Lower Delaware
River; however, the crossing of the
Delaware River would occur outside
DEWA and MDSR boundaries and
outside the study area.
Alternative 5 would have a north–
south orientation and would be
approximately 1.7 miles long within the
study area. Alternative 5 would enter
the study area via the VSL point at the
edge of DEWA, near the southwestern
boundary of the park. Upon entering
DEWA from the north, the alternative 5
alignment would cross about 0.42 mile
of DEWA land, roughly following the
DEWA boundary, and would cross
Mountain and Totts Gap roads. The
alignment would then leave the
boundary of DEWA for approximately
0.51 mile, before re-entering the park.
Upon reentering DEWA, the alignment
would immediately cross APPA, then
extend approximately 0.50 mile south to
the southern boundary of DEWA. South
of DEWA, the alternative 5 alignment
would extend another 0.24 mile before
the southern VSL. The designated
boundary of Cherry Valley National
Wildlife Refuge borders the existing
ROW of the alternative 5 alignment
north of APPA for approximately 0.73
mile. Alternative 5 would require a total
of approximately 1.7 miles of access
roads; however, 0.9 mile of existing road
would be used. Alternative 5 would
require construction of approximately
0.9 mile of new access roads, of which
0.16 mile would occur outside the
ROW.
Basis for Decision
The purpose and need of the NPS
action analyzed in the EIS is to grant or
deny the applicant’s proposal
considering the purposes and resources
of the affected units of the national park
system, as expressed in statutes,
regulations, policy, and the NPS
objectives in taking action. In making
the decision to select alternative 2, the
NPS considered the applicant’s existing
property rights, the alternatives
evaluated in the EIS and the impacts on
park resources and values of each
alternative, and the comments received
from other agencies and the public
during the EIS process. Following is an
evaluation of the other alternatives
examined in the EIS with regard to how
each factored into the decision-making
process.
No-action Alternative: There is a great
deal of public support for selecting the
no action alternative, which means that
the NPS would deny the permit
application and the existing powerline
would remain essentially unchanged.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
The impact analysis in the EIS showed
that the no action alternative would
have the least adverse impacts on park
resources and values, and it was
identified in the EIS as the
environmentally preferable alternative.
The NPS agrees that the no action
alternative would be the best choice if
the only consideration were protection
of park resources and values. However,
the NPS cannot ignore the fact that the
applicant owns a property interest in
the existing powerline corridor. The
applicant asserts that these existing
rights are sufficient to allow it to build
an alternative design to the line
(Alternative 2b) without the grant of
additional rights. The NPS may not
prevent the applicant from exercising
these rights without effectuating a
taking. Accordingly, there are two
possible results of the selection of the
no-action alternative. First, the line may
not be built, and the environmental
status quo may continue if the
applicants decide to abandon the
project, as analyzed in the EIS. This is
viewed as unlikely by the NPS. Second,
the applicant may decide to pursue
alternative 2b, as analyzed, asserting its
present property rights, and if it were
prevented from constructing within its
present rights, it might assert a
‘‘takings’’ claim against the United
States. The latter is a particularly
undesirable option for the NPS as, in its
view, as discussed below, alternative 2b
is less preferable than the selected
alternative. Condemnation of the
present right of way to prevent
construction of alternative 2b has been
rejected as impractical. Consequently,
selection of the no-action alternative
would present the NPS with significant
uncertainty, and a strong probability
that the eventual outcome would be
worse for park resources than the
selected alternative. Under these
circumstances, NPS has rejected the noaction alternative in favor of the
selected alternative, which, while
causing more impact than failure to
construct would, causes less impact
than Alternative 2b.
Alternative 2b: At first glance,
alternative 2b might appear to have
fewer impacts to some park resources
because the applicant would be
restricted to building entirely within the
existing ROW width. However, the
additional width required by the
selected alternative is only 50 feet, or 25
feet on either side of centerline, over a
small portion of the line within APPA
and DEWA. The difference in width
between alternative 2b and the selected
alternative comes with some significant
costs, as the existing width in some
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63865
sections is insufficient to meet current
safety standards. Although the applicant
asserts that alternative 2b could be built
safely, independent transmission line
engineers engaged by NPS disagree, and
NPS views this alternative as creating
serious safety concerns due to
insufficient clearance between the lines
and vegetation. Alternative 2b would
also require two additional towers
within park boundaries, with attendant
increases in tower visibility and
construction impact. Finally, the
present ROW deeds are the basis of
ongoing disagreement between the NPS
and the applicants over the extent to
which applicants may clear vegetation
outside the area of cleared right of way.
Alternative 2b (like the no-action
alternative) would leave this
disagreement unresolved, while the
selected alternative would resolve it.
Alternatives 3, 4 and 5: Alternatives 3,
4, and 5 were developed to examine
whether or not the proposed powerline
could be constructed across the parks in
a less sensitive area, and with less
impacts to park resources and values.
Alternative 3 was discovered to have
more impacts on some resources and
was not considered a desirable choice
once the analysis was completed.
Alternatives 4 and 5 both have far less
impacts on park resources and values
than the other action alternatives and
from the NPS perspective, would meet
the test of protecting park resources and
values to the greatest extent possible
without unduly interfering in the
property rights of the applicant.
However, alternatives 3, 4, and 5 were
all based on a presumption that the
applicant would voluntarily give up
their existing property rights along the
current easement and in return, the NPS
would grant a new ROW in the selected
location. The applicants have indicated
that they are unwilling to give up their
existing easement in exchange for
another in a new location. As noted in
the EIS, the NPS has considered but
rejected the option of requiring the
construction of the line in a new
location while permitting the present
line to remain. Thus, the NPS has
selected alternative 2, the applicant’s
proposal, with the mitigation measures
described in this ROD. As discussed
above, the selection factor with the
greatest weight was the legal constraint
presented by the applicant’s existing
property rights. However, in making the
selection, the NPS also considered the
adverse impacts on park resources and
values that would likely result from
construction of the new powerline, as
well as the NPS’ authority to reasonably
regulate these activities within park
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
63866
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
boundaries. Therefore, the selected
alternative incorporates mitigation that
will be required conditions of the NPS
permit. The NPS believes the required
mitigation will avoid and minimize
adverse impacts to the greatest degree
possible, recognizing that some
significant adverse impacts may still
occur. The applicant has offered
compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable adverse impacts, as
detailed above under Mitigation
Measures. This is important and
welcome, and a necessary offset to the
impacts imposed on park resources;
however, compensatory mitigation was
not a deciding factor in the selection of
the alternative, which was driven
primarily by legal considerations and
the relative impacts of the alternatives.
As discussed above, mitigation will be
implemented to avoid and minimize
adverse impacts to the greatest degree
possible, but unavoidable adverse
impacts will still occur.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations require
federal agencies to identify the
environmentally preferable alternative
in a Record of Decision (40 CFR 1505.2).
The environmentally preferable
alternative is the alternative that causes
the least damage to biological and
physical environment and best protects,
preserves, and enhances historical,
cultural, and natural resources. The
environmentally preferable alternative
is identified upon consideration and
weighing by the Responsible Official of
long-term environmental impacts
against short-term impacts in evaluating
what is the best protection of these
resources. In some situations, such as
when different alternatives impact
different resources to different degrees,
there may be more than one
environmentally preferable alternative
(43 CFR 46.30).
The NPS has determined that
alternative 1 (no action) is the
environmentally preferable alternative.
The NPS made this determination based
on the analysis of the scientific data
about the proposal and included
mitigation provided by the applicant
and collected by NPS contractors.
Alternative 1 would result in the least
amount of damage to the biological and
physical environment. As the data
show, all the alternatives will have
some degree of direct and indirect
adverse impact on the resources
identified within the study area. None
of the action alternatives would produce
a net benefit or even keep conditions
completely neutral; they would all be
negative from an environmental point of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
view. Alternative 1 would leave the
existing B–K Line ROW in place,
essentially maintaining conditions at
status quo, with the exception of
increased vegetation management,
which would be likely to occur along
the corridor of all the alternatives due
to implementation of the newest NERC
safety standards. Nonetheless, the
relatively minor impacts of additional
cutting and clearing in the existing
ROW would be outweighed by the more
significant environmental damage that
would certainly occur with the
construction and operation of a larger
transmission line within the parks
under any of the other proposed
alternatives, including the two proposed
by the applicant. Alternative 1 would
thus result in the least damage among
the alternatives. Alternative 1 would
best protect and preserve the scenic,
historic, cultural, recreational and
natural resources of the parks involved
and will therefore best promote the
national environmental policy of NEPA.
Public and Agency Involvement
The planning process for the EIS was
conducted with extensive public and
agency involvement that included
multiple newsletters, workshops,
meetings, briefings, and a formal public
comment process. These activities are
briefly summarized below and a
detailed discussion is presented in ‘‘The
Public Scoping Process’’ section in
Chapter 5 of the final EIS and appendix
I.
Scoping
The internal scoping process began
with scoping meetings conducted on
September 15, 16, and 17, 2009, with
staff members from the parks, the NPS
Environmental Quality Division, the
NPS Northeast Region, and contractor
personnel in attendance. The internal
scoping meeting began with a
presentation on the process and
background of NEPA, followed by a
presentation by the applicant. During
the remaining days, NPS identified the
purpose of and need for action,
management objectives, issues, and
impact topics. Park resources, possible
alternative elements, and the project
schedule were also discussed. A
preliminary alternatives meeting was
held on December 16 and 17, 2009, with
staff members from the parks,
representatives from PPL and PSE&G,
and contractor personnel in attendance.
The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the route alternatives for the S–
R Line developed by the applicant,
develop the criteria to evaluate the
different transmission line route
alternatives, and work cooperatively to
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
develop additional transmission line
route alternatives in addition to the ones
provided by the applicant. Public
scoping began with the January 21,
2010, Federal Register publication of
the notice of intent to prepare an EIS (75
FR 3486–3487). The notice of intent
summarized the proposed action and
explained how to comment on the
action. NPS released a public scoping
newsletter to the public for review and
comment on January 21, 2010. The
newsletter included a description of the
proposed S–R Line, the purpose and
need, background information, project
objectives, and a list of issues and
impact topics. The newsletter also
provided information on upcoming
public scoping meetings. The newsletter
was sent to individuals, businesses,
agencies, and organizations on the
parks’ email distribution list. The parks
also issued a news release inviting the
public to comment at the scoping
meetings. On February 16, 17, and 18,
2010, public scoping meetings were
held in Bushkill, Pennsylvania, Lake
Hopatcong, New Jersey, and Parsippany,
New Jersey, respectively. Each meeting
began with an open house, followed by
a short presentation by NPS explaining
the project, as well as the project
planning process. A formal public
comment session with a court reporter
was held after the NPS presentation. A
total of 311 participants attended the
public scoping meetings and 102 spoke
formally during the comment sessions.
A 30-day public scoping comment
period, with a two-week extension, was
provided from January 21 until March
12, during which members of the public
were able to submit their comments on
the proposed S–R Line. During the
entire public scoping period, over 6,500
pieces of correspondence were received.
A second preliminary alternatives
workshop was held May 4, 5, 6, and 7,
2010. Attendees included staff members
from the parks, NPS Environmental
Quality Division Northeast Region, and
contractor personnel. The meeting
included a discussion of the project
schedule, identification of additional
data needed for the analysis of
alternatives, a discussion of the
proposed alternative, a discussion of
which alternatives should be dismissed,
and logistics for the public meetings.
Following this workshop, NPS held
another set of public meetings regarding
alternatives on August 17, 18, and 19,
2010, in Bushkill, Pennsylvania;
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania; and
Lafayette, New Jersey, respectively. The
public was invited to submit comments
on alternatives from July 9, 2010, to
September 14, 2010. During the public
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
comment period, 1,700 separate pieces
of correspondence were received.
Public Comment on Draft EIS
On November 21, 2011, the NPS
released the draft EIS for the S–R Line
for public review and comment. The
draft EIS included a description of the
proposed project and alternatives
proposed, a description of the resources
found within the study area, and an
analysis of the impacts of the proposed
project on these resources. The draft EIS
was available for public review until
January 31, 2012. During the comment
period, three public meetings were held
in Pennsylvania and New Jersey from
January 24 through 26, 2012. Meetings
were held in Bushkill, Pennsylvania;
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania; and
Lafayette, New Jersey. Each public
meeting had an open house from 2:30
p.m. until 4:30 p.m. and a public
hearing from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m.
A total of 368 individuals attended the
public comment meetings in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and a
total of 102 participants spoke during
the formal public comment sessions.
Nearly 27,000 pieces of correspondence
were received during the public
comment period. Approximately 26,000
pieces of correspondence were form
letters submitted by the National Parks
Conservation Association and the Sierra
Club. All of the public comments
received on the draft EIS were read and
analyzed by the NPS team. The analysis
of the public comments received and
NPS responses are provided in
appendix L of the final EIS. Among the
comments received, a majority were
expressions of support for the no action
alternative, general opposition to the
project, and opposition to the proposed
mitigation. Commenters cited concerns
over impacts to natural and cultural
resources, as well as the visitor
experience as reasons they did not
support the proposed project.
Based on comments received from the
applicant, an access road that was
proposed through Arnott Fen was
moved to reduce project impacts. In
addition, blasting for tower installation
was also removed and replaced with
drilling to reduce impacts to geologic
and natural resources. Other changes to
the draft EIS as a result of public
comments included warranted
corrections and clarifications to the
document.
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act
Consistent with guidance in National
Park Service Management Policies and
Directors Orders, NPS managers elected
to comply with Section 106 of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
National Historic Preservation Act for
the issuance of the construction and
ROW permit through the use of 36 CFR
800.8(c), which allows federal agencies
to use the NEPA process to meet Section
106 compliance responsibilities,
according to standards in that subpart of
the regulations. Integration of the
requirements of Section 106 of the
NHPA into the NEPA process and
documentation are accomplished by
meeting the criteria set forth in 36 CFR
800.8(c)(1)–(4).
Early in the scoping process for the
EIS, NPS staff began consulting with the
Pennsylvania and New Jersey Historic
Preservation Offices and numerous
federally-recognized Tribes.
Additionally, the scoping process
included sets of news releases, public
scoping meetings that included
newsletters and information on historic
resources, and general public
notification of the decision-making
process and alternatives being
considered. NPS staff members shared
extensive research, hosted consultation
calls, and conducted on-site
consultation meetings, finalizing the list
of Section 106 consulting parties in
spring 2012, when the NPS identified a
preferred alternative.
The list of Section 106 consulting
parties includes the Absentee Shawnee
Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation;
Appalachian Trail Conservancy;
Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware
Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Eastern
Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; New
Jersey Historic Preservation Office; New
York-New Jersey Trail Conference;
Oneida Nation of New York; Onondaga
Nation of New York; Pennsylvania State
Historic Preservation Office;
Preservation New Jersey; Saint Regis
Mohawk Tribe, New York (formerly the
St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of
New York); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of
Oklahoma; Seneca Nation of New York;
Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; StockbridgeMunsee Community, Wisconsin; and
Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of
New York.
Other local organizations and
municipalities have participated in
discussions about this project.
