I

Dickey-Li ncoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723 P:03 -09-8l

I SUMMARY

DICK EY-LINCOLN SCHOOL LAK ES I TRANSMISSION PROJ EC T

I () DRAFT (SUPPLEMENT) (X ) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Responsible Offi ce : Department of Energy I Bonnevi lle Power Admi nistrati on P. O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208 I Attenti on: Mr. Ti mothy J. Murray 1-503-23 4-3361 x4 61 1

I 1. Type of Acti on: (X ) ADMINISTRATIVE ( ) LEGISLATIV E

2. Descripti on of Acti on: The proposed acti on is the constructi on of: a steel double-circuit 345-kV transmi ssi on li ne from Moore Substation near I Li tt le ton, New Hampshi re, to Comerford Substati on near Monroe, New Hampshi re; a 345-kV wood pole transmissi on line from Comerford Substation to We bster Substati on near Frankli n, New Hampshi re. The total length of the proposed I li ne is 73 .8 mi les. Sixty-ni ne (69) mi les of the proposed li ne would be bui lt on exi sti ng cleared right-of-way owned by the New England Power Company, assumi ng th at fi nal agreement with the company wi ll accord with our established prelimi nary arrangements. It has not been determi ned what I or ganizati on would construct the di fferent faci li ties requi red to integrate the generati on into NEPooL. For the purposes of this impact statement, it is I assumed that the Federal Government would construct, operate, and mai ntai n the faci li ti es.

3. Summary of Environmental Impacts: The proposed action would commi t a I total of approximately 55 ac res of land to right-of-way expansi on. Forty-five acres of forest cover would be removed from production, representing an estimated annual loss of 30 cords of timber growth. The equi valent annual I stumpage value is $465. 00; the resultant tax loss is $46.00.

One re si dence we st of the Webster Substati on may have to be relocated. The I route will cross approximately 5 acres of agricultural land. A total of 51 streams and 13 wetlands may be affected by increased sedimentation during the construction phase. Ledges exibiting potential rare I plant habi tat quali ties are crossed at a number of points along 11 mi les of the proposed route. Of special concern is a peregrine falcon rei ntroducti on si te near the northwe stern route corri dor whi ch could be adversely impacted by I the facili ty.

i I I I

Dickey-Li ncoln School Lakes Trans . Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-B l I

Numerous li near recreati onal resources are crossed by th e proposed route. I Most signifi cant among these is the crossi ng of the Appalachi an Trai l and of its proposed relocation in the vi cinity of Lake Tarleton and Mt. Mi st. Ri vers crossed include the Ammonoosuc, the Smi th, and the South Branch of the Baker I Ri ver, all designated potential State Recreational or Scenic Ri vers. Fi ve highways crossed are designated fall-foli age, sceni c, sightseei ng, and/or bi cycle routes. The proposed route also traverses nearly 9 mi les of the White Mountai n Nati onal Forest and its Proclamati on Area, but within an exi sting I right-of-way.

The proposed 165-foot hi gh double-circuit steel towers wi ll have hi gh vi sual I impacts on re si dential, scenic, and recreational resources along 6. 5 mi les of the proposed route in the vi cinity of the Moore and Comerford Reservoirs. Some vi sual impact wi ll occur in the vicinity of Boston Hi ll and along the eastern slope of Flag Pole Hi ll near the We bster Substati on. I

A di rect impact on the remai ns of an old stone foundati on wall, a potential archeologi cal site which li es along the centerli ne just west of Wentworth, can I be avoi ded by proper locati on of the li ne structures.

4. Alternatives Consi dered: I

a. Alternative of not bui lding the transmi ssi on li nes b. Alternative of use of existing transmissi on system c. Alternative transmi ssi on routes I d. Alternative types of tower and reconductori ng

5. Scope of Fi nal Supplement: Thi s Fi nal Supplement EIS consists enti rely of I Secti on 9 (C onsultati on and Coordi nati on), which incorporates public and agency comments on the Draft Supplement EI S and responses to those comments, as well as all nece ssary errata and addenda to the Draft I Supplement. I I I I

I· ii ·1 I I

Dickey-Li ncoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723 P:03 -09-8l

I TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary Section i

I 9.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION •....•...... 1

9.01 Consultati on and Coordination During I Preparati on of the DSEIS ...... •...... 1

9. 01 .1 Contacts ...... 2 I 9.02 Coordi nati on in Revi ew of the DSEIS •...... 8 I 9.02.1 Commen ts Req uested ...... •...... 8 9.02. 2 Avai labi li ty for Public Comment and Response...... 12

I 9.02. 3 Publi c Meeti ngs ...... •...... •..15

9.02.4 Revi ew Procedures for Comment ...... 15 I 9.03 Comment Responses...... 16

9.03.1 Indi vi duals Testifyi ng at Public Meetings...... 16 I 9.03 .2 Comment Letters Received...• ...... 16

I 9. 03 .3 DOE Comment Response Assumpti on ...... •...... 17

9.03 .4 Comments and Responses ...... •...... •.....17 I 9.03.5 Addenda and Errata...... 30

9. 04 Append ices ...... •...... 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P: 03-09-81

9.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

I 9. 01 Consultation and Coordination During Preparation of the DSEIS

The Department of Energy, in developing the scope of work for the I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Transmission Study, recognized the need for a great deal of consultation and coordination. Consultation, coordination, and public involvement were integral parts of the study design. Furthermore, a I consultant's location and experience in northern New England were important factors in choosing consultants for the study.

The System Planning Study (Appendix A to the Supplement) was accomplished with I cooperation by th e el ectric utilities of the region. NEPLAN, the planning arm of the New England Power Pool, played a major role in these studies.

I During the regional corridor study phase (part of the in itial transmission EIS effort) coordination with agencies and groups with regional responsibility was emphasized. Contacts were established early with Federal and State agencies I and regional planning commissions and utilities, major paper and land management companies, and environmental groups. Many meetings and discussions were held with representatives of these agencies and groups.

I In the spirit of "open planning and scoping" and to solicit additional input directly from the people of the region, public information meetings were held in June 1976, ' at Presque Isle, Bangor, and Augusta, Maine; Concord and Berlin, I New Hampshire; and Montpelier, Vermont. In December 1976, with the corridor study complete, another series of public meetings was held, this time in Presque Isle, Jackman, Bangor, and Augusta, Maine; Concord and Groveton, New I Hampshire; and Montpelier, Vermont.

At the earlier planning meetings, the discussion focused on all corridor possibilities that could reasonably be considered as locations for I transmission facilities. While the results of the init ial study did not indicate need for the facility to extend to the Webster Substation at the authorized level of generation, the ultimate level did include transmission to I the Beebe-Webster area. Thus, the open meetings to define issues and review corridors did present to the people of central New Hampshire the possibility of future transmission requirements now considered as part of the requirements I for the authorized level of transmission.

DOE has held discussions with towns along the alternative routes. Working with the Regional Planning Commissions, DOE staff members arranged to attend I Planning Commission meetings to present the study and to solicit information and opinions from planners, selectmen, and town representatives. Several towns were represented at each meeting. These meetings were held in Lincoln I (North County Council) and Mereditp (Lakes Region Planning Commission). I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81

Individual property owners were not contacted du�ing this study. If the project is approved and funded for construction, landowners along the proposed route will be consulted during actual right-of-way and structure location. I

Th roughout the project much coordination took place between the Department's study team and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for studies relating to the dam and reservoir. Staff members also worked closely with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which has project responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Staff members briefed a number of state agencies regarding this supplemental study.

Agencies, groups, and individuals who were in contact with Department's study team, and with whom some degree of consultation or coordination took place, are listed as follows.

9.01.1 Contacts I

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

Natural Resources Council Augusta, Maine Sunkhaze Chapter of Trout Unlimited Bangor, Maine National Wildlife Federation Bar Harbor, Maine Sportman's Alliance Gardiner, Maine The Maine Association of Conservation Commissions' Kennebunkport, Maine Maine Audubon Society Portland, Maine Land Use Foundation of New Hampshire Concord, New Hampshire New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions Concord, New Hampshire I

Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests 1/ Concord, New Hampshire Statewide Program to Conserve Our Environment Concord, New Hampshire I Nature Conservancy Durham, New Hampshire New Hampshire Wildlife Federation Manchester, New Hampshire The Loon Preservation Committee 1/ Meredith, New Hampshire I Vermont Natural Resources Council Montpelier, Vermont Conservation Society of Vermont Townsend, Vermont Appalachian Mountain Club 1/ Boston, Massachusetts Appalachian Mountain Club 1/ Gorham, New Hampshire - Friends of the St. John 1/ Boston, Massachusetts I

1/ Contacts established during the supplemental study. I

2

I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P: 03-09-81

PLANNING COMMISSIONS

I Androscoggin Valley Regional Planning Commission Auburn, Maine South Kennebec Valley Regional Planning I Commission Augusta, Maine Penobscot Valley Regional Planning Commission Bangor, Maine Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission Caribou, Maine I Eastern Mid-Coast Regional Planning Commission Rockland, Maine Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission Sanford, Maine North Kennebec Regional Planning Commission Winslow, Maine North Country Council, Inc. 1/ Franconia, New Hampshire I Upper Valley-Lake Sunapee Council 1/ Lebanon, New Hampshire Lakes Region Planning Commission 1/ Meredith, New Hampshire Central New Hampshire Regional Planning I Commission Bow, New Hampshire Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Essex Junction, Vermont Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission Montpelier, Vermont I Southern Windsor Regional Planning Commission Springfield, Vermont Northeastern Vermont Development Association St. Johnsbury, Vermont

STATE AG ENCIES I Maine

Department of' Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Augusta, Maine I Department of Forestry Augusta, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Bangor, Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) Augusta, Maine Department of Conservation Augusta, Maine I Maine Bureau of Geology Augusta, Maine Department of Parks and Recreation Augusta, Maine

I Department of Agriculture, Soil and Water Conservation Commission Augusta, Maine State Geologist Augusta, Maine I State Planning Office Augusta, Maine State Historic Preservation Office Augusta, Maine I New Hampshire I Department of Resources and Economic Development 1/ Concord, New Hampshire Bureau of Off High way Vehicles Concord, New Hampshire I

1/ Contacts established during the supplemental study. I 3 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81 I

Division of Economic Development Concord, New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands Concord, New Hampshire I Division of Parks and Recreation Concord, New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office Concord, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 1/ Concord, New Hampshire Water Resources Board 1/ Concord, New Hampshire I Coordinator of Federal Funds 1/ Concord, New Hampshire Department of Energy Concord, New Hampshire Office of State Planning 1/ Concord, New Hampshire I State Geologist 1/ Concord, New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways 1/ Concord, New Hampshire I Wa ter Supply and Pollution Control Commission 1/ Concord, New Hampshire

Vermont I

Division of Historic Preservation Montpelier, Vermont Department of Forest and Parks Montpelier, Vermont I Environmental Conservation Agency Montpelier, Vermont Department of Fish and Game Montpelier, Vermont Planning Board Stowe, Vermont I Public Service Board Montpelier, Vermont State Planning Office Montpelier, Vermont Vermont Wate� Resources Department Montpelier, Vermont I FEDERAL AG ENCIES

Department of Justice I u.S. Attorney's Office Bangor, Maine I Department of the Interior u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1/ Concord, New Hampshire U.S. Department of the Interior I Office of Environmental Project Review Washington, D. C. U.S. Geological Survey Concord, New Hampshire National Park Service 1/ Boston, Massachusetts I Inter-Agency Archeological Service National Park Service Atlanta, Georgia Heritage Conservation and I Recreation Service 1/ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania I 1/ Contacts established during the supplemental study. I

4 ·1 I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P: 03-09-81

Department of Agriculture

I Soil Conservation Service 1/ Durham, New Hampshire Forest Experiment Station Grafton Co., New Hampshire University of Maine 1/ Orono, Maine I Forest Service Eastern Region 1/ White Mountain National Forest Laconia, New Hampshire

I UTILITIES

Carrabasset Light & Power North Anson, Maine Central Maine Power Company Augusta, Maine I Union River El ectric Corp. Aurora, Maine Bangor Hydroelectric Co. Bangor, Maine Eastern Maine Electric Corp. Calais, Maine I Maine Public Service Presque Isle, Maine Granite State Electric Co. Lebanon, New Hampshire Littleton Water & Ligh t Litteton, New Hampshire I Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 1/ Manchester, New Hampshire New Hampshire Electric Corp. Plymouth, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission 1/ Concord, New Hampshire Village, Inc. Barton, Vermont I Green Mountain Power Corp. Burlington, Vermont Light Commission Hardwick, Vermont Village of Hyde Park, Inc. Hyde Park, Vermont I Vermont Electric Corp. Johnson, Vermont Electric Light Department Ludlow, Vermont Electric Plant Lyndonville, Vermont I Washington Electric Corp., Inc. E. Montpelier, Vermont Municipal Electric Association, Morrisville Water & Light Morrisville, Vermont Citizens Utilities Co. Newport, Vermont I Light Commission Northfield, Vermont Allied Power & Light Co. Pittsford, Vermont Vermont Marble Co. Proctor, Vermont I Rochester Electric Light & Power Rochester, Vermont Connecticut Valley Electric Co. Rutland, Vermont Vermont Electric Power Co. Rutland, Vermont I Light Commission Stowe, Vermont Northeast Public Power Association Littleton, Massachusetts Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. Ludlow, Massachusetts I NEPLAN 1/ W. Springfield, Mass. Northeast Utilities W. Springfield, Mass. Stony Brook Energy Center Westover, Mass. I New England Power Service Company 1/ Westborough, Mass. I 1/ Contacts established during the supplemental study.

