58966 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Notices

Windham and Bennington Counties,

Vermont, and Franklin and Berkshire

Counties, Massachusetts; and (6) Bear

Swamp: Deerfield River in Franklin and

Berkshire Counties, Massachusetts.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contacts:

Mr. Stanford L. Hartman, U.S.

Generating Company, 7500 Old

Georgetown Road, Bethesda, MD

20814, (301) 718–6816

Mr. Mark E. Slade, New England Power

Company, 25 Research Drive,

Westborough, MA 01582, (508) 389–

2859.

i. FERC Contact: James Hunter, (202)

219–2839.

j. Comment Date: December 8, 1997.

k. Description of Transfer: Transfer of

the licenses for these projects to USGen

New England, Inc. is being sought in

connection with the divestiture by New

England Power Company of

substantially all its generation

resources.

1. This notice also consists of the

following standard paragraphs: B, C1,

and D2.

B. Comments, Protests, or Motions to

Intervene—Anyone may submit

comments, a protest, or a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.

In determining the appropriate action to

take, the Commission will consider all

protests or other comments filed, but

only those who file a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

Commission’s Rules may become a

party to the proceeding. Any comments,

protests, or motions to intervene must

be received on or before the specified

comment date for the particular

application.

C1. Filing and Service of Responsive

Documents—Any filings must bear in

all capital letters the title

‘‘COMMENTS’’ ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS’’,

‘‘PROTESTS’’, OR ‘‘MOTION TO

INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the

Project Number of the particular

application to which the filing refers.

Any of the above-named documents

must be filed by providing the original

and the number of copies provided by

the Commission’s regulations to: The

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426. A copy of any

motion to intervene must also be served

upon each representative of the

Applicant specified in the particular

application.

D2. Agency Comments—Federal,

state, and local agencies are invited to

file comment on the described

application. A copy of the application

may be obtained by agencies directly

from the Applicant. If an agency does

not file comments within the time

specified for filing comments, it will be

presumed to have no comments. One

copy of an agency’s comments must also

be sent to the Applicant’s

representatives.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–28844 Filed 10–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration

Record of Decision for the Navajo

Transmission Project (DOE/EIS–0231)

AGENCY: Western Area Power

Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

SUMMARY: Based upon the analysis and

information contained in the Navajo

Transmission Project (NTP) Draft and

Final Environmental Impact Statements

(EIS), the Department of Energy (DOE),

Western Area Power Administration

(Western), has decided that should the

NTP be built, it should follow the

preferred alternative described in the

NTP Final EIS. This is the alternative

identified in the EIS documents as the

Kaibito 1 (K1) for the eastern half of the

project area, and the Northern 1 West

(N1W) for the western half. The K1 lies

between the Shiprock Substation and

either the Red Mesa, Copper Mine, or

Moenkopi Substation sites. It parallels

the existing Western 230-kilovolt (kV)

Shiprock-to-Glen Canyon and 345-kV

Glen Canyon-to-Pinnacle Peak

transmission lines for most of its route.

The N1W lies between the Moenkopi

and Marketplace Substation sites and

parallels an existing 500-kV

transmission line for most of its route.

In making this decision, Western

evaluated: (1) alternatives to the

proposed project, and (2) alternatives

that cover the reasonable range of

options for siting and constructing a

500-kV transmission line. Western

released the NTP Draft EIS in September

1996. The Notice of Availability for the

Final EIS was published on August 8,

1997. This Record of Decision is

pursuant to the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations (40

CFR Parts 1500–1508), which

implement the procedural provisions of

the National Environmental Policy Act,

and DOE’s regulations (10 CFR Part

1021).

DATES: This decision will become

effective October 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Nicholas Chevance, NTP EIS Project

Manager, Corporate Services Office,

Western Area Power Administration,

1627 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO

80123–3398, (303) 275–1713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Dine ́ Power Authority (DPA), an

enterprise of the Navajo Nation,

requested assistance from Western in

1993 in planning for the construction,

operation, and maintenance of a 500-kV

transmission line from the Four Corners

area in northwestern New Mexico across

northern Arizona to a terminus in

southern Nevada. As a Federal power

marketing agency, Western is

responsible for marketing and

transmitting power from Federal power

projects in the region. Since the 1960’s,

Western and its predecessor agency, the

Bureau of Reclamation, have been

assisting the Navajo Nation in meeting

its energy needs through firm-energy

agreements with the Navajo Tribal

Utility Authority, a Navajo Nation

enterprise providing utility services and

various energy related projects. Western

has provided technical assistance to

DPA with the NTP, invested funds in

the project, administered DOE grants to

DPA for the project, and anticipates

owning a portion of the NTP capacity

commensurate with its final pro rata

investment in the project.