In addition to information that was
made available to the public in the draft
EIS on the undertaking and its effects on
historic properties, the NPS and the
applicant have completed numerous
cultural resource studies and
investigations. The results of these
efforts were shared with the Section 106
consulting parties. National Park
Service cultural resource studies and
findings supported the development of
the draft EIS. The applicants’ final
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63867
reports, completed in spring 2012,
contributed to development of the final
EIS. Details on the consultation process
can be found in Appendix M of the final
EIS, and the PEPC site for the
Susquehanna-Roseland Transmission
Line, (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
document.cfm?parkID=220&projectID=
25147&documentID=49560).
The EIS and associated consultation
determined the Area of Potential Effect
(APE) (as described in the draft EIS and
final EIS) and identified historic
properties contained within it. The NPS
worked with the consulting parties and
the applicant to avoid and minimize
effects to historic properties where
possible and mitigate adverse effects
where necessary. It was determined that
there would be adverse effects to at least
one archeological site, seventeen
historic structures, and fourteen cultural
landscapes (as specified in the final
EIS). Through this ROD, the NPS
commits to the following measures and
processes to further avoid or minimize
effects, and to mitigate adverse effects to
historic properties from the issuance of
the ROW and construction permit to the
applicant. As discussion between the
NPS, consulting parties and the
applicant continue, and the applicant
finalizes the design of the transmission
line, the NPS will refine the
minimization and mitigation measures
and formalize the commitments
itemized below as conditions of the
permit granted to the applicant.
Mitigation Measures
While there are some physical effects,
adverse effects from the issuance of this
permit are primarily visual; due to the
scale of the proposed towers,
minimization efforts through vegetative
screening are unlikely to be successful.
Accordingly, through consultation with
the Section 106 consulting parties, the
NPS has developed mitigation measures
that address the overall adverse effect to
the parks from issuing the permit rather
than focusing on effects to individual
properties. The mitigation measures for
specific properties and broad-based
management plans and interpretive
materials will be stipulated in the
applicant’s permit. The applicant will
fund the identified mitigation measures,
as well as any future avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation measures
resulting from the issuance of the NPS
permit, with oversight by the NPS. All
of the activities below will be completed
according to the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (36 CFR 68), and by,
or under the supervision of, personnel
who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
63868
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
professional qualification standards (48
FR 44716, 1983), as appropriate.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
• The applicant will allocate
$500,000 from the Middle Delaware
Compensation Fund to rehabilitate,
improve, and protect elements and
features of the Appalachian Trail that
contribute to its National Register
eligibility. The two specific activities
below (viewshed analysis and National
Register nominations) will be paid for
from this allocation. These efforts may
be associated with points along the Trail
that are directly affected by the
Susquehanna-Roseland Line or may be
associated with mitigating existing
adverse effects at other points along the
Trail within the established Area of
Potential Effect. Projects will be
completed by the National Park Service,
the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, or
other not-for-profit organizations
associated with the Appalachian Trail
(e.g., New York-New Jersey Trail
Conference, the Appalachian Mountain
Club). Rehabilitation, screening, or
clearing will be decided upon and
conducted at the direction of the
National Park Service after discussion
with the appropriate Section 106
consulting parties after construction.
• The NPS will oversee the
preparation of a viewshed analysis for
the portion of the Appalachian Trail
within the APE that will identify
critical, character-defining views to
inform the development of the National
Register nominations discussed below.
• The NPS will oversee the
preparation of National Register
nominations for the entire portion of the
Appalachian Trail within the State of
New Jersey and a reasonable segment of
the Trail in Pennsylvania, as determined
in discussion with the Pennsylvania
State Historic Preservation Office. These
nominations will follow the standards
of the multiple property documentation
form the NPS is currently developing for
the full length of the Appalachian Trail.
The nominations must meet the
standards of the New Jersey State
Historic Preservation Officer,
Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation
Officer, and National Register of
Historic Places, and will be considered
complete when accepted and approved
by the Keeper of the National Register.
• In addition to these measures, there
are efforts related to this decision
underway outside of the Section 106
process, such as land protection
measures (including land acquisition),
that will augment the current Section
106 mitigation plan Within the
Appalachian Trail, activities will occur
within the existing ROW, which will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
not be widened. The above mitigation
measures satisfy the requirements under
Section 106 of the NHPA for effects to
the Appalachian Trail. The NPS
received two letters from non-profit
organizations seeking to comment about
or object to the NPS’s compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (Email to NPS from
Preservation New Jersey dated Sept. 28,
2012; and Letter from the New YorkNew Jersey Trail Conference dated Sept.
25, 2012). The comments in the letters
were previously raised by these
organizations or other organizations or
individuals, and the NPS already
addressed these comments through
Section 106 meetings and added
analyses in the FEIS. Moreover, the
NPS, in consultation with the
consulting parties, developed binding
measures that seek to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate potential adverse effects
associated with the proposal to address
the comments raised by the letters.
These measures were discussed in the
FEIS, which cross-referenced the draft
mitigation plan that was made publicly
available on the NPS’s Web site prior to
publication of the FEIS, and are
contained in the ROD. Additionally, the
NPS did not provide for a public
comment period for the FEIS. See 40
CFR § 1503.1(b). Nevertheless, we note
that the dispute resolution provisions
contained in this ROD and the Section
106 Mitigation Plan will apply to the
future actions covered by or
implemented in accordance with this
plan.
Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area
NPS tasks identified under this
heading will be completed using an
allocation from the Middle Delaware
Compensation Fund, as detailed below.
The applicant will pay for all other
tasks.
• The NPS will require the applicant
to make all efforts to avoid any ground
disturbing activity that will impact
archeological resources. The NPS will
also require the applicant to fully
excavate affected portions of any
archeological site that will be impacted
by unavoidable ground disturbance.
Any excavation must be done under an
Archeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA) permit.
• With the input of Tribes and State
Historic Preservation Officers, the NPS
will develop an archeological
monitoring plan that will identify
appropriate locations for archeological
and/or tribal monitoring during
construction-related ground-disturbing
activities. The plan will meet or exceed
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and NPS
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
standards. The NPS will complete the
plan prior to the initiation of
construction. The applicant will pay for
monitoring costs not to exceed
$170,000.
• The NPS will prepare a historic
properties management plan for DEWA.
This plan will identify and analyze
historic structures and districts within
the park, including historic significance,
interpretation value, and potential for
future reuse. The NPS will develop this
plan in consultation with the interested
Section 106 consulting parties, with
substantial input from the surrounding
communities and the public. The NPS
will encourage additional agencies and
other organizations who were not
consulting parties during the
development of the EIS to participate in
the development of the historic
properties management plan. The park
will specifically encourage the
involvement of their partner
organizations in measures that affect the
properties of interest to them.
• The applicant will allocate
$12,500,000 from the Middle Delaware
Compensation Fund for physical
preservation, rehabilitation, and/or
restoration of historic structures and
landscapes at DEWA. The expenditure
of funds will be guided by the results of
the historic properties management plan
and input from the Section 106
consulting parties. Funds will be
focused on the Old Mine Road Historic
District and other appropriate locations
within the park in Pennsylvania and
New Jersey.
• The NPS will consult with the
federally-recognized Tribes affiliated
with the park to develop a tribal cultural
program. This program may include a
tribal cultural center in the park, to be
established at the Westbrook-Bell House
or other appropriate facility identified
in the historic properties management
plan.
• The applicant will complete
vegetative screening or other treatments
of cultural landscapes. Specific
locations of screening, clearing, or other
landscape treatments will be selected by
the NPS, in cooperation with the
Section 106 consulting parties after the
transmission line has been built, when
visual effects to historic landscapes are
more fully defined. This effort will not
exceed a cost of $500,000.
• The NPS will oversee the
completion of three National Register
nominations or updates to existing
nominations, such as updates to the Old
Mine Road Historic District and
Millbrook Village nominations and/or
the completion of a River Road (PA)
nomination. The nominations must
meet the Pennsylvania or New Jersey
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
Historic Preservation Office, and
National Register of Historic Places
standards, and will be considered
complete once accepted and approved
by the Keeper of the National Register
of Historic Places.
• The NPS will oversee the
completion of five research studies,
such as Historic Structure Reports,
Cultural Landscape Reports, historic
contexts, or research syntheses. The
NPS will solicit input from the Section
106 consulting parties for this project to
determine the subjects of the studies.
• The NPS will oversee the
completion of four interpretive
products, such as tour podcasts, sitespecific interpretive signs, scenic byway
signs, or popular publications. The NPS
will solicit input from the Section 106
consulting parties for this project to
determine appropriate products under
this stipulation.
• The applicant will provide
Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area $350 per box of artifacts
and $500 per linear foot of archeological
records created by the surveys,
evaluations, and any possible
excavations resulting from design and
construction under this permit to cover
the costs of curation of those artifacts/
records. The artifacts and records will
be prepared and stored according to the
standards in 36 CFR 79. Any human
remains or objects subject to the Native
American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) discovered
as a result of this construction permit
will be handled according to the
regulations at 43 CFR 10.
• The above mitigation measures
satisfy the requirements under Section
106 of the NHPA for effects to the
Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area. However, this plan
recognizes that there are additional
efforts related to this permit underway
outside of the Section 106 process, such
as land protection measures (including
land acquisition), that may also be put
in place and will augment the current
Section 106 mitigation plan.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Schedule for Completion of Mitigation
Measures
Within three years of issuance of the
permit, these measures will be
complete:
• Historic Properties Management Plan
• National Register nominations for the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
• Identification of locations for
vegetative screening/cultural
landscape treatments
Within five years of issuance of the
permit, these measures will be
complete:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
• National Register nominations for
Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area
• Interpretive products
Within ten years of issuance of the
permit, these measures will be
complete:
• Research studies
• Vegetative screening/cultural
landscape treatments
• Preservation, rehabilitation, and/or
restoration projects of historic
structures and cultural landscapes for
which funding is provided under this
plan.
Project-Wide Stipulations Applicable
to Both Parks:
Consulting Party Involvement
• Unless otherwise specified, the NPS
will provide the Section 106 consulting
parties with 30 days to review and
provide comments or input on the
implementation of measures identified
in this plan. Consulting parties will
have the opportunity to review and
comment on interim and final drafts, as
appropriate, and the identification of
properties proposed for rehabilitation. If
the NPS is unable to fulfill the
commitments outlined in this mitigation
plan, it will notify all consulting parties
that it will follow the procedures in 36
CFR 800.3 through 800.6 as necessary to
address any changes in the mitigation
plan. The following conditions will be
included as stipulations in the permit,
and will apply to all activities covered
by the permit. Any activities that occur
outside of the actions allowed under the
permit will undergo separate Section
106 compliance.
Unanticipated Effects
The permit will include the following
stipulations to apply if any new adverse
effects are identified as a result of
changes in design or from unanticipated
archeological discoveries during
construction:
1. The NPS and Applicant will
determine if avoidance/minimization
measures are possible. These include
but are not limited to:
• Visual effects from towers/widened
ROW
• Physical effects from construction
2. Applicant will present feasibility/
infeasibility of avoidance/minimization
to NPS; NPS will submit to Section 106
consulting parties for review and
comment.
3. If the NPS and applicant determine
that avoidance is not technically or
environmentally feasible, the applicant
will propose minimization efforts for
NPS approval. This may include but is
not limited to planting vegetative
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63869
screening at sites identified for which it
would be appropriate, or restricting
damage to minimal area and/or less
significant resources. Data recovery
would still be required for any affected
portion of archeological sites. The NPS
and Section 106 consulting parties will
review and discuss any proposed
minimization efforts before NPS
approval.
4. If the NPS determines minimization
efforts are not adequate, the applicant
will be responsible for additional
mitigation and/or compensation. The
NPS will consult with the Section 106
consulting parties to identify
appropriate mitigation. Mitigation
measures for archeological sites may
include, but are not limited to, data
recovery, curation costs, and/or
production of interpretive materials.
Mitigation measures for historic
structures and cultural landscapes may
include, but are not limited to, physical
rehabilitation, development of
interpretive materials, planning
documents, HABS/HAER/HALS
documentation, and National Register
nominations. This stipulation only
applies if new adverse effects are
identified based on unanticipated
discoveries during construction, or
significant changes in design proposed
by the applicant. If the new adverse
effects are due to unanticipated grounddisturbing activities, no ground
disturbance can occur until the
appropriate avoidance or mitigation
efforts are determined. The NPS will
determine the appropriate mitigation
measures, in consultation with the
appropriate Section 106 consulting
parties, within 5 business days of
determining the adverse effect is
unavoidable.
Design and Pre-Construction Activities
As the applicant finalizes the
placement of transmission towers, crane
pads, pull sites, access roads, and other
associated features and activities, the
applicant will submit the designs and
locations to the NPS. Reviews will be
limited to the precise, final location of
towers, crane pads, and access roads
established through discussions with
the NPS. Adjustments from existing
plans will be made, where possible
given engineering and operational
constraints, to avoid and minimize
potential adverse impacts.
Archeology
• All archeological activities
necessary for planning and/or
construction will be controlled by a
valid Archeological Resources
Protection Act (ARPA) permit.
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63870
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
• All areas of possible ground
disturbance determined sensitive for
archeological resources must have
undergone archeological survey (Phase
I) and evaluation of identified
archeological sites (Phase II) where
deemed necessary through review and
consultation prior to ground-disturbing
activities in that particular location.
Survey and evaluation results must have
been reviewed by the appropriate
Section 106 consulting parties and
comments considered by the NPS prior
to proceeding.
• The applicant shall protect sites
through fencing, matting, or other NPSapproved methods, where appropriate.
If archeological sites cannot be
protected and will be damaged by
ground disturbance, the NPS will
oversee their excavation according to a
data recovery plan that meets NPS,
state, and park-specific standards and is
concurred upon by the NPS and the
appropriate SHPO and Tribes prior to
ground-disturbing activities. DEWA has
a standard of archeologically excavating
100% of the affected portion of any
archeological site impacted by
development within the park.
• An archeological and/or tribal
monitor must be present for grounddisturbing activities identified
according to the archeological
monitoring plan (as identified above)
within the boundaries of the park to
ensure no previously undiscovered sites
are affected; the monitors may decide
their presence is not required for
individual actions. Applicant must
coordinate the schedule of all ground
disturbance with the monitors to ensure
coverage, where appropriate. The cost
for monitoring is included in the NTE
estimate identified in the park-specific
measures listed above.
• If construction crews make
unanticipated discoveries of
archeological materials, work will
immediately stop in the discovery
location. Monitors will make an on-site
determination of the likelihood of
human remains; if none is expected,
monitors will notify the respective park
superintendent and cultural resource
manager, who will coordinate with the
respective SHPO and Tribes for an
eligibility determination and treatment
method, as needed, within 15 days.
• If construction-related activities
uncover human remains, the applicant
or its contractors will stop work at the
location immediately, and notify park
law enforcement, monitors, and the park
cultural resources manager. Park law
enforcement will determine if the
remains are the result of a crime, and,
if so, will contact the local coroner to
determine whether the remains are of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
American Indian origin. If the coroner
determines that the remains are
American Indian, NPS managers will
comply with NAGPRA requirements as
described in 43 CFR 10 or a parkspecific NAGPRA Plan of Action. If the
coroner determines that the remains are
not American Indian and not the result
of a crime, the park superintendent and
cultural resource manager will
coordinate with the appropriate SHPO
to determine disposition of the remains.