5 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81 I

UNIVERSITIES

Cooperative Extension Service, University I of Maine Bangor, Maine Department of Anthropology, University of Maine Orono, Maine I Dartmouth Outing Club, 1/ Hanover, New Hampshire Dartmouth College Plymouth State College 1/ Plymouth, New Hampshire I

TIMBER COMPANIES

Boise Cascade Corp. Rumford, Maine I Brown Paper Company Berlin, New Hampshire Dead River Company Bangor, Maine Diamond International Corp. Old Town, Maine I Dunn Heirs Ashland, Maine Georgia Pacific Corp. Woodland, Maine Great Northern Paper Co. Millinocket, Maine I James W. Sewall Co. Old Town, Maine J. M. Huber Corp. Old Town, Maine Maine Woodlands International Paper Co. Jay, Maine I North Maine Woods Presque Isle, Maine St. Regis Paper Co. Bucksport, Maine Scott Paper Company Winslow, Maine Seven Islands Land Company Bangor, Maine I OTHER CONTACTS I Citizens Advisory Committee for the Governor of Maine Farmington, Maine Jackman Planning Board Jackman, Maine I Kennebago Camp Owners Association Oguossoc, Maine League of Women Voters of Maine Winthrop, Maine Berlin, Town of (Community Development Di rector) Berlin, New Hampshire I International Generation and Transmission Company, Inc. Berlin, New Hampshire Walkers Pond Water Conservation Society Conway Center, New Hampshire I Dartmouth-Lake Sunapee Region Assoc. 1/ Lebanon, New Hampshire New Hampshire Campground Owners Assoc. Meredith, New Hampshire I New Hampshire Good Roads Association 1/ Concord, New Hampshire New Hampshire Municipal Association Concord, New Hampshire I 1/ Contacts established during the supplemental study. I 6 -I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P: 03-09-8 1

The Lakes Region Association 11 Wolfboro, New Hampshire Lincoln, Town of 11 Lincoln, New Hampshire I Andover, Town of 11 Andover, New Hampshire Bristol, Town of 11 Bristol, New Hampshire Thorton, Town of 11 Thorton, New Hampshire Woodstock, Town of 11 Woodstock, New Hampshire I - Rumney, Town of 1/ Rumney, New Hampshire - Franklin, Town of 11 Franklin, New Hampshire Barnet, Town of 11 Barnet, Vermont I Plainfield, Town of Plainfield, Vermont Peacham, Town of Peacham, Vermont Tenneco, Inc. Hopkinton, Massachusetts I Social Assessment Services Sudbury, Massachusetts I I I I I I I I I I

11 Contacts established during the supplemental study. I 7 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81. I

9.02 Coordination in Review of the DSEIS I 9. 02. 1 Comments Requested Comments on the Draft Supplement EIS were requested from: I Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce I Department of Defense Department of Health and Human Services Department of Housing & Urban Development I Department of Interior Department of State Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency I Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Inland Water Directorate, Environment Canada Intersta te Commerce Commission I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division U.S. Forest Service, White Mountain National Forest U. S. Geo�ogical Survey I

Maine State Clearinghouse Coordinator, A-95 New Hampshire' Coordina tor of Federal Funds Vermont State A-95 Coordinator I Massachusetts A-95 Coordinator, Boston, MA. I NOTE: The above State A-95 Clearinghouses forward requests for comments to all appropriate State Offices and coordinate State agency review of Draft EIS. I

Maine State Historic Preservation Commission New Hampshire Division of Historic Preservation Vermont Division of Historic Preservation I

Androscoggin Regional Planning Commission, ME. North Kennebec Regional Planning Commission, ME. I Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission, ME. Penobscot Valley Regional Planning Commission, ME. North Country Council, NH . I Lakes Region Planning Commission Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission Central Vermont Planning Commission, VT. Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, VT. I Northeast Vermont Development Association, VT. I 8 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P:03-09-81 I NOTE: The Regional Planning Commissions above act as area-wide I A-95 Coordinators. As such, they forward reque sts for comments to appropriate town s and local agencies and coordinate Draft EIS review. All organized town s along the alternative routes I are included in this review process. Boise cascade Corp. , Rumford, ME. Brown Paper Company, Berlin, NH . I Dead River Company, Bangor, ME. Diamond International Corp. , Old Town, ME. Dunn Heirs, Ashland, ME. G. Pierce Webber, Bangor, ME. I Georgia Pacific Corp. , Woodland, ME. Great Northern Paper Co. , Millinocket, ME. J.M. Huber Corp. , Old Town, ME. I International Paper Co. , Jay, ME. St. Regis Paper Co. , Bucksport, ME. Scott Paper Co. , Winslow, ME. I Seven Islands Land Co. , Bangor, ME. James W. Sewall Company, Old Town, ME. I Associated General Contractors of Maine Business & Industry Association of New Hampshire Carpenter's L'ocal 621, Brewer, ME. I Economic Resources Council, ME. Industrial Development Council of Maine International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, MA. I Maine AFL-CIO Maine Electric Cooperative Association Maine Citizens for Dickey-Lincoln Maine State Chamber of Commerce, Portland, ME. I Valley Residents Against Dickey-Lincoln, Ft. Kent, ME. Vermont State Chamber of Commerce I American Rivers Conservation Council, D. C. Maine Association of Conservation Commissions Maine Forest Products Council, ME. I Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control New England Governor's Conference, MA. New England Regional Commission, MA. I New England River Basins Commission, MA. Federal Regional Council of New England New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions I Office of Legislative Research, Hartford, CT. Society of American Foresters, ME. I

9 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1 723P:03-09-81 I

American Association of University Women, ME. Audubon Society of Maine I Audubon Society of New Hampshire Appalachian Mountain Club, MA. Appalachian Mountain Club, NH. Bates Outing Club, ME. I Colby Environmental Council, ME. Northwestern University Center for Urban Affairs Connecticut River Watershed Council I Conservation Law Foundation of New England, MA. Conservation Society of Vermont Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. I Environmental Defense Fund Dartmouth Outing Club, NH. Environmental Coalition Friends of the St. John, MA. I Friends of the Earth Forum on New Hampshire Future Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources, I University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH . Izaak Walton League of America Garden Club Federation, ME. I Grafton County Soil Conservation District

Green Mountaih Club, VT. Harvard Environmental Law Society I Land Use Foundation of New Hampshire Land & Waters Resources Institute, UM -Orono, ME. League of Women Voters, ME. I Maine Public Interest Research Group Maine Association of Planners Maine Archeological Society I Legislative Ut ility Conservation Council Midcoast Audubon Society, ME. National Audubon Society, Inc., Washington, D.C. I National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Nature Conservancy, MA. Nature Conservancy, NH. National Parks and Conservation Association I Natural Resources Council of Maine Natural Resources Council of Vermont New England Forestry Foundation, Inc. I New Hampshire Farm Bureau New Hampshire Snowmobiling Association New Hampshire Planner's Association I New England Natural Resources Center, MA. New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, NH . Penobscot Paddle & Chowder Society, ME. I 10 I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81 I Sierra Club, MA. Simon's Rock Early College, ME. I Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests SPAC E: Statewide Program to Conserve Our Environment, NH . Sportsman Alliance, Gardiner, ME. Sunkhaze Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Bangor, ME. I The Association of Aroostook Indians, Inc. Timberland Owners Association United Fly Tyers, Inc. I Unity College, ME. Wildlife Management Institute I Bangor Hydroelectric Company Boston Edison Company, MA. Central Maine Power Company I Eastern Maine Electric Coop. Eastern Utilities Associates Service Corporation, MA. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Co., MA. I Green Mountain Power Corp. , VT. Maine Public Service Company Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, MA. Municipal Electric Association of Vermont I New England Electric Gas and Electric Associates, MA. New England Electric Service, MA. (NEES) New England P'ower Company I New England Power Planning, MA. New Hampshire Electric Cooperative Newport Electric Corporation, RI. I Northeast Public Power Association, MA. Northeast Ut ilities Service Co. , CT. (NESCO) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire I United Illuminating Company, New Haven, CT. (EUA) Vermont Electric Power Company Debouoise and Liberman Mr. Charles Dibner I Mr. Frank Christ Maine Public Service Company, ME. Chas. T. Main, Inc. I Mr. and Mrs. Brian Pinette I I I

11 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P:03-09-81 I 9.02.2 Availability for Public Comment and Response I The Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement, including announcement of a 45-day public review and comment period, was published in the Federal Register, September 24, 1981, p. 63328. The Draft Supplement EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on October 1, 1980. Revised I announcement of public meetings in the ,area appeared in the Federal Register on October 30, 1980, p. 71 842. I After publication of the Notice of Availability, over 800 copies of the Draft Supplement EIS were mailed to Federal, state, and local government agencies, to non-governmental groups, and to interested individuals. All supporting I appendices were made available to those asked to comment on the Draft.

Copies of the statement and appendices were made available to the public at the following repositories: I REPOSITORIES I Connecticut Hartford State Library Storrs University of Connecticut I

Mai ne Allagash' Town Hall I Ashland Town Council Auburn Androscoggin Regional Planning Commission Augusta Natu ral Resources Council Augusta State House Law and Legislative Library I Bangor Department of Energy - Federal Office Building Bangor Penobscot Valley Regional Planning Commission I Bangor Public Library Biddeford McArthur Public Library Brunswick Bowdoin College - Longfellow Library I Caribou Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission Castine Maine Maritime Academy - Nutting Memorial Library Farmington University of Maine I Fort Kent Chamber of Commerce Fort Kent University of Maine Jackman Town Hall I Lewiston Bates College Machias University of Maine - Merrill Library Madawaska First Selectman I Orono University of Maine - Raymond H. Fogle Library I 12 ,I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P:03-09-81

Portland Portland Public Library Portland University of Maine Documents Department I Portland University of Maine - Law Library Portland University of Maine - Acquisitions Librarian Portland University of Maine - Center of Research - I Advanced Study Pre sque Is le University of Maine Springvale Nasson College - Anderson Learning Center Library I St. Francis First Selectman Unity Unity College Waterville Colby College - Miller Library I Waterville Public Library Winslow North Kennebec Regional Planning Commission I M3.ssachuset ts Amherst University of Massachusetts Boston Boston Public Library Boston Department of Energy I Boston State Library - Fingold Library Cambridge Harvard Graduate School of Design - Gund Hall Cambridge Harvard - Widener Library I Cambridge Massachusetts Institute of Technology Chestnut Hill Boston College - Babst Library Lowe1'1 University of Lowell - Alumni Memorial I Library Waltham Brandeis University - Goldfarb Library Waltham U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Worcester Worcester Polytechnica l Institute - Gordon I Library

New HamEshire I Bow Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission Concord State Library I Durham University of New Hampshire - Ezekiel W. Dimond Library Franklin Public Library Franconia North Country Council I Groveton Public Library Hanover Dartmouth College - Baker Library Hudson Hills Memorial Library I Laconia White Mountain National Forest Laconia City Library Lit tleton City Library I Manchester City Library Meredith Lakes Region Planning Committee Plymouth Plymouth State College I 13 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81 I

Rhode Island Kingston University of Rhode Island I Providence Brown University Providence State Library

Vermont I Burlington University of Vermont - Guy W. Bailey Memorial Library Essex Junction Chittenden County Regional Planning I Commission Montpelier Sta te Library Montpelier Vermont Free Library I South Royalton Vermont Law School St. Johnsbury Northeast Vermont Development Association St. Johnsbury St. Johnsbury Athenaem I I I I I I I I I I I 14 -I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P:03-09-81

9. 02. 3 Public Meetings

I DOE held two public meetings in mid-November 1980 to afford the public an opportunity to comment and ask questions. The DOE team also sought comments on the work done and decisions reached related to the supplemental work to the I transmission facilities proposal for the total project. The Dickey-Lincoln School Transmission Team Project Manager presided over the meetings, which I were recorded verbatim by a professional court recorder. The meetings were announced in the Federal Register notice of October 1980, through paid announcements to eight newspapers throughout the area, and by direct notice sent to all groups and individuals on the Dickey-Lincoln mailing I list.

The meeting locations, dates, attendance, and the number of people giving I te stimony are as follows: Place Date and Time Attendance Number I Testifying

Littleton, N.H. November 12 7:30 7 4 I Plymouth, N. H. November 13 7:30 16 9 9. 02. 4 Review Procedures for Comment

I To be considered in preparation of the Final EIS, comments had to be made at public meetings or submitted in writing and received by the Assistant Project Manager for Environmental Studies, in Portland, Oregon, by the close of the I announced 45-day review period.

All comment letters received were carefully considered. Comments of consequence related to the Draft EIS were used in revising the text or were I responded to individually. To qualify as consequential, a comment basically had to present new data or information, to question facts and/or contexts of analyses performed, or to review or raise general questions on alternatives or I overall environmental effects. All letters and comments received at public meetings were reviewed. Individual portion(s) thereof identified as specific comments were identified I by comment numbers. Comments were then assigned to DOE personnel or to contractors for response and/or for suggested wording changes in the Final EIS. I I I I 15 I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81 I

9. 03 Comment Responses

9.03.1 Individuals Speaking at Public Meetings I Speakers Representing Location I 1. Alan R. Semple, Jr. Self Lit tleton, NH 2. Ray Lobdell North Country Council Littleton, NH 3. Fred T. Daft Self Lit tleton, NH I 4. M. E. Kay New England Power Littleton, NH 5. Charles E. Swanson New Hampshire Plymouth, MA 6. Robert Michenfelder Connecticut River I Watershed Council Plymouth, MA 7. George R. Gautz New Hampshire Governors Council on Energy Plymouth, MA 8. Ken Sutherland Self Plymouth, MA I 9. John P. Chandler Hill Planning Board Plymouth, MA 10. Peter Estabrooks Recreational Trails Society Plymouth, MA I 11. Charles Valins New Hampshire Snowmobile Association Plymouth, MA 12. John Kurt Self Plymouth, MA I 13. Ralph Kirshner Self Plymouth, MA 9.03.2 . Comment Letters Received I 1. Tennessee Valley Authority 2. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I 4. Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission 5. Robert O. Linck 6. 'U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration I 7. Northeast Public Power Association 8. New England Power Service Company 9. North Country Council, Inc. 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service I 11. U.S. Department of Energy 12. U. S. Department of Commerce - NOAA 13. New Hampshire Snowmobile Association, Inc. I 14. State of Vermont 15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 16. U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration I 17. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service 18. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 19. U.S. Department of Interior 20. State of New Hampshire I I

16 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P: 03-09-81

9.03. 3 DOE Comment Response Assumption I Consideration of the environmental impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of supplemental transmission facilities for the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for I the project and transmission facilities results from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This act requires such actions when a Federal agency proposes a "significant action." Studies for the transmission facilities were also made with the requirements of the Fish and I Wildlife Coordination Act in mind. The results comply with the requirements of both statutes.