The DPA proposal was developed in

response to needs of the electric

industry and of the Navajo Nation.

These include the following:

• Relieve the constraints on the

transmission of electricity west of the

Four Corners area.

• Improve the operational flexibility

and reliability of the extra-high-voltage

transmission system in the region.

• Allow increased economical power

transfers, sales, and purchases in the

region.

• Improve economic conditions of the

Navajo Nation.

• Facilitate the development of

Navajo Nation energy resources and its

participation in the electrical utility

industry.

Western agreed to assist DPA in this

endeavor by participating as the lead

Federal agency for the preparation of the

EIS. Federal involvement was provided

because of the need to acquire rights-ofway across public lands, construction of

the project could benefit Western and

Western’s customers, and because DOE

supports the development of Native

American energy programs pursuant to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Notices 58967

Title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of

1992.

Development of Alternatives

The development of alternatives for

the NTP EIS first focused on alternatives

to the project proposed by DPA that

might meet their needs. Six alternatives

were developed: (1) achieve results

through energy conservation and

electric load management, (2) construct

new generation facilities, (3) utilize the

existing transmission system, (4) utilize

alternative transmission technologies

(different voltages, direct current versus

alternating current, underground

construction, and the use of new

technologies), (5) no action, and (6)

construct a new transmission line. The

first four alternatives (1, 2, 3, and 4)

were analyzed and found not to be

responsive to the purpose and need for

the project. While these would achieve

some of the needs addressed by the

proposal, none would satisfy all of

them. Western then conducted a

detailed analysis of the no action

alternative and the proposed action

alternative, which is to construct,

operate, and maintain the transmission

line. Western found that the no action

alternative would not meet the needs

addressed by the proposal.

For the proposed action alternative,

several general alternative corridors

(approximately 1,800 miles) were

identified through a regional

environmental feasibility study (June

1992) and introduced to agencies and

the public during the scoping process

for the EIS. This regional feasibility

study evaluated the most reasonable

means of placing a right-of-way corridor

from proposed starting point to end

point. It was assumed that to reduce

impacts to all resources and issues

associated with transmission line

construction, paralleling an existing

utility corridor was preferable.

Therefore, the majority of routes

explored in the environmental

feasibility study paralleled other power

lines, fiber optic cables and buried

pipelines wherever possible.

Scoping and public outreach

employed on this project were

extensive. A Notice of Intent to prepare

an EIS was published in the Federal

Register on July 13, 1993, that

announced the intent to conduct public

meetings. A total of 17 meetings were

held in the project area, in addition to

several letters, fact sheets, media

releases and notices posted on and off

the Navajo Nation. These resulted in

public input that led to the development

of five issues of concern, which were

addressed in the Draft EIS: (1) need for

the project, (2) benefits of the project, (3)

siting issues, (4) rights-of-way issues,

and (5) health and safety issues.

Also, a non-environmental factor, the

cost to construct, was tracked

throughout the analysis to make sure

that the environmental analysis was not

leading to a solution that could not be

accomplished. While this was not the

deciding factor, the cost of constructing

the project was monitored over the 4

years it has taken to reach a decision on

the project and was considered in the

determination of the final preferred

alternative.

Through scoping, some alternative

routes were eliminated and some were

added, resulting in approximately 2,200

miles of alternative routes studied in

detail for the EIS. The alternative routes

were then systematically analyzed

considering human, natural, and

cultural environmental factors

including, but not limited to, land use,

socioeconomics, visual/aesthetics

issues, human and animal health and

safety, air and water quality issues, soil

erodibility, and paleontological,

biological and cultural resources. This

analysis resulted in narrowing the

number of alternative routes addressed

in the EIS.

Description of Alternatives Evaluated

in Detail

Once the scoping process was

completed, resource inventories were

conducted for each of the alternative

routes to establish the baseline

information from which to evaluate

potential impacts. As inventory

information was collected, a process

was begun to sort this information and

make decisions about further

information needs. The

interdisciplinary teams ranked the

potential impacts for each alternative

route in terms of the resources that

might be impacted, the likely mitigation

measures that would be required, and

the residual impacts remaining after

mitigation. The team then made

decisions to eliminate routes with high

potential for impacts. The results were

then presented to the public during a set

of 20 meetings held throughout the

project area to obtain comments prior to

preparing the Draft EIS.