• The NPS will require the relocation
of ground disturbing activities to avoid
human remains, unless technically
infeasible. If not technically feasible, the
applicant will consult with park and
Tribes on the reasons, and discuss
alternate strategies, such as reinterment. Applicant is responsible for
all costs associated with the delineation
of the boundaries of the burial site, if
required; relocation of ground
disturbance; and costs of re-interment or
alternate treatment methods.
• Applicant is responsible for all
costs associated with survey/evaluation/
mitigation of effects to archeological
sites, as well as any costs for
construction delays associated with
such activities.
• The applicant must prepare an
archeological survey plan for review
and approval by the DEWA and APPA
cultural resources manager for any postconstruction ground-disturbing
activities related to maintenance and/or
improvement of the line within the
boundaries of DEWA, APPA, or MDSR
for which the NPS will issue permit(s).
Historic Structures/Cultural Landscapes
Physical rehabilitation or restoration
efforts on historic structures and
cultural landscapes resulting from this
project, and conducted by entities other
than the National Park Service, will be
supervised and inspected by the NPS to
ensure they meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties. If the efforts do not
meet the Standards, the performing
entity will make all necessary
adjustments, at its own expense, until
rehabilitation or restoration meet the
Standards.
Dispute Resolution
1. Should any consulting party object
in writing to the NPS regarding any
action carried out or proposed with
respect to any undertakings covered by
this plan or to implementation of this
plan, the NPS will notify all consulting
parties and consult with the objecting
party to resolve the objection.
2. Within thirty (30) days after
initiating such consultation, if the NPS
determines that the objection cannot be
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
resolved through consultation, the NPS
will forward all documentation relevant
to the objection to the ACHP, including
the proposed response to the objection.
3. Within thirty (30) days after receipt
of all pertinent documentation, the
ACHP will exercise one of the following
options:
a. Advise the NPS that the ACHP
concurs with the NPS proposed
response to the objection, whereupon
the NPS will respond to the objection
accordingly; or
b. Provide the NPS with
recommendations, which the NPS will
take into account in reaching a final
decision regarding its response to the
objection.
4. Should the ACHP not exercise one
of the above options within thirty (30)
days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the NPS may assume
the AHCP’s concurrence in its proposed
response to the objection.
5. The NPS will take into account any
ACHP recommendation or comment
provided in accordance with this
stipulation with reference only to the
subject of the objection; the NPS’s
responsibility to carry out all the actions
under this plan that are not the subjects
of the objection will remain unchanged.
Section 7 Consultation
Consultation with USFWS and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries has
been completed as required by the
Endangered Species Act and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
NPS has engaged with NOAA
Fisheries with a formal consultation
letter; on May 13, 2010, NPS received a
response from NOAA Fisheries
regarding the project. The letter stated
that there are American shad between
the Delaware Water Gap and the New
York border; additionally, there may be
also be shad in the Philadelphia reach
of the river. Depending on further
information regarding the transmission
line crossing of the river, NOAA
Fisheries may need to be consulted
again. In addition, seasonal work
restrictions should be incorporated into
the project schedule for any work in the
Delaware River. NPS received a
response to the preliminary alternatives
newsletter from NOAA Fisheries on July
22, 2010. The letter noted that while a
population of an endangered species
could be found in the Delaware River,
the population was downstream of the
study area. NOAA Fisheries stated that
as no listed species were found in the
study area, further section 7
consultation will not be required. On
January 31, 2012, the NPS received a
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Notices
letter from NOAA Fisheries indicating
that NOAA had reviewed the draft EIS.
The letter contained specific comments
regarding the presence of the federally
endangered shortnose sturgeon, federal
candidate species Atlantic sturgeon, and
the American shad within the study
area during some periods of the year.
However, NOAA Fisheries concluded
that the detailed discussion of impacts
to the river were discussed adequately
in the draft EIS, and that no
consultation will be required as part of
the federal permit process. The letter
recommended the use of BMPs to
minimize turbidity and other water
quality impacts. These letters can be
found in appendix I of the final EIS.
After initial engagement of USFWS with
a consultation letter, USFWS sent an
initial response letter on June 11, 2010,
regarding the project. The letter noted
that the federally listed Indiana bat and
bog turtle could be affected by the
permit if specific permit conditions
were not met. Migratory birds were also
addressed, and USFWS provided
recommendations on the draft Avian
Protection Plan provided by PSE&G.
Recommendations for all species
included seasonal restrictions,
mitigation measures, and additional
surveys. NPS received a response to the
preliminary alternatives newsletter from
USFWS on September 3, 2010, and an
additional response on October 21,
2010, with potential impacts of each
alternative on federally listed species
and suggested recommendations
regarding listed species. In a letter dated
January 10, 2011, NPS requested more
information from USFWS on any
federally listed species within the
vicinity of the proposed alternatives
within the park. The NPS sent a letter
to the USFWS on November 16, 2011,
requesting comments on the draft
Biological Assessment and draft EIS for
informal consultation. The USFWS
replied to the letter, indicating that the
USFWS could not provide advice on the
need for formal consultation and noting
that the USFWS could not commit to
completing consultation by May 2,
2012, as requested. The letter from the
USFWS provided some comments on
impacts and options on concluding
consultation. Another letter received
from the USFWS on January 31, 2012,
included comments on the draft EIS and
on impacts to the bog turtle, Indiana bat,
bald eagle, and other migratory birds.
The draft Biological Assessment was
sent to USFWS on May 21, 2012.
Comments were received and the final
Biological Assessment was sent to
USFWS on June 29, 2012. In a letter
dated July 6, 2012, USFWS concurred
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
with the finding by NPS that the
preferred alternative was not likely to
adversely affect endangered species on
NPS lands. These letters and the Final
Biological Assessment can be found in
appendix I of the final EIS.
In a letter dated February 7, 2011,
NPS invited USFWS to become a
cooperating agency for this EIS. On
March 14, 2011, USFWS responded and
agreed to become a cooperating agency,
pending a formal Interagency
Agreement, and on April 1, 2011, NPS
sent a request to USFWS to formalize
the Interagency Agreement. The
agreement was signed on December 5,
2011.
Conclusion
The above factors and considerations
warrant implementing alternative 2 as
described and analyzed in the final EIS
for Appalachian National Scenic Trail,
Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, and Middle Delaware
National Scenic and Recreational River
and this Record of Decision. All
practical means to avoid and minimize
environmental harm from
implementation of the selected
alternative have been incorporated, as
described in the final EIS and this
Record of Decision. The alternative
selected for implementation will not
impair park resources or values and will
allow the NPS to preserve park
resources and provide for their
enjoyment by future generations. This
Record of Decision is not the final
agency action for those elements of the
decision that require the issuance of a
permit or additional ROW. Final agency
action to implement this decision will
occur when a permit and ROWs
incorporating these terms are completed
and issued to the applicants.
Record of Decision Attachments
The Record of Decision contains two
attachments: A Non-Impairment
Determination and the Final Statement
of Findings. These attachments are
available on the NPS Planning,
Environment, and Public Comment
System (PEPC). The links to these
attachments are provided below.
Attachment A: Non-Impairment
Determination
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.
cfm?parkID=220&projectID=25147&
documentID=49997
Attachment B: Final Wetland and
Floodplain Statement of Findings
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.
cfm?parkID=220&projectID=25147&
documentID=49997
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63871
Dated: October 2, 2012.
Dennis R. Reidenbach,
Regional Director, Northeast Region, National
Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–25457 Filed 10–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–JG–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Supplemental Consent Decree Under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability
Act
On October 10, 2012, the Department
of Justice lodged a proposed
Supplemental Consent Decree with the
United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in the lawsuit
entitled, United States and
Massachusetts v. AVX Corporation,
Civil Action No. 83–3882–Y.
In 1983, the United States and
Massachusetts commenced suit against
AVX Corporation (‘‘AVX’’) alleging that
AVX was liable to the governments for
natural resource damages and later
amended the suit to seek response costs
under the Superfund statute and other
legal authorities. That litigation against
AVX was concluded when the
governments entered into a Consent
Decree with AVX in 1992, resolving
AVX’s liability subject to the
governments’ rights to further pursue
the claims under a reservation of rights
under CERCLA that authorizes the
governments to seek additional relief
based on unknown conditions or new
information and another reservation of
rights that allows the governments to
seek additional relief from AVX should
certain response costs exceed $130.5
million (‘‘reopeners’’). This
Supplemental Consent Decree resolves
AVX’s liability for response costs and
injunctive relief under both the
unknown conditions/new information
and cost-related reopeners under the
1992 Consent Decree. Upon entry of the
Supplemental Consent Decree, the
Unilateral Administrative Order
(‘‘UAO’’) issued, pursuant to Section
106 of CERCLA, by EPA Region 1 on
April 18, 2012 (whose ‘‘effective date’’
has currently been delayed until
November 1, 2012) will be withdrawn.
Mediated negotiations between the
governments and AVX that were
conducted following EPA’s issuance of
the UAO resulted in the Supplemental
Consent Decree.
Under the terms of the Supplemental
Consent Decree, AVX Corporation will
pay an additional $366.25 million with
interest (in addition to the $59 million,
plus interest, that AVX paid for
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63856-63871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25457]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS-NER-HPPC-11442; 4320-pplb-318]
Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Susquehanna to Roseland 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line,
Appalachian National Scenic Trail; Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area and Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational
River
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and its implementing regulations (40
CFR parts 1500-1508), the Northeast Regional Director, National Park
Service (NPS), signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on October 1, 2012,
granting construction and right-of-way permits to PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation and the Public Service Electric and Gas Company
(applicant) for the Susquehanna to Roseland 500-kilovolt (kV)
transmission line to pass through the Appalachian National Scenic
Trail, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, and Middle Delaware
National Scenic and Recreational River. The ROD is based on the
Susquehanna to Roseland 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way and
Special Use Permit Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS)
which was released for a 30-day no action period beginning on September
1, 2012 and ending September 30, 2012. The ROD describes the selected
alternative; other alternatives considered; the basis for the decision
to grant the permit requested by the applicant; and mitigation
measures. The ROD is not the final agency action for those elements of
the decision that require the issuance of a permit or additional ROW.
Final agency action to implement the decision will occur when a permit
and ROWs incorporating these terms are completed and issued to the
applicant.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ROD is provided below.
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Record of Decision
Susquehanna to Roseland 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way and
Special Use Permit Environmental Impact Statement
Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational
River, Pennsylvania and New Jersey
Introduction
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), has
prepared this Record of Decision (ROD) for the Susquehanna to Roseland
500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way and Special Use Permit
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Appalachian National Scenic
Trail (APPA), Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), and
Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR) in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This ROD states what the decision is,
identifies the other alternatives considered, identifies the
environmentally preferable alternative, discusses the basis for the
decision, lists measures to minimize and/or mitigate environmental
harm, and briefly describes public and agency
[[Page 63857]]
involvement in the decision-making process. The Non-Impairment
Determination and final Statement of Findings (SOF) for wetlands and
floodplains for the selected action are attached to this ROD. The ROD
also concludes the NPS's responsibilities under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, and its implementing regulations at
36 CFR 800.8, by committing to the mitigation of adverse effects to
historic properties.
Project Background
In 2007, the regional transmission operator, PJM Interconnection
(PJM), identified a 500-kV transmission line between the Susquehanna
Substation in Pennsylvania and the Roseland Substation in New Jersey as
the preferred and most effective solution for reliability violations
forecasted as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-approved
Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) process. Responding to this
assessment, the applicant proposed to construct a 500-kV transmission
to connect the two substations on a route that included crossings of
DEWA, APPA, and MDSR.
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL) and Public Service
Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), jointly known as the applicant,
applied for a permit to allow the construction, maintenance, and
operation of the Susquehanna to Roseland line (S-R Line) across three
units of the national park system, the expansion of the existing right-
of-way (ROW), and the replacement of an existing 230-kV transmission
line it owns. The existing 230-kV transmission line runs from the
Bushkill substation to the Kittatinny substation (B-K Line), crossing
DEWA, APPA, and MDSR. It also crosses a small panhandle of DEWA en
route to and northwest of the Bushkill Station. The B-K Line towers are
approximately 80 feet in height and the deeded ROW varies from 100 to
380 feet in width through the parks. The applicant proposes to replace
the B-K Line towers with new towers up to 195 feet tall, install an
additional circuit (the S-R Line), and widen the ROW to accommodate
these new facilities. The new replacement B-K Line will be capable of
carrying 500-kV, though it would be initially energized at only 230-kV.
The applicant's proposal includes both the construction of the S-R Line
and the replacement of the B-K Line as part of the project. References
in this document to ``the line'' refer to both lines and the single set
of towers they share.
The applicant's purpose for the proposed S-R Line is to strengthen
the reliability of the grid at the direction of the regional
transmission operator, PJM. PJM oversees the overall movement of
wholesale electricity between many electric utilities in all or parts
of 13 states and the District of Columbia. The PJM 2007 load forecast
model identified 23 projected grid reliability criteria violations
starting in 2012. PJM advised that an upgrade to this line would aid in
resolving several violations and issues related to reliability and
congestion. The need for the proposed S-R Line has been expressed
several times by PJM in planning documents. PJM's Regional Transmission
Expansion Plans from 2007 to 2010 have identified the proposed S-R Line
as an important project on what was termed by PJM as a ``backbone''
line. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) also
identified the proposed S-R Line as a ``backbone,'' while the applicant
has repeatedly noted the need for and importance of increased
electrical transmission capacity between Berwick, Pennsylvania and
Roseland, New Jersey. If constructed, the new S-R Line would make the
current transmission line corridor an even more important link in the
regional grid than it is now. The two new lines proposed would require
a much higher level of access roads and activity to monitor and
maintain.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PAPUC) and the New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) have approved the S-R Line,
although the approval included conditions and the NJBPU decision is
being challenged in court.
Whether there is a need for the proposed S-R Line project is not
for the NPS to decide, nor is it a factor in the preparation of the
EIS; that question is within the purview of the PAPUC and NJBPU. The
NPS prepared an EIS to determine whether to grant or deny the
applicant's request for a construction and ROW permit within NPS lands.
Decision (Selected Action)
The National Park Service will implement alternative 2, which was
identified as the agency's preferred alternative in the Susquehanna to
Roseland 500-kV Transmission Line Right-of-Way and Special Use Permit
Final EIS, with mitigation as described herein. The complete
description of the selected alternative can be found in Chapter 2 of
the final EIS in the following sections: Description of the
Alternatives, Elements Common to All Action Alternatives, and
Alternative 2: Applicant's Proposed Route. A summary of the key points
of the selected alternative is provided below.
