Record of Decision for Issuing a Presidential Permit to Northern Pass Transmission LLC for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project, 55595-55599 [2017-25254]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55595-55599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25254]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[OE Docket No 371]


Record of Decision for Issuing a Presidential Permit to Northern 
Pass Transmission LLC for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to 
issue a Presidential permit to Northern Pass Transmission LLC (Northern 
Pass or Applicant) to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an 
electric transmission line across the U.S./Canada international border 
in northern New Hampshire. The potential environmental impacts 
associated with the transmission line are analyzed in the Final 
Northern Pass Transmission Line Project Environmental Impact Statement 
(DOE/EIS-0463). The transmission line would cross the U.S./Canada 
international border into Pittsburg, NH and extend approximately 192 
miles to an existing substation located in Deerfield, NH.

ADDRESSES: The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and this 
Record of Decision (ROD) are available on the DOE National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at https://energy.gov/nepa/and 
the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project EIS Web site at https://www.northernpasseis.us/. The EIS Web site also includes a list of 
libraries where the final EIS is available for review. Copies of the 
final EIS and this ROD may be requested by contacting Mr. Brian Mills, 
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585; phone 202-586-8267; email Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
Northern Pass Transmission Line Project EIS, contact Mr. Brian Mills as 
indicated in the ADDRESSES section above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Executive Order (EO) 10485 (Sept. 3, 1953), as amended by EO 12038 
(Feb. 3, 1978), delegates to DOE the authority to issue Presidential 
permits for the construction, operation, maintenance, or connection of 
electricity transmission facilities at the U.S. international borders. 
DOE may issue a permit if it determines that the permit is in the 
public interest and after obtaining favorable recommendations from the 
U.S. Departments of State and Defense. In determining whether issuance 
of a permit would be in the public interest, DOE assesses the potential 
environmental impacts of the proposed project, the potential impact of 
the proposed project on electric reliability, and any other factors 
that DOE considers relevant to the public interest. Issuance of a 
Presidential permit is a Presidential action, carried out by DOE 
pursuant to delegated Presidential authority. Accordingly, DOE has no 
legal obligation to prepare an EIS when it considers a Presidential 
permit application, since NEPA does not apply to acts of the President. 
Nonetheless, DOE opts to comply with NEPA and other Federal statutes as 
part of its ``public interest'' review of Presidential permit 
applications, pursuant to DOE's long-standing Presidential permit 
regulations.
    On October 14, 2010, Northern Pass applied to the DOE for a 
Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a high 
voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission

[[Page 55596]]

line with a bidirectional 1,200-megawatt (MW) transfer rating across 
the U.S./Canada international border. This application was amended in 
July 2013 and August 2015. The August 2015 amendment represents DOE's 
Preferred Alternative (proposed Northern Pass Project or proposed 
Project). It includes burial of an additional 52 miles of the 
transmission line over what was proposed in the original application, a 
minor shift in the international border crossing location, two new 
transition stations, a change in project size from 1,200 MW to 1,000 MW 
with a potential transfer capacity of up to 1,090 MW, and other design 
changes. The proposed Northern Pass Project would cross the 
international border from Canada into the U.S. in Pittsburg, NH, and 
extend approximately 158 miles, from the U.S. border to a new DC-to-
Alternating Current (AC) converter station to be constructed in 
Franklin, NH. From Franklin, the 345-kV AC electric transmission line 
would extend for approximately 34 miles to the proposed Project 
terminus at an existing substation in Deerfield, NH. The proposed 
Northern Pass Project would be constructed and owned by Northern Pass. 
Portions of the proposed Project would cross the White Mountain 
National Forest (WMNF), requiring a Special Use Permit (SUP) from the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The USFS issued a draft ROD in September 
2017 related to the SUP. In order to construct the proposed Project, 
Northern Pass is required to obtain a Certificate of Site and Facility 
(Certificate) from the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee (NHSEC). 
The NHSEC is responsible for evaluating, issuing and determining the 
terms and conditions of any Certificate for an energy facility in NH. 
The NHSEC is in the process of evaluating the proposed Northern Pass 
Project.
    As proposed, the Project would include both overhead and 
underground line along with six aboveground transition stations, one 
new converter station, and substation upgrades.