I The contents of the Department of Energy (D OE) documents relating to the project will apply if: I 1. The decision is made to construct the project; and 2. Subsequent discussion and negotiation with the existing utilities results in the decision that DOE will construct the transmission I facilities.

There are several possible variations on Item 2 above. Other utilities in the I region could build all the transmission facilities and "wheel" (transmit to market) the power for DOE. It is also possible that some of the facilities I could be buil't by DOE and the remainder by the utilities. If DOE builds the transmission facilities, it may contract maintenance work to local utilities, or it could do the work with its own staff. In either case, DOE could specify the governing criteria of maintenance plans for the I right-of- way.

If the facilities are constructed by the utilities in the area, those I utilities would set maintenance standards for them.

The responses to the comments received are based on the assumption that the I DOE will construct, operate, and maintain the transmission facilities. 9.03.4 Comments and Responses

I Responses are made to all substantial comments (s ee 9.02.4). I 1. COMMENT BY: Robert O. Linck Of the impacts of the proposed action, I would like to voice my concern over two of them in particular. First, the potential effects on the 51 streams and 13 wetlands represent another example of how we continue to chip away on the I productivity and diversity of our aquatic ecosystems. Herbicide runoff and I 17 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P:03-09-81 I sedimentation, and their resultant effects on such bodies of water as French Pond and the Baker River, should not be written off as minor or I insignificant. Our water resources are becomirig more limited by the day as it is .

RESPONSE: I

Factors related to herbicide runoff and sedimentation, water temperature and quality, and ot her related issues were considered when developing impact I predictions for streams, lakes, and wetlands. Those impacts are shown in table 3. 06-1 (Aquatic Ecosystems Impact) on page 42 of the Draft Supplement EIS. ' Both section 3. 06 of the DEIS and Appendix B indicate that French Pond I and Baker River are seen as being of special concern because of waterfowl habitat and salmon fishery. I 2. COMMENT BY: Robert O. Linck

A second matter of concern involves threatened species such as the peregrine I falcon and the silverling (a rare plant found in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts). I see no mention in ·the EIS of mitigation measures which would protect the falcon reintroduction site near the northwestern route I corridor, and likewise, there is not much space devoted to threatened pl ant species such as the silver ling.

RESPONSE: I

Appendix B, pp. 7 and 45, includes an extensive discussion of the wildlife and related impacts on Link 81, which would pass within 1 mile of the "critical I habitat" of the reintroduction site. Mr. R. Bolengier (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service) was consulted on potential I impacts of the facility on the falcon reintroduction site. The results of this assessment indicate that the peregrine could be adversely affected by herbicides, but could benefit from increased prey associated with forest successional changes introduced by the right-of-way. The opinion of the U. S. I Fish and Wildlife Service and of the wildlife biologists under contract to DOE is that it is unlikely that there will be any significant impact on the falcon. I Mitigation established would include prohibiting herbicide application near that portion of the facility that could have any adverse impact on the falcon, and prohibiting certain construction ac tivities in the immediate area from May I through mid-June, during breeding season.

Because of the uncertainty related to the construction of the project, formal consultation has not been initiated. If the project is funded for I construction, DOE will complete the conSUltation requirements as required by the Endangered Species Act. I

18 ·1 I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81

The potential for impact on threatened plant species has been investigated for this supplemental effort as well as in the studies for the overall transmission project. Appendix E (Ecological Resource Study) to the 1978 DEIS includes lists of potential threatened species for the New England area. This list was carefully evaluated during preparation of the Supplement, and consultation with leading rare plant authorities was undertaken in the New Hampshire area. The Silverling is not present in the area that would be affected by the transmission facilities.

3. COMMENT BY: New England Power Service

Figures 1.03-2 (Section 1) and 3 (Appendix D) showing the cross section of the 230 kV right of way are classified as "Proposed Facility." These diagrams definitely create an im age for the ultimate appearance of the transmission corridor. We believe that, although the text on page 20 leaves room for flexibility in a final decision, the right of way cross-section sketches are definitely prejudicial. Therefore, we request that you remove these figures from the report.

If the removal of the figures detracts too much from the report to be acceptable to you, then it should be made clear, at least on Figure 1.03-2, that this proposal is only one of at least two possible routes, and that a final decision has not been made. This information should appear on Figure I 1.03-2, as we�l as in the text. RESPONSE: I The changes will appear on Figure 1.03-2 (see 9. 03.5 Addenda and Errata). I 4. COMMENT BY: New England Power Service Additionally, for the reliability of the New England transmission system, it may not be advisable to use this single transmission corridor for integrating I all contemplated northern New England generating capacity into the New England system. For that reason, the second al ternate route should be kept open and considered before any construction decisions are made. The second alternate route is slightly more economical and is ranked close to the proposed plan. I We request that some reference to this concept be made in the text. I RESPONSE: The overall system reliability will be reviewed with NEPLAN before construction plans are finalized. All alternate routes will be "kept open" I pending construction authorization and subsequent discussions with Ne w England Power Service, as discussed on page 20 of the Draft Supplement EIS. I 19 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P: 03-09-81 I 5. COMMENT BY: New England Power Service I Page 5: "New England Electric Service, MA. (NEES)" should be "New England Electric System."

RESPONSE: I Change has been made in the text (see 9.03.5 Addenda and Errata). I

6. COMMENT BY: New England Power Service I Page 21, Section 1.03.3 Design Criteria and Figure 1.03.3.

NEP believes that the visual intrusion created by 165 foot high double-circuit lattice type steel structures between Moore and Comerford substations is I excessive. Proposed lattice type steel towers rising more than twice as high as the existing 75 foot high wood pole arm structures near a state highway and in the river valley is more than a mere "intrusion." This is a heavily I traveled area as compared with the proposed right-of-way from Dickey to the Connecticut River Valley. I RESPONSE:

The Visual-Re'creation Impact Study, Appendix I, considered in detail the visual impacts of all al ternatives, including the proposed steel lattice I towers between Moore and Comerford substations. Pages B-7 and B-11 cover in detail the visual and recreational impacts on a mile-by-mile basis of link 42F. Section 3.13.1 (p. 49 of the DSEIS) states that higher double-circuit I steel towers along parts of link 42F will have significant impact on viewers. Both sections of the document refer to significant or high impacts. I If the project is funded for construction, DOE will prepare more detailed location plans, and consideration of mitigation techniques in high impact areas will be explored. One such technique is to lower visual impacts by using 2 wood-pole lines instead of the taller double-circuit steel towers (see I "Swift Diamond Alternative" in the Supplement to Draft EIS on Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes, published by Army Corps of Engineers, September 1978, pp. 21-30). I 7. COMMENT BY: New England Power Service I Appendix J - Historical-Archeological Impact Study, Page 2 "Recommendations I 1. We recommend a full and intensive archeological survey of the final right of way." I 20 ,I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P:03-09-81

NEP questions whether "a full and intensive archaeological survey" would include sampling. NEP believes that sampling should only be conducted at I those proposed tower loc ations which are deemed to be sites of possible archaeological value, not across the full width and length of the final right of way. On Page 21 of the Draft EIS Supplement, Section 103. 4 Construction I Sequence, it states "Where the right of way is already cleared, certain steps such as access road construction ..• will not be required. " As all of the NEP right of way is already cleared, no access road construction would be I necessary; therefore, no archaeological survey relative to access roads would be necessary for these links. As the actual sites of excavation for the proposed towers will occupy an infinitesimal portion of the total area, it is only at these sites, if of archaeological value, that sampling should be I conducted. The taxpayers of the United States should not have to pay for sampling in the approximately 99% of the right of way which are not to be tower loc ations. A full and intensive field survey could adequately document I sites of probable archaeological value not to be impacted by the proposed towers and file this data with the State Archaeologist. In this manner the prevenience, the contextual relationships of any surviving artifacts on the I existing right of way would be preserved. NEP believes that "in-situ" preservation_is superior to ex cavation and removal, and a more economical path to pursue.

I RESPONSE:

DOE agrees. If the project is funded for construction, DOE will conduct an I extensive cultural re source survey over those areas where an impact could occur from the construction, maintenance, or operation of the facility. This survey would follow prescribed guidelines and would be undertaken by qualified archeologists in cooperation with the State Historic Preservation Offices. I Typically, it is assumed that impacts could occur anywhere within the ROW during construction or maintenance phases; thus, the survey would include all of the ROW. If, however, potential sites should be discovered, it is DOE I policy to use all practicable means to avoid affecting these sites during construction, operation, and maintenance. Only the site that cannot be avoided would be further evaluated in cooperation with appropriate state and Federal agencies. DOE al so maintains that "in-situ" preservation is I appropriate where possible.

I 8. COMMENT BY: New England Power Service

I Appendix J - Historical-Archeological Impact Study, Page 13 In the penultimate paragraph, mention is made of "a policy of the PAF (Public Archaeology Facility) not to enter private property without owner I permission." NEP expects that permission will be requested prior to entry by the PAF or any other organization conducting any further surveys. I I 21 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P:03-09-81 I

RESPONSE:

DOE or any of its contractors would coordinate with New England Power Service I and would obtain permission from all landowners before undertaking an intensive archeological survey. I 9. COMMENT BY: North Country Council, Inc. I My one question concerns the status of the proposed po wer lines with regard to local property taxation. It is my understanding that the proposed lines would be tax exempt and that if the lines were run on existing New England Power I Company's towers those would also become exempt. Some of our committees are concerned about the impact these exemptions could have on their tax base. For example, Haverhill's largest existing taxpayer is currently the New England Power Company. I

I believe that your EIS does not adequately address this issue and our Land Use Planning Advisory Committee would like to have some additional information I regarding this subject. RESPONSE: I The proposed line would run on existing New England Power Company right-of-way (pending successful negotiation of agreements), but would not share New England Power towers. Federally-owned facilities built for this project could I not be taxed. The land in the right-of-way, however, would still be owned by the private utility, and would be subject to taxation. I

10. COMMENT BY: United States Environmental Protection Agency I Our principle concern with the transmission project, as you know, is its impact on water quality due to sedimentation, herbicide runoff, and changes in temperature. We believe that the DSEIS does a good job in disclosing these impacts, and in particular, we concur with your inclusion of public water I supplies and areas of groundwater availability as "Significant Ecological Resources." We believe that, where possible, this type of information should be provided for the rest of the transmission lines. Also, we believe it would I be appropriate for the Final EIS to discuss current right-of-way (ROW) maintenance practices since, according to the DSEIS, more than 90 percent of the proposed route will be on an already cleared ROW owned by New England I Power Company. We agree that, compared to use of a new ROW, this is preferable from the standpoint of protection of water quality. The DSEIS is also correct in pointing out that there will still be the potential for the project to adversely affect water quality. I I

22

I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS I Wg1723P: 03-09-81

RESPONSE:

I As part of the original study, data on supplies and groundwater availability were included in the analysis when such information was available. (See Appendix E - Ecological Resources Impact Study, of the 1978 DEIS, for further I information.)

The proposed alternative does call for locating the transmission facility in the cleared right-of-way held by the New England Power Company. It is I therefore probable that the maintenance of the total right-of-way would I continue to be handled, as in the past, by the New England Power Company. See also response to comment no. 23. I 11. COMMENT BY: United States Environmental Protection Agency We are particularly concerned with the impact of sedimentation and herbicide runoff on Gordon Pond Brook, a Class A stream which will be crossed by the transmission line between miles 24.2 and 26.5 in link 80. This stream is part I of the watershed from which the Town of North Woodstock, receives its drinking water. We concur with the EIS's recommendation that herbicides not be used in this area. The transmission line will be in close proximity to several public I wells at other locations in the route. While we would agree that the potential for serious adverse effects on these areas from herbicide spraying is small, we 'believe the potential for spray drift and the importance of I maintaining high quality drinking water warrant consideration of banning herbicide use in these areas as well. I RESPONSE: See response to comment number 10. Note that link 80 does not appear as part I of the proposed route. I 12. COMMENT BY: United States Environmental Protection Agency Also of concern is the affect of the project on the existing high quality brook trout fisheries in the Baker River, Mad River, Beebe River, Cockermouth River, Smith River, Halls Brook, Hardy Brook, Fowler River, and Patten Brook. I The EIS correctly identifies these areas as important and warranting stringent mitigation measures. Strict erosion control measures and scheduling of construction so as to minimize impacts on fisheries will be necessary. Use of I manual ROW clearing methods in these areas should be seriously considered. I RESPONSE: See response to comment number 10. I 23 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P:03-09-81 I 13. COMMENT BY: United States Environmental Protection Agency I We believe that where the line crosses the White Mountain National Forest and the Appalachian Trail, use of herbicides should be prohibited.

RESPONSE: I See response to comment number 10. I 14. COMMENT BY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission I As a general observation, it would be helpful to readers not particularly familiar with Dickey-Lincoln if a brief, descriptive summary of the project's required transmission facilities were presented. While reference is made to proposed changes in the project's transmission system on page 18, it is not I clear wh at the total transmission picture is, or the role that the subject link plays in it without resorting to other segments of the study. I RESPONSE:

Changes have been made under "Addenda" (9.03.5). I

15. COMMENT BY: United States Department of the Interior I The project does not appear to be consistent with the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. The area is rich in recreation resources, as substantiated by th e numerous recreation and water resources in the project vicinity (Appendix K). I RESPONSE: II During the preparation of this supplemental study, extensive review was made of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Meetings were held with David E. Hartman to discuss the proposed transmission facilities. The I development of transmission facilities on already cleared right-of-way certainly has the least impact on recreation resources, as evidenced in Appendix I - Visual/Recreation Resources Impact Study. I,, Letters and testimony presented at the public meetings held on this project indicate that recreational value exists in the cleared right-of-way for I snowmobiling, skiing, etc.

DOE acknowledges that th e area is indeed rich in recreation resources and has taken every effort to minimize the impact of these facilities on these I resources. I 24 'I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg17 23P: 03-09-81

16. COMMENT BY: United St ates Department of the Interior

The project does not adequately address the impact of the powerline on the Lake Winn ipes aukee Composite Landscape Area, as defined by the North Atlantic Water Resources Study, Appendix N, Visual and Cultural Environment, 1972. The locale is one of seven regionally unique composite landscapes. These composite areas, where four or more different major landscape patterns (landform, land use, vegetation, and water) come together in juxtaposition, are the most diverse landscape areas in the Northeast.

