[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55595-55599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25254]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[OE Docket No 371]
Record of Decision for Issuing a Presidential Permit to Northern
Pass Transmission LLC for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project
AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S.
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to
issue a Presidential permit to Northern Pass Transmission LLC (Northern
Pass or Applicant) to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an
electric transmission line across the U.S./Canada international border
in northern New Hampshire. The potential environmental impacts
associated with the transmission line are analyzed in the Final
Northern Pass Transmission Line Project Environmental Impact Statement
(DOE/EIS-0463). The transmission line would cross the U.S./Canada
international border into Pittsburg, NH and extend approximately 192
miles to an existing substation located in Deerfield, NH.
ADDRESSES: The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and this
Record of Decision (ROD) are available on the DOE National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at https://energy.gov/nepa/and
the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project EIS Web site at http://www.northernpasseis.us/. The EIS Web site also includes a list of
libraries where the final EIS is available for review. Copies of the
final EIS and this ROD may be requested by contacting Mr. Brian Mills,
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585; phone 202-586-8267; email [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
Northern Pass Transmission Line Project EIS, contact Mr. Brian Mills as
indicated in the ADDRESSES section above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Executive Order (EO) 10485 (Sept. 3, 1953), as amended by EO 12038
(Feb. 3, 1978), delegates to DOE the authority to issue Presidential
permits for the construction, operation, maintenance, or connection of
electricity transmission facilities at the U.S. international borders.
DOE may issue a permit if it determines that the permit is in the
public interest and after obtaining favorable recommendations from the
U.S. Departments of State and Defense. In determining whether issuance
of a permit would be in the public interest, DOE assesses the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project, the potential impact of
the proposed project on electric reliability, and any other factors
that DOE considers relevant to the public interest. Issuance of a
Presidential permit is a Presidential action, carried out by DOE
pursuant to delegated Presidential authority. Accordingly, DOE has no
legal obligation to prepare an EIS when it considers a Presidential
permit application, since NEPA does not apply to acts of the President.
Nonetheless, DOE opts to comply with NEPA and other Federal statutes as
part of its ``public interest'' review of Presidential permit
applications, pursuant to DOE's long-standing Presidential permit
regulations.
On October 14, 2010, Northern Pass applied to the DOE for a
Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a high
voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission
[[Page 55596]]
line with a bidirectional 1,200-megawatt (MW) transfer rating across
the U.S./Canada international border. This application was amended in
July 2013 and August 2015. The August 2015 amendment represents DOE's
Preferred Alternative (proposed Northern Pass Project or proposed
Project). It includes burial of an additional 52 miles of the
transmission line over what was proposed in the original application, a
minor shift in the international border crossing location, two new
transition stations, a change in project size from 1,200 MW to 1,000 MW
with a potential transfer capacity of up to 1,090 MW, and other design
changes. The proposed Northern Pass Project would cross the
international border from Canada into the U.S. in Pittsburg, NH, and
extend approximately 158 miles, from the U.S. border to a new DC-to-
Alternating Current (AC) converter station to be constructed in
Franklin, NH. From Franklin, the 345-kV AC electric transmission line
would extend for approximately 34 miles to the proposed Project
terminus at an existing substation in Deerfield, NH. The proposed
Northern Pass Project would be constructed and owned by Northern Pass.
Portions of the proposed Project would cross the White Mountain
National Forest (WMNF), requiring a Special Use Permit (SUP) from the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The USFS issued a draft ROD in September
2017 related to the SUP. In order to construct the proposed Project,
Northern Pass is required to obtain a Certificate of Site and Facility
(Certificate) from the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee (NHSEC).
The NHSEC is responsible for evaluating, issuing and determining the
terms and conditions of any Certificate for an energy facility in NH.
The NHSEC is in the process of evaluating the proposed Northern Pass
Project.
As proposed, the Project would include both overhead and
underground line along with six aboveground transition stations, one
new converter station, and substation upgrades.