Consultation

    Consistent with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, DOE has 
consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the 
potential impacts on federally listed threatened or endangered species 
in the area of the proposed Northern Pass Project, and DOE has prepared 
a Biological Assessment (BA). On April 14, 2017, DOE sent USFWS a 
letter requesting initiation of formal Section 7 consultation under the 
Endangered Species Act. DOE prepared a final BA and submitted it to 
USFWS on June 16, 2017. The USFWS on October 19, 2017, submitted a 
Biological Opinion (BO) to DOE which concluded formal consultation. In 
the BO, USFWS concurred with DOE's determination that the proposed 
Northern Pass Project ``may affect, but is not likely to adversely 
affect the federally threatened small whorled pogonia (Isotria 
medeoloides), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and northern long-eared 
bat (Myotis septentrionalis); and the federally endangered dwarf 
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Indiana bat (Myotis 
sodalist).'' DOE determined in the BA that the proposed Northern Pass 
Project ``may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the Karner blue 
butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis).'' In the BO, USFWS concluded 
that ``the Project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the Karner blue butterfly'' but likely will 
result in incidental take of some Karner blue butterfly and, therefore, 
included an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE is conditioning 
its Presidential permit to require the Applicant to comply with all 
requirements set forth by USFWS in the BO. The BA and the BO are 
available on the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project EIS Web site 
at https://www.northernpasseis.us/consultations/section-7/.
    Consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 
Act (NHPA), DOE consulted with the New Hampshire and Vermont State 
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) regarding the potential adverse 
effects to historic properties from the proposed Northern Pass Project. 
This consultation is continuing in accordance with a Section 106 
Programmatic Agreement (PA) executed between DOE, the New Hampshire and 
Vermont SHPOs, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 
Northern Pass. The PA is available on the Northern Pass Transmission 
Line Project EIS Web site at https://www.northernpasseis.us/consultations/section106/. DOE is conditioning its Presidential permit 
to require the Applicant to comply with the terms of the PA. The PA 
includes processes for identifying National Register of Historic Places 
(NRHP)-eligible historic properties, assessing effects of the proposed 
Northern Pass Project on historic properties, and resolving any adverse 
effects of the proposed Northern Pass Project on historic properties. 
The PA requires Northern Pass to prepare a Historic Properties 
Treatment Plan, which will establish specific treatment measures to 
avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects.

NEPA Review

    On February 11, 2011, DOE issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the 
Federal Register (76 FR 7828) to prepare an EIS for the Northern Pass 
Project and conduct public scoping. Seven public scoping meetings were 
held March 14 through 20, 2011. On September 6, 2013, DOE issued an 
Amended NOI (78 FR 54876) in which DOE announced its intention to 
modify the scope of the EIS (based on an amended application from the 
Applicant), to conduct additional public scoping meetings, and to end 
the previously indefinitely extended public scoping period. Four 
additional public scoping meetings were held September 23 through 26, 
2013. The scoping period closed on November 5, 2013. During the entire 
scoping period, the DOE received 7,560 oral and written comments.
    On July 31, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued 
a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the draft EIS in the Federal 
Register (80 FR 45652), which began a 90-day public comment period. On 
September 30, 2015, following receipt of the August 2015 amended 
application from Northern Pass, DOE issued an NOI to Prepare a 
Supplement to the Draft Northern Pass EIS (80 FR 58725), and extended 
the public comment period to December 31, 2015. EPA issued the NOA for 
the supplement to the draft EIS (80 FR 72719) on November 20, 2015. DOE 
ultimately extended the public comment period for the draft EIS and the 
supplement to the draft EIS through April 4, 2016 (81 FR 5995). DOE 
held four public hearings on the draft EIS and the supplement to the 
draft EIS March 7 through 11, 2016. DOE received 1,037 comments on the 
draft EIS and the supplement to the draft EIS. The comments raised 
concerns related to the following aspects of the draft EIS and 
supplement to the draft EIS, among others: purpose and need statement, 
project objectives, alternatives, visual resources, socioeconomics, 
historic and cultural resources and the Section 106 process, water 
resources, and the NEPA process. See Section 1.5.4.1 of the final EIS 
for additional information regarding these comments. DOE considered all 
comments received on the draft EIS and the supplement to the draft EIS 
in the preparation of the final EIS, including those received after the 
close of the public comment period. Comment letters and detailed 
responses are included in Appendix L of the final EIS. EPA issued a NOA 
for the final EIS on August 18, 2017 (82 FR 39424).