Under the selected alternative, the NPS will take final agency
action when it issues a permit to grant a ROW and construction permit
to PSEG and PPL for the expansion of the B-K Line to a new double-
circuit line through NPS lands in accordance with this decision. The
selected alternative will include the installation of a double-circuit
500-kV transmission line (consisting of new towers and conductors) and
associated telecommunications infrastructure. Two static lightning and
communications fiber lines will be installed on top of the structures;
these lines, respectively, will protect the transmission lines from
electrical interruptions and will serve as a communication link between
existing substations. This telecommunications infrastructure will not
be highly visible, and will not include cell towers. Telecommunications
infrastructure will only be used for electrical transmission purposes
and will not be sold to a third party. Existing structures in the B-K
Line ROW between the Bushkill Substation and the eastern boundary of
DEWA will be removed. Removal of the existing B-K line will require the
removal of vegetation to permit the construction of spur roads to allow
equipment access.
Spur roads will be 20 feet wide and will be surfaced with compacted
dirt or gravel. Grading will occur to backfill over the existing tower
foundations, counterpoises, and ground wires, to create a natural
cover. Crane pads, approximately 200 feet by 200 feet will be
constructed to provide a safe, level pad for large cranes to mobilize,
set outriggers, and aid in the removal of transmission line towers.
Wire pulling locations, approximately 200 feet by 200 feet, will be
used for coiling conductors after they have been cut. Lattice towers
will be disassembled at each tower location and placed on a tractor-
trailer or hoisted by an air crane and shipped to a staging area for
eventual recycling.
The route for the selected alternative follows the corridor of the
B-K Line, which traverses approximately 4.3 miles of DEWA. Within DEWA
boundaries, the route crosses MDSR and APPA approximately
perpendicularly. Within the study area, the alternative 2 alignment is
approximately 5.6 miles long. The alignment will enter DEWA from the
west in Pennsylvania approximately 0.25 mile east of Big Bushkill
Creek. The alignment will cross approximately 0.6 mile of DEWA land and
then exit the park. In the next approximately 0.68-mile section of the
study area, the alignment will travel to the Bushkill Substation, cross
a small (0.06-mile) portion of DEWA, cross the Fernwood Golf Course,
and then reenter DEWA south of the South Zone Ranger Station and north
of DEWA
[[Page 63858]]
Headquarters. The alignment will travel southeast within DEWA for
approximately 0.85 mile, then cross 0.10 mile of MDSR just north of
Depew Island. The route will continue southeast approximately 2.4 miles
past the Watergate Recreation Site and cross APPA. The route will then
traverse another 0.25 mile from APPA to the eastern DEWA boundary.
Beyond the boundary, the alignment will travel southeast approximately
0.7 mile to a Visual Split Location (VSL) which was used in the EIS to
identify the geographical point outside the parks at which it becomes
physically possible for the applicant to route the line as it sees fit.
The width of the existing B-K Line ROW ranges from 100 to 380 feet
in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; however, the ROW is only cleared to a
width between approximately 80 and 150 feet. In the FEIS, this
alternative was analyzed assuming it would require clearing of
vegetation for an additional 50 to 200 feet of ROW. To avoid and reduce
impacts caused by clearing and construction activities, the applicant
has agreed to limit clearing of the ROW and construction activities to
no more than 200 feet, with clearing limited to 150 feet in some areas.
The area to be cleared is specified in the Statement of Findings,
Attachment B of this ROD.
Low impact tree clearing will be used to remove vegetation from the
proposed ROW. Trees will be cut close to the ground, and stumps and
root systems will be left in place to provide additional soil
stability. A 50-foot buffer will be used near intermittent streams and
wetlands and a 100-foot buffer near perennial streams.
Alternative 2 will require new access roads, because old trails and
roadbeds on which the access roads are based are overgrown and will not
allow access by large vehicles. Generally, access roads will fall
within the transmission line ROW, but in some instances, it will be
necessary for access roads to extend outside the ROW. Alternative 2
will require a total of 5.3 miles of access roads, 1.9 miles of which
will be outside the ROW (1.5 miles in Pennsylvania and 0.4 mile in New
Jersey). Access roads will initially be 20 feet wide to accommodate
large construction vehicles. Following construction, access roads will
be narrowed to 15 feet wide and will continue to be used for
maintenance and vegetation management for the line. Access roads will
be composed of gravel or compacted dirt.
Crane pads will be used for assembly and erection at each new tower
location. Crane pad sites will be graded or cleared to provide a
reasonably level pad free of any vegetation that could hinder tower
construction. Some tower sites will require grading either to widen the
pads from the existing structures or to create new pads, while other
sites will be on relatively level areas that will only require some
vegetation removal. At locations with steep topography, extensive
excavation may be required to create a level pad. New towers will be
constructed on a concrete foundation. Foundation dimensions will depend
on topography, tower height, span length, and soil properties; however,
tower foundations will generally extend below grade for 15 to 30 feet
or more, with a diameter of 6 to 9 feet. On average, a typical concrete
foundation will extend approximately 3 feet above ground level. If
monopoles are feasible, they will be used. If monopoles are not
feasible for these structures, it may be necessary to use lattice
towers.
Wire installation includes all activities associated with the
installation of conductor wire onto the new towers, such as the
installation of primary conductor and ground wire, vibration dampeners,
weights, spacers, and suspension and dead-end hardware assemblies. For
stringing equipment that cannot be positioned at either side of a dead-
end transmission tower, anchoring and dead-end hardware will be
temporarily installed to sag conductor wire to the correct tension.
Wire-stringing activities would be conducted as described in Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard 524-1992, Guide to the
Installation of Overhead Transmission Line Conductors.
Construction of transmission facilities will also consist of the
establishment of staging yards for construction materials and
equipment, completion of any roadwork, and removal of the B-K Line that
currently crosses the parks. Staging yards for materials and equipment
will be approximately 3 to 4 acres each. Efforts will be made to locate
staging areas on previously disturbed property, abandoned excavations,
or abandoned parking areas. Construction activities will last for
approximately 8 months.
Maintenance of the S-R Line will be performed on an as-needed
basis, but is expected to occur at least once annually, and will
include maintenance of access roads and erosion/drainage control
structures. Maintenance of vegetation will be performed by the
applicant. NPS will require an NPS-specific, NPS-approved vegetation
management plan.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize the impacts on
resources from construction, operation, and maintenance activities. The
NPS will also establish mechanisms to ensure that all mitigation
obligations are met, mitigation measures are monitored for
effectiveness, and unsuccessful mitigation is quickly remedied. In
instances where impacts cannot be avoided and other mitigation is not
feasible, compensation for resources lost or degraded through project
construction, operation, and maintenance will be required. Examples of
items that cannot be directly remedied through other mitigation include
impacts that degrade the scenic and other intrinsic values of the parks
or impacts that result in the loss of recreational use and visitor
enjoyment. Compensation will be used to mitigate these items by
improving the stewardship of other natural, cultural, scenic, and
recreational resources similar to those impacted.
The NPS will require the applicant to follow certain Best
Management Practices (BMPs)/mitigation measures for the selected
alternative. Mitigation measures and BMPs specific to the impact
topics, where applicable, are presented below. Mitigation measures are
identified as BMPs NPS will require during construction and measures
NPS will require over the life of the project. Compensatory mitigation
measures are required for certain resources and are identified as
applicable.
Geology
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Submit a detailed drilling plan for NPS review and
approval for all drilling activities prior to drilling and construction
activities.
Complete geotechnical boring before construction to
determine the appropriate depth needed to remove soils and weathered
bedrock before reaching sound material where substantial excavation
will occur. This will reduce the impacts of drilling in unstable
material.
Haul all tailings from geotechnical borings and drillings
offsite, unless the NPS determines that there is a park need for the
tailings.
Use excavated rock as substrate for the access roads.
Complete a preconstruction surface assessment prior to
disturbance. Work will be completed by a qualified geologist. If any
paleontological resources are found, they will be avoided. If the
resources are unavoidable, they will be collected and properly cared
for before the start of construction. Any paleontological resources
collected will be properly
[[Page 63859]]
documented and turned over to the park.
Monitor areas with potential paleontological resources
during construction activities.
NPS will analyze or approve any water sources for drilling
operations. Measure the NPS will require that will Avoid and Minimize
Impacts over the Life of the Project:
Develop a buffer zone around areas of sensitive geologic
resources. No activities will occur within the buffer zone. This buffer
zone will protect these areas from drilling and excavation activities,
limiting impacts.
Water and Soil Resources
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Prepare a spill prevention and response plan (SPRP) to
reduce impacts on surface water, ground water, and aquatic species if
equipment leaks or hazardous spills occur. The goal of the plan is to
minimize the potential for a spill, contain any spillage to the
smallest area possible, and to protect environmentally sensitive areas,
including streams, rivers, and wetlands. The SPRP will include the
following:
[squ] Procedures for fuel storage location, fueling activities, and
construction equipment maintenance.
[squ] Lines of communication to facilitate the prevention,
response, containment, and cleanup of spills during construction
activities.
Construct spur roads using geotextile fabric and stone,
which will be removed at the conclusion of construction and will be
revegetated using park approved species or seed mixes.
Inspect potential erosion areas weekly. Additionally
inspect potential erosion areas immediately after storm events. The
applicant will smooth out ruts and spread gravel to stabilize the
roadway and prevent erosion.
Implement erosion control methods, such as silt fences
during and after construction to reduce impacts of increased soil
runoff on water resources. By retaining soil on-site, sediment and
attached nutrients are prevented from leaving disturbed areas and
polluting streams. The use of BMPs is estimated to reduce total
suspended solids (TSS) by 40 percent, total nitrogen by 25 percent, and
total phosphorus by 40 percent (Baldwin n.d., 1).
Drill during winter months (when not in areas with known
snake dens) to reduce impacts of drilling on aquatic communities.
Winter is when the least number of aquatic species and individuals are
present in nearby water bodies. Measures the NPS will require that will
Avoid and Minimize Impacts over the Life of the Project:
Construct access roads with a gravel surface that is
semipermeable to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff. A reduction in
sheet flow will decrease the amount of sedimentation, total suspended
soils, contaminants, nutrients, and turbidity in surface waters and
impacts on aquatic species.
Construct road grades and alignments to follow the contour
of the land with smooth, gradual curves; this will reduce the runoff
potential of soils along the access roads outside the ROW.
Develop and implement soil and erosion control plans as
mandated in state permits for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) and New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP).
Use only those herbicides approved by the NPS for aquatic
environments for removal of vegetation.
Establish a 150-foot buffer near intermittent or perennial
streams and wetlands. No activities will occur within the buffer. The
buffer will reduce impacts on water quality and aquatic species.
Floodplains
Required mitigation measures are described in detail in the SOF,
Attachment B of this ROD. All mitigation measures identified in the SOF
are hereby incorporated by reference as mitigation measures required by
this ROD.
Wetlands
Required mitigation measures are described in detail in the SOF,
Attachment B of this ROD. All mitigation measures identified in the SOF
are hereby incorporated by reference as mitigation measures required by
this ROD.
Vegetation
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Promptly seed areas disturbed during construction of the
transmission line with a conservation mix approved by NPS, and monitor
these areas for the spread of invasive plant species.
All areas where vegetation is to be removed will be
clearly delineated and NPS approval of the limits of vegetation
clearing will be obtained prior to any action taking place.
Minimize disturbance to native plant species during
construction to prevent the spread of non-native species.
Clean equipment after leaving areas where invasive species
are known to occur and before entering sensitive areas.
Use construction materials (e.g., gravel) from sources
that have been inspected and found to be free of invasive species and
approved by NPS.
Use timber mats during construction in areas outside the
access roads to minimize soil compaction.
Measures the NPS will require that will Avoid and Minimize Impacts
over the Life of the Project:
Develop and implement an NPS-approved, long-term, park-
specific vegetation management plan for the operation and maintenance
of the line. Separate vegetation management plans are needed from PSE&G
and PPL. These plans will focus on retaining habitat within the
constraints of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) guidelines, and the control of invasive species. These plans
will address invasive species management, including early detection,
monitoring, and treatment for target invasive species using an
integrated pest management approach. Additionally, an invasive species
management plan will address the possible spread of invasive species
via wooden spools used to supply wire. Other topics in the vegetation
management plan will include vegetation restoration (native seeding and
plantings, with annual monitoring and re-treatment as needed to achieve
minimum acceptable outcomes, including an increase in biodiversity);
management of sensitive species and sensitive habitats during routine
maintenance; management of the ROW vegetation that will increase
habitat for scrub shrub species; the use of best management practices
to include restrictions on use of machinery and equipment time-of-year
restrictions on vegetation in sensitive areas; pre-approval by NPS on
pesticide and herbicide use; and off-site compensation. The vegetation
management plan will also include an equipment cleaning plan that will
address techniques for removal of any invasive seed sources prior to
entering the parks.
Use existing roads with minimal development of new access
roads.
Require that maintenance crews enter the ROW on foot and
use handheld equipment for vegetation maintenance in sensitive areas.
Clean equipment after leaving areas where invasive species
are known to occur and before entering sensitive areas.
All woody vegetation (including chips) will be removed
from the parks unless instructed otherwise by NPS staff.
[[Page 63860]]
Complete measures for the annual suppression of invasive
plants within the ROW for the life of the project.
Landscape Connectivity, Wildlife Habitat, and Wildlife
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Consult with NPS on deposition of brush piles. Where
approved by NPS, leave brush piles alongside the ROW to provide habitat
for wildlife species following the clearing of vegetation.
Remove spur roads following construction and maintain the
ROW to provide bird habitat.
Vegetation clearing will occur outside the breeding season
of migratory birds to reduce the likelihood of disturbing nesting
birds.
The applicant will avoid take and minimize disturbance to
eagles during construction and operation of the line.
Construction within 660 feet of any important eagle use
area (breeding, foraging or roosting) will be completed outside the
season of use.
Loud and disruptive impacts such as pile driving or
blasting will not occur within one-half mile of an important eagle use
area during the season of use.
Measures the NPS will require that will Avoid and Minimize Impacts
over the Life of the Project:
Impose a seasonal restriction on maintenance activities
from March 15 through July 31 to prevent unauthorized take of nests and
unfledged chicks protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
An avian protection plan (APP) will be developed and will be a
condition of the applicant's permit.
Impose a seasonal restriction on maintenance activities in
March and April in areas of known amphibian migration to prevent direct
mortality of spring peepers, wood frogs, spotted salamanders, red
spotted newts, and Jefferson salamanders.
Consult with NPS on deposition of brush piles. Where
approved by NPS, leave brush piles alongside the ROW to provide habitat
for a variety of wildlife species following the clearing of vegetation.
The applicant will submit an application to FWS for a
permit to cover the applicant's liability under the BGEPA.
Diverters will be placed on the shield or static wire from
the bank of the Delaware River on the New Jersey side of the line, to
the top of the Hogback Ridge in Pennsylvania. Diverters suggested for
use by the USFWS are yellow, coiled-PVC avian flight diverters or
flapper diverters placed at roughly 50-foot intervals on the shield
wire with communications wire to increase the visibility of the line
within the Kittatinny Ridge Migratory Corridor.
Tower lighting will only be permitted on the four towers
where recommended by FAA, and only via AVWS system, such that lighting
is only triggered by the approach of aircraft, minimizing the amount of
time towers will be lit.
Special-Status Species
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Obtain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction
surveys before any ground-disturbing or vegetation clearing activities.