Consultation
Consistent with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, DOE has
consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the
potential impacts on federally listed threatened or endangered species
in the area of the proposed Northern Pass Project, and DOE has prepared
a Biological Assessment (BA). On April 14, 2017, DOE sent USFWS a
letter requesting initiation of formal Section 7 consultation under the
Endangered Species Act. DOE prepared a final BA and submitted it to
USFWS on June 16, 2017. The USFWS on October 19, 2017, submitted a
Biological Opinion (BO) to DOE which concluded formal consultation. In
the BO, USFWS concurred with DOE's determination that the proposed
Northern Pass Project ``may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the federally threatened small whorled pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and northern long-eared
bat (Myotis septentrionalis); and the federally endangered dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Indiana bat (Myotis
sodalist).'' DOE determined in the BA that the proposed Northern Pass
Project ``may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the Karner blue
butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis).'' In the BO, USFWS concluded
that ``the Project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Karner blue butterfly'' but likely will
result in incidental take of some Karner blue butterfly and, therefore,
included an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE is conditioning
its Presidential permit to require the Applicant to comply with all
requirements set forth by USFWS in the BO. The BA and the BO are
available on the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project EIS Web site
at https://www.northernpasseis.us/consultations/section-7/.
Consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA), DOE consulted with the New Hampshire and Vermont State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) regarding the potential adverse
effects to historic properties from the proposed Northern Pass Project.
This consultation is continuing in accordance with a Section 106
Programmatic Agreement (PA) executed between DOE, the New Hampshire and
Vermont SHPOs, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
Northern Pass. The PA is available on the Northern Pass Transmission
Line Project EIS Web site at https://www.northernpasseis.us/consultations/section106/. DOE is conditioning its Presidential permit
to require the Applicant to comply with the terms of the PA. The PA
includes processes for identifying National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP)-eligible historic properties, assessing effects of the proposed
Northern Pass Project on historic properties, and resolving any adverse
effects of the proposed Northern Pass Project on historic properties.
The PA requires Northern Pass to prepare a Historic Properties
Treatment Plan, which will establish specific treatment measures to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects.
NEPA Review
On February 11, 2011, DOE issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
Federal Register (76 FR 7828) to prepare an EIS for the Northern Pass
Project and conduct public scoping. Seven public scoping meetings were
held March 14 through 20, 2011. On September 6, 2013, DOE issued an
Amended NOI (78 FR 54876) in which DOE announced its intention to
modify the scope of the EIS (based on an amended application from the
Applicant), to conduct additional public scoping meetings, and to end
the previously indefinitely extended public scoping period. Four
additional public scoping meetings were held September 23 through 26,
2013. The scoping period closed on November 5, 2013. During the entire
scoping period, the DOE received 7,560 oral and written comments.
On July 31, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the draft EIS in the Federal
Register (80 FR 45652), which began a 90-day public comment period. On
September 30, 2015, following receipt of the August 2015 amended
application from Northern Pass, DOE issued an NOI to Prepare a
Supplement to the Draft Northern Pass EIS (80 FR 58725), and extended
the public comment period to December 31, 2015. EPA issued the NOA for
the supplement to the draft EIS (80 FR 72719) on November 20, 2015. DOE
ultimately extended the public comment period for the draft EIS and the
supplement to the draft EIS through April 4, 2016 (81 FR 5995). DOE
held four public hearings on the draft EIS and the supplement to the
draft EIS March 7 through 11, 2016. DOE received 1,037 comments on the
draft EIS and the supplement to the draft EIS. The comments raised
concerns related to the following aspects of the draft EIS and
supplement to the draft EIS, among others: purpose and need statement,
project objectives, alternatives, visual resources, socioeconomics,
historic and cultural resources and the Section 106 process, water
resources, and the NEPA process. See Section 1.5.4.1 of the final EIS
for additional information regarding these comments. DOE considered all
comments received on the draft EIS and the supplement to the draft EIS
in the preparation of the final EIS, including those received after the
close of the public comment period. Comment letters and detailed
responses are included in Appendix L of the final EIS. EPA issued a NOA
for the final EIS on August 18, 2017 (82 FR 39424).