[[Page 55597]]

    The DOE invited several federal and state agencies to participate 
in the preparation of the draft and final EIS as cooperating agencies 
because of their special expertise or jurisdiction by law. The USFS--
WMNF, EPA--Region 1, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)--New 
England Region, and the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning 
(NHOEP) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the 
EIS. The WMNF Forest Supervisor will use the EIS to inform its decision 
regarding the SUP. In September 2017, the WMNF Forest Supervisor issued 
a draft ROD related to the SUP.

Alternatives Considered

    In the EIS, DOE analyzed the No Action Alternative, the Proposed 
Action, and ten additional action alternatives. Under the No Action 
Alternative, DOE would not issue a Presidential permit and the USFS 
would not issue a SUP for the proposed Project, the proposed 
transmission system would not be constructed, and the potential impacts 
from the proposed Project would not occur. Under the Proposed Action of 
granting the Presidential permit (DOE's Preferred Alternative, 
Alternative 7), the transmission line would cross the U.S./Canada 
international border in Pittsburg, NH and extend approximately 192 
miles to an existing substation located in Deerfield, NH. The ten 
additional action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 6, with 
variations) involve variations in route and total length, including 
varying lengths of overhead and underground line and are described in 
detail in Chapter 2 of the final EIS.
    DOE's Presidential permitting authority is limited to the 
international border crossing; however, it is DOE's policy to analyze 
not only the border crossing, but also the alignment of new 
infrastructure required between the border crossing and connection to 
the existing U.S. electricity system as a ``connected action'' under 
NEPA. The EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated 
with the Applicant's proposed route (Alternative 7) and ten alternative 
routes that were proposed by the Applicant, agencies and the public 
during scoping and development of the EIS.

Analysis of Potential Environmental Impacts

    The EIS analyzed potential environmental impacts associated with 
the alternatives for each of the following resource areas: visual 
resources, socioeconomics, recreation, health and safety, traffic and 
transportation, land use, noise, historic and cultural resources, 
environmental justice, air quality, wildlife, vegetation, water 
resources, geology and soils, and cumulative impacts. Chapter 4 of the 
final EIS contains the analysis of the potential environmental impacts 
of the alternatives. Analysis of the impacts assumed the implementation 
of Applicant-proposed impact avoidance and minimization measures 
contained in Appendix H of the final EIS.