Surveys will be to determine the presence of special-status species,
habitat, nests, dens, and new hibernacula, and to determine if
relocation will be an appropriate mitigation measure for any species
found. Some species such as reptiles, amphibians, and mussels could be
collected and relocated prior to or during construction activities, if
this is found to be beneficial or appropriate to the species found at
the site. If relocation is undertaken, a plan for the relocation of
special-status species will be designed in consultation with the
appropriate federal and state agencies and a qualified and permitted
biologist will collect and relocate individuals to nearby suitable
habitat. Preconstruction surveys are particularly important because
construction may not occur for some time following the completion of
the NEPA process and special-status species could begin using habitat
between site surveys and construction activity. If special-status
species, nests, dens, or habitats are found, then consultation measures
will be developed and implemented in consultation with state and
federal regulatory agencies.
Develop and implement (by recognized and qualified
zoologists including individuals certified by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or state conservation agencies and approved by NPS)
species-specific conservation and mitigation plans if special-status
wildlife species or occupied habitat cannot be avoided. These
individuals will complete on-site monitoring. The plans will include:
[ballot] Conservation measures, such as time-of-year restrictions.
[ballot] Pre-construction surveys.
[ballot] Construction monitoring.
[ballot] Habitat preservation and habitat restoration components.
[ballot] Post-construction monitoring as needed.
Ensure that park staff, their representatives, or
representatives from appropriate state or federal agencies who are
experienced in managing or monitoring special-status species are on
site to monitor for special-status species during the construction
activities to verify that special-status species are not in the active
construction area.
Implement road closures and/or patrols prior to and during
construction activities at locations where it was deemed effective.
Install barrier fencing along streams to keep wood turtles
from entering construction sites.
Implement seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts on
special-status species. Seasonal restrictions will be site-specific,
based on species present and their use of the site and include the
following:
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions on vegetation clearing from March 15
through July 31 will prevent the unauthorized take of nests and
unfledged chicks of birds protected by the MBTA (USFWS 2010). This
seasonal restriction will protect the majority of the special-status
bird fledglings that may occur in the study areas for each alternative.
Therefore, the permanent and seasonal resident nesting special-status
bird species will not be forced to abandon nests or young, because
vegetation clearing will not occur during the nesting season; no direct
mortality of eggs, young, or adults will occur as a result.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions for disturbance of bald eagles will
include a restriction within 1,000 feet of bald eagle nests between
December 15 and August 31, the bald eagle nesting period. This
restriction is recommended in the Bald Eagle Guidelines (USFWS 2007).
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions for tree clearing and construction
will be implemented from December 15 to March 31 in the vicinity of
bald eagle roosts.
[ballot] To prevent cutting of potential roost trees for the
Indiana bat, a season restriction from April 1 through September 30,
which includes the restriction of cutting trees with a diameter at
breast height (DBH) greater than 8.7 inches will be implemented.
[ballot] A seasonal restriction from April 1 through October 31
preventing the cutting of all trees or snags with a DBH greater than 5
inches will be implemented to avoid potential impacts on northern
myotis and other tree-roosting bats.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions on project activities will be
implemented in venomous snake basking, birthing, and foraging habitat
during the active season. Safe dates for project activities span from
November 1 through March 31. Further timing restrictions for
[[Page 63861]]
drilling and excavation activities will be required in the vicinity of
overwintering dens.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions for neotropical birds and bats will
also benefit nesting and birthing reptile species in the spring and
summer.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions will be implemented on project
activities in wood turtle foraging habitat during the active season.
Safe dates for project activities are November 15 through March 31.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions on project activities in bog turtle
wetlands and 300-foot buffer during active season will be implemented.
Safe dates for project activities are November 1 through March 31.
Measures the NPS will require that will Avoid and Minimize Impacts
over the Life of the Project:
Develop and implement NPS-approved, long-term, park-
specific vegetation management plans for the operation and maintenance
of the line. Separate vegetation management plans are needed for both
from PSE&G and PPL. These plans will help reduce impacts to special-
status species and the habitats they utilize.
Provide construction plans (as described in the general
Construction and Restoration Plan) for each set of construction
activities in order to facilitate modification of construction
activities that may adversely impact areas that support special-status
species.
The applicant will submit an application to FWS for a
permit to cover the applicant's liability under the BGEPA.
The applicant will either conduct monitoring or will
provide NPS the funding to conduct monitoring in the vicinity of the
line during construction and operation of the line in order to
determine the level of hazard to eagles. If the likelihood of take is
determined to be low, the standard permit will not require renewal, and
the operation of the line will be consistent with BGEPA. If the
monitoring suggests that take is likely to occur, the applicant will
initiate the development of a programmatic permit to cover their
liability during the operational life of the line.
Consult with appropriate federal and state agencies if
special-status plant populations cannot be avoided, depending on the
listing status of the species present. These consultations will
determine appropriate mitigation measures for any populations affected
by the proposed project. Appropriate measures could include the
creation of offsite populations through seed collection or
transplanting, preservation, and enhancement of existing populations,
or restoration or creation of suitable habitat in sufficient quantities
to compensate for the impact.
[ballot] Translocation includes digging up plants and moving them
to appropriate portions of the corridor that will not be affected by
the proposed construction activities.
[ballot] Seeds can also be collected from plants that will be
removed and either planted directly or germinated in a nursery and then
planted in appropriate locations.
Develop and implement (by recognized and qualified
zoologists including individuals certified by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or state conservation agencies) species-specific
conservation and mitigation plans if special-status wildlife species or
occupied habitat cannot be avoided. These individuals will complete on-
site monitoring. The plans will include:
[ballot] Conservation measures, such as time-of-year restrictions.
[ballot] Pre-construction surveys.
[ballot] Construction monitoring.
[ballot] Habitat preservation and habitat restoration components.
[ballot] Post-construction monitoring as needed.
Complete an APP in accordance with the Bald Eagle
Guidelines (USFWS 2007) and APLIC standards.
[ballot] The APP will include elements that provide for training
for all utility and contractor personnel on compliance with applicable
regulations, procedures to be implemented for avoidance and
minimization of disturbance, reporting bird mortality, required
permits, accepted construction standards for reducing bird impacts,
methodology for evaluation of risks to migratory birds, opportunities
for enhancement of bird populations or habitat, public awareness and
education, and identification of key resources.
[ballot] The standards described in APLIC (1994) will be followed
and will also comply with the APLIC Suggested Practices for Avian
Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC 2006).
[ballot] Proposed construction and maintenance activities will
follow and adhere to the Bald Eagle Guidelines (USFWS 2007), which will
minimize the potential for ``take'' on the bald eagle.
[ballot] To reduce impacts on birds from collisions with the
transmission line, the APP (PSE&G 2010) will be written in compliance
with APLIC standards and will use the current best available
technologies.
Continue to identify and control invasive plant species
through the applicant's invasive plant management plans. In addition,
an aggressive invasive plant management plan developed and implemented
by the applicant will include ongoing monitoring and treatment.
Close access roads to the public to reduce the impacts of
illegal collection. It has been demonstrated by Garber and Burger
(1995, at 1152 and 1158) that when formerly intact, undisturbed,
forested areas are opened to human recreation, the extinction of
special-status species can occur in that particular area. Rare species,
especially plants and small reptiles and amphibians, are vulnerable to
illegal collecting, and even small numbers collected annually for a
number of years could jeopardize the local population.
NPS law enforcement will monitor visitor activities in
these areas, including the use of remote surveillance to assess the
need for and effectiveness of area closures. There will be an increase
in patrols along the access roads and any new ROW. Existing and
proposed new access roads, especially access roads, could act as an
attractive nuisance and/or recreation opportunity, by inviting visitors
to areas inhabited by rare species and increasing visitor encounters
with these species.
NPS law enforcement and resource staff will monitor closed
areas for invasive species, vegetation, wildlife, and erosion, and the
presence of park staff may dissuade visitors from entering these
illegal areas.
Implement seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts on
special-status species. Seasonal restrictions will be site-specific,
based on species present and their use of the site and include the
following:
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions on vegetation clearing from March 15
through July 31 will prevent the unauthorized take of nests and
unfledged chicks of birds protected by the MBTA (USFWS 2010). This
seasonal restriction will protect the majority of the special-status
bird fledglings that may occur in the study areas for each alternative.
Therefore, the permanent and seasonal resident nesting special-status
bird species will not be forced to abandon nests or young, because
vegetation clearing will not occur during the nesting season; no direct
mortality of eggs, young, or adults will occur as a result.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions for disturbance of bald eagles will
include a restriction within 1,000 feet of bald eagle nests between
December 15 and August 31, the bald eagle nesting period. This
restriction is recommended in the Bald Eagle Guidelines (USFWS 2007).
[[Page 63862]]
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions for tree clearing and construction
will be implemented from December 15 to March 31 in the vicinity of
bald eagle roosts.
[ballot] To prevent cutting of potential roost trees for the
Indiana bat, a season restriction from April 1 through September 30,
which includes the restriction of cutting trees with a diameter at
breast height (DBH) greater than 8.7 inches, will be implemented.
[ballot] A seasonal restriction from April 1 through October 31
preventing the cutting of all trees or snags with a DBH greater than 5
inches will be implemented to avoid potential impacts on northern
myotis and other tree-roosting bats.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions on project activities will be
implemented in venomous snake basking, birthing, and foraging habitat
during the active season. Safe dates for project activities span from
November 1 through March 31. Further timing restrictions for drilling
and excavation activities will be required in the vicinity of
overwintering dens.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions for Neotropical birds and bats will
also benefit nesting and birthing reptile species in the spring and
summer.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions will be implemented on project
activities in wood turtle foraging habitat during the active season.
Safe dates for project activities are November 15 through March 31.
[ballot] Seasonal restrictions on project activities in bog turtle
wetlands and 300-foot buffer during active season will be implemented.
Safe dates for project activities are November 1 through March 31.
Measures to specifically protect bog turtles will be undertaken in
accordance with the Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Northern
Population Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001), and the bog turtle conservation
zones presented in the ``Special-status Species'' section of chapter 3
of the final EIS. These actions will be undertaken where appropriate as
mitigation measures. Future coordination with appropriate federal and
state agencies will clarify the extent to which adverse effects to the
bog turtle will be likely to occur and will determine whether a
biological assessment (BA) will be required. Other conservation and/or
mitigation measures to protect the bog turtle suggested by the Recovery
Plan include the restoration of disrupted wetland hydrology, the
control of invasive species, reconnection of fragmented habitat,
population monitoring, and protection of nests from collection and
predation (USFWS 2001).
Cultural Resources
Mitigation measures for cultural resources are described in the
Section 106 discussion, below, and are incorporated by reference.
Infrastructure, Access and Circulation
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Prior to construction activities, the applicant will complete the
following:
Develop a construction staging plan with NPS.
Develop a traffic control plan in conjunction with NPS.
Work with NPS to develop a plan for the control of
unauthorized public access and use on NPS lands that could result from
the proposed project. The agreement will address various provisions
related to unauthorized access, such as the following:
[ballot] Additional measures to be taken to discourage unauthorized
use of the project corridor and associated access roads.
[ballot] Periodic inspection for unauthorized access and any
resulting damage.
[ballot] Repair of any damage from unauthorized access.
Develop a media strategy/notification plan as a means to
notify local residents, businesses, and officials of closures and
changes in traffic patterns.
Develop an off-highway vehicle/all-terrain vehicle (OHV/
ATV) deterrent plan prior to construction activities.
During construction activities:
Design and construct new access roads to minimize runoff
and soil erosion.
Install gates at the entrances to access roads to reduce
unauthorized use; coordinate gate locks with NPS.
Restore public roadways to their pre-construction
conditions or better upon completion of project construction
activities.
Reclaim any road-related disturbance areas after
construction is completed.
Permanently close and revegetate spur roads to discourage
OHV/ATV use. For roads still in use, restrict access by unauthorized
users as identified in the OHV/ATV deterrent plan.
Visual Resources
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
During construction activities:
Restrict construction vehicle movement outside the ROW to
NPS-approved routes. Should additional road access be required,
permission be sought from the NPS prior to disturbance, and appropriate
remuneration fees will be assessed.
Keep areas around the towers clean and free of debris.
Maintain a clean construction site and remove all related
equipment, materials, and litter following construction.
Revegetate disturbed areas with approved species.
Provide regular maintenance of access roads and fences
within and leading to the corridor.
Cut stumps close to ground.
Implement ``low-impact tree clearing'' which involves
directional tree-felling, both mechanically and by hand.
Rehabilitate or restore disturbed areas, as applicable.
Measures the NPS will require that will Avoid and Minimize Impacts
over the Life of the Project:
During Project Design several mitigation measures will be
undertaken. It should be noted that, in some cases, visual resource
mitigation measures may directly contradict mitigation measures under
APLIC that make the lines more visible to birds in order to decrease
bird collisions and electrocutions; in these cases, the APLIC
guidelines will prevail:
Locate new access roads within previously disturbed areas.
Route the alignment of new access roads to follow landform
contours where practicable, providing that such alignment does not
impact additional resource values, to minimize ground disturbance and/
or reduce scarring (visual contrast) of the landscape.
Place structures in designated areas so as to avoid
sensitive features such as, but not limited to, riparian areas, water
courses, and cultural sites, and/or to allow conductors to clearly span
the features, within limits of standard tower design. If the sensitive
features cannot be completely avoided, towers will be placed so as to
minimize the disturbance.
Place tower structures at the maximum feasible distance
from roadway and trail crossings, and where preservation of existing
vista(s) is particularly important. Distances will be within the limits
of standard tower structure design.
Use non-reflective neutral colored paints and coatings
approved by the NPS to reduce reflection, glare, and/or contrast on
structures.
Use non-reflective insulators (i.e., non-ceramic or
porcelain).
Use non-specular conductors to reduce reflectivity.
[[Page 63863]]
Locate construction staging areas away from visually
sensitive locations.
Conceptual landscaping in the form of vegetation planted
outside but along the utility ROW.
Tower lighting will only be permitted on the four towers
where recommended by FAA, and only via AVWS system, such that lighting
is only triggered by the approach of aircraft, minimizing the amount of
time towers will be lit.
During maintenance activities:
Restrict construction vehicle movement outside the ROW to
NPS-approved routes. Should additional road access be required,
permission must be sought from the NPS prior to disturbance, and
appropriate remuneration fees will be assessed.
Keep areas around the towers clean and free of debris.
Maintain a clean construction site and remove all related
equipment, materials, and litter following construction.
Revegetate disturbed areas with approved species.
Provide regular maintenance of access roads and fences.
Cut stumps close to ground.
Implement ``low-impact tree clearing'' which involves
directional tree-felling, both mechanically and by hand, and add buck
trees to promote decomposition.
Rehabilitate and/or restore disturbed areas.
Soundscapes
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Comply with county and city noise ordinances.
Install sound-control devices on all construction
equipment.
Install muffled exhaust on all construction equipment and
vehicles except helicopters, if used.
Visitor Use and Experience
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Coordinate construction schedules with NPS to avoid peak
visitor use periods and notify visitors of construction.
The applicant must develop a plan to avoid or minimize
impacts to park visitors, including visitors using roads, trails, the
river and other areas affected by construction. The applicant must
assure visitor safety while keeping recreation areas open to the
greatest extent possible. NPS must approve the timing and duration of
all closures.
