```

[Federal Register: June 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 117)]
[Notices]               
[Page 34720-34724]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jn10-56]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[OE Docket No. PP-362]

 
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and 
To Conduct Public Scoping Meetings, and Notice of Floodplains and 
Wetlands Involvement; Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc.

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) and to conduct Public Scoping Meetings; Notice of Floodplains and 
Wetlands Involvement.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intention to 
prepare an EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), 
and the DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021) to assess 
the potential environmental impacts from its proposed Federal action of 
granting a Presidential permit to Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. 
(Champlain Hudson) to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a new 
electric transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border in 
northeastern New York State. The EIS, Champlain Hudson Power Express 
Transmission Line Project Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-
0447), will address potential environmental impacts from the proposed 
action and the range of reasonable alternatives.
    The purpose of this Notice of Intent (NOI) is to inform the public 
about the proposed action, announce plans to conduct seven public 
scoping meetings in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line, 
invite public participation in the scoping process, and solicit public 
comments for consideration in establishing the scope of the EIS. 
Because the proposed project may involve actions in floodplains and 
wetlands, in accordance with 10 CFR part 1022, Compliance with 
Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements, the draft EIS 
will include a floodplain and wetland assessment as appropriate, and 
the final EIS or record of decision will include a floodplain statement 
of findings.

[[Page 34721]]

DATES: DOE invites interested agencies, organizations, Native American 
tribes, and members of the public to submit comments to assist in 
identifying significant environmental issues and in determining the 
appropriate scope of the EIS. The public scoping period starts with the 
publication of this Notice in the Federal Register and will continue 
until August 2, 2010. Written and oral comments will be given equal 
weight, and DOE will consider all comments received or postmarked by 
August 2, 2010 in defining the scope of this EIS. Comments received or 
postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent 
practicable.
    Locations, dates, and start and end times for the public scoping 
meetings are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
NOI.
    Requests to speak at any one or more public scoping meeting(s) 
should be received by Dr. Jerry Pell at the address indicated below on 
or before July 6, 2010; requests received by that date will be given 
priority in the speaking order. However, requests to speak also may be 
made at the scoping meetings.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the scope of the EIS and requests to be added to 
the document mailing list should be addressed to: Dr. Jerry Pell, 
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585; by electronic mail to Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov; or by facsimile to 
202-318-7761. For general information on the DOE NEPA process contact: 
Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 
(GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585; by electronic mail at askNEPA@hq.doe.gov; or by 
facsimile at 202-586-7031.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jerry Pell at the addresses above, 
or at 202-586-3362. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, 
contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom at 202-586-4600, leave a message at 800-
472-2756, or at the addresses above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by 
E.O. 12038, requires that a Presidential permit be issued by DOE before 
electric transmission facilities may be constructed, operated, 
maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border. The E.O. 
provides that a Presidential permit may be issued after a finding that 
the proposed project is consistent with the public interest and after 
favorable recommendations from the U.S. Departments of State and 
Defense. In determining consistency with the public interest, DOE 
considers the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project 
under NEPA, determines the project's impact on electric reliability 
(including whether the proposed project would adversely affect the 
operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and 
contingency conditions), and considers any other factors that DOE may 
find relevant to the public interest. The regulations implementing the 
E.O. have been codified at 10 CFR parts 205.320-205.329. DOE's issuance 
of a Presidential permit indicates that there is no Federal objection 
to the project, but does not mandate that the project be undertaken.
    Champlain Hudson applied on January 27, 2010, to DOE's Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) for a Presidential 
permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 2,000-megawatt 
(MW) high-voltage direct current (HVDC) Voltage Source Converter (VSC) 
controllable transmission system from the Canadian Province of Quebec 
to the New York City and Southwestern Connecticut regions. After due 
consideration of the nature and extent of the proposed project, 
including evaluation of the ``Information Regarding Potential 
Environmental Impacts'' section of the Presidential permit application, 
DOE has determined that the appropriate level of NEPA review for this 
project is an EIS.
    The proposed Federal action is the granting of the Presidential 
permit and it is anticipated that the project could significantly 
affect the quality of the human environment. Because the proposed 
project may involve actions in floodplains and wetlands, in accordance 
with 10 CFR part 1022, Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland 
Environmental Review Requirements, the draft EIS will include a 
floodplain and wetland assessment as appropriate, and the final EIS or 
record of decision will include a floodplain statement of findings.