Floodplain Statement of Findings

    DOE prepared this Floodplain Statement of Findings in accordance 
with DOE's regulations, entitled ``Compliance with Floodplain and 
Wetland Environmental Review Requirements'' (10 CFR part 1022). The 
Floodplain Statement of Findings addresses the proposed Northern Pass 
Project that would cross the U.S./Canada international border into 
Pittsburg, NH and extend approximately 192 miles to an existing 
substation located in Deerfield, NH. As described above and in Chapter 
2 of the EIS, DOE analyzed the proposed Project as well as the No 
Action Alternative and ten action alternatives. Appendix A of the final 
EIS contains maps of the proposed Northern Pass Project, and Appendix A 
of the Water Resources Technical Report contains maps of the proposed 
Northern Pass Project, including watershed, surface water and wetlands 
locations. The required floodplain and wetland assessment was conducted 
during development and preparation of the EIS (see Sections 4.1.13, 
4.2.13, 4.3.13, 4.4.13 and 4.5.13 of the final EIS and the final EIS' 
Water Resources Technical Report). Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) data were used to determine the influence of flood zones. 
According to the Water Resources Technical Report, construction and 
operation activities (e.g. trenchless installation, structure 
construction, converter/transition substations, access roads, clearing 
activities, etc.) associated with the proposed Northern Pass Project 
would potentially affect approximately 1,449 acres of floodplains, 
resulting in increased erosion and sedimentation. The majority of the 
effected acres would be in the 500-year floodplain, rather than the 
100-year floodplain. Each of the action alternatives analyzed in the 
FEIS would involve disturbance of floodplains; given the nature of the 
proposed Project and its geographic expanse, disturbance of floodplains 
was found to be unavoidable. However, DOE determined that the potential 
harm to floodplains from the proposed Project will be avoided or 
minimized by implementing the Applicant-Proposed Measures listed in 
Appendix H of the final EIS and Appendix B of the Water Resources 
Technical Report. These measures include: Minimizing impacts through 
route selection, siting and design, complying with permit requirements 
and EO 11988 for Floodplain Management, implementing best management 
practices, installing erosion and sediment controls prior to 
construction, and ensuring that construction within the White Mountain 
National Forest will be carried out consistent with the Forest Plan. 
The Water Resources Technical Report concluded that by complying with 
New Hampshire best management practices, adverse impacts to floodplains 
would be minimized and be indirect, localized, short-term and minor. 
DOE has determined that the project would comply with applicable 
floodplain protection standards.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in 
changes to the existing condition in the above-listed resource areas 
and is, therefore, the environmentally preferable alternative.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    Comments on the final EIS were received from the EPA, the 
Appalachian Mountain Club, the Pessamit lnnu First Nation, New 
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Hydro Quebec, the 
Conservation Law Foundation, and one individual. These comments may be 
viewed on the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project EIS Web site at 
https://www.northernpasseis.us/. DOE considered all comments received on 
the final EIS and concluded that those comments do not identify a need 
for further NEPA analysis. The Appendix to this ROD summarizes DOE's 
consideration of those comments.

Decision

    DOE has decided to issue Presidential permit PP-371 to authorize 
Northern Pass to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a HVDC 
transmission line capable of transmitting up to 1,090 MW of power 
across the U.S./Canada international border in Pittsburg, NH at 
Latitude 45.017719 N, Longitude -71.500028 W. The permit will include 
conditions requiring Northern Pass to implement the impact avoidance 
and minimization measures identified in the final EIS, the requirements 
set forth by USFWS in the BO, and the terms of the PA.

[[Page 55598]]

Basis for Decision

    DOE determined that issuance of a Presidential permit for the 
proposed Northern Pass Project is consistent with the public interest. 
The decision by DOE to grant a Presidential permit is based on 
consideration of the potential environmental impacts, impacts on the 
reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system, and the favorable 
recommendations of the U.S. Departments of State and Defense provided, 
respectively, on May 24 and June 27 of 2016.
    Notwithstanding DOE's analysis of alternatives in the final EIS, 
DOE does not have siting or alignment authority for projects proposed 
in applications for Presidential permits. In this case, the siting 
authority is the NHSEC. DOE has evaluated the Preferred and reasonable 
alternatives and has determined that the Preferred Alternative meets 
the project objectives and is consistent with the project being 
reviewed by the NHSEC.
    DOE determined that the proposed international electric 
transmission line would not have an adverse impact on the reliability 
of the U.S. electric power supply system. In reaching this 
determination, DOE considered the operation of the electrical grid with 
a specified maximum amount of electric power transmitted over the 
proposed line. DOE reviewed the reliability studies conducted by RLC 
Engineering for Independent System Operator (ISO) New England (ISO-NE). 
A summary of the study is available on the EIS Web site at https://www.northernpasseis.us. DOE also considered ISO-NE's interconnection 
standards and its restrictions on any requested transmission service to 
and from the proposed interconnection.

Mitigation

    All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from 
the proposed Northern Pass Project have been, or will be, adopted. 
Applicant-proposed measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts are 
described in Appendix H of the final EIS and Appendix B of the Water 
Resources Technical Report. The Applicant will be responsible for 
implementing these avoidance and minimization measures as well as 
applicable measures required through ongoing consultations and other 
Federal, State and local permitting processes.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 16, 2017.
Catherine Jereza,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Transmission Permitting and Technical 
Assistance Division, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability.