Prior to construction develop a media strategy/
notification plan as a means to notify local residents and visitors of
closures.
Health and Safety
BMPs NPS will require to Avoid and Minimize Impacts during
Construction:
Develop safety and emergency plans for the project prior
to construction activities.
Fully train operators of the construction equipment and
vehicles to reduce the chance of accidents.
Inspect construction equipment for malfunctions or faulty
parts to reduce the risk of leaking fluids that could harm the
environment or humans from contact.
Put in place safety devices such as traveling grounds,
guard structures, and radio-equipped public safety roving vehicles and
lineman prior to the initiation of wire stringing activities.
Install guard poles or guard structures at all
transportation, flood control, and utility crossings. Guard poles are
temporary facilities designed to stop the travel of the conductor
should it momentarily drop below a conventional stringing height.
Restrict use of the immediate area in which construction
will occur for safety reasons (PPL and PSE&G 2008, A10-6) to minimize
impacts on park visitors during construction of the line within the
parks.
Fence off construction areas in areas outside of the park,
but inside the study area, where the public could access the
construction site.
Station a safety representative at APPA crossings during
any and all construction to maintain public safety.
Station a safety watchman on the river during stringing
operations to stop any boat traffic if an incident does occur or if
conditions otherwise warrant (PPL and PSE&G 2008, 6).
Implement road closures and traffic control to minimize
the risk of accidents from occurring during the construction period.
Regularly maintain and inspect helicopters and employ
operators certified/licensed in helicopter aviation.
Operators conducting aerial work in support of the utility
may encounter hazards from the various types of flight profiles,
terrain, infrastructure, weather, and operation at low levels and
speeds.
[ballot] To reduce the potential risk of a collision, the crew will
identify potential collision hazards and make corrective actions prior
to taking flight.
[ballot] While in flight, the crew will exercise concentration,
maintain situational awareness, be knowledgeable of their area of
operations, maintain effective communications, and establish clear
roles and responsibilities.
Compensatory Mitigation
The applicants have offered, and NPS will require as a permit
condition, that they deposit at least fifty-six million dollars
($56,000,000) into a Middle Delaware Compensation Fund, as will be
described in a memorandum of agreement to be entered with and managed
by The Conservation Fund, to:
Acquire lands from willing sellers that can be included in
the boundaries of APPA and DEWA as compensatory mitigation for lands
over which ROW rights are granted.
Carry out wetlands restoration projects elsewhere within
APPA and DEWA as compensatory mitigation for wetlands impacted by ROW
clearing and maintenance.
Carry out historic preservation projects elsewhere within
APPA and DEWA as compensatory mitigation for historic properties
impacted by line construction.
Other Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1--No Action
Under the no-action alternative, the NPS would deny the
applications for ROWs and construction permits to expand the B-K Line
to a new double-circuit line through NPS lands. The existing B-K Line
traverses approximately 4.3 miles of DEWA. The line initiates at the
Susquehanna Substation and enters DEWA in Pennsylvania approximately
0.25 mile east of Big Bushkill Creek. The line then exits the park,
connects to the Bushkill Substation, travels through developed areas,
including Fernwood Golf Course, and reenters DEWA south of the South
Zone Ranger Station and north of DEWA Headquarters, crossing MDSR just
north of Depew Island. The line continues southeast past the Watergate
Recreation Site and across APPA to the eastern DEWA boundary. There are
22 existing transmission towers located within DEWA boundaries for the
existing B-K Line, and there are no existing access roads to the ROW.
This alternative assumes that the existing line within the parks would
remain in place without expansion or replacement. In essence, it
assumes that current conditions on the ground will continue
indefinitely into the future. However, the applicant could seek to
expand or replace the existing utility lines within the existing
easements through the parks. There are no proposals to do so at this
time.
Alternative 2b--Applicant's Alternate Proposal
The alignment for the applicant's alternate proposal would follow
the same route as described for alternative
[[Page 63864]]
2 (the selected alternative). The difference between alternative 2 and
alternative 2b is that the former would require widening the existing
ROW, while the latter would be constructed within the existing ROW. The
towers for alternative 2b would be the same height as those described
for alternative 2, but alternative 2b would require two additional
towers within NPS lands compared to alternative 2. These towers would
be constructed within the 100-foot-wide portion of the alignment.
Because the ROW under alternative 2b is narrow, the applicant's plans
require these additional towers to protect against fire hazards
presented by the risk of conductor blowout. The minimum horizontal
clearance to the edge of the ROW under high wind conditions to prevent
conductor blowout was determined to be greater than 100 feet, and the
NPS has expressed concern about the safety of constructing within the
existing ROW. The applicant's proposal is based upon the controversial
assumption that they have a right to clear danger trees on NPS property
outside any deeded ROW (PPL 2010b). It is assumed that larger
individual trees outside the ROW would be removed periodically.
Access roads for alternative 2b are similar as those described for
alternative 2, with a slight difference in Pennsylvania between the
Bushkill Substation and the Delaware River. Alternative 2b would
require a total of 5.3 miles of access roads, of which 2.4 miles would
occur outside the ROW.
Alternative 3
The alternative 3 alignment would pass through DEWA along the ROW
of existing transmission and distribution lines. The existing
transmission and distribution lines would be removed prior to
construction of the S-R Line. The existing transmission line ROW is
cleared to 100 feet wide, and this alternative would require clearing
of vegetation for an additional 50 to 200 feet of ROW. The structures
of the transmission and distribution lines would be constructed so that
these lines and the S-R Line would run parallel to one another within
the expanded ROW. That is, two separate sets of structures would be
constructed, one set for the proposed S-R Line and one set for the
existing transmission and distribution lines along the alternative 3
alignment. Alternative 3 would cross a total of 5.4 miles within the
DEWA boundary. The route would cross about 1.3 miles of DEWA within the
study area and about 1.7 miles of the northern end of Worthington State
Forest, which is located within DEWA's exterior boundaries. The
alignment for this alternative also crosses MDSR within DEWA, and APPA
within Worthington State Forest.
The alternative 3 alignment is approximately 6.9 miles long within
the study area. The alternative 3 alignment would follow the alignment
of the B-K Line for 0.6 mile from the western boundary of DEWA to the
Bushkill Substation. The alignment would leave the study area and
travel southwest to reenter the study area via the VSL point located in
Monroe County, Pennsylvania, outside DEWA. From the western VSL, the
alignment would cross River Road and the McDade Trail about 1.0 mile
southwest of the Smithfield Beach Picnic Area and 0.75 mile northeast
of the Hialeah Picnic Area. The alignment would continue southeast
within DEWA approximately 0.8 mile to MDSR. On the east side of MDSR,
the route would travel northeast approximately 0.49 mile to the
boundary of Worthington State Forest; the remainder of the alignment
within DEWA boundaries would also be encompassed by Worthington State
Forest's boundaries. The alignment would travel southeast approximately
1.69 miles to the eastern edge of DEWA, perpendicularly crossing APPA.
The alignment would travel another 0.24 mile beyond the DEWA boundary
to the VSL. The alternative 3 alignment would reenter DEWA beyond the
eastern VSL as well. In the path to join the alignment of the B-K Line
in New Jersey, alternative 3 could travel along the border of DEWA for
1.8 miles, paralleling APPA for this entire distance. Alternative 3
would require approximately 3.5 miles of access roads, of which 0.9
mile would occur outside the ROW.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 would pass through three portions of DEWA; the
section of the park from the western boundary along the B-K Line to the
Bushkill substation; through the southwestern boundary of the park,
where the alignment leaves the boundary of the park for 0.51 mile, then
re-enters the park. On the southernmost portion of DEWA, alternative 4
runs along the path of an existing distribution line ROW, and would
also pass through a section of the park along the alignment of the B-K
Line. The existing ROW is cleared from 100 to 200 feet wide, and this
alternative would require permanent clearing of vegetation for an
additional 100 to 200 feet of ROW. This line along alternative 4 would
be removed prior to construction of the S-R Line. The structures of the
existing distribution line would be replaced so that this line and the
double-circuited S-R Line would run parallel to one another within the
expanded ROW. The route would cross about 1.5 mile of NPS lands,
including DEWA and APPA. This alternative would also cross the Lower
Delaware River; however, the crossing of the Delaware River would occur
outside DEWA and MDSR boundaries and outside the study area.
Alternative 4 would have a north-south orientation and would be
approximately 2.3 miles long within the study area. As with alternative
3, the alternative 4 alignment follows the alignment of the B-K Line
for 0.6 mile from the western boundary of DEWA to the Bushkill
Substation. The alignment would leave the study area and travel
southwest to reenter the study area via the VSL point at the edge of
DEWA, near the southwestern boundary of the park. Upon entering DEWA
from the north, the alternative 4 alignment would cross about 0.42 mile
of DEWA land, roughly following the DEWA boundary, and would cross
Mountain and Totts Gap roads. The alignment would then leave the
boundary of DEWA for approximately 0.51 mile, before re-entering the
park. Upon reentering DEWA, the alignment would immediately cross APPA,
then extend approximately 0.50 mile south to the southern boundary of
DEWA. South of DEWA, the alternative 4 alignment would extend another
0.24 mile before the southern VSL. The designated boundary of Cherry
Valley National Wildlife Refuge borders the existing ROW of the
alternative 4 alignment north of APPA for approximately 0.73 mile.
Alternative 4 would require a total of approximately 2.5 miles of
access roads, with approximately 1.6 miles within NPS boundaries.
Alternative 4 would use 0.9 mile of existing roads as access roads and
would require construction of 1.6 miles of new access roads, of which
0.5 mile would occur outside the ROW.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 would run along the path of an existing distribution
line ROW in the southernmost portion of DEWA. The existing ROW is
cleared to 100 feet wide, and this alternative would require permanent
clearing of vegetation for an additional 200 feet of ROW. This line
along alternative 5 would be removed prior to construction of the S-R
Line. The structures of the existing distribution line would be
replaced so that this line and the double-circuited S-R Line would run
parallel to one another within the expanded ROW. The route would cross
[[Page 63865]]
about 1.5 mile of NPS lands, including DEWA and APPA. This alternative
would also cross the Lower Delaware River; however, the crossing of the
Delaware River would occur outside DEWA and MDSR boundaries and outside
the study area.
Alternative 5 would have a north-south orientation and would be
approximately 1.7 miles long within the study area. Alternative 5 would
enter the study area via the VSL point at the edge of DEWA, near the
southwestern boundary of the park. Upon entering DEWA from the north,
the alternative 5 alignment would cross about 0.42 mile of DEWA land,
roughly following the DEWA boundary, and would cross Mountain and Totts
Gap roads. The alignment would then leave the boundary of DEWA for
approximately 0.51 mile, before re-entering the park. Upon reentering
DEWA, the alignment would immediately cross APPA, then extend
approximately 0.50 mile south to the southern boundary of DEWA. South
of DEWA, the alternative 5 alignment would extend another 0.24 mile
before the southern VSL. The designated boundary of Cherry Valley
National Wildlife Refuge borders the existing ROW of the alternative 5
alignment north of APPA for approximately 0.73 mile. Alternative 5
would require a total of approximately 1.7 miles of access roads;
however, 0.9 mile of existing road would be used. Alternative 5 would
require construction of approximately 0.9 mile of new access roads, of
which 0.16 mile would occur outside the ROW.
Basis for Decision
The purpose and need of the NPS action analyzed in the EIS is to
grant or deny the applicant's proposal considering the purposes and
resources of the affected units of the national park system, as
expressed in statutes, regulations, policy, and the NPS objectives in
taking action. In making the decision to select alternative 2, the NPS
considered the applicant's existing property rights, the alternatives
evaluated in the EIS and the impacts on park resources and values of
each alternative, and the comments received from other agencies and the
public during the EIS process. Following is an evaluation of the other
alternatives examined in the EIS with regard to how each factored into
the decision-making process.
No-action Alternative: There is a great deal of public support for
selecting the no action alternative, which means that the NPS would
deny the permit application and the existing powerline would remain
essentially unchanged. The impact analysis in the EIS showed that the
no action alternative would have the least adverse impacts on park
resources and values, and it was identified in the EIS as the
environmentally preferable alternative. The NPS agrees that the no
action alternative would be the best choice if the only consideration
were protection of park resources and values. However, the NPS cannot
ignore the fact that the applicant owns a property interest in the
existing powerline corridor. The applicant asserts that these existing
rights are sufficient to allow it to build an alternative design to the
line (Alternative 2b) without the grant of additional rights. The NPS
may not prevent the applicant from exercising these rights without
effectuating a taking. Accordingly, there are two possible results of
the selection of the no-action alternative. First, the line may not be
built, and the environmental status quo may continue if the applicants
decide to abandon the project, as analyzed in the EIS. This is viewed
as unlikely by the NPS. Second, the applicant may decide to pursue
alternative 2b, as analyzed, asserting its present property rights, and
if it were prevented from constructing within its present rights, it
might assert a ``takings'' claim against the United States. The latter
is a particularly undesirable option for the NPS as, in its view, as
discussed below, alternative 2b is less preferable than the selected
alternative. Condemnation of the present right of way to prevent
construction of alternative 2b has been rejected as impractical.
Consequently, selection of the no-action alternative would present the
NPS with significant uncertainty, and a strong probability that the
eventual outcome would be worse for park resources than the selected
alternative. Under these circumstances, NPS has rejected the no-action
alternative in favor of the selected alternative, which, while causing
more impact than failure to construct would, causes less impact than
Alternative 2b.
Alternative 2b: At first glance, alternative 2b might appear to
have fewer impacts to some park resources because the applicant would
be restricted to building entirely within the existing ROW width.
However, the additional width required by the selected alternative is
only 50 feet, or 25 feet on either side of centerline, over a small
portion of the line within APPA and DEWA. The difference in width
between alternative 2b and the selected alternative comes with some
significant costs, as the existing width in some sections is
insufficient to meet current safety standards. Although the applicant
asserts that alternative 2b could be built safely, independent
transmission line engineers engaged by NPS disagree, and NPS views this
alternative as creating serious safety concerns due to insufficient
clearance between the lines and vegetation. Alternative 2b would also
require two additional towers within park boundaries, with attendant
increases in tower visibility and construction impact. Finally, the
present ROW deeds are the basis of ongoing disagreement between the NPS
and the applicants over the extent to which applicants may clear
vegetation outside the area of cleared right of way. Alternative 2b
(like the no-action alternative) would leave this disagreement
unresolved, while the selected alternative would resolve it.
Alternatives 3, 4 and 5: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 were developed to
examine whether or not the proposed powerline could be constructed
across the parks in a less sensitive area, and with less impacts to
park resources and values. Alternative 3 was discovered to have more
impacts on some resources and was not considered a desirable choice
once the analysis was completed. Alternatives 4 and 5 both have far
less impacts on park resources and values than the other action
alternatives and from the NPS perspective, would meet the test of
protecting park resources and values to the greatest extent possible
without unduly interfering in the property rights of the applicant.