[[Page 55597]]
The DOE invited several federal and state agencies to participate
in the preparation of the draft and final EIS as cooperating agencies
because of their special expertise or jurisdiction by law. The USFS--
WMNF, EPA--Region 1, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)--New
England Region, and the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning
(NHOEP) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the
EIS. The WMNF Forest Supervisor will use the EIS to inform its decision
regarding the SUP. In September 2017, the WMNF Forest Supervisor issued
a draft ROD related to the SUP.
Alternatives Considered
In the EIS, DOE analyzed the No Action Alternative, the Proposed
Action, and ten additional action alternatives. Under the No Action
Alternative, DOE would not issue a Presidential permit and the USFS
would not issue a SUP for the proposed Project, the proposed
transmission system would not be constructed, and the potential impacts
from the proposed Project would not occur. Under the Proposed Action of
granting the Presidential permit (DOE's Preferred Alternative,
Alternative 7), the transmission line would cross the U.S./Canada
international border in Pittsburg, NH and extend approximately 192
miles to an existing substation located in Deerfield, NH. The ten
additional action alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 6, with
variations) involve variations in route and total length, including
varying lengths of overhead and underground line and are described in
detail in Chapter 2 of the final EIS.
DOE's Presidential permitting authority is limited to the
international border crossing; however, it is DOE's policy to analyze
not only the border crossing, but also the alignment of new
infrastructure required between the border crossing and connection to
the existing U.S. electricity system as a ``connected action'' under
NEPA. The EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated
with the Applicant's proposed route (Alternative 7) and ten alternative
routes that were proposed by the Applicant, agencies and the public
during scoping and development of the EIS.
Analysis of Potential Environmental Impacts
The EIS analyzed potential environmental impacts associated with
the alternatives for each of the following resource areas: visual
resources, socioeconomics, recreation, health and safety, traffic and
transportation, land use, noise, historic and cultural resources,
environmental justice, air quality, wildlife, vegetation, water
resources, geology and soils, and cumulative impacts. Chapter 4 of the
final EIS contains the analysis of the potential environmental impacts
of the alternatives. Analysis of the impacts assumed the implementation
of Applicant-proposed impact avoidance and minimization measures
contained in Appendix H of the final EIS.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
DOE prepared this Floodplain Statement of Findings in accordance
with DOE's regulations, entitled ``Compliance with Floodplain and
Wetland Environmental Review Requirements'' (10 CFR part 1022). The
Floodplain Statement of Findings addresses the proposed Northern Pass
Project that would cross the U.S./Canada international border into
Pittsburg, NH and extend approximately 192 miles to an existing
substation located in Deerfield, NH. As described above and in Chapter
2 of the EIS, DOE analyzed the proposed Project as well as the No
Action Alternative and ten action alternatives. Appendix A of the final
EIS contains maps of the proposed Northern Pass Project, and Appendix A
of the Water Resources Technical Report contains maps of the proposed
Northern Pass Project, including watershed, surface water and wetlands
locations. The required floodplain and wetland assessment was conducted
during development and preparation of the EIS (see Sections 4.1.13,
4.2.13, 4.3.13, 4.4.13 and 4.5.13 of the final EIS and the final EIS'
Water Resources Technical Report). Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) data were used to determine the influence of flood zones.