Appendix: Comments Received on the Final EIS

    DOE received seven comment documents on the final EIS--from the 
Appalachian Mountain Club, the EPA, Pessamit Innu First Nation, Hydro-
Quebec, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the 
Conservation Law Foundation, and one individual. These comment 
documents may be viewed on the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project 
EIS Web site at https://www.northernpasseis.us/. DOE considered all 
comments contained in these comment documents. The comments address a 
variety of topics; however, many of the comments reiterated issues 
already raised during the comment period for the draft EIS and 
supplement to the draft EIS. All prior comments submitted on the draft 
EIS and supplement to the draft EIS and DOE responses to those comments 
have been published in the final EIS, Appendix L, Comment Response 
Document, and are not being revisited in the ROD.

Appalachian Mountain Club

    Appalachian Mountain Club stated that ``NH DOT has determined that 
burial under the roadway is contrary to their policy and burial would 
need to take place outside of the road surface.'' DOE reviewed the 
NHSEC session cited by Appalachian Mountain Club but did not find a 
conclusion by NHDOT. Burial in the roadway and necessary authorizations 
was addressed in the final EIS. The final EIS explained that ``[t]he 
Applicant would be required to secure an authorization in order to 
construct the Project within any roadway corridor . . . Areas of the 
Project located within a NHDOT ROW would be reviewed by NHDOT and are 
also subject to the provisions of the NHDOT Utility Accommodation 
Manual.'' (Section 4.1.6.1 of final EIS.) Also, for ``portions of the 
Project located underground adjacent to or beneath state and federal 
highways, the Applicant would be required to comply with direction 
outlined in the NHDOT Utility Accommodation Manual. Required permits 
and authorizations would not be acquired through this EIS process, but 
rather through a separate, subsequent process'' (Section 1.7.3.2). In 
addition, the final EIS analyzed potential impacts not only within the 
roadway, but in adjacent areas. For example, for assessing potential 
impacts on historic and cultural resources, DOE defined a direct area 
of potential affects for Alternative 7 (Proposed Action/Preferred 
Alternative) as a ``20-foot-wide area extending away from the edge of 
pavement on both sides of existing roads in which portions of the 
Project may be buried'' (Table 3-7 of final EIS).

Environmental Protection Agency

    In commenting on potential impacts to bedrock aquifers, EPA said 
``the updated [Water Resources technical] report fails to capture 
potential impacts to bedrock aquifers,'' and referenced statements in 
the technical report such as ``No bedrock aquifers are within the study 
area.'' EPA said such statements ``do not appear to comport'' with 
other information in that technical report and general knowledge of New 
Hampshire aquifers.
    In response to EPA's comment that the Water Resources Technical 
Report includes statements such as ``[n]o bedrock aquifers are within 
the study area,'' DOE clarifies that this conclusion applies to 
particular segments of the route alternatives, as delineated in the 
technical report. In total, DOE identified less than 1 acre of bedrock 
aquifer in the study area for all of the route alternatives assessed in 
the Water Resources Technical Report. For example, DOE identified 
approximately 0.1 acres of bedrock aquifer in the study area for 
Alternative 7 (DOE's Preferred Alternative) (0.1 acres in the Central 
section). DOE also explained in the technical report that ``once more 
detailed plans are in place, a coordinated effort with the NHDES, local 
communities, and well owners would need to occur to verify the location 
of nearby wells and ensure that they are protected during construction 
of the Project.'' The technical report describes the process for 
reviewing well data including that a ``GIS-based review of data 
supplied by NH GRANIT was completed to identify locations of private 
water supply wells along the existing transmission line ROW. This data 
layer identifies private wells established for a variety of uses, 
including drinking water, industrial, agricultural, and commercial, 
among others.''
    In commenting on protection of drinking water in the study area, 
EPA said ``[t]he FEIS response to EPA's comments does not indicate 
whether the Public Drinking Water Suppliers for these communities were 
notified about the proximity of the project to their public supply 
wells. Also, there do not appear to be any applicant proposed