However, alternatives 3, 4, and 5 were all based on a presumption that
the applicant would voluntarily give up their existing property rights
along the current easement and in return, the NPS would grant a new ROW
in the selected location. The applicants have indicated that they are
unwilling to give up their existing easement in exchange for another in
a new location. As noted in the EIS, the NPS has considered but
rejected the option of requiring the construction of the line in a new
location while permitting the present line to remain. Thus, the NPS has
selected alternative 2, the applicant's proposal, with the mitigation
measures described in this ROD. As discussed above, the selection
factor with the greatest weight was the legal constraint presented by
the applicant's existing property rights. However, in making the
selection, the NPS also considered the adverse impacts on park
resources and values that would likely result from construction of the
new powerline, as well as the NPS' authority to reasonably regulate
these activities within park
[[Page 63866]]
boundaries. Therefore, the selected alternative incorporates mitigation
that will be required conditions of the NPS permit. The NPS believes
the required mitigation will avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the
greatest degree possible, recognizing that some significant adverse
impacts may still occur. The applicant has offered compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts, as detailed above under
Mitigation Measures. This is important and welcome, and a necessary
offset to the impacts imposed on park resources; however, compensatory
mitigation was not a deciding factor in the selection of the
alternative, which was driven primarily by legal considerations and the
relative impacts of the alternatives. As discussed above, mitigation
will be implemented to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the
greatest degree possible, but unavoidable adverse impacts will still
occur.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require
federal agencies to identify the environmentally preferable alternative
in a Record of Decision (40 CFR 1505.2). The environmentally preferable
alternative is the alternative that causes the least damage to
biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and
enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources. The
environmentally preferable alternative is identified upon consideration
and weighing by the Responsible Official of long-term environmental
impacts against short-term impacts in evaluating what is the best
protection of these resources. In some situations, such as when
different alternatives impact different resources to different degrees,
there may be more than one environmentally preferable alternative (43
CFR 46.30).
The NPS has determined that alternative 1 (no action) is the
environmentally preferable alternative. The NPS made this determination
based on the analysis of the scientific data about the proposal and
included mitigation provided by the applicant and collected by NPS
contractors. Alternative 1 would result in the least amount of damage
to the biological and physical environment. As the data show, all the
alternatives will have some degree of direct and indirect adverse
impact on the resources identified within the study area. None of the
action alternatives would produce a net benefit or even keep conditions
completely neutral; they would all be negative from an environmental
point of view. Alternative 1 would leave the existing B-K Line ROW in
place, essentially maintaining conditions at status quo, with the
exception of increased vegetation management, which would be likely to
occur along the corridor of all the alternatives due to implementation
of the newest NERC safety standards. Nonetheless, the relatively minor
impacts of additional cutting and clearing in the existing ROW would be
outweighed by the more significant environmental damage that would
certainly occur with the construction and operation of a larger
transmission line within the parks under any of the other proposed
alternatives, including the two proposed by the applicant. Alternative
1 would thus result in the least damage among the alternatives.
Alternative 1 would best protect and preserve the scenic, historic,
cultural, recreational and natural resources of the parks involved and
will therefore best promote the national environmental policy of NEPA.
Public and Agency Involvement
The planning process for the EIS was conducted with extensive
public and agency involvement that included multiple newsletters,
workshops, meetings, briefings, and a formal public comment process.
These activities are briefly summarized below and a detailed discussion
is presented in ``The Public Scoping Process'' section in Chapter 5 of
the final EIS and appendix I.
Scoping
The internal scoping process began with scoping meetings conducted
on September 15, 16, and 17, 2009, with staff members from the parks,
the NPS Environmental Quality Division, the NPS Northeast Region, and
contractor personnel in attendance. The internal scoping meeting began
with a presentation on the process and background of NEPA, followed by
a presentation by the applicant. During the remaining days, NPS
identified the purpose of and need for action, management objectives,
issues, and impact topics. Park resources, possible alternative
elements, and the project schedule were also discussed. A preliminary
alternatives meeting was held on December 16 and 17, 2009, with staff
members from the parks, representatives from PPL and PSE&G, and
contractor personnel in attendance. The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the route alternatives for the S-R Line developed by the
applicant, develop the criteria to evaluate the different transmission
line route alternatives, and work cooperatively to develop additional
transmission line route alternatives in addition to the ones provided
by the applicant. Public scoping began with the January 21, 2010,
Federal Register publication of the notice of intent to prepare an EIS
(75 FR 3486-3487). The notice of intent summarized the proposed action
and explained how to comment on the action. NPS released a public
scoping newsletter to the public for review and comment on January 21,
2010. The newsletter included a description of the proposed S-R Line,
the purpose and need, background information, project objectives, and a
list of issues and impact topics. The newsletter also provided
information on upcoming public scoping meetings. The newsletter was
sent to individuals, businesses, agencies, and organizations on the
parks' email distribution list. The parks also issued a news release
inviting the public to comment at the scoping meetings. On February 16,
17, and 18, 2010, public scoping meetings were held in Bushkill,
Pennsylvania, Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey, and Parsippany, New Jersey,
respectively. Each meeting began with an open house, followed by a
short presentation by NPS explaining the project, as well as the
project planning process. A formal public comment session with a court
reporter was held after the NPS presentation. A total of 311
participants attended the public scoping meetings and 102 spoke
formally during the comment sessions. A 30-day public scoping comment
period, with a two-week extension, was provided from January 21 until
March 12, during which members of the public were able to submit their
comments on the proposed S-R Line. During the entire public scoping
period, over 6,500 pieces of correspondence were received.
A second preliminary alternatives workshop was held May 4, 5, 6,
and 7, 2010. Attendees included staff members from the parks, NPS
Environmental Quality Division Northeast Region, and contractor
personnel. The meeting included a discussion of the project schedule,
identification of additional data needed for the analysis of
alternatives, a discussion of the proposed alternative, a discussion of
which alternatives should be dismissed, and logistics for the public
meetings. Following this workshop, NPS held another set of public
meetings regarding alternatives on August 17, 18, and 19, 2010, in
Bushkill, Pennsylvania; Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania; and Lafayette, New
Jersey, respectively. The public was invited to submit comments on
alternatives from July 9, 2010, to September 14, 2010. During the
public
[[Page 63867]]
comment period, 1,700 separate pieces of correspondence were received.
Public Comment on Draft EIS
On November 21, 2011, the NPS released the draft EIS for the S-R
Line for public review and comment. The draft EIS included a
description of the proposed project and alternatives proposed, a
description of the resources found within the study area, and an
analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on these resources. The
draft EIS was available for public review until January 31, 2012.
During the comment period, three public meetings were held in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey from January 24 through 26, 2012. Meetings
were held in Bushkill, Pennsylvania; Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania; and
Lafayette, New Jersey. Each public meeting had an open house from 2:30
p.m. until 4:30 p.m. and a public hearing from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00
p.m. A total of 368 individuals attended the public comment meetings in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and a total of 102 participants spoke
during the formal public comment sessions. Nearly 27,000 pieces of
correspondence were received during the public comment period.
Approximately 26,000 pieces of correspondence were form letters
submitted by the National Parks Conservation Association and the Sierra
Club. All of the public comments received on the draft EIS were read
and analyzed by the NPS team. The analysis of the public comments
received and NPS responses are provided in appendix L of the final EIS.
Among the comments received, a majority were expressions of support for
the no action alternative, general opposition to the project, and
opposition to the proposed mitigation. Commenters cited concerns over
impacts to natural and cultural resources, as well as the visitor
experience as reasons they did not support the proposed project.
Based on comments received from the applicant, an access road that
was proposed through Arnott Fen was moved to reduce project impacts. In
addition, blasting for tower installation was also removed and replaced
with drilling to reduce impacts to geologic and natural resources.
Other changes to the draft EIS as a result of public comments included
warranted corrections and clarifications to the document.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Consistent with guidance in National Park Service Management
Policies and Directors Orders, NPS managers elected to comply with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the issuance
of the construction and ROW permit through the use of 36 CFR 800.8(c),
which allows federal agencies to use the NEPA process to meet Section
106 compliance responsibilities, according to standards in that subpart
of the regulations. Integration of the requirements of Section 106 of
the NHPA into the NEPA process and documentation are accomplished by
meeting the criteria set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)-(4).
Early in the scoping process for the EIS, NPS staff began
consulting with the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Historic Preservation
Offices and numerous federally-recognized Tribes. Additionally, the
scoping process included sets of news releases, public scoping meetings
that included newsletters and information on historic resources, and
general public notification of the decision-making process and
alternatives being considered. NPS staff members shared extensive
research, hosted consultation calls, and conducted on-site consultation
meetings, finalizing the list of Section 106 consulting parties in
spring 2012, when the NPS identified a preferred alternative.
The list of Section 106 consulting parties includes the Absentee
Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation; Appalachian Trail Conservancy; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma;
Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma;
New Jersey Historic Preservation Office; New York-New Jersey Trail
Conference; Oneida Nation of New York; Onondaga Nation of New York;
Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office; Preservation New
Jersey; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York (formerly the St. Regis Band
of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Seneca
Nation of New York; Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; Stockbridge-Munsee
Community, Wisconsin; and Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York.
Other local organizations and municipalities have participated in
discussions about this project.
In addition to information that was made available to the public in
the draft EIS on the undertaking and its effects on historic
properties, the NPS and the applicant have completed numerous cultural
resource studies and investigations. The results of these efforts were
shared with the Section 106 consulting parties. National Park Service
cultural resource studies and findings supported the development of the
draft EIS. The applicants' final reports, completed in spring 2012,
contributed to development of the final EIS. Details on the
consultation process can be found in Appendix M of the final EIS, and
the PEPC site for the Susquehanna-Roseland Transmission Line, (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=220&projectID=25147&documentID=49560).
The EIS and associated consultation determined the Area of
Potential Effect (APE) (as described in the draft EIS and final EIS)
and identified historic properties contained within it. The NPS worked
with the consulting parties and the applicant to avoid and minimize
effects to historic properties where possible and mitigate adverse
effects where necessary. It was determined that there would be adverse
effects to at least one archeological site, seventeen historic
structures, and fourteen cultural landscapes (as specified in the final
EIS). Through this ROD, the NPS commits to the following measures and
processes to further avoid or minimize effects, and to mitigate adverse
effects to historic properties from the issuance of the ROW and
construction permit to the applicant. As discussion between the NPS,
consulting parties and the applicant continue, and the applicant
finalizes the design of the transmission line, the NPS will refine the
minimization and mitigation measures and formalize the commitments
itemized below as conditions of the permit granted to the applicant.
Mitigation Measures
While there are some physical effects, adverse effects from the
issuance of this permit are primarily visual; due to the scale of the
proposed towers, minimization efforts through vegetative screening are
unlikely to be successful. Accordingly, through consultation with the
Section 106 consulting parties, the NPS has developed mitigation
measures that address the overall adverse effect to the parks from
issuing the permit rather than focusing on effects to individual
properties. The mitigation measures for specific properties and broad-
based management plans and interpretive materials will be stipulated in
the applicant's permit. The applicant will fund the identified
mitigation measures, as well as any future avoidance, minimization, or
mitigation measures resulting from the issuance of the NPS permit, with
oversight by the NPS. All of the activities below will be completed
according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68), and by, or under the
supervision of, personnel who meet the Secretary of the Interior's
[[Page 63868]]
professional qualification standards (48 FR 44716, 1983), as
appropriate.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
The applicant will allocate $500,000 from the Middle
Delaware Compensation Fund to rehabilitate, improve, and protect
elements and features of the Appalachian Trail that contribute to its
National Register eligibility. The two specific activities below
(viewshed analysis and National Register nominations) will be paid for
from this allocation. These efforts may be associated with points along
the Trail that are directly affected by the Susquehanna-Roseland Line
or may be associated with mitigating existing adverse effects at other
points along the Trail within the established Area of Potential Effect.
Projects will be completed by the National Park Service, the
Appalachian Trail Conservancy, or other not-for-profit organizations
associated with the Appalachian Trail (e.g., New York-New Jersey Trail
Conference, the Appalachian Mountain Club). Rehabilitation, screening,
or clearing will be decided upon and conducted at the direction of the
National Park Service after discussion with the appropriate Section 106
consulting parties after construction.
The NPS will oversee the preparation of a viewshed
analysis for the portion of the Appalachian Trail within the APE that
will identify critical, character-defining views to inform the
development of the National Register nominations discussed below.
The NPS will oversee the preparation of National Register
nominations for the entire portion of the Appalachian Trail within the
State of New Jersey and a reasonable segment of the Trail in
Pennsylvania, as determined in discussion with the Pennsylvania State
Historic Preservation Office. These nominations will follow the
standards of the multiple property documentation form the NPS is
currently developing for the full length of the Appalachian Trail. The
nominations must meet the standards of the New Jersey State Historic
Preservation Officer, Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer,
and National Register of Historic Places, and will be considered
complete when accepted and approved by the Keeper of the National
Register.
In addition to these measures, there are efforts related
to this decision underway outside of the Section 106 process, such as
land protection measures (including land acquisition), that will
augment the current Section 106 mitigation plan Within the Appalachian
Trail, activities will occur within the existing ROW, which will not be
widened. The above mitigation measures satisfy the requirements under
Section 106 of the NHPA for effects to the Appalachian Trail. The NPS
received two letters from non-profit organizations seeking to comment
about or object to the NPS's compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (Email to NPS from Preservation New
Jersey dated Sept. 28, 2012; and Letter from the New York-New Jersey
Trail Conference dated Sept. 25, 2012). The comments in the letters
were previously raised by these organizations or other organizations or
individuals, and the NPS already addressed these comments through
Section 106 meetings and added analyses in the FEIS. Moreover, the NPS,
in consultation with the consulting parties, developed binding measures
that seek to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects
associated with the proposal to address the comments raised by the
letters. These measures were discussed in the FEIS, which cross-
referenced the draft mitigation plan that was made publicly available
on the NPS's Web site prior to publication of the FEIS, and are
contained in the ROD. Additionally, the NPS did not provide for a
public comment period for the FEIS. See 40 CFR Sec. 1503.1(b).
Nevertheless, we note that the dispute resolution provisions contained
in this ROD and the Section 106 Mitigation Plan will apply to the
future actions covered by or implemented in accordance with this plan.
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
NPS tasks identified under this heading will be completed using an
allocation from the Middle Delaware Compensation Fund, as detailed
below. The applicant will pay for all other tasks.
The NPS will require the applicant to make all efforts to
avoid any ground disturbing activity that will impact archeological
resources. The NPS will also require the applicant to fully excavate
affected portions of any archeological site that will be impacted by
unavoidable ground disturbance. Any excavation must be done under an
Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit.
With the input of Tribes and State Historic Preservation
Officers, the NPS will develop an archeological monitoring plan that
will identify appropriate locations for archeological and/or tribal
monitoring during construction-related ground-disturbing activities.
The plan will meet or exceed New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and NPS
standards. The NPS will complete the plan prior to the initiation of
construction. The applicant will pay for monitoring costs not to exceed
$170,000.
The NPS will prepare a historic properties management plan
for DEWA. This plan will identify and analyze historic structures and
districts within the park, including historic significance,
interpretation value, and potential for future reuse. The NPS will
develop this plan in consultation with the interested Section 106
consulting parties, with substantial input from the surrounding
communities and the public. The NPS will encourage additional agencies
and other organizations who were not consulting parties during the
development of the EIS to participate in the development of the
historic properties management plan. The park will specifically
encourage the involvement of their partner organizations in measures
that affect the properties of interest to them.