The alternative routes finally

addressed in the Draft EIS included four

alternative routes in the eastern portion

of the project area and six alternative

routes in the western portion. The

project area seemed naturally to split

into halves, with different concerns and

issues in the eastern portion than in the

western portion. In the east, of major

concern were those residual impacts

associated with Navajo and Hopi

traditional cultural places, and to a

lesser degree, impacts to land use

patterns, which is also related to

traditional land uses. In the west,

concerns centered around Hualapai

traditional cultural places and land use,

as well as visual impacts and impacts to

historic resources.

These alternative routes were chosen

for detailed analysis since they had

minimal resource impacts. Impacts on

visual resources could be mitigated to

some degree. Other impacts are

associated with Navajo and Hopi

traditional cultural places in the Marsh

Pass/Northern Black Mesa area, and to

Hualapai traditional cultural places in

the western portion of the project area.

Because of the sensitivity of these

resources, specific locations of these

resources were not known. Zones of

potential impacts were very general.

The direct impacts associated with the

environmentally preferred alternatives

on specific resource locations, when

known, can be lessened once

engineering on a final route is

completed.

The interdisciplinary team selected a

single route in each half of the project

area that avoided to the greatest degree

possible impacts on these resources.

The eastern alternative presented as the

environmentally preferred alternative,

the Kaibito 1 (K1) route, had the least

amount of potential impacts on visual

resources and Navajo and Hopi

traditional cultural places. However,

some impacts would result along a short

segment of the proposed route in areas

of new corridor (no existing

transmission line) near Red Mesa, Black

Mesa, Marsh Pass, and across the

Kaibito Plateau. The Northern 1 West

(N1W) route was chosen as the preferred

alternative in the western half of the

project area. Because of an issue

associated with where the proposed line

would cross the Colorado River, a

termination at Marketplace was

determined to be the least damaging.

Therefore, this alternative would have

no potential for significant impacts on

resources.

Decision Process

Following the release of the Draft EIS

in early October 1996, 44 public

hearings were held throughout the

project area, which included hearings

held at each of the 36 Navajo chapters

crossed by the alternative routes. Each

of these hearings was preceded by

public information meetings, where

information on the project was

presented and questions and comments

by the public could be addressed. In

addition, 13 written comments were

submitted by the public, and 20 letters

from the public and other agencies were
58968 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 1997 / Notices

received. This information was

summarized and addressed in the Final

EIS, released to the public on August 8,

1997.

The verbal comments could be

summarized into six issues of concern,

expressed mainly but not exclusively by

residents of the Navajo Nation. These

were: (1) concerns over the distribution

of project revenues to Navajo chapters,

(2) concerns about extending the local

electrical distribution system, (3)

concerns for health and safety, (4)

concerns over involving the public in

the project status, (5) concerns over the

acquisition of rights-of-way, and (6)

concerns for employment opportunities.

In addition, a few comments identified

other issues.

Each of the concerns expressed orally

or in writing was addressed in the Final

EIS, by providing a reference to a

previous discussion in the Draft EIS, by

expanding on those previous

discussions in the Final, and/or by

providing new information. A standard

answer was provided to each of the six

issues discussed above, rather than

respond individually to multiple

questions on the same issues. Only one

minor modification to the

environmentally preferred alternative in

the eastern half of the project area was

presented in the Final EIS. This was in

response to concerns expressed by the

public during and immediately

following the public meetings. Local

land users in the Dennehotso, Arizona

area expressed concerns over the

preferred alternative passing through

areas of dispersed but common use,

though the alternative would not impact

any residences directly. The route of the

alternative was modified slightly to

satisfy these concerns.

The Decision

Western has decided that should the

NTP be built, it should follow the

preferred alternative described in the

NTP Final EIS. The project would

satisfy the needs identified in the EIS:

it would relieve the constraints on the

transmission of electricity out of the

region; it would improve the flexibility

and reliability of the existing system; it

would allow the economical transfer,

sales, and purchases of power in the

region; and it would provide an

opportunity for the Navajo Nation to

improve economic conditions. Based

upon the information gathered

throughout the EIS process, Western

provided the public and the

decisionmaker with complete

information on the environmental

impacts associated with the project.