RESPONSE:

DOE reviewed the North Atlantic Water Resources Study--Appendix N during the preparation of the supplemental study. The document contains very generaliz ed mapping related to this landscape type. The proposed route is not located in this area; however, the area may be within the viewshed of the co mposite area near Plymouth, New Hampshire. DOE feels confident that the extensive resource impact studies as reported in the eight appendices adequately address the impacts associated with the significant natural resources interpreted to form the "composite" area. The visual , recreation, land use , ecological , and cul tural resources studies recogniz e the unique and diverse landscape quality I of the area.

17.' COMMENT BY : United States Department of the Interior

In Appendix D, page 9, it is noted that great care has been taken to minimiz e the visual impact of Link 82. However, we believe th at it remains a major detriment. Much of it is through the White Mountain National Forest, where I recreation use is extremely heavy, and the cleared right-of-way would be highly visible and damaging to the scenic view from Breez y Point, as the line I crosses the divide by Mt. Kineo� Other problems on this link relate to erosion potential and to the need for a considerable amount of new access road construction.

I RESPONSE:

The studies completed by DOE conclude that any development of transmissio n facilities along link 82 will cause major impacts. We agree with your I assessment of impacts along this link.

I 18. COMMENT BY: United States Department of the Interior

The impact of Link 83 through four miles of the White Mountain National Forest I should be discussed more thoroughly particularly since a crossing occurs at a parcel owned by the State and is intended for future recreational use. Link I 25 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg17 23P: 03-09-81 I

83 also crosses the Appalachian Trail which has received Section 6(f) funds in the Fore st , and is an issue again not suffi ciently developed with regard to I project im pact (Appendix I, B-17 ). RESPONSE: I DOE has made extensive studies of all alternatives, including those link s crossing National Fore st lands. We have worked closely with the White Mountain National Forest personnel during preparation of this supplement. DOE I has al so met with state representatives to identify all state lands and potential recreation lands. The recreation resources, either existing or proposed, are mapped and discussed as part of Appendices I and K. I

The National Park Service has commented that " ... the su pplement accurately discusses the adverse, visual imp act to be anticipated from the transmission I lines.II DOE agrees with the National Park Service that there has been adequate evaluation of any impact from the proposed transmission facility to the Appalachian Trail. If the project is funded for construction, centerline st udies and site-specific mitigation plans will be developed. I

19. COMMENT BY: United States Department of the Interior I

The supplemental material does not adequately identify recreation areas and parklands such as Mount Cardigan State Forest and the White Mountain National I Fore st which have received financial assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF ).

As noted in our June 22, 197 8, comments, crossing of those lands involves the I jurisdictional intere st of the Department' s Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service which administers the fund. The use of L&WCF financial parklands for this project would require the Secretary of the Interior's I approval, pursuant to the conversion requirements of Section 6(f) of the land and Water Fund Act. The nature of the crossing, aerial and otherwise, should be addressed and site specific mitigation developed. I RESPONSE:

Neither the proposed facility nor the alternatives affects Mount Cardigan State Fore st lands. The transmission proposal does cross approximately 4 I miles of the White Mountain National Forest on a cleared right-of-way that presently contains 2 230-kV single-circuit transmission lines. I

If the project is funded for construction, centerline studie s and site-specific mitigation plans will be developed, and the need for Secretary I of Interior approval for locating on this right-of-way will be investigated. I 26 I I I Di ckey-Li ncoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEI S Wg1723P:03-09-81 I 20. COMMENT BY: Uni ted States Department of the Interi or

I Enclosed is the li st of potenti al recreation rivers whi ch have been considered under the Nati onal Wild and Sceni c River Act and which will be crossed or otherwise impacted by the transmissi on system. Ri vers and river segments on I thi s li st have passed the fi nal study evaluati on phase. They are fi ve miles or more in length, free-flowi ng, and are of multi-state or nati onal signi ficance, and they possess one or more of the followi ng values:

I .•.outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fi sh and wildli fe, hi stori c, cultural, or other similar values, ... (Secti on 1(b), I P. L. 90-542) .... The present supplemental statement does not adequately address these rivers and potenti al impacts to them . We recomm end that thi s be done in the fi nal I document. The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Servi ce is avai lable to assist you in this effort. Please contact: Regi onal Di rector, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Servi ce, 600 Arch Street, Room 9310, Phi ladelphi a, I PA '19106. RESPONSE: I The consultant to DOE responsible for preparing the vi sual/recreation study visi ted the Heritage Conservati on and Recreati on Service in Philadelphi a to obtain information related to thi s resource to pi c. Three of the rivers on the I li st are not in the area of the transmissi on faci li ties. The other three are to be crossed by the facilities. DOE's extensive studies of each of these crossi ngs are reported in both the appendi ces and the supplement.

I At the time data was gathered and vi sits were made to the Phi ladelphi a offi ce, the li st was not fully established and many of the rivers were included as I preliminary candi dates. As such, proper designation was not included in the Supplem ent. However, the impacts associ ated with all rivers and streams were fully evaluated and reported in the Supplemental material. I If the project is approved for constructi on, DOE will be performing more detailed site and miti gation studies at locations where the faci li ty would affect hi gh quali ty re sources. Extensi ve on-si te evaluati on would be made and I mi tigati on pl ans developed.

I 21. COMMENT BY: United States Department of the Interior We have two parti cular areas of concern with the proposed route. Fi rst, is the Peregri ne Falcon (Falco peregrinus) rei ntroduction site near the northwe stern route corri dor, and the potenti al "cri ti cal habitat" intersected I by the proposed centerli ne. On page 43, the Peregri ne Falcon is incorrectly term ed a threatened speci es. This speci es is a federally listed endangered I 27 I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg17 23P: 03-09-81

species. The Department of Energy acknowledges its responsibility to consult with our Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the Endangered Species Act. Since this proposal is a major Federal project, the Act requires: 1) a biological assessment, which is the responsibility of the action agency, and 2) if there is any impact, then formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service should be initiated as soon as possible.

RESPONSE:

DOE acknowledges that the Peregrine Falcon is an Endangered Species. Corrections have been made in the text. (see Addenda and Errata, 9.03.5 ).

Please see response to comment no. 2 on DOE consulations related to the Peregrine Falcon.

22. COMMENT BY: United States Department of the Interior

The second area of special concern is the crossing of the proposed route over the Baker River in Link 83. The Baker River is a principal river in the re storation program for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Merrimack River Basin. Sedimentation and herbicide runoff is a concern in this section. Extreme caution will need to be employed to minimize the impacts of I construction and maintenance activities on this river.

RESPONSE:

DOE will review our studies of impact and will determine those areas where special mitigation and environmental protection will be necessary. Your submitted information will assist in developing these mitigation plans.

23. COMME NT BY: United States Department of the Interior

The supplement should address the potential for adverse ef fects of herbicides on groundwater supplies along the proposed transmission line route. In I particular, plans to be followed in the event of accidental herbicide spills should be discussed. I RESPONSE:

Herbicide used to control vegetation on a right-of-way has only a remote I possibility of making its way into groundwater. Plants and micro-organisms immobilize and/or decompose them. Large amounts of herbicide are absorbed in the top 6- 18 inches of soil. At the typical use rates of today's herbicides, they are rarely detected at or below 36 inc hes in depth. Even when found, the I very low levels constitute merely academic value and lack biologic significance. I 28 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1 723 P:03 -09-81 I Herbi cides are less tox ic to humans and animals than other pesticides (specifically insecticides). Precautions for their use are written to protect I sensitive plants, especially crop plants, to preclude damage.

Herbicide spills generally involve small quantities. Spill containment and cleanup is relatively simple and safe, and residual effects, if any, would be I confined to vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the spill.

Spills of potential concern would be those very rare instances involving I relatively large volumes of active material, especially where spilled material enters a body of water. The amount of chemical lost, its dilution rate, speci fic effect level of ex posed aquatic inhabitants or users, together with I the length of their ex posure all determine whether temporary inhibition or permanent damage occur or whether the ex posure will lack biologic significance.

Proper training of applicators and conscientious and safe use of chemicals and I equipment to reduce failure rate will make these significant spills a very rare occurrence. I 24 . COMMENT BY: United States Department of the Interior

I Historic and Archeological Resources

The statement emphasizes the poor data base available in the New England area. The survey sample was small and based on predictive criteria which do I not adequately address both prehistoric and historic archeological and cultural resource concerns. The failure of the agency to coordinate the survey with the State Historic Preservation Office and to submit data and site I nominations to the State Historic Preservation Office for evaluation by local, State and National register criteria is a significant error of omission. Proposed mitigation is not adequate. Impacts to historic sites, increased I potential for vandalism by increased access to the area, impacts to archeological resources are not fully described, and procedures for mitigation are not clearly defined. The final supplement should address the inadequacies I described above. RESP ONSE:

I Because the facilities proposed do not have set locations at this stage, cultural resources must be assessed through a more general overview. The survey team made a complete general assessment of local and site-specific I architectural features. It also investigated pre-historic sites by sampling based on the knowledge and judgment of the archeological team and by sampling based on environmental stratification, the construction of a model to predict site incidence by weighting of environmental factors such as the presence of I important water sources and accessibility of terrain. Historic resources were evaluated through publication and archive research and through local I interviews. 29 I I I Dickey-Lin coln School Lakes Tr an s. Project FSEIS Wg17 23P: 03-09-81 I

Dur ing the survey, the State Histor ic Pr eservation Officer was in formed of the progress of our studies an d was con sulted on both specific an d general I fin dings. Site nomin ation s for the Nation al Register of Histor ic Places are not appropr iate for this more general level of preliminar y survey. Mitigative action s recommen ded in clude subseq uen t survey of pr oposed routes an d I resour ce-specific evaluation s. Giv en the design flexibility of the pr oposed con str uction , av oidance of ar cheological sites is the pr eferred mitigation strategy. The depth an d design of the survey has been appropr iate to the stage an d flexibility of pr oposal dev elopmen t. I

9.03. 5 Addenda and Errata I

Chan ges an d modification of the DSEI S that was issued in September 1980 have been made through the use of adden da an d errata rather than repr in ting the I en tir e documen t. The following Addenda an d Er rata ar e in cluded in or der that the reader can make the nece ssary chan ges to the DSEIS. These, alon g with the responses to the commen ts, compr ise the ov erall changes DOE has made in the DSEI S an d, as such, con stitute the final report issued by DOE. I Adden da I 1. Section 1.02.1 , p. 18: add, after " ... 1979 NEPOOL resource data, " a new par agraph: I The plan pr oposed for the tr ansmitting of power fr om the Dickey-Lin coln School Lakes Project to the existin g New En gland electr ical gr id follows a path fr om the dams in northern Maine to Moore Substation , northwest of Littleton , New Hampshire, and on to Gr an ite an d Moore Substations near Barre, Vermon t, an d I Fran klin , New Hampshire, respectively, for the author ized lev el of 345-kV tr ansmission. The plan includes tr ansmission lin es, SUbstation facilities, an d commun ication facilities. Transmission lin es will in clude: a 29.4-mile I 138-kV wood pole line from Dickey Substation to Fish River Substation near For t Ken t, Maine via Lin coln School Substation ; a 254.7 -mile 345-kV double-cir cuit line on lattice steel tower s from Dickey Substation to Moor e Dam near Littleton , New Hampshire; a 6. 2-mile 345-kV double-cir cuit line on I steel tower s from Moore Substation to Co merfor d Substation ; a 31 .9-mile 34�5-kV wood pole lin e fr om Moor e Substation to Granite Substation near Barre, Vermont; an d a 67 . 6-mi le 345-kV wood pole line from Moore SU bstation to I Webster SU bstati on near Fr anklin, New Hampshire. The plan also pr oposes substations at both dams , a switchin g station near Moose River, Maine, an d new ter mi nal fac ilities at Moor e, Gr an ite, an d Fish River Substation s. I

2. Secti on 1.03.2, Figure 1.03-2: add, at bottom of figure page, "Note: I This sketch shows the right-of-way con figur ation for the pr oposed route on ly (see fig. 8.03-2 for other alternatives). " I 30 I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans. Project FSEIS Wg1723P:03- 09-B 1 I Errata

I Summary, page 1, line 30: delete " ... east" from "One residence east of the Webster Substation •.." , and substitute the word "west. "

I Summary, page 5, line 33: delete " ... Service" from "New England Electric Service" and add " ..•System". I Section 3.0B , paragraph 2, p. 43: in the first sentence, delete the word " ... Threatened" and add the word " •..endangered. " I 9.04· Appendices One appendix (Comment Letters Received - Appendix A) follows. All letters received during review of the Draft Supplement EIS are included. Some letters I did not require response; some did not contain comments relev ant to the DSEIS and consequently receiv ed no response. I I I I I I I I I I

31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Trans . Project FSEIS Wg1 723P: 03-09- 81 I AP PENDIX A - COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 32 I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I TENN ESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NORRIS. TENNESSEE 37828

I OCT 161980

I Timothy J. Murray Department of Energy P. O. Box 3621 I Portland , Oregon 97208

Dear Mr . Murray :

I This letter constitutes TVA' s comments on the draft environmental imp act statement (DEIS) supplement entitled, "Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes I Transmission Proj ect - Maine , New Hampshire , and Vermont ," as you requested . Following our review of the proposed action, as described, we have determined that TVA program interest will not be impacted . Therefore, we have no comments.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft supplement .

