Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63856-63871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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

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, (http://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
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=220&projectID=25147&documentID=49997
Attachment B: Final Wetland and Floodplain Statement of Findings
http://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