[[Page 55599]]

measures (APMs) that apply directly to groundwater or any that apply 
specifically to drinking water or drinking water protection areas. We 
recommend the DOE condition the Record of Decision (Presidential 
permit) to require the Applicant to avoid or minimize impacts to these 
resources, including specific steps for contacting well owners (both 
private and public), conducting water quality testing, and monitoring 
for impacts to well yield in areas near blasting and HDD. These steps 
would represent practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental 
harm from the project.'' The Water Resources Technical Report (Section 
3) of the final EIS acknowledges the potential impacts of blasting on 
groundwater, including on wells. The report states that blasting 
``could temporarily increase turbidity in groundwater wells and 
infiltration of material spills or leaks near the blast zone.'' DOE 
believes that the issues raised by EPA have been addressed in the 
mitigation measures incorporated in the final EIS. The Water Resources 
Technical Report (Section 3) goes on to state that ``BMPs would be 
implemented to prevent the contamination of groundwater and to identify 
private and public water supply wells in advance.'' In addition, the 
APMs listed in Table H-1 of Appendix H (noise), include the following 
measures, ``[f]or any required project blasting activities, a blasting 
plan will be developed that addresses, among other things, . . . pre-
blast surveys, notification protocols, and safety analysis. Blasting in 
any sensitive areas will be coordinated with the community and 
addressed in the construction planning phase.'' Should the project be 
approved, specific standards and methods required by the New Hampshire 
Department of Environmental Services would be established during the 
subsequent state permitting process.
    Regarding wetland issues, EPA commented that ``the FEIS does not 
analyze the viability of the hybrid alternative and additional 
narrative comparing the hybrid with the other alternatives would have 
made the EIS more valuable for future state and federal permitting. 
Regardless, the information provided will help focus the upcoming 
analysis of project design alternatives and determination of the least 
environmentally damaging practicable alternative by the Corps of 
Engineers. EPA intends to continue to work closely with the applicant 
and the Corps of Engineers regarding project routing, impact 
minimization throughout the balance of the design and permitting 
process for the project.'' DOE thanks EPA for its commitment to work 
with the applicant and the Corps regarding project routing and impact 
minimization.

Pessamit Innu First Nation and Hydro-Quebec

    In an August 30, 2017 letter, the Pessamit Innu First Nation 
provided information about its past experiences with Hydro-Quebec and 
ongoing concerns related to Hydro-Quebec's operations including planned 
modifications, operational changes, Canadian environmental review and 
potential effects on the Pessamit Innu First Nation and its territory. 
Hydro-Quebec submitted a letter to DOE on October 11, 2017 in which it 
responded to points raised in the letter from the Pessamit Innu First 
Nation. DOE acknowledges the differing viewpoints of the commenters. 
However, the issues raised relate to impacts and processes in Canada. 
As DOE explained in its response to similar comments in Appendix L of 
the final EIS, potential impacts in Canada are beyond the scope of the 
NEPA analysis, and ``NEPA does not require an analysis of potential 
environmental impacts that occur within another sovereign nation that 
result from actions approved by that sovereign nation.'' As the final 
EIS noted, DOE does not analyze the impacts in Canada of Hydro-
Qu[eacute]bec power generation and transmission line projects because 
these impacts are analyzed in accordance with the sovereign laws of 
Canada and because DOE (nor any other U.S. federal agency) has no 
authority over development of the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec system.''

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

    In its September 22, 2017 letter to DOE, the New Hampshire 
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) provided recommended 
conditions that ``represent NHDES' detailed technical comments relative 
to the potential environmental impacts (and proposed mitigation 
measures) related to this project.'' NHDES attached a March 1, 2017 
letter and set of conditions it sent to the NHSEC and characterized 
them as ``conditions . . . that are to be incorporated into the 
decison-making process by the NHSEC during it upcoming deliberations.'' 
DOE has reviewed the recommended conditions provided by NHDES. DOE 
notes that Appendix H (Applicant-Proposed Impact Avoidance and 
Minimization Measures) of the final EIS references the March 2017 NHDES 
conditions. Specifically, Appendix H states ``this analysis assumes 
that the Applicant will adhere to all stipulations defined in all 
permits issued by the State of New Hampshire, including those defined 
by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services in their 
March 2017 approval recommendation to the SEC (NHDES 2017a).''

[FR Doc. 2017-25254 Filed 11-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P