According to the Water Resources Technical Report, construction and
operation activities (e.g. trenchless installation, structure
construction, converter/transition substations, access roads, clearing
activities, etc.) associated with the proposed Northern Pass Project
would potentially affect approximately 1,449 acres of floodplains,
resulting in increased erosion and sedimentation. The majority of the
effected acres would be in the 500-year floodplain, rather than the
100-year floodplain. Each of the action alternatives analyzed in the
FEIS would involve disturbance of floodplains; given the nature of the
proposed Project and its geographic expanse, disturbance of floodplains
was found to be unavoidable. However, DOE determined that the potential
harm to floodplains from the proposed Project will be avoided or
minimized by implementing the Applicant-Proposed Measures listed in
Appendix H of the final EIS and Appendix B of the Water Resources
Technical Report. These measures include: Minimizing impacts through
route selection, siting and design, complying with permit requirements
and EO 11988 for Floodplain Management, implementing best management
practices, installing erosion and sediment controls prior to
construction, and ensuring that construction within the White Mountain
National Forest will be carried out consistent with the Forest Plan.
The Water Resources Technical Report concluded that by complying with
New Hampshire best management practices, adverse impacts to floodplains
would be minimized and be indirect, localized, short-term and minor.
DOE has determined that the project would comply with applicable
floodplain protection standards.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in
changes to the existing condition in the above-listed resource areas
and is, therefore, the environmentally preferable alternative.
Comments Received on the Final EIS
Comments on the final EIS were received from the EPA, the
Appalachian Mountain Club, the Pessamit lnnu First Nation, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Hydro Quebec, the
Conservation Law Foundation, and one individual. These comments may be
viewed on the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project EIS Web site at
http://www.northernpasseis.us/. DOE considered all comments received on
the final EIS and concluded that those comments do not identify a need
for further NEPA analysis. The Appendix to this ROD summarizes DOE's
consideration of those comments.
Decision
DOE has decided to issue Presidential permit PP-371 to authorize
Northern Pass to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a HVDC
transmission line capable of transmitting up to 1,090 MW of power
across the U.S./Canada international border in Pittsburg, NH at
Latitude 45.017719 N, Longitude -71.500028 W. The permit will include
conditions requiring Northern Pass to implement the impact avoidance
and minimization measures identified in the final EIS, the requirements
set forth by USFWS in the BO, and the terms of the PA.
[[Page 55598]]
Basis for Decision
DOE determined that issuance of a Presidential permit for the
proposed Northern Pass Project is consistent with the public interest.
The decision by DOE to grant a Presidential permit is based on
consideration of the potential environmental impacts, impacts on the
reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system, and the favorable
recommendations of the U.S. Departments of State and Defense provided,
respectively, on May 24 and June 27 of 2016.
Notwithstanding DOE's analysis of alternatives in the final EIS,
DOE does not have siting or alignment authority for projects proposed
in applications for Presidential permits. In this case, the siting
authority is the NHSEC. DOE has evaluated the Preferred and reasonable
alternatives and has determined that the Preferred Alternative meets
the project objectives and is consistent with the project being
reviewed by the NHSEC.
DOE determined that the proposed international electric
transmission line would not have an adverse impact on the reliability
of the U.S. electric power supply system. In reaching this
determination, DOE considered the operation of the electrical grid with
a specified maximum amount of electric power transmitted over the
proposed line. DOE reviewed the reliability studies conducted by RLC
Engineering for Independent System Operator (ISO) New England (ISO-NE).
A summary of the study is available on the EIS Web site at http://www.northernpasseis.us. DOE also considered ISO-NE's interconnection
standards and its restrictions on any requested transmission service to
and from the proposed interconnection.
Mitigation
All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from
the proposed Northern Pass Project have been, or will be, adopted.
Applicant-proposed measures to avoid and minimize adverse impacts are
described in Appendix H of the final EIS and Appendix B of the Water
Resources Technical Report. The Applicant will be responsible for
implementing these avoidance and minimization measures as well as
applicable measures required through ongoing consultations and other
Federal, State and local permitting processes.
Issued in Washington, DC on November 16, 2017.
Catherine Jereza,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Transmission Permitting and Technical
Assistance Division, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability.