I Sincerely , I Mohamed T. El-Ashry , Ph .D. Director of Environmental I Quality I I I I I I I I An Equal Opportun ity Employer ------�------, I DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND UR8AN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410 I I OFFICE OF THE ASSIS TANT SECRETARY

FOR COMM UNITY PLANNING AND DEVEL�O PMENT IN REP LY REFER TO: I u.s. Department of Energy Federal Building Bangor , Maine 04401 I

Gentlemen :

Subject: Dickey-L incoln School Lakes I Transmission Project Maine , New Hampshire, and Vermont I Thank you for providing us the opportun ity to review the above draft Environ­ mental Impact Statement (EIS). In accordance with 24 CFR Part 50 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, Department of Housing and Urban Deve l opment procedures, particularly Section 50.61 of our Regu lations, we are I forwarding the EIS to the responsible HUD Regional Environmental Officer . He wi ll review an d comment as appropriate , directly to you by your due date . I

To assure prompt r�view of al l non-H UD EIS's, you should send copies of al l future EIS's as fo llows : I 1. Al l EIS's on legislative propos als, regu lations, or po licy documents of national signifi cance should be sent to Mr . Richard H. Broun, Director , Office of Environmental Quality, HUD, Washington , D. C. 20410; and I 2. All other EIS's should be forwarded to the appropri ate HUD Regional Office for comment. We have enclosed a list of our Regional Environmental I Offi cers and their addresses. If you have any questions in th is regard , please fee l free to contact me at I (202 ) 755-6300.

Sincere ly, � I -_.,--"... ::: .. / �_� J' - f � __ . -:-7 '� -. - - _-<.------�/ //} / -<"' ; Richard H. Broun Director I Office of Environmental Quality

Encl osure I I I I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

I OCT 2 8 1980

I Department of Energy Bonnevi 11e Power Admi nistration ATTN : Mr. Timothy J. Murray P . O. Box 3621 I Portl and , Orego n 97208 I Dear Mr . Murray: Th is is in response to a recent request from yo ur agency fo r comments on the Draft Envi ronmental Impact Statement Supplement for the Dickey-Lincoln School I Lakes Transmission Project.

We have reviewed the statement and determined that the proposed action has no I significant radiological heal th and safety impact , nor wi ll it adversely affect any acti vities subject to regulation by the Nucl ear Regul atory Commi ssion .

I Since we made no sUbstantive comments , yo u need not send us the Final Enviorn­ mental Statement when issued .

I Thank you fo r providi ng us wi th the opportun ity to revi ew th is Draft Envi ronmental Impact Statement Suppl ement.

I Sincerely, ,./// '/ //,.,/ <'! 7/) · . I )0/v ...... yVV'../ t/ '( /; /�U�;'-'--- - Daniel R. Mu l ler, Assistant Director for Envi ronmental Technology I Div ision of Engi neering I I I I I I NORTHERN MA INE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISS ION

Mc.Etwa.A..n Hou...6 e I Z Ma.A..n S:tJteet C�bou, Ma.A..ne 04736 I I PLAN TOVAY .... FOR TOMORROW Te£ephone: I AC (207) 498-8736

October 31 , 1980 I

Mr. Timothy J. Murray , Asst . Project Manager I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Proj ect Benneville Power Administration Environmental Planning Section - ETMC P.O. Box 3621 I Portland , Oregon 97208

RE: NMRPC Formal Comments on the EIS on the Dickey-Lincoln School Lake s I Electrical Transmission System .

Dear Mr. Murray , I

On November 28 , 1977 the Executive Board of the Northern Maine Re gional Planning Commission met to discuss the U.S. Corps of Engineers ' Environmental Impact Statement dealing with the proposed Dickey-Lincoln I School Lakes Project . By unanimous vote of the Board , decision was made to oppose the construction of Dickey-Lincoln School Dams as proposed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers . At the same time the Northern Maine Regional I Planning Commi ssion further voted unanimously to recommend that the Upper st . John River and other sites in Maine be studied for low head , smaller hydroelectric facilities for the generation of electricity , while at the I same time doing so in an environmentally more acceptable manner. In further clarification of that position we are hereby attaching copies of correspondence dated November 28 , 1977 and November 30, 1977 which was directed to Col . John P. Chandler , then New England Divison Engineer . I

Since that time the Northern Maine Regional Planning Commission has been and continues to develop a plan for an alternative hydroelectric I facility in the vacinity of Lincoln School. This facility would involve a single dam of approximately 70 megawatts with output going 100% to the benefit of the State of Maine . This is more fully described in the attached I report dated January 1, 1980 . The implementation of this proposed concept is now be ing advanced by the Commission .

Yesterday , on October 30 the Commission 's Executive Board again discussed I the Dickey-Lincoln School Lake s Project in light of the Dept . of Energy 's final project E.LS. on the transmission facilities . By unanimous vote of

PLANNING VI VISIONS ·1

Ecorumu:.c - Law - Commund:y - M\.'Vt Ba,�in - Ag ency CooJt.clina,t,{.o n & Spec-Wi P-'to jew I I Mr. Timothy J. Murray , Asst . pr oj ect Manager Page 2 I october 31, 1980

the Board the following position was taken . In light of the Northern_ I Maine Regional Planning Commission 's previous position in oppo sition to the Dickey-Lincoln Project and since that de cision included our opposition to the impacts of the transmi ssion facilities , the NMRPC is also opposed I to the transmi ssion facilities . We trust that the Dept . of Energy will fully reflect the position as the official comments of the Commi ssion in regards to the above subject I matter.

I I

JAB/KCA/pml

I Enclosure s I I I I I I I

I I I I s I Bob Linck �?D 30:x: Lt23 �' lint :1:ill Road I -...,. .... J�yme Center, i:.i.:"- I

Di ckey-Linc oln �ro ject I 2.0. 30x 3:;21 �ort12nd , Ore . 97208

:i)ear 3irs : I

I 81!l ':JI'itin g in r2f2""ence . to the dr,'?>f t )u��J_er:" ent 2,1 -:=1:3 on the elect::ic:="l trcms0.j_ ssion syst2m for the "TO ';0 sec', :Jiclcey­ lincoln 3C:lO Ol Lake s hycTo electri c -:::,ro j ect in no::thern Eaine . I

I hcw e revi e';!ed the ir.'j8.Ct st2.t eIJent 2.Ild '''-' ind :::y se1f '�,ui te in 2,greement on Y0l.1X tsntative choice for th e tran3�i ssion line I c 0 -�::i d 0 r • .:'1.;''.0 n.?:;,c:; tn 2.lter n2.t i ve rout e -3, t�e �·�onroe to ?�:2.1"'l:l in

�ou_ J..v e al__ ���...... J..l-.) �aoJ ./ �l"'_..i.'le _ s of e::i stiI1..5-2: right-of-','Jay 2,�; iJea.rs to have the . , fe':Je st enviro11.:."::lental l:1yc.CL;S • I Of the irr'�) 2�ct s of the �ro��'osed 2, ction, I ,,'.'ould. lilce to voice r;�y conc e:cn over t'dO of them in �art icul 2.r . .:?irst , t::..e otential effects on the 51 stre2:2S and 13 v/etland s reyresent another e:C2.:l­ I =; le of hO'd ';,'e continue to c:r.i�; 2.':187 on the IJroductivi ty cmd cJ.iver ­ sity of our a'-�u2.ti c ecosy3tess . Eerbicide runo :-�= and sediT:'. entation, 2.nd th eir re sult ant effect s on such boc�ies of ':!2.t er 2.S �;' rc:;nch :;, ond 2.nd t�e Daker River, should no t be written o=f as minor or insig­ I �ific2"nt . OlIT i:.T0ter re sources 2v re beCO!2ing ll0re li·--:�i� ec;. �JT the dc.y c. 8 it is. A second :- 12.tter of concern 'involve s thre2.t ened u":'" suc�.l...... c"�s 1 ... n __ '... h '-� lJ':"l b ...... __ t -'- ...... L� \ ...... _'_-, .__ c�ecl'es t� e _ pre�0 rl'ne �::>lcon �nd +�e �i l �rprl i�� (� ��rc I '__ '-'

Yil r-"._�..!..L. � 1· """ �"T� • " -:: 2m "' ' -� -;-· ·- ,...., l· .,., "' nd \�L C'lC'l'> 1� " C!P+-+-S \ T_ _' J.. C: f U und _H e l d.,!l>n' s 1_ l J.. e ,.',d._ �.Le , c,� a OOC," c ."J. '-' _Jv ;. C'lee0 no !:lention L:.. the :2I3 of r}i tigatirm !:le2-B"u.r es ':.'i". ic:1 '" .r()uld rotsct the falcon reintrod�ction �ite ne ar the no rt�we stern rout e co�r­ I idor, and like':Ii se , there is :'1 'J t :lmch S7J2.c e cc evoted to thre2.t ened ylant sl)8cies sr,c�l a s the s i lverling . " One closir1,g ':[ord - � 9f the 'o otenti2.lly si �:nific8.nt in- ;:::J,cts I ne ed be ri sked at all if the �ickey-Lincoln �roject is revi e�ed '38'ilSibly , as a 'dhole. -:e ne hug e ecologic2.1 iID'�act o.nd the re12.tiv e :pauc ity of economi c benefits, vlhich I ,·Jill no t det2.il but of 1:fhi ch I I am sure �TOU are ':Jell aVf c.re , I:F':', Ke justific2.tion of the :: :co ject in 2.nv fOl"r"l very difficult indeed. I ':lOuld lLce to tp.ke ti1is o:OIl'()"T'tuni ty to strongly urg e you to consider a.;.:;?in the one alte r- nat ive to ti.1e :2roj ect ( a.nd thus to the tra.n �r'.i ssion line routes ) I 'dhi ch 1,-ra::T2.nt 3 c.::;:;cov8.1 - the null 2.1t ernative . Donlt build the dam, don I t b1..uld the transmi ssion lines , 3 t O �1 1,'fa sting the t2x:�� 2.y ers I money ( well over 10 million �ollars al�eady ) , and �egin consider- in:; solutions to the energy cri si s vrl1i ch make environrrrent al and I economi c sense. I

3incerely , I �i.obert O. I� inck I •

I. U. S. DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION �.. , . �. I -� . REGION ONE 21 9 Federal Bu ilding Concord , New Hampshire I 03301

IN REPLY REFER TO : I November 4, 1980 I,

Timothy J. Murray, As sistant Project Manager for Environmental Studies I Department of Energy Bonneville Power Ad min istration I P.O. Box 3621 Portland , Oregon 97208 I Dear Mr. Murray: Subject : Dickey-Li ncol n School La kes Project I Ma ine, New Hamps hire and Vermont We have been as ked to re view and com ment on the Draft Suppl emental E1S for the subject project , which was sent to former Reg ional Admi nistrator I Kirby .

We do not foresee any serious confl icts between yo ur proposal and our programs . As yo u are probably aware, completion of 1-93 in Littl eton in the vicinity I of the Mo ore Reservo ir is under construction and wi ll likely continue through 1985. We are enclos ing drawings taken from the Littl eton E1S which shows the location of the new highway . We wou ld suggest that you coord inate with I the New Ha mpshire Department of Public Works and Highways for additional detail in this area and for crossings of Routes 135, 302, 25, 25A , 118, 104 and 11, all State roadways on the Federa l-aid Hig hway system as your design I develops.

Sincerely yours , I � : J �, I F.�(j T. c ms'�;,"�, P.E. Division Adminis ator I Enclos ures I I I Northeast Public Povver Association

14H Linden Street, Suite 104, Wellesley Massachusetts 02181 I I

Novemb er 6, 1980 I Mr . Timo thy J. Murray Assistant Project Manager for Environmental Studies Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Transmission EIS Project Bonneville Power Administration-- ETMC I PO Box 3621 Portland , Oregon 97208 I Dear Mr . Murray: Enclosed is testimony regarding DOE's revised transmission I plan for the Dickey-Lincoln proj ect. We would appreciate having it placed in the public record. I I i;t:el1A1L I ack War k Information Director I I I I I I I

Phone 617/237-9126 I I Northeast Public Power Association I 148 Linden Street, Suite 104, Wellesley Massachusetts 02181 I Novemb er 13 , 1980 I The Northeast Pub lic Power Association , representing the 81

I consumer-owned electric utilities in New England , has long been a vigorous I supporter of Dickey-Lincoln, the federal hydro electric proj ect proposed for northern Maine . I Central to our position is the well-documented need in Maine and the rest of New England for economically-priced electric power . Exorbitant

I electric rates jeopardize the economic survival of our region. We have the I highest electric rates in the nation. And these rates contribute all too directly to problems in our economy--to high unemployment , a shortage of I indus try , wa ges below the national average, high produc t prices , and so on. Dickey-Lincoln, with its ab undant supply of economically-priced power , would

I repres ent a first step toward addres sing the problem of high electric rates I in New England . This of course is not to sugges t that Dickey-Lincoln would reduce our electric bills . It will no t. Obviously , no single generating I facility will do that. But , Dickey-Lincoln wo uld produce power that will be needed in the coming years and at costs lower than any alternative. In

I short, Dickey-Lincoln would help stabil ize our region 's electric rates . I The project would be especially prolific in producing peaking power . Proj ections are that Dickey-Lincoln would provide nearly one-fourth of Maine 's I to tal peaking power and about 17 percent of the entire region 's peaking power . An output of such ma gn itude wo uld establish Dickey-Lincoln as one of the

I mo st valuab le peaking facilities in the nation. I -1-

I Phone 617/237-9126 2 I

Moreover , Dickey-Lincoln would provide considerable bas e-and intermediate- I load power for Maine consumers . Estimates are that the proj ect, if it were to I go "on line" in the 1980 's, would provide 4.5 percent of Maine 's total power . An important reason for supporting Dickey-Linco1n 's construction invo lves I the very nature of th e faci1ity--that is , a facility powered by water .

Water, after all , is the cheapes t of all available energy sources . Water-- I unlike oil or coal or natural gas or uranium--is a renewab le resource. We will I not run out of it . It will no t become scarce, nor will its availability be subject to po litical developments in foreign nations . A generating facility I that relies on a fossil fue1--1ike oil or coa1--is a generating facility whose

fuel costs are bound to do one thing : They are bound to increase. Not so I with Dickey-L incoln . As Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts once no ted, I Dickey-Lincoln would provide a "unique guarantee" of electric power at today 's prices for many years to come . The cost of Dickey-Linco1n 's "fue1"--which I wo uld be water--wou1d start at zero and remain at zero .