    DOE invites Tribal governments and Federal, state, and local 
agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to 
environmental issues to be cooperating agencies with respect to the 
EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.6. Cooperating agencies have certain 
responsibilities to support the NEPA process, as specified at 40 CFR 
1501.6(b). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (anticipated), the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, and the New York State 
Departments of Environmental Conservation and Public Service are 
cooperating agencies with respect to this EIS.
    In addition, Champlain Hudson applied to DOE on September 12, 2009, 
for a Federal loan guarantee for the proposed project in response to a 
DOE competitive solicitation, ``Federal Loan Guarantees for Electric 
Power Transmission Infrastructure Investment Projects,'' issued under 
section 1705, Title XVII, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). 
Section 406 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the 
``Recovery Act'') amended EPAct by adding section 1705. This section is 
designed to address the current economic conditions of the Nation, in 
part by facilitating the development of eligible renewable and 
transmission projects that commence construction no later than 
September 30, 2011. DOE is carrying out an evaluation of the 
application submitted by Champlain Hudson. Should DOE decide to enter 
into the negotiation of a possible loan guarantee with Champlain 
Hudson, DOE would use this EIS to meet its NEPA requirements in making 
a determination of funding.

Applicant's Proposal

    The applicant's proposed VSC controllable transmission system 
consists of two 1,000-MW HVDC bipoles. A bipole consists of two 
connected submarine or underground cables, one of which is positively 
charged, and the other negatively charged. In total, four cables would 
be laid between Quebec, Canada, and a proposed converter station in 
Yonkers, NY, where one bipole (two cables) would be terminated. The 
converter station would change the electrical power from direct current 
to alternating current. The remaining bipole (two cables) would 
continue to a proposed converter station in Bridgeport, CT. Champlain 
Hudson's proposed transmission line would connect renewable sources of 
power generation in Canada with load centers in and around the New York 
City and southwestern Connecticut regions.
    The project would originate at an HVDC converter station near 
Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec Trans[Eacute]nergie's 765/315-kilovolt (kV) Hertel 
substation, located southeast of Montreal, and extend approximately 35 
miles to the international border between the United States and Canada, 
crossing in Lake Champlain to the east of the Town of Champlain, NY. 
Four cables (two bipoles) would extend south under Lake Champlain for 
approximately 111 miles entirely within the jurisdictional waters of 
New York State. At the southern end of Lake Champlain, the cables would 
exit the

[[Page 34722]]

water just north of Lock C12 of the Champlain Canal (Canal) in the town 
of Whitehall, NY, and would be buried within an existing railroad 
right-of-way owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) for 1.7 miles. The 
cables would enter the Canal just south of Lock C12 and continue under 
the Canal for 5.6 miles to Comstock, NY, and then utilize another CP 
railroad right-of-way for 0.4 miles to circumvent Lock C11. The cables 
would re-enter the canal just south of Lock C11 and continue under the 
Canal for 8.9 miles toward Lock C9 in Kingsbury, NY (there is no Lock 
C10). North of Lock C9, the cables would exit the Canal and would be 
buried for 0.5 miles within land owned by the New York State Canal 
Corporation on the eastern shore of Lock C9. The HVDC cables would re-
enter the Canal just south of Lock C9 and continue under the Canal for 
2.7 miles toward Lock C8 in Fort Edward, NY.
    The Upper Hudson River portion of the Hudson River polychlorinated 
biphenyl (PCB) site (USEPA Identification Number NYD980763841) 
stretches from Hudson Falls, NY, to the Federal Dam at Troy, NY. To 
avoid installing and burying HVDC cables within this area, the proposed 
Project route would exit the Canal north of Lock C8 near Durham Basin, 
where an existing CP railroad right-of-way is located immediately 
adjacent to the west of the Canal. Upon exiting the canal, the four 
cables would be buried for approximately 46.1 miles within the CP 
railroad bypass route to the west of the Hudson River, traversing the 
municipalities of Moreau, Northumberland, Wilton, Greenfield, Saratoga 
Springs, Milton, Ballston, Clifton Park, Glenville, and Schenectady, 
NY. In the town of Rotterdam, NY, the buried route would transfer to 
the CSX Railroad (CSX) right-of-way and proceed south for approximately 
23.7 miles through the municipalities of Guilderland, New Scotland, 
Voorheesville, and Bethlehem. The proposed Project route would then 
exit the railroad right-of-way and enter the Hudson River at the town 
of Coeymans, NY (about 14 miles south of Albany). In general, when a 
railroad right-of-way intersects with a waterway, the applicant's 
preference would be to attach the cables to the bridge structure, 
particularly for longer crossings such as the bridge over the Mohawk 
River in Schenectady, NY. If the cables could not be attached to the 
bridge due to engineering concerns or owner preference, an option would 
be for the applicant to employ horizontal directional drilling to 
install high-density polyethylene (HDPE) casings for the cables to use 
under the waterway.