Appendix: Comments Received on the Final EIS
DOE received seven comment documents on the final EIS--from the
Appalachian Mountain Club, the EPA, Pessamit Innu First Nation, Hydro-
Quebec, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the
Conservation Law Foundation, and one individual. These comment
documents may be viewed on the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project
EIS Web site at http://www.northernpasseis.us/. DOE considered all
comments contained in these comment documents. The comments address a
variety of topics; however, many of the comments reiterated issues
already raised during the comment period for the draft EIS and
supplement to the draft EIS. All prior comments submitted on the draft
EIS and supplement to the draft EIS and DOE responses to those comments
have been published in the final EIS, Appendix L, Comment Response
Document, and are not being revisited in the ROD.
Appalachian Mountain Club
Appalachian Mountain Club stated that ``NH DOT has determined that
burial under the roadway is contrary to their policy and burial would
need to take place outside of the road surface.'' DOE reviewed the
NHSEC session cited by Appalachian Mountain Club but did not find a
conclusion by NHDOT. Burial in the roadway and necessary authorizations
was addressed in the final EIS. The final EIS explained that ``[t]he
Applicant would be required to secure an authorization in order to
construct the Project within any roadway corridor . . . Areas of the
Project located within a NHDOT ROW would be reviewed by NHDOT and are
also subject to the provisions of the NHDOT Utility Accommodation
Manual.'' (Section 4.1.6.1 of final EIS.) Also, for ``portions of the
Project located underground adjacent to or beneath state and federal
highways, the Applicant would be required to comply with direction
outlined in the NHDOT Utility Accommodation Manual. Required permits
and authorizations would not be acquired through this EIS process, but
rather through a separate, subsequent process'' (Section 1.7.3.2). In
addition, the final EIS analyzed potential impacts not only within the
roadway, but in adjacent areas. For example, for assessing potential
impacts on historic and cultural resources, DOE defined a direct area
of potential affects for Alternative 7 (Proposed Action/Preferred
Alternative) as a ``20-foot-wide area extending away from the edge of
pavement on both sides of existing roads in which portions of the
Project may be buried'' (Table 3-7 of final EIS).
Environmental Protection Agency
In commenting on potential impacts to bedrock aquifers, EPA said
``the updated [Water Resources technical] report fails to capture
potential impacts to bedrock aquifers,'' and referenced statements in
the technical report such as ``No bedrock aquifers are within the study
area.'' EPA said such statements ``do not appear to comport'' with
other information in that technical report and general knowledge of New
Hampshire aquifers.
In response to EPA's comment that the Water Resources Technical
Report includes statements such as ``[n]o bedrock aquifers are within
the study area,'' DOE clarifies that this conclusion applies to
particular segments of the route alternatives, as delineated in the
technical report. In total, DOE identified less than 1 acre of bedrock
aquifer in the study area for all of the route alternatives assessed in
the Water Resources Technical Report. For example, DOE identified
approximately 0.1 acres of bedrock aquifer in the study area for
Alternative 7 (DOE's Preferred Alternative) (0.1 acres in the Central
section). DOE also explained in the technical report that ``once more
detailed plans are in place, a coordinated effort with the NHDES, local
communities, and well owners would need to occur to verify the location
of nearby wells and ensure that they are protected during construction
of the Project.'' The technical report describes the process for
reviewing well data including that a ``GIS-based review of data
supplied by NH GRANIT was completed to identify locations of private
water supply wells along the existing transmission line ROW. This data
layer identifies private wells established for a variety of uses,
including drinking water, industrial, agricultural, and commercial,
among others.''