Electric rates in parts of the country wh ere maj or hydroelectric I facilities exist, demonstrate that hydropower wo rks , and works cheaply . The I Pacific Northwes t, for example, which gets mu ch of its power from hy dro- generation, has the lowest electric rates in the country . The rates there are I some 50 percent lower than they are here in New England , wh ere there are no

maj or hydro proj ects . I Ano ther telling examp le is in New York. The state, as a wh ole, has the I highest rates in the nation . The state's municipal utilities , however , which receive power from hydro facilities at Niagara Falls and on the St". Lawrence I River , have rates wh ich are among the lowest in the United States . The rates

of the New York municipals are, in some cases , as much as 75 percent lower than I

they are in New England .

-2- I I 3

I Another advantage to hydropower, apar t from the fact that it is cheap, invo lves its generally benign relationship with the environment. It is

I clean and safe. It does not pollute the air in the manner of fossil fuels . I It does no t pose the safety hazards that, some contend, are posed by nuclear power . I In our enthusiasm regarding the positive effects that Dickey-Lincoln would have on New England 's energy situation and economy , however , we are

I not unmindful of environmental considerations . This being the case, we I endorse the new transmission route which the u.s. Department of Energy has formulated in connection with the proj ect . The new proposed route, as we I understand it, deletes a 48-mile 345 kilovolt line previously proposed between Barre, Vermont and Essex, Vermont. This Barre-to-Essex line would have

I necessitated a widening of the existing right of way in that area , thereby alterin� I the existing environment. Its deletion, we believe , is in keeping with efforts to limit, as much as possible, the Dickey-Lincoln proj ect 's impact on the New England

I environment .

It should also be noted that , under the new DOE transmission plan , a

I new 70-mile 345 kilovolt line is proposed between Comerford , New Hamp shire and I Webster, New Hampshire . This line , however , is due to run through an existing right of way and , thus will have virtually no impact on the

I existing environment .

The new DOE transmission plan seems to us to be a sound one . Our

I judgment is that it strikes a respons ib le balance between two important needs-­ I the need to transmit Dickey-Lincoln power to New England consumers in an economical fashion and the need to protect the environment from alterations

I that are not totally necessary . We commend DOE for its wo rk and endorse

its new transmission plan . I I -3� g I

New England Power Service Company 20 Turnpike Road I o New England Power ?ervice Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Tel. (61 7) 366·901 1 I November 5, 1980 I

Mr . Timothy J. Murray I Assistant Proj ect Manager U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Env irolliTlental Planning Section - ETMC I P. O. Box 3621 Portland , OR 97208 I Dear Mr . Murray :

We have reviewed the supplemental EIS draft , dated September 1980 , for the I Dickey-Lincoln transmi ssion facilities .

Figures 1.03-2 (Section 1) and 3 (Appendix D) showing the cross section of the 230 kV right of way ar e classified as "Propo sed Fac ility ." These diagrams I definitely create an image for the ultimate appearance of the transmission corridor . We believe that , although the text on Page 20 leaves room for flexibility in a final decision , the right of way cross-section sketches are I definitely prejudicial . Therefore , we reque st that you remove these figures from the report . I If the remo val of the figures detracts too much from the report to be acceptable to you , then it should be made clear , at least on Figure 1.03-2 , that this propo sal is only one of at least two po ssible routes , and that a final I decision has not been made . This information should appear on Figure 1.03-2 , as well as in the text .

Additionally , for the reliability of the New England transmission system , I it may not be advisable to use this singl e transmi ssion corridor for integrating al l contemp lated northern New England generating capacity into the New England system . For that reason , the second alternate route should be kept open and I considered before any construction dec isions are made . The second alternate route is slightly mo re economical and is ranked close to the propo sed plan . We request that some reference to this concept be made in the text . I

To reconfirm our present po licy , the opt ions to use this right of way must be investigated again , when the Dickey-Lincoln proj ect is approved fo r construction. All options which use our rights of way wo uld have to be approved by us and be I compatible with our long range needs to provide adequat e and reliable supply to our customers in the New England area . I ·1

A New England Electric System company I Mr . Timothy J. Murray November 5, 1980 Page 2 I

Comments by our Environmental Affairs Department fo llow : I Page 5 "Ne", England Electric Service, MA. (NEES )" should be "New England Electric System. "

I Page 21 , Section 1.03.3 Des ign Criteria and Figure 1.03.3.

NEP believes that the visual intrusion created by 165 foot high double­ I circuit lattice type steel structures between Moo re and Comerford substations is excessive . Propo sed lattice type steel towers rising mo re than twice as high as the existing 75 foot high wood po le arm structures near a state highway I and in the river valley is more than a mere "intrusion ." This is a heavily traveled area as compared with the propo sed right-of-way from Dickey to the Connecticut River Valley .

I NEP believes that having two 345 kV circuits is no t good practice for system reliability .

I Appendix J - Historical-Archaeological Impact Study , Page 2

"Recommendat ions I 1. We recommend a full and intensive archaeological survey of the final right of way."

I NEP questions whether "a full and intensive archaeological survey" wo uld include sampling . NEP believes that sampling should only be conducted at those propo sed tower locations which are deemed to be sites of po ssible archaeological I value , not across the fu ll width and length of the final right of way . On Page 21 of the Draft EIS Supplement , Sect ion 103 .4 Construction Seque nc e , it states "Where the right of way is already cleared , certain steps such as access road I construction ...will no t be required ." As all of the NEP right of way is already cleared , no access road construction wo uld be necessary ; therefore , no archaeological survey relative to access roads wo uld be necessary for these links . As the actual sites of excavation fo r the propo sed towers wi ll occupy an infinitesimal I portion of the total area , it is only at these sites , if of archaeological value , that sampling should be conducted . The taxpayers of the united States should not have to pay fo r sampl ing in the approximately 99% of the right of way wh ich are I not to be tower locations . A ful l and intensive field survey could adequately document sites of probable archaeological value not to be impacted by the propo sed towers and file this data with the State Archaeologist . In this manner the I prevenienc e, the contextual relationships of any surviving artifacts on the existing right of way wo uld be preserved . NEP believes that "in-situ " preservation is superior to excavation and removal , and a mo re economical path to pursue .

I Append ix J - Historical-Archaeological Impact Study , Page 13

In the penultimate paragraph , mentio n is made of "a po licy of the PAF I (Public Archaeo logy Fac ility) no t to enter private property without owner permi ssion ." NEP expects that permi ssion will be requested prior to entry by the PAF or any other organization conducting any further surveys . I I I Mr . Timothy J. Murray November 5, 1980 Page 3 1

NEP wo uld expect also to be contacted prior to any sampling conducted on its lands . Any propo sed sampling wo uld be subj ect to an Agreement to be 1 negotiated between NEP and other parties , including NEP 's ownership of any artifacts uncovered fo r probable permanent loan to a curatorial institution . 1 Very truly yours , 1 -thv:J_._---.q, ...... " �-.... i+:-P '" .-..<--atzfl Thakor H. Patel Senior Engineer I New England Power Service Company (For New England Power Company )

THP : kmu I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I -I 1 I ,(j) North Country I Council, Inc.

I Oliver W. Nelson, President P. O. Box 40 Franconia Gerald I. Coogan, Executive Director New Hampshire 03580 I Telephone 603/823-8108

I November 17, 1980 I Department of Ener gy Bonneville Power Administration I P. O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208

I Attention: Mr . Timothy Mur ray

I Dear Mr . Mur ray:

This is in response to your reque st for comment s on the Draft Envir on­ I mental Imp act Statement Supplement-Dickey Lincoln School Lake s Trans ­ mi ssion Pr oj ect.

I Fir st of all, let me say that your Envir onmental Impact Statement was well done and that our Land Use Planning Advisory Committee agrees with your recommended transmi s sion route. I My one question concerns the status of the proposed power line s with re­ gard to local property taxation. It is my under s tanding that th e proposed lines I would be tax exempt and that if the line s were run on .exi s ting New England Power Company ! s towers tho se would also become exempt. Some of our committees are concerned about the impact the se exemp tions could ha ve on their tax base. I For example, Ha verhill' s lar gest exi sting taxpayer is curr ently the New England Power Company.

I I believe that your EIS doe s not adequately address thi s is sue and our Land Use Planning Advi sory Committee would like to ha ve some additional info rmati on I regar ding thi s subject. r::; Si lY' � I R ayrnond Lobdell Community Planning Coordinator I RL:emr 5. 2 I 11. 102 United States Soil @. Department of Conservation Federal Building Agriculture Service Durham, New Hamp shire 03824 I

November 21, 1980 I Mr . Timo thy Jo Murray As sistant Proj ect Manager for Environmenta l Studies Dickey-Lincoln Schoo l Lakes Proj ect I Bonnevi lle Power Admin istration Environmen ta l Planning Sec tion - ETMC P.O. Box 3621 I Portland , Oregon 97208 I Dear Mr. Mu rray :

We have reviewed the Department of Energy 's draft Supplementa l Environmen ta l Impac t Sta tement on the Dickey-Lincoln Schoo l Lakes I elec trical transmission system.

The draft EIS adequately addresses the environmen tal concerns of I the Soil Conserva tion Service. I

Sincerely , I /;7 .. // . ... � //, , ; .• t[,

The Soil Conservation Service SCS-AS-1 is an agency of the 10-79 Department 01 Agriculture I I 1/ I I DeiJart ment of Energy Region I I 150 Ca useway Street Boston. Mass. 02 114 I

Timothy J. Mu rray As�istant Progra� Ma nager fo r I Env i ronmenta l Studies Di c key-Li ncoln Sc hool La kes Project Bonneville Power Administration I Environ-Pl anning Section-ETMC P.O. Box 3621 Portl and , Oregon 97208 I Dear Mr . Mu rray :

Region I in its capacity to eval uate al l energy al ternati ves affecting I the New Engl and energy picture ha s rev i ewed the Draft EIS Suppl em ent fo r the Dickey-Lincol � La kes Power project . We are confident that this addi ti.onal info rma tion will be beneficial to the enti re decision I maki ng process.

We have no additional comments to offer beside the fact that we are I supportive of this entire project , whi ch wi ll hel p the New Engl and area reduce its depend ency on fo reign petroleum resources . We wi ll al so con­ tinue to rema in involved wi th al l the decision ma king processes .

I Thank yo u for the opportunity to comment . I Sincerel y, �/� I Harol d J. Keo ha ne Regional Representative I I I I I I /2- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY I Rockville, Md. 20852 OA/CS2x6:JLR I I I TO : PP/EC - Joyce M. Wood / 1 <,} j . I FROM: OA/CS - Robert B. Rol lins 'f . I / SUBJECT: DEIS #8010.06 - Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Transmission Project; Ma ine , New Hampshire, and Vermont (Suppl ement) I

The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of the National Ocean Survey· s (NOS ) res pons ibility and expertise, and in terms of the impact on the proposed action on NOS activities and I projects .

Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed I transmis sion line routes . If there is any planned activity wh ich wi ll disturb or des troy these monuments , NOS requi res not less than 90 days · notification in advance of such activity in order to plan for their I rel ocation . NOS recommends that fundin g for this project includes the cost of any relocation required for NOS monuments . I I I I I I- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Assistant Secretary for Policy I Washington, D.C. 20230 I I

I Mr. Timothy J. Murray Bonneville Power Administration Department of Energy I P. O. Box 3621 Portland , Oregon 97208 1 Dear Mr. Murray : This is in referenc e to your draft environmental impact statement supplement entitled, "Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Transmission Project, Maine , I New Hampshire , and Vermont ." The enclosed comment from the National Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration (NOAA) is forwarded for your consideration .

I Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide this comment , whi ch we hope will be of assistance to you . We would appreciate receiving ten copies of the final supplemental statement .

I Sinc erely, I · RObef+'tr!r Deputy Assistant Secretary for I Regulatory Policy (Acting)

Enclosure Memo from : Robert B. Rollins I National Ocean Survey NOAA I I I I I I 13 I JVeuo .Jf� /l� �J gnc . I RFD 2, Armory Road Mi�fo rd, New Ha mpshire 03055 Te L (603) 673-6300 Novemb er 12 , 1980 iNOWMOBIL£ II,SSOCIATION II

Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project Bonneville Power Administration I Environmental Planning Section-ETMC P.O. Box 3621 Portland , Oregon 97208 I

Attn: Timo thy J. Murray As sistant Projects Manager For ' Environmental Study I Dear Mr . Murray : I

As President of the New Hamp shire Snowmobile Association , I am very concerned about the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Proj ect . The New Hamp shire I Snowmob ile Association is an ind ependent non-profit organization supported by dues from organized Snowmobilers in New Hampshire . We have 127 Club s wi th approxima tely 6000 Club Members . We also represent Snowmobile Dealers , Manu­ facturers, Contributors and Individual Memb ers who do not belong to a Snow­ I mob ile Club . My concern �s established snowmobile trails on private land . Any Snow­ mobile Club that is a memb er in good standing of N.H.S.A. is eligible to apply I for Grant-In-Aid to the Bureau of Off Highway Vehicles for trail construc tion bridges and winter grooming . The Grant-In=Aid program is funded from the first $2.00 of every snowmobile registration. One of the regulations that a Club mus t I comp ly with is to have landowner permi ssion wr itten or oral and the landowner mus t be listed on the application. If Utility Companies purchase rights of way to construct transmission lines it is almo st impossible for a Snowmobile Club to receive assistance for maj or trails on these properties . Therefore , if the I future construction of the Dickey-Linclon School Lakes Proj ect transmission lines rights of way were to be purchased by the Utility Company this could be a great har dship for local Snowmob ile Clubs and the sport of Snowmobiling. The Bureau of Off Highway Vehicles has been instruc ted by the Legislature to provide Liab ility Insurance for priva te landowners who do not post their land against Snowmobiling. I am sure that you are awar e that New Hamp shire is a tourist state. I am enclosing a survey that will ind icate the Economic Impact that Snowmobiling has in New Hamp shire. I ho pe that you will work with the New Hamp shire Snowmob iling As sociation and the Bureau of Off Highway Vehicles in any future plan or study .