    Upon entering the Hudson River, the four cables would be buried for 
118 miles until they reach the City of Yonkers, NY. Two of the four 
HVDC cables (one bipole) would terminate at the proposed converter 
station located in Yonkers for a total length of approximately 319 
miles from the U.S. border with Canada to Yonkers, NY. The remaining 
two cables would continue for approximately 66 miles under the Hudson 
River, Spuyten Duyvil Creek, the Harlem River, and the East River into 
Long Island Sound before terminating at a converter station near 1 W 
Avenue in Bridgeport, CT, for at total length of approximately 384.4 
miles from the U.S. border with Canada to Bridgeport. This route is 
discussed below as being Route A, the applicant's preferred 
alternative.
    The Champlain Hudson Presidential permit application, including 
associated maps and drawings, can be viewed or downloaded in its 
entirety from the DOE program Web site at http://www.oe.energy.gov/permits_pending.htm (see PP-362), or on the project EIS Web site at 
http://CHPExpressEIS.org. Also available at these same locations is the 
March 5, 2010, Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Application (75 FR 
10229).

Agency Purpose and Need, Proposed Action, and Alternatives

    The DOE proposed Federal action is the granting of a Presidential 
permit to Champlain Hudson to construct, operate, maintain, and connect 
a new electric transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border in 
northeastern New York State. The EIS, Champlain Hudson Power Express 
Transmission Line Project Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-
0447), will address potential environmental impacts from the proposed 
action and the range of reasonable alternatives. The purpose and need 
for DOE's action is to decide whether to grant Champlain Hudson said 
Presidential permit. It should be noted, however, that although the 
potential environmental impacts are important, they are not the only 
criteria that form the basis for the final permitting decision. If 
granted, the Presidential permit would authorize only that portion of 
the line that would be constructed, operated, and maintained wholly 
within the United States.
    Three action alternatives (routes) for constructing the proposed 
transmission line inside the United States have been identified by the 
applicant, and they differ little in total length: 384.5 miles for 
Route A, 384.2 miles for Route B, and 385.7 miles for Route C. The 
lines differ, however, in the amount of the line that is submerged or 
buried underground. Route A, the Champlain Hudson preferred 
alternative, has approximately 72.4 miles buried underground. Route B 
has approximately 89.4 miles buried underground, and Route C has about 
68.0 miles buried underground. The remaining distances of all routes 
are submerged. Maps showing all three alternative routes may be found 
at  http://CHPExpressEIS.org/maps.
    All three routes cross the U.S.-Canada border in Lake Champlain at 
Rouses Point, NY (which is about five miles east of the Town of 
Champlain, NY), 35 miles from where they would begin southeast of 
Montreal, Canada. Route A, the applicant's preferred alternative, is 
described in detail above.
    The Route B alternative is the same as Route A, except that after 
exiting the water just north of Lock C12 of the Champlain Canal (Canal) 
in the town of Whitehall, NY, Route B would continue within an existing 
railroad right-of-way owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) for 19.5 
miles through the municipalities of Comstock, Fort Ann, and Kingsbury. 
Route B would overlap with Route A where Route A exits the Champlain 
Canal north of Lock C8 near Durham Basin.
    Route C is the same as Route A except for a 6.3 mile segment from 
north of Lock C8 near Durham Basin, where Route A exits the Champlain 
Canal (Canal) to travel south about 4.8 miles within the CP railroad 
right-of-way. At the point where Route A would exit the canal, Route C 
instead would continue under the Canal for 2.9 miles toward Lock C8 in 
Fort Edward, NY. North of Lock C8, the cables would exit the Canal and 
would be buried for 0.4 miles within land owned by the New York State 
Canal Corporation on the eastern shore of Lock C8. The HVDC cables 
would re-enter the Canal just south of Lock C8 and continue under the 
Canal for 2.1 miles towards Lock C7, also located in Fort Edward, NY. 