In commenting on protection of drinking water in the study area,
EPA said ``[t]he FEIS response to EPA's comments does not indicate
whether the Public Drinking Water Suppliers for these communities were
notified about the proximity of the project to their public supply
wells. Also, there do not appear to be any applicant proposed
[[Page 55599]]
measures (APMs) that apply directly to groundwater or any that apply
specifically to drinking water or drinking water protection areas. We
recommend the DOE condition the Record of Decision (Presidential
permit) to require the Applicant to avoid or minimize impacts to these
resources, including specific steps for contacting well owners (both
private and public), conducting water quality testing, and monitoring
for impacts to well yield in areas near blasting and HDD. These steps
would represent practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental
harm from the project.'' The Water Resources Technical Report (Section
3) of the final EIS acknowledges the potential impacts of blasting on
groundwater, including on wells. The report states that blasting
``could temporarily increase turbidity in groundwater wells and
infiltration of material spills or leaks near the blast zone.'' DOE
believes that the issues raised by EPA have been addressed in the
mitigation measures incorporated in the final EIS. The Water Resources
Technical Report (Section 3) goes on to state that ``BMPs would be
implemented to prevent the contamination of groundwater and to identify
private and public water supply wells in advance.'' In addition, the
APMs listed in Table H-1 of Appendix H (noise), include the following
measures, ``[f]or any required project blasting activities, a blasting
plan will be developed that addresses, among other things, . . . pre-
blast surveys, notification protocols, and safety analysis. Blasting in
any sensitive areas will be coordinated with the community and
addressed in the construction planning phase.'' Should the project be
approved, specific standards and methods required by the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services would be established during the
subsequent state permitting process.
Regarding wetland issues, EPA commented that ``the FEIS does not
analyze the viability of the hybrid alternative and additional
narrative comparing the hybrid with the other alternatives would have
made the EIS more valuable for future state and federal permitting.
Regardless, the information provided will help focus the upcoming
analysis of project design alternatives and determination of the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative by the Corps of
Engineers. EPA intends to continue to work closely with the applicant
and the Corps of Engineers regarding project routing, impact
minimization throughout the balance of the design and permitting
process for the project.'' DOE thanks EPA for its commitment to work
with the applicant and the Corps regarding project routing and impact
minimization.
Pessamit Innu First Nation and Hydro-Quebec
In an August 30, 2017 letter, the Pessamit Innu First Nation
provided information about its past experiences with Hydro-Quebec and
ongoing concerns related to Hydro-Quebec's operations including planned
modifications, operational changes, Canadian environmental review and
potential effects on the Pessamit Innu First Nation and its territory.
Hydro-Quebec submitted a letter to DOE on October 11, 2017 in which it
responded to points raised in the letter from the Pessamit Innu First
Nation. DOE acknowledges the differing viewpoints of the commenters.
However, the issues raised relate to impacts and processes in Canada.
As DOE explained in its response to similar comments in Appendix L of
the final EIS, potential impacts in Canada are beyond the scope of the
NEPA analysis, and ``NEPA does not require an analysis of potential
environmental impacts that occur within another sovereign nation that
result from actions approved by that sovereign nation.'' As the final
EIS noted, DOE does not analyze the impacts in Canada of Hydro-
Qu[eacute]bec power generation and transmission line projects because
these impacts are analyzed in accordance with the sovereign laws of
Canada and because DOE (nor any other U.S. federal agency) has no
authority over development of the Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec system.''
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
In its September 22, 2017 letter to DOE, the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) provided recommended
conditions that ``represent NHDES' detailed technical comments relative
to the potential environmental impacts (and proposed mitigation
measures) related to this project.'' NHDES attached a March 1, 2017
letter and set of conditions it sent to the NHSEC and characterized
them as ``conditions . . . that are to be incorporated into the
decison-making process by the NHSEC during it upcoming deliberations.''
DOE has reviewed the recommended conditions provided by NHDES. DOE
notes that Appendix H (Applicant-Proposed Impact Avoidance and
Minimization Measures) of the final EIS references the March 2017 NHDES
conditions. Specifically, Appendix H states ``this analysis assumes
that the Applicant will adhere to all stipulations defined in all
permits issued by the State of New Hampshire, including those defined
by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services in their
March 2017 approval recommendation to the SEC (NHDES 2017a).''
[FR Doc. 2017-25254 Filed 11-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P