Sincerely Yours , ) - ,p? /) r-� /' /' � 1,.0/,�T ... - Z;4-", ·/-r>C/ 7:,/;:1., ';, Lr,/� / '-. .... Barton C. Witham President NEW HAMP SHIRE SNOWMOBILE AS SOCIATION BCW/pw encl. I I. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR STATE PLANNING OFFICE AREA CODE 802-828-3326 STATE A-95 CLEAR I NGHOUSE I 5th Floor, Pav i I ion Off ice Bu i Iding

I STATE OF VERMONT MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 I I MEMORANDUM

To : Timothy J. Mu rray, Ass i stant Project Manager for I Env ironmenta l Stud ies U. S. Dept. of Energy, Bon nev i lie Powe r Administrat ion Env i ronmenta l Plann ing Sect ion-ETMC , P. O. Box 362 1 I Po rt land , Oregon 97208 / I From: Em i Iy Nea ry , A-95 Coo rd inato rJ,;"v Date: Novem ber 24, 1980

Re : draft supp lementa l en vironmenta l impact statement on the I Dickey-L incoln Schoo l La kes electr ical transm iss ion system . I I As the State Clearinghouse under OMS Circu lar A-95 we have notified other pub! ic agenc ies with a poss ible interest in you r: draft dupp lementa l env i ronm'enta l impact I statement.

I Co p ies of comments rece ived are attac hed � from the Vermont Division for Histor ic Preservat ion and the Vermont Agency of Env i ro nmenta l Con servat ion. No other comments were I rece ived . In the event that t he Vermont co rridor is recon sidered , please sen d informat ion to the State A-95 Clearinghouse for rev iew.

I :encl osu res I I I I I

STATE OF VERi\IO�T I OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (802) 828-3211 MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 I DEPARTM ENTS OF: DIVISIONS OF: Economic Development 828-3221 Administracion 828-3 231 Housing & Community Affairs 828-3217 Historic Prl'servacion 828-3226 Vermont Travel Division 828-3236 I V"rmonc Life Magazin<' 828-3241 Oc tober 14 , 1980 I I

Mrs . Emily Neary Stat e A-95 Coordinator State Planning Office I Montpelier, Vermont 05602

Re : Draft Supp lemental Env ironmental Impact Statement I Dickey-Lincoln Schoo l Lakes Transmission Proj ect

Dear Mrs . Neary : I

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ab ove-referenced pro­ j ect . I The project as proposed wi ll have no affec t on historic or archeolo­ gical propert ies located wi thin Vermont . Further comments from this Division are not warranted unless the proj ect scope is expanded into I Vermont .

Sincerely, I

DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION I (L-dilctH1 ,0,PH �:) William B. Pinn ey �/ Director/Deputy State Historic I Preservation Officer

WBP/cjd I I I I I I State of Vermont I AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSER VATIC

l\Iontpelier, Vermont 0561

I OFFICE OF THE SECRETAF

Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation I Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Engineering

. Division of Environmen tal Protection I Natural Resources Conservation Council

I IvlEHORA� uUH I TO : Emily Neary , A-95 Coordinator FROM : Edward J. Koenemann , Director of

DATE : November 13 , 1980

SUBJECT : A- 95 Response Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement I Dicky-Lincoln Schoo l La kes Tr ansmission Project

I The revi ew of the latest information as submitted ind icate s the pr oposal is located in New Hamp shire . If thi s is the case we have no comments. If and when the Transmi ssion Line s are planned for construction in Ve rmo nt our con­ I cerns will be the same as expressed in writing and published in the Draft Environme ntal Statement pp 9-339-9-342 (copy attached ) . I EJK :ah I Attached I I I I I I

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I I J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 I

November 24, 1980

Mr. Timothy J. Murray I As sistant Proj ect Manager for Environmental Studies Dickey-Lincoln School Lake s Project I Bonneville Power Administration Environmental Planning Section - ETMC P.O. Box 3621 I Po rtl and , OR 97208 Dear Mr. Murray : I In accordance with our review responsibilities under the National Environmental Pol icy Act , we have reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS ) fo r the proposed change in the electrical transmission I system for the proposed Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes hydroelectric project in northern Maine . I This letter supplements our comm ents to you on June 14, 1978 and to the Corps of Engineers .on December 7, 1977, September 8, 1978, February 20 , 1979 and Ap ril 28 , 1980 which pr esent in detail our concerns about the Dickey-Lincoln dams and transmi ssion proj ects . We continue to have the se concerns and , I rather than reiterate them here , we incorporate them by referenc e.

According to the DSEIS, the change consists of the addition of 73.8 miles of 345kV transmission line from Mo ore Substation near Littleton , New Hamps hire, to Web ster Substation near Frankl in , New Hampshire , and the deletion of a 345kV line from Granite Sub station near Montpelier , Ve rmont , to Es sex Sub station I ne ar Burl ington , Vermont . The se change s are apparently due to the substantial decrease in load estimates and changes in the generation assumptions over the past few years . We believe it wo uld be useful for the Final EIS to discuss whether this substantial decrease in load estimates indicates a lessening in I the need for Dickey-Lincoln or a shift in the mar ket area.

Our principl e concern with the transmission pr oject, as yo u know , is its impact on water qual ity due to sedimentation , herbicide runoff , and changes in temperature . We believe that the DSEIS does a good job in disclosing these impacts , and in particular , we concur with your inclusion of publ ic water supplies and ar eas of groundwater av ailability as "Significant Ecological Re sources ." We believe that , wh ere possible , this type of information should be provided for the rest of the transmission lines . Also , we bel ieve it I wo uld be appropriate for the Final EIS to discuss current right-of-way (ROW ) maintenance pr actices since , according to the DSEIS , more than 90 percent of the propo sed route will be on an already cleared ROW owned by New Engl and Power Company . We agree that , compared to us e of a new ROW , thi s is preferable I I I -2-

from the standpoint of protection of water qual ity . The DSEIS is also correct I in pointing out that there will still be the potential for the pro ject to adver sely affect water qual ity .

We are particularly concerned with the impact of sedimentation and herbicide I runoff on Gordon Pond Brook, a Class A stream wh ich will be crossed by the transmission line between miles 24.2 and 26.5 in link 80 . Th is stream is part of the watershed from which the Town of North Woodstock receive s its I drinking water . We concur with the EIS 's recommend ation that herbicides not be used in thi s ar ea. The transmi ssion line will be in clo se proximity to several public wells at other locations in the route . While we wo ul d agree that' the potential for serious adver se effects on these ar eas from herbicide I spraying is small , we believe the potential for spray drift and the importance of maintaining high qual ity drinking water warrant consideration of banning I herbicide use in these ar eas as well . Al so of concern is the affect of the proj ect on the ex isting high qual ity brook trout fisheries in the Baker River , Mad River , Beebe River , Coc kermouth I River , Smith River , Halls Brook, Hardy Brook, Fowler River , and Patten Brook. The EIS correctly identifies these areas as important and warranting stringent mitigation measures . Strict erosion control measures and scheduling of construction so as to minimize impacts on fisheries wi ll be necessary . Us e I of manual ROW clearing methods in these areas should be seriously considered . I We al so believe that wh ere the line crosses the Wh ite Mountain National Fo rest and the Appalachian Trail , use of herbic ides should be prohibited.

Finally, it is unclear how thi s DSEIS process will fit into the Corps ' EIS I process for the ov er all project. It is our understanding that the Final EIS is in Corps headquarters awaiting approval , and that there is a po ssibil ity for its release prior to DOE's release of a Final Supplemental EIS. We I believe thi s woul d be an incorrect procedure , and request that DOE and the Corps syncronize their schedules in order for the Final Supplemental EIS to be released with the Final EIS to avoid a conflict with Co uncil on Environmental I Qual ity regulations .

In accordance with our national rating system (see enclosed explanation) we have rated this EIS ER- 2. If you have any que stions or wi sh to di scuss our I comments, please contact El i zabeth Higgin s of my staff at 617/223-0400 .

Sincerely, I av,{ K4L� I Richard R. Keppler Acting Director Environmental Impact Office

I Enclosure

cc : Co lonel Wi lliam E. Hodgson , Jr ., COE I I /� I DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NEW ENGLANDREGION 12 NEW ENGLAND EXECUT1VEPARK I BURLINGTON, MASS. 01803 I

December 1, 1980 I I

Mr . Timothy J. Murray Assis tant Proj ect Manager I for Environmental Studies Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Proj ect P.O. Box 3621 I Portland , Oregon 97208 Dear Mr. Murray : I Mr . Whittington has requested I respond to your letter of October 21, 1980, requesting our comments on the EIS Draft Supplement , Dickey Lincoln School Lakes Transmission Proj ect: we have the following comments. I

Although there is not sufficient information on the exact distance and elevation of the proposed transmission lines with respect to the airports I in the area, we do not find any adverse impact on the airports in the area related to the proposed route. The proposed route as illustrated in Figure 1.03-1 of the Draft Supplement, includes links 41F , 42F, 81, 83 I and 86 in Segment F, Moore to Webster, New Hampshire .

This evaluation is based on the observation that the proposed route does not traverse in the close proximity of the airports in the area. However , I the alternative routes are located close to some airports (e.g. , link 84 passes close to Plymouth Municipal Airport , NH) , and there is not adequate information in the report on the distance and elevation of the transmission I lines . Hence we could not determine the potential conflicts of the alternate tes with the airport operations . rou I Moreover , it should be noted that our determination pertains only to the Segment F proposed route shown in Figure 1.03-1 of the Draft Supplement EIS of Sep temb er 1980. It does not replace the comments made in our letter of June 9, 1978, on the Draft EIS for Dickey Lincoln School Lakes Transmiss ion I Proj ect (March 1978)

We appreciate the opportunity to review the potential impacts of the proposed I proj ect on aviation activities . )cerelY ' I L � . VINCENT A. SCARANO ·1 Chief , Plans /Programs Branch I I 17

UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF AGRICULTURE I FOREST SERVICE White Mounta in National Forest I P.O. Box 638 , Laconia, NH 03246 1950 I December 2, 1980 ·r Mr . Timothy J. Murray I DOE, Bonneville Power Admi nistration P.O. Box 3021 (j Portland, OR 972 08

I L

Dear Mr . Murray : I We have revi ewed the Draft Supplement to the EIS for the Dickey- I Lin c oln School Lakes Transmi ssion Project in New Hamps hire and ha ve no commen t.

I Sincerely, _ I [J ���j IJ!Lv'4� /.� JAMES R. JORDAN �L Forest Supervisor I I I I I I I I

I 6Z00-1 1 (1/69) 18 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION I NEW YORK REGIONAL OFFICE 26 FEDERAL. PL.AZA, ROOM 2207 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278 I

Dec ember 12, 1980 I I

Mr . Timothy J. Murray Department of Energy I Bonneville Power Administration P.Oo Box 3621 Portland , Oregon 97208 I Re : DOE/EIS-0008-D Environmental Impac t Statement Supplement Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project I

Dear Mr . Mur ray : I We have reviewed the subject report and have no comments to offer . The impact that the proposed Moore-Comerford-Webs ter 345 kV line would have on the env ironment appears to have been careful ly exp lored and evaluated in the study . I

As a .general obs ervation , it would be helpful to readers not particularly familiar wi th Dickey-Lincoln if a brief , I descriptive summ ary of the project 's required transmiss ion facilities were pres en ted . Wh ile referenc e is made to proposed changes in the project 's transmis sion sys tem on page 18 , it is I not clear what the total transmission picture is , or the role that the subject link plays in it without resorting to other segments of the study . I Thank you for the opportunity of commen ting on this EIS o

Very truly yours , I :J�j), � I James D. Hebson Regional Engineer I I I I I I United States Department of the Interior I OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 I ER 80/1125 QEC " ,gOO I Mr . Timo thy J. Murray Dickey-Lincoln School Lake s Proj ect Bonneville Power Administration I P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208

I Dear Mr . Murray :

The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft I supplemental environmental statement for the Electrical Transmission System for the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Hydroelectric Project, Aroostook County , Maine . We have I the following comments. General Comments

I The transmission study is only a part of the Dickey-Lincoln School Lake s Hydroelectric Proj ect. Since this is a supple­ mental document covering corridor changes and an addition I to the transmission system, our Departmental comments of June 22, 1978, with all att achments still apply . The con­ struction of this transmission system is dependent up on I the final decision on the entire hydroelectric proj ect. At some time in the future , the impacts of the dams , reserv oirs, appurtenant structures , transmission lines and facilities , and mitigation plans must be comb ined into a comprehensive I analysis .

Based up on what we have reviewed to date , we still consider I the Dickey-Lincoln School Lake s Proj ect unsatisfactory from the standpoint of environmental quality . The proj ect induced losses include the large scale destruction of terrestrial I and aquatic resour ces , and the elimination of an important part of the last remaining wilderness recreational area in the Northeast. Moreover , this area represents a unique combination of aesthetic and natural resource values no I longer existing anywhere else in the United States . In view of these concerns , we mus t continue to recommend that the I Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project not be constructed. I I I I 2

As stated in our letters of March 1, 1979, and May 13 , 1980, to I the Corps of Engineers , the Depar tment may refer this matter to the Council on Environmental Quality under the procedures specified in 40 CFR 1504. I Historic and Archeological Resources

The statement emphasizes the poor data base available in the I New England area . The survey samp le was small and based on predictive criteria which do not adequately address both pre­ historic and historic archeological and cultural resource con­ I cerns . The failure of the agency to coordinate the survey with the State Historic Preservation Office and to submi t data and site nominations to the State Historic Preservation I Office for evaluation by local, State and National register criteria is a significant error of omission. Proposed mitigation is not adequate. Impacts to historic sites , increased potential for vandalism by increased access to the area, impacts to I archeological resources are not fully described , and procedures for mitigation are not clearly defin ed . The final supplement should address the inadequacies described above . I Recreation Resources I The proj ect does not appear to be consistent with the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan . The area is rich in recreation resources, as substantiated by the numerous recreation I and water resources in the proj ect vicinity (Appendix K) .

The project does not adequately address the impact of the power­ line on the Lake Winnip esaukee Composite Land scape Area, as I defined by th e North Atlantic Water Resources Study , Appendix N, Visual and Cultural Environment , 1972. The locale is o·n e of seven regionally unique composite landscapes . These composite I areas , where four or more different maj or lands cape patterns (land form, land use, vegetation, and water) come together in juxtaposition, are the mo st diverse landscape areas in the I Northeast .