Western analyzed several alternatives to

the proposed action in terms of their

ability to satisfy the identified needs.

Western then analyzed many routing

alternatives in order to arrive at the least

environmentally damaging alternative

routes.

The following factors were taken into

account in arriving at the preferred

alternative: (1) environmental

acceptability, (2) siting and permitting

requirements that vary by land status

(i.e., Federal, state, tribal, and local), (3)

public and agency preferences,

especially those of the Cooperating

Agencies, (4) electrical system

considerations such as power flow and

the impacts on system interconnections,

(5) engineering factors leading to an

increase in costs, such as the length of

route, construction difficulty,

accessibility, extent of mitigation

required, and the extent of design

modifications needed for mitigation, (6)

rights-of-way acquisition

considerations, and (7) consideration of

the statutory obligations of the

permitting agencies.

In making this decision, Western

believes that all practicable means to

avoid or minimize significant impacts

have been presented in the NTP EIS in

the form of standard and specific

mitigation measures.

The Kaibab National Forest; Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Navajo and Phoenix Area

Offices; Bureau of Land Management,

Arizona State Office (representing the

state BLM offices in Arizona, Nevada,

and New Mexico); and the National Park

Service, Colorado Plateau Systems

Support Office, participated in the NTP

EIS as Cooperating Agencies. In

addition to the Federal agencies, the

Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and the

Navajo Nation participated as

Cooperating Agencies. These agencies

and tribes have decisions to make

concerning the granting of rights-of-way

for the alignment described in the EIS,

provided a Construction, Operation, and

Maintenance Plan for the construction

of the NTP, including a plan for all

necessary environmental mitigation, is

prepared and agreed upon by all parties.

Mitigation Action Plan

The Final EIS presents reasonable and

practicable mitigation measures to

reduce the severity of the impacts

associated with construction of the line.

The preferred action, given the analysis

process and the proposed mitigation,

will not have a significant impact on

environmental factors, with the

exception of the potential for impacts on

visual resources and Hopi, Hualapai,

and Navajo traditional cultural places as

discussed above. Western will issue a

Mitigation Action Plan (MAP), as

required by DOE NEPA implementing

procedures found at 10 CFR § 1021.331,

at a later date. The MAP will detail the

mitigation and monitoring required to

reduce impacts to less than significant.

Western’s final decision is contingent

upon the construction of the line

consistent with the requirements of the

MAP, and acceptance of the MAP by the

Cooperating Agencies.

Dated: October 23, 1997.

Michael S. Hacskaylo,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–28910 Filed 10–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER-FRL–5485–6]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 OR (202) 564–7153.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements

Filed October 20, 1997 Through October

24, 1997

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 970405, Draft EIS, COE, FL, C–

51 West End Flood Control Project,

Implementation To Improve the Level

of Flood Control, Central and

Southern Florida Project, Palm Beach

County, FL, Due: December 15, 1997,

Contact: Bill Porter (904) 232–2259.

EIS No. 970406, Final EIS, AFS, MT,

Lost Trail Ski Area Expansion Project,

Implementation, New Master

Development Plan, Bitterroot National

Forest, Sula Ranger District, Ravalli

County, MT, Due: December 01, 1997,

Contact: Gina Owens (406) 821–3201.

EIS No. 970407, Final EIS, FAA, HI,

Kahului Airport Master Plan

Improvements, Implementation,

Funding and Approval of Permits,

Kahului, Maui County, HI, Due:

December 01, 1997, Contact: David J.

Welhouse (808) 541–1243.

EIS No. 970408, Draft EIS, FHW, IL, IL–

315 Federal Aid Primary (FAP)/

(Illinois-336) Transportation Project,

Construction from FAP 315, IL 336

(Southeast of Carthage) to US 136

(Just West of Macomb), Funding, COE

404 Permit and NPDES Permit,

Hancock and McDonough Counties,

IL, Due: December 15, 1997, Contact:

Ronald Marshall (217) 492–4600.

EIS No. 970409, Draft EIS, BLM, OR,

Northeastern Oregon Assembled Land

Exchange Resource Management Plan

(RMP), Implementation, Site Specific,

John Day, Umatilla, Granda Ronde,

Power River Basins, Grant, Umatilla,