The applicant will allocate $12,500,000 from the Middle
Delaware Compensation Fund for physical preservation, rehabilitation,
and/or restoration of historic structures and landscapes at DEWA. The
expenditure of funds will be guided by the results of the historic
properties management plan and input from the Section 106 consulting
parties. Funds will be focused on the Old Mine Road Historic District
and other appropriate locations within the park in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey.
The NPS will consult with the federally-recognized Tribes
affiliated with the park to develop a tribal cultural program. This
program may include a tribal cultural center in the park, to be
established at the Westbrook-Bell House or other appropriate facility
identified in the historic properties management plan.
The applicant will complete vegetative screening or other
treatments of cultural landscapes. Specific locations of screening,
clearing, or other landscape treatments will be selected by the NPS, in
cooperation with the Section 106 consulting parties after the
transmission line has been built, when visual effects to historic
landscapes are more fully defined. This effort will not exceed a cost
of $500,000.
The NPS will oversee the completion of three National
Register nominations or updates to existing nominations, such as
updates to the Old Mine Road Historic District and Millbrook Village
nominations and/or the completion of a River Road (PA) nomination. The
nominations must meet the Pennsylvania or New Jersey
[[Page 63869]]
Historic Preservation Office, and National Register of Historic Places
standards, and will be considered complete once accepted and approved
by the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places.
The NPS will oversee the completion of five research
studies, such as Historic Structure Reports, Cultural Landscape
Reports, historic contexts, or research syntheses. The NPS will solicit
input from the Section 106 consulting parties for this project to
determine the subjects of the studies.
The NPS will oversee the completion of four interpretive
products, such as tour podcasts, site-specific interpretive signs,
scenic byway signs, or popular publications. The NPS will solicit input
from the Section 106 consulting parties for this project to determine
appropriate products under this stipulation.
The applicant will provide Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area $350 per box of artifacts and $500 per linear foot of
archeological records created by the surveys, evaluations, and any
possible excavations resulting from design and construction under this
permit to cover the costs of curation of those artifacts/records. The
artifacts and records will be prepared and stored according to the
standards in 36 CFR 79. Any human remains or objects subject to the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
discovered as a result of this construction permit will be handled
according to the regulations at 43 CFR 10.
The above mitigation measures satisfy the requirements
under Section 106 of the NHPA for effects to the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area. However, this plan recognizes that there are
additional efforts related to this permit underway outside of the
Section 106 process, such as land protection measures (including land
acquisition), that may also be put in place and will augment the
current Section 106 mitigation plan.
Schedule for Completion of Mitigation Measures
Within three years of issuance of the permit, these measures will
be complete:
Historic Properties Management Plan
National Register nominations for the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail
Identification of locations for vegetative screening/cultural
landscape treatments
Within five years of issuance of the permit, these measures will be
complete:
National Register nominations for Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area
Interpretive products
Within ten years of issuance of the permit, these measures will be
complete:
Research studies
Vegetative screening/cultural landscape treatments
Preservation, rehabilitation, and/or restoration projects of
historic structures and cultural landscapes for which funding is
provided under this plan.
Project-Wide Stipulations Applicable to Both Parks:
Consulting Party Involvement
Unless otherwise specified, the NPS will provide the
Section 106 consulting parties with 30 days to review and provide
comments or input on the implementation of measures identified in this
plan. Consulting parties will have the opportunity to review and
comment on interim and final drafts, as appropriate, and the
identification of properties proposed for rehabilitation. If the NPS is
unable to fulfill the commitments outlined in this mitigation plan, it
will notify all consulting parties that it will follow the procedures
in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6 as necessary to address any changes in
the mitigation plan. The following conditions will be included as
stipulations in the permit, and will apply to all activities covered by
the permit. Any activities that occur outside of the actions allowed
under the permit will undergo separate Section 106 compliance.
Unanticipated Effects
The permit will include the following stipulations to apply if any
new adverse effects are identified as a result of changes in design or
from unanticipated archeological discoveries during construction:
1. The NPS and Applicant will determine if avoidance/minimization
measures are possible. These include but are not limited to:
Visual effects from towers/widened ROW
Physical effects from construction
2. Applicant will present feasibility/infeasibility of avoidance/
minimization to NPS; NPS will submit to Section 106 consulting parties
for review and comment.
3. If the NPS and applicant determine that avoidance is not
technically or environmentally feasible, the applicant will propose
minimization efforts for NPS approval. This may include but is not
limited to planting vegetative screening at sites identified for which
it would be appropriate, or restricting damage to minimal area and/or
less significant resources. Data recovery would still be required for
any affected portion of archeological sites. The NPS and Section 106
consulting parties will review and discuss any proposed minimization
efforts before NPS approval.
4. If the NPS determines minimization efforts are not adequate, the
applicant will be responsible for additional mitigation and/or
compensation. The NPS will consult with the Section 106 consulting
parties to identify appropriate mitigation. Mitigation measures for
archeological sites may include, but are not limited to, data recovery,
curation costs, and/or production of interpretive materials. Mitigation
measures for historic structures and cultural landscapes may include,
but are not limited to, physical rehabilitation, development of
interpretive materials, planning documents, HABS/HAER/HALS
documentation, and National Register nominations. This stipulation only
applies if new adverse effects are identified based on unanticipated
discoveries during construction, or significant changes in design
proposed by the applicant. If the new adverse effects are due to
unanticipated ground-disturbing activities, no ground disturbance can
occur until the appropriate avoidance or mitigation efforts are
determined. The NPS will determine the appropriate mitigation measures,
in consultation with the appropriate Section 106 consulting parties,
within 5 business days of determining the adverse effect is
unavoidable.
Design and Pre-Construction Activities
As the applicant finalizes the placement of transmission towers,
crane pads, pull sites, access roads, and other associated features and
activities, the applicant will submit the designs and locations to the
NPS. Reviews will be limited to the precise, final location of towers,
crane pads, and access roads established through discussions with the
NPS. Adjustments from existing plans will be made, where possible given
engineering and operational constraints, to avoid and minimize
potential adverse impacts.
Archeology
All archeological activities necessary for planning and/or
construction will be controlled by a valid Archeological Resources
Protection Act (ARPA) permit.
[[Page 63870]]
All areas of possible ground disturbance determined
sensitive for archeological resources must have undergone archeological
survey (Phase I) and evaluation of identified archeological sites
(Phase II) where deemed necessary through review and consultation prior
to ground-disturbing activities in that particular location. Survey and
evaluation results must have been reviewed by the appropriate Section
106 consulting parties and comments considered by the NPS prior to
proceeding.
The applicant shall protect sites through fencing,
matting, or other NPS-approved methods, where appropriate. If
archeological sites cannot be protected and will be damaged by ground
disturbance, the NPS will oversee their excavation according to a data
recovery plan that meets NPS, state, and park-specific standards and is
concurred upon by the NPS and the appropriate SHPO and Tribes prior to
ground-disturbing activities. DEWA has a standard of archeologically
excavating 100% of the affected portion of any archeological site
impacted by development within the park.
An archeological and/or tribal monitor must be present for
ground-disturbing activities identified according to the archeological
monitoring plan (as identified above) within the boundaries of the park
to ensure no previously undiscovered sites are affected; the monitors
may decide their presence is not required for individual actions.
Applicant must coordinate the schedule of all ground disturbance with
the monitors to ensure coverage, where appropriate. The cost for
monitoring is included in the NTE estimate identified in the park-
specific measures listed above.
If construction crews make unanticipated discoveries of
archeological materials, work will immediately stop in the discovery
location. Monitors will make an on-site determination of the likelihood
of human remains; if none is expected, monitors will notify the
respective park superintendent and cultural resource manager, who will
coordinate with the respective SHPO and Tribes for an eligibility
determination and treatment method, as needed, within 15 days.
If construction-related activities uncover human remains,
the applicant or its contractors will stop work at the location
immediately, and notify park law enforcement, monitors, and the park
cultural resources manager. Park law enforcement will determine if the
remains are the result of a crime, and, if so, will contact the local
coroner to determine whether the remains are of American Indian origin.
If the coroner determines that the remains are American Indian, NPS
managers will comply with NAGPRA requirements as described in 43 CFR 10
or a park-specific NAGPRA Plan of Action. If the coroner determines
that the remains are not American Indian and not the result of a crime,
the park superintendent and cultural resource manager will coordinate
with the appropriate SHPO to determine disposition of the remains.
The NPS will require the relocation of ground disturbing
activities to avoid human remains, unless technically infeasible. If
not technically feasible, the applicant will consult with park and
Tribes on the reasons, and discuss alternate strategies, such as re-
interment. Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the
delineation of the boundaries of the burial site, if required;
relocation of ground disturbance; and costs of re-interment or
alternate treatment methods.
Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with
survey/evaluation/mitigation of effects to archeological sites, as well
as any costs for construction delays associated with such activities.
The applicant must prepare an archeological survey plan
for review and approval by the DEWA and APPA cultural resources manager
for any post-construction ground-disturbing activities related to
maintenance and/or improvement of the line within the boundaries of
DEWA, APPA, or MDSR for which the NPS will issue permit(s).
Historic Structures/Cultural Landscapes
Physical rehabilitation or restoration efforts on historic
structures and cultural landscapes resulting from this project, and
conducted by entities other than the National Park Service, will be
supervised and inspected by the NPS to ensure they meet the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
If the efforts do not meet the Standards, the performing entity will
make all necessary adjustments, at its own expense, until
rehabilitation or restoration meet the Standards.
Dispute Resolution
1. Should any consulting party object in writing to the NPS
regarding any action carried out or proposed with respect to any
undertakings covered by this plan or to implementation of this plan,
the NPS will notify all consulting parties and consult with the
objecting party to resolve the objection.
2. Within thirty (30) days after initiating such consultation, if
the NPS determines that the objection cannot be resolved through
consultation, the NPS will forward all documentation relevant to the
objection to the ACHP, including the proposed response to the
objection.
3. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the ACHP will exercise one of the following options:
a. Advise the NPS that the ACHP concurs with the NPS proposed
response to the objection, whereupon the NPS will respond to the
objection accordingly; or
b. Provide the NPS with recommendations, which the NPS will take
into account in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the
objection.
4. Should the ACHP not exercise one of the above options within
thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the NPS
may assume the AHCP's concurrence in its proposed response to the
objection.
5. The NPS will take into account any ACHP recommendation or
comment provided in accordance with this stipulation with reference
only to the subject of the objection; the NPS's responsibility to carry
out all the actions under this plan that are not the subjects of the
objection will remain unchanged.
Section 7 Consultation
Consultation with USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries has been completed as required by the
Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act.
NPS has engaged with NOAA Fisheries with a formal consultation
letter; on May 13, 2010, NPS received a response from NOAA Fisheries
regarding the project. The letter stated that there are American shad
between the Delaware Water Gap and the New York border; additionally,
there may be also be shad in the Philadelphia reach of the river.
Depending on further information regarding the transmission line
crossing of the river, NOAA Fisheries may need to be consulted again.
In addition, seasonal work restrictions should be incorporated into the
project schedule for any work in the Delaware River. NPS received a
response to the preliminary alternatives newsletter from NOAA Fisheries
on July 22, 2010. The letter noted that while a population of an
endangered species could be found in the Delaware River, the population
was downstream of the study area. NOAA Fisheries stated that as no
listed species were found in the study area, further section 7
consultation will not be required. On January 31, 2012, the NPS
received a
[[Page 63871]]
letter from NOAA Fisheries indicating that NOAA had reviewed the draft
EIS. The letter contained specific comments regarding the presence of
the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon, federal candidate species
Atlantic sturgeon, and the American shad within the study area during
some periods of the year. However, NOAA Fisheries concluded that the
detailed discussion of impacts to the river were discussed adequately
in the draft EIS, and that no consultation will be required as part of
the federal permit process. The letter recommended the use of BMPs to
minimize turbidity and other water quality impacts. These letters can
be found in appendix I of the final EIS. After initial engagement of
USFWS with a consultation letter, USFWS sent an initial response letter
on June 11, 2010, regarding the project. The letter noted that the
federally listed Indiana bat and bog turtle could be affected by the
permit if specific permit conditions were not met. Migratory birds were
also addressed, and USFWS provided recommendations on the draft Avian
Protection Plan provided by PSE&G. Recommendations for all species
included seasonal restrictions, mitigation measures, and additional
surveys. NPS received a response to the preliminary alternatives
newsletter from USFWS on September 3, 2010, and an additional response
on October 21, 2010, with potential impacts of each alternative on
federally listed species and suggested recommendations regarding listed
species. In a letter dated January 10, 2011, NPS requested more
information from USFWS on any federally listed species within the
vicinity of the proposed alternatives within the park. The NPS sent a
letter to the USFWS on November 16, 2011, requesting comments on the
draft Biological Assessment and draft EIS for informal consultation.
The USFWS replied to the letter, indicating that the USFWS could not
provide advice on the need for formal consultation and noting that the
USFWS could not commit to completing consultation by May 2, 2012, as
requested. The letter from the USFWS provided some comments on impacts
and options on concluding consultation. Another letter received from
the USFWS on January 31, 2012, included comments on the draft EIS and
on impacts to the bog turtle, Indiana bat, bald eagle, and other
migratory birds. The draft Biological Assessment was sent to USFWS on
May 21, 2012. Comments were received and the final Biological
Assessment was sent to USFWS on June 29, 2012. In a letter dated July
6, 2012, USFWS concurred with the finding by NPS that the preferred
alternative was not likely to adversely affect endangered species on
NPS lands. These letters and the Final Biological Assessment can be
found in appendix I of the final EIS.
In a letter dated February 7, 2011, NPS invited USFWS to become a
cooperating agency for this EIS. On March 14, 2011, USFWS responded and
agreed to become a cooperating agency, pending a formal Interagency
Agreement, and on April 1, 2011, NPS sent a request to USFWS to
formalize the Interagency Agreement. The agreement was signed on
December 5, 2011.
Conclusion
The above factors and considerations warrant implementing
alternative 2 as described and analyzed in the final EIS for
Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, and Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational
River and this Record of Decision. All practical means to avoid and
minimize environmental harm from implementation of the selected
alternative have been incorporated, as described in the final EIS and
this Record of Decision. The alternative selected for implementation
will not impair park resources or values and will allow the NPS to
preserve park resources and provide for their enjoyment by future
generations. This Record of Decision is not the final agency action for
those elements of the decision that require the issuance of a permit or
additional ROW. Final agency action to implement this decision will
occur when a permit and ROWs incorporating these terms are completed
and issued to the applicants.
Record of Decision Attachments
The Record of Decision contains two attachments: A Non-Impairment
Determination and the Final Statement of Findings. These attachments
are available on the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment
System (PEPC). The links to these attachments are provided below.
Attachment A: Non-Impairment Determination
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=220&projectID=25147&documentID=49997
Attachment B: Final Wetland and Floodplain Statement of Findings
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=220&projectID=25147&documentID=49997
Dated: October 2, 2012.
Dennis R. Reidenbach,
Regional Director, Northeast Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-25457 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-JG-P