In Ap pendix D, page 9, it is noted that great care has been taken to minimize the visual impact of Link 82. However, we I believe that it remains a maj or detriment . Much of it is through the White Mountain National Forest, where recreation use is extremely heavy , and the cleared right-of-way would be highly I visible and damaging to the scenic view from Breezy Point , as the line crosses the divide by Mt . Kineo. Other problems on this link relate to eros ion potential and to the need for a I considerab le amount of new access road construction. The impact of Link 83 through four miles of the White Mo untain I N ational Forest should be discussed more thoroughly particularly since a crossing occurs at a parcel owned by the State and is I I I 3

I intended for future recreational use. Link 83 also crosses the Appalachian Trail wh ich has received Section 6(f) funds in the Forest , and is an issue again no t sufficiently developed I with regard to proj ect impact (Appendix I, B-17) . I Section 6(f) Comments The supplemental material does no t adequately identify recreation areas and park1ands such as Mount Cardigan State Forest and the White Mo untain National Forest which have received financial I assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) .

As noted in our June 22, 1978, comment s, crossing of those I land s invo lves the jurisdictional interest of the Department 's Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service which administers the fund . The use of L&WCF financial park1ands for this proj ect I would require the Secreta ry of the Interi or's approval , pursuant to the conversion requirements of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Fund Act . The nature of the crossing , aerial and other­ I wise, should be addressed and site specific mitigation developed . National Park Resources

I The only unit of the National Park System to be impacted by the transmission system is the Appalachian National Scenic Trail . The Appa1ac.h ian Trail Proj ect Office of the Depar tment 's National I Park Service reco gnizes that special uses of the corridor established to protect the Trail will be necessary.

Transmission lines and other ut ility crossin gs, while incom­ I patible with the obj ectives of the Trail , are possible and may be desirab le for the national good. Their negative effects should , however , be lessened by management techniques and by I the us e of screening devices . The supplement accurately dis­ cusses the adverse, visual impact to be anticipated from the I transmission lines . �otentia1 Recreation Rivers

I Enclosed is the list of potent ial recreation rivers which have been considered und er the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and wh ich will be crossed or otherwise impacted by the trans­ I mission system. Rivers and river segments on this list have passed the final study evaluation phase. They are five miles or more in len gth, free-flowing , and are of mu lti- state or national significan ce , and they possess one or mo re of the I following values: I I I I 4

...outs tandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, I fish and wildlife, historic, cultural , or other similar values, ... (Section l(b) , P.L. 90-542) . I Further they meet th� classification criteria for recreation rivers because they are readily accessible by road or railroad , have some development along their shorelin es , and have undergone I some imp oundment or diversion in the past.

It is important to note that this study is a preliminary survey of rivers and sho uld not be confused with the more detailed I congressionally mandated studies under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act which are conducted by the National Park Service and Forest Service. The purpose of the Recreation Rivers Study I is 00:

1. Ident ify a balanced representation of river segments--including I urban waterways--that possess recreational and cultural signif­ icance worthy of cons ervation at the Federal and State govern- ment levels. I 2. Stimulate actions, at all levels of government and within the private sector, which wi ll assure the conservation of and public access to these rivers . I

Also it should be noted that those rivers meeting the criteria of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act wi ll be placed on the National I River Inventory List. Rivers on this list will be considered under the provisions of the President 's Environmental Message of August 2, 1979 wh ich directed that : "all federal agencies I shall avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified in the National Inventory." Each of these rivers should be afforded the consideration outlined in the "Procedures for Interagency Consultation to Avo id or Mitigate Adverse Effects I on Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory" issued by the Council on Environmental Quality on August 10 , 1980 . I The present supplemental statement does not adequ ately address these rivers and potential impacts to them. We recommend that this be done in the final document . The Heritage Conservation I and Recreation Service is available to assist you in this effort. Please contact : Regional Director, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 600 Arch Street , Room 9310, Philadelphia, I PA 19106. Fish and Wildlif e Resources I The statement adequately addresses the impac ts to the fish and wildlife resources along the 73. 8-mile route. We commend the I I I I 5

I Department of Energy for locati ng 69 miles of the proposed line wi thin an existing cleared transm ission right-of-way . This I action clearly reduces the impacts to fish and wildlife resour ces. We have two part icular areas of concern with the proposed route. First, is the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) reintroduction I site near the northw estern route corridor , and the potential "critical habitat" intersected by the proposed centerl ine . On page 43 , the Peregrine Falcon is incorrectly termed a threatened I species. This species is a federally listed endangered species. The Department of Energy acknowledges its responsibility to consult with our Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the Endangered Species Act. Since this proposal is a maj or Federal I proj ect , the Act requires: 1) a biological asses sment , wh ich is the responsibility of the action agen cy, and 2) if there is any impact , then formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife I Service should be initiated as soon as possib le.

The second area of special concern is the crossing of the proposed I route over the Baker River in Link 83. The Baker River is a principal river in the restoration program for Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar) in the Merrimack River Basin. Sedimendation and herbicide runoff is a concern in this section. Extreme caution I will need to be emp loyed to minimize the impacts of construction and maintenance activities on this river .

I Groun�water Resources

The supplement should address the potential for adverse effects of herbicides on groundwater supplies along the proposed trans­ I mission line route. In particular, plans to be followed in the event of accidental herbicide spills should be discus sed . I We hope these comments and recommendations will be of assistance in completing the final document . I I I Enclosure I I I I Outstandingly Remarkable River Name Segment Description Provision

Raker River Plymouth to headwaters Geologic (segment includes unique (including ) glacially form�d Polar caves).

South Branch of Baker River Confluence with Baker Historic (segment includes significant River to 5 miles up­ Colonial trade route connecting seacoast stream with northern Connecticut River Valley . Site of the first road built in the State in 1767) .

Recreation (river is a regionally significant canoe trail joining the Pemigewasset River) .

Fish (river is a significant Atlantic salmon fishery under restoration) .

Connecticut River 'One mile above Rte 9 Hydro logic (one of three remaining bridge to Rte 23 bridge sparsely developed free-flowing seg­ at Walpole ments of a unique high order river in this section) .

Botanic (calcareons soils unique to this segment supports rare plant species unique to this section of the Connecticut River Valley) .

Historic (segment includes the site of the first bridge over the Con­ necticut River, a toll bridge con­ structed in 1785 in Walpole) .

Connecticut River Confluence with Historic (river was intensively Omp onmanoosuc River used for lumb er transport by log­ to South Newbury ging industry) .

Hydrologic (one of the last remaining sparsely develope d free-flowing seg­ ments of a unique high order river in the section) . ------

Wild Ammonoosuc River Confluence with Fish (river is an Atlantic Ammo noosuc River to salmon fishery restoration) . Beaver Pond at head­ wa ters

Ammono osuc River Maplewo od Dam near Hydrologic (one of largest rivers {inc luding ) Rte 302 to Bretton Woods in this section) .

Geologic (segment includes highly diverse and steep channel , with resultant falls and imp assable rapids) .

Recreation (a reg ionally significant whitew ater canoeing riv er , with gradients of Class II through Class IV) .

Smith River Confluence with Geologic (river has mo st cont inuous , Pemigew asset River steepest gradients in southern portion to Grafton Center of this section . Segment includes Profile Go rge and a 30' wa terfall) .

Recreation (regionally significant whitew ater stream with rapids of Class III and IV gradient) . zo ---- I ST:\.TE OF :< E\\' I L\\lPSI lIRL /;.�� I

, , ",I ; ' St�li(' I I')li ,I ', � ,' ,' ;:' ':1 d '1,I,jl .'j \���/' I I December 1, 1980 I u. S. Dept . of Energy Bonneville Power Administration EnviroI1IIEntal Planning Section - EIH: I P. o. Box 3621 Portland , Oregon 9720 8 I Re: en 156 .81 Gentlerren: I Enclosed find written a:JITITel1ts relative to the Supplerrental Environ­ rrental Irrpact Staterrent on the Dickey-Linrnln Schoo l Lakes electrical transmission system, per your ins tructions of October il, 1980 . I

If v.B be of assistance , please let us know. cah further I I

jnn I I I I I I I I I STATE of_NE..\V HAMPSHIRE I Office ot, Coordinator of Federa l Funds STATE CLEARINGHOUSE

State House, C()ncord 03301 NEW HAhiPSHI!1E I (603) 271-3783 WATER R,SOURCES BOARD I REQUEST FDR REVIEW OF ProJECT NJTIFICATION 'Ib: �ater Resources Boa rd Date : October 27, 1980 Governor' s Counc il on Energy & Dept. Publi c Wo rks Highways 6 ______I rn Number:_-!1.-.!.5 �..:..:. 8:::.,!1_ N.H. Fi sh & Game Department *DRED/Forests and Lands SAl Number : NH81 102201 I *�RED/Off Highway Veh !cles • *DRED/Pa rks and Recreation Applicant: U.S. Depa rtment of Energy I *p l ease see reverse side Program: Draft Sup plement Env i ronmental ------�------����- I Impact Statement-Dickey-Lincoln Schoo l Lakes 4 Transmission Project Return Prior 'Ib : November 21 , 1980 I (Date) 'llle attached Federal Assistance reques t is fOI"W"arded for your review and corrments , if arty . The reviEW" should focus eSF€cially on the project 's ca:npati­ I bility with t.h e plans , programs and objectives of your agency. If rrore infonra­ tion is required to complete the reviEW , please contact :

I Timothy J. Murray - DOE Tel : (503)234-336 1 ext.461 1 ( Portland , OR)

or this office at (603) 271-3783 . I It is i.rnpJrtant that the origi.. l1al copy of this reviEW be returned to this office prior to the date shavn above , because non·-receipt of the review implies i:'3..r.i.t: r.onsp.n+:. Shonld :irare t.irre be required to lete como the reviEW , please I contact this office . I COMMENTS : (Oleck one ) (�Consistent with areawide and/or agency 's plans and obj ectives .

I () Inconsistent with present and/or fOtential plans , programs and Objectives . (E�lain below) I ( ) N:J existing plan or ob j ectives relative to thi s profOsal . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS : (Use reverse side or separate sheet if necessary) . I

RevieHer 's Signature : -lr?��< I �g Date : ______

Title : (J Tel . No.: ______I ------�------. I STATE HAMPSHIRE of_N�\V- Office oT Coordinator of Federal Funds STATE CLEARINGHOUSE I State HOllse. Concord 03301 (603) 271 -3783 I REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ProJECT NJrry'ICATIG."1 I To: Wa ter Resources Boa rd Date : October 27, 1980 Governor's Council on Energy

& ______v1bep t. Public Wo rks Highways : �1 �5 �6 �. 8� 1______�. CH � I N.H. Fi sh & Game Depa rtment * DRED/Forests and Lands SAl Number : NH 81 1022 01 ____.______�';'DRED/Off Highway Veh i c 1 es J I *DRED/Pa rks and Recrea tion Applicant : u. s. Depa rtment of Ene rgy *please see reve rse side I : Draft Supp lement Envi ronmenta l Program ------��------���

, �!-. r Impact Statemen t-Dickey- Lincoln Schoo l Lakes NO\} �- '. .. II Transm iss ion Proj ect Return Prior To: November 21 , 1980 (Date) I 'Jhe attached Federal Ass istance recruest is forwarded for your review and comnents , if any . The reviEW should fo cus especially on the project's canpati­ bility with the plans , programs and obj ecti ves of your agency. If ITOre in forrra­ I tion is required to complete the reviEW , please contact:

Timothy J. Murray - DOE Tel : ( 5 03)234-3361 ext.46l 1 (Po rt land , OR) I or this office at (603) 271-3783 .

It is i.np:Jrt ant that the original copy of this reviEW be returned to this I office prior to the date sham above I because non-receipt of the review implies -1'""'\... .,.., e;.-.T '1""'\1 C' ;::l eo taci t COnsE:i1t . SrlQ�:cl n0�� tir::=.: � =E:\:1d:L2=-- t-...c c_.��le-te t..�� .... '- ...--,�'! : :,;;...... ,.__ ..... contact this office . I ca:-'MEN'IS : (Oleck one ) I () Consistent with areawide and/or agency 's plans and ob jectives .

() Inconsistent with present and/or r=otential plans , programs and obj ectives . (Explain below) I eX) N:J existing plan or ob jectives relative to tIllS profX)sal . I ADDITIONl\L CCMMEN'IS : (Use reverse side r separate sheet if necessary) .

See I

Date : ------·1 Te l. NJ.: ------I STATE OF NE\V HAMPSHIRE

DEPART�1ENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS I JOHN O. MORTON BuiLDING

CONCOR D. �.H. 0:l301 I

.fOII \ .� . CLDlt:::I TS. P. E. I (,O�MISSIONEH Nov emb er 10 , 19 80 I

Timothy J. Murray , A ssistant Proj ect I Manager for Environmental Studies Department of Energy Bonnervill e Power Administration I P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 I Dear Mr. Murray:

I Subj ect: Dic key - Lincoln School Lakes Proj ect Maine, New Hamp shire, and Vermont

I We have been asked to comment on the above project.

It appears that Interstate 93 in the area of the Moore I Resevoir in Littleton should be under construction at the time proj ected for the transmission line construction in the state­ I ment . Our lo ng-rang e planning shows no major projects planned in the area of the proposed transmission line . In the crossing I of highways and town roads it should be noted that all rules and regulations of all parties concerned should be fo llowed. I I Mead I A ssistant Commissioner

WFM /gw I Tel: 271- 3736 I I CY.fice of Coordinator of Federal Funds I STATE CLL\RI�CI I()L'SE

State !-loll�t'. C( )llconl O:rlOl (603) �71 -B7()3 I REC{J"E ST FDR REVIEi'l OF ProJECT NJTITlCATION I

To: Wa ter Resources Boa rd Da te: October 27, 198 0 Gove rnor's Counc i I �n Energy Dep t_ u b Wo rks gh ays NL1'11.'::ier: P ! ic & Hi w O{ J S6_:... .-:: 8:-:.1 ______I �N .H. Fi sh & Game De pa rtmen t * DRED /Fores t s and Lands SAI Nurrber: NH8 I .:.-J O:::...:2::.;i?"-"Q'-Ll ______*DRED/Off Highway Vehicles J I *ORED/Pa rks and Recrea tion Applicant : U.S. Oepa rto1Pot of Eo.>:, _ p..<-'"'-;,OHY'-- __ *p l ease see reve rse side I