North of Lock C7, the cables would exit the eastern side of the canal 
and be buried for 0.2 miles within land owned by the New York State 
Canal Corporation before entering the Hudson River to the south of 
Rogers Island, where the Hudson River flows parallel to the Champlain 
Canal. The four cables would be buried under the Hudson River, and 
Route C would travel in a northern direction under the river to the 
west of Rogers Island for 0.7 miles before reaching the CP railroad 
bridge

[[Page 34723]]

that extends roughly southwest over the Hudson River from Fort Edward, 
NY toward Moreau, NY. The cables would exit the water on the west side 
of the Hudson River and Route C would overlap with Route A at the same 
point where Route A would transition from being attached to the bridge 
structure to being buried within the railroad right-of-way in the town 
of Moreau. This alternative assumes that PCB dredging activities 
associated with the Hudson River Dredging Project planned for the area 
around Rogers Island are completed by 2013. (The northern tip of Rogers 
Island is about one-quarter of a mile west of Fort Edward. Overall, the 
Island is just less than one mile in length.)
    Champlain Hudson is also considering two alternative substations 
identified as feasible points of interconnection in New York, 
regardless of the alternative route: The Gowanus 345-kV substation, 
located in New York County, and the Astoria (Polleti) 345-kV 
substation, located in Queens County. An alternative site under 
consideration for the DC-AC converter station in Queens County is land 
adjacent to the Astoria substation. In Connecticut, 60 Main Street in 
Bridgeport has been identified as a possible alternative site for the 
converter station.
    Under the No Action alternative, DOE would deny Champlain Hudson's 
application for a Presidential permit for the proposed international 
electric transmission line.

Identification of Environmental Issues

    The EIS will examine public health and safety effects and 
environmental impacts in the U.S. from the proposed HVDC transmission 
facilities. This notice is intended to inform agencies and the public 
of the proposed project, and to solicit comments and suggestions for 
consideration in the preparation of the EIS. To help the public frame 
its comments, the following is a preliminary list of several potential 
environmental issues in the U.S. that DOE and Champlain Hudson have 
tentatively identified for analysis, including:
    1. Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive 
species of animals or plants, or their critical habitats: The EIS will 
consider the effects of the construction and operation of the project 
on essential fish habitats and species, including the shortnose 
sturgeon (Federally listed endangered species), leatherback sea turtle 
(Federally listed endangered species), loggerhead sea turtle (Federal 
listed threatened species), green sea turtle (Federal listed threatened 
species), and Atlantic sturgeon (Federally listed candidate species as 
of October 17, 2006).
    2. Impacts on aquatic biological resources: The EIS will consider 
the effects of the construction and operation of the project on 
shellfish, benthic communities, finfish, and commercial and 
recreational fisheries, and the potential for introduction of invasive 
species.
    3. Impacts on floodplains and wetlands: The EIS will consider the 
effects of the construction and operation of the project on wetlands 
and on freshwater, tidal, and estuarine floodplains. The portions of 
all three alternative routes that utilize the CP railroad right-of-way 
would cross Federal Emergency Management Agency-mapped floodplains 
associated with the Champlain Canal and the Hudson River. The routes 
cross the Mohawk River within the City of Schenectady, but an option 
under consideration is the possible suspension of the cables from the 
railroad bridge, such that they would not be buried within the 
floodplain. The underground connection to the Yonkers and Bridgeport 
converter stations utilized by all three route alternatives would cross 
bordering floodplain at the landfall locations. Portions of the Sherman 
Creek East substation site and the underground connection to the 
substation are located in floodplain associated with the Harlem River 
in New York City. Limited wetland delineations and available New York 
State mapping resources indicate that less than 15 acres of wetlands 
would be temporarily impacted within the construction corridor along 
the underground portions of Routes A, B, and C.
    4. Impacts on cultural or historic resources: The EIS will consider 
the effects of the construction and operation of the project on 
shipwrecks and National Historic Landmarks; e.g., the proposed 
transmission cable route travels through the boundary of the Crown 
Point and Fort Ticonderoga National Historic Landmarks. The project 
facilities would also be located within National Heritage Areas and New 
York State Heritage Areas, including the Mohawk Valley Heritage 
Corridor and the RiverSpark (Hudson-Mohawk) Heritage Area.
    5. Impacts on human health and safety: The EIS will consider the 
nature and effects of electric and magnetic fields that may be 
generated by the construction and operation of the project.
    6. Impacts on air quality: The EIS will consider the effects of the 
construction and operation of the project on air quality, including the 
emission and effects of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
    7. Impacts on soil: The EIS will consider the effects of the 
construction and operation of the project on the loss or disturbance of 
soils.
    8. Impacts on water quality: The EIS will consider the effects of 
the installation and operation of the transmission cables on water 
quality due to potential re-suspension of sediments and contaminants, 
including PCBs in the Hudson River.
    9. Impacts to land use: The EIS will consider the effects of the 
installation and operation of the project on land uses, including 
agricultural lands, parks, and public lands.
    10. Visual impacts: The EIS will consider the effects of the 
installation and operation of the project on visual resources of any 
above-ground components of the project, including near the locations of 
the two converter stations.
    11. Noise impacts: The EIS will consider the effects of the 
installation and operation of the project on noise levels near the 
locations of the two DC-to-AC converter stations.
    12. Socioeconomic impacts: This EIS will consider impacts on 
community services.
    13. Environmental justice: The EIS will include consideration of 
any disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-
income populations.
    This list is not intended to be all inclusive or to imply any 
predetermination of impacts. DOE invites interested parties to suggest 
specific issues within these general categories, or other issues not 
included above, to be considered in the EIS.

Scoping Process

    Interested parties are invited to participate in the scoping 
process, both to help define the environmental issues to be analyzed 
and to identify the range of reasonable alternatives. Both oral and 
written comments will be considered and given equal weight by DOE, 
regardless of how submitted. Public scoping meetings will be held at 
the locations, dates, and times as indicated below:
    1. Bridgeport, CT: Bridgeport City Hall, 45 Lyon Terrace, 
Bridgeport, CT 06604; 7-9 p.m., Thursday, July 8, 2010.
    2. New York City, NY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 
Broadway, Room 27A (27th floor, conference room A), New York, NY 10007; 
2-4 p.m., Friday, July 9, 2010. It is important to note that this is a 
secure building: all carried items, e.g.,

[[Page 34724]]

handbags and backpacks, will be X-rayed and visitors will pass through 
a metal detector.
    3. Yonkers, NY: Royal Regency Hotel, 165 Tuckahoe Road, Yonkers, NY 
10710; 7-9 p.m., Monday, July 12, 2010.
    4. Kingston, NY: Holiday Inn Kingston NY, 503 Washington Avenue, 
Kingston, NY 12401; 7-9 p.m., Tuesday, July 13, 2010.
    5. Albany, NY: The Holiday Inn Albany at Wolf Road, 205 Wolf Road, 
Albany, NY 12205; 7-9 p.m., Wednesday, July 14, 2010.
    6. Glens Falls, NY: Ramada Glens Falls/Lake George Area, 1 Abby 
Lane (exit 19 off I-87), Queensbury, NY 12804; 7-9 p.m., Thursday, July 
15, 2010.
    7. Plattsburgh, NY: Plattsburgh North Country Chamber of Commerce, 
7061 State Route 9, Plattsburgh, NY 12901; 7-9 p.m., Friday, July 16, 
2010.
    The scoping meetings will be structured in two parts: First, an 
informal discussion ``workshop'' period that will not be recorded; and, 
second, the formal taking of comments with transcription by a court 
stenographer. The meetings will provide interested parties the 
opportunity to view proposed project exhibits, ask questions, and make 
comments. Applicant, DOE, and any cooperating agency representatives 
will be available to answer questions and provide additional 
information to attendees to the extent that additional information is 
available at this early stage of the proceedings.
    Persons submitting comments during the scoping process, whether 
orally or in writing, will receive either paper or electronic copies of 
the Draft EIS, according to their preference. Persons who do not wish 
to submit comments or suggestions at this time but who would like to 
receive a copy of the document for review and comment when it is issued 
should notify Dr. Jerry Pell as provided above, with their paper-or-
electronic preference.

EIS Preparation and Schedule

    In preparing the Draft EIS, DOE will consider comments received 
during the scoping period. As noted above, comments can be submitted by 
various means, and will be given the same consideration. They can be 
submitted to Dr. Jerry Pell either electronically or by paper copy; if 
the latter, consider using a delivery service because materials 
submitted by regular mail are subject to security screening, which both 
causes extended delay and potential damage to the contents. (Warped and 
unusable CD or DVD discs are common.) Additionally, comments can be 
submitted through the project Web site established for preparation of 
the EIS, at http://CHPExpressEIS.org. This site will also serve as a 
repository for all public documents and the central location for 
announcements. Individuals may subscribe to the ``mail list'' feature 
on the project Web site in order to receive future announcements and 
news releases.
    DOE will summarize all comments received in a ``Scoping Report'' 
that will be available on the project Web site and distributed either 
electronically to all parties of record for whom we have an e-mail 
address, or by mailing paper copies upon request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 2010.
Patricia A. Hoffman,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Electricity Delivery 
and Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2010-14760 Filed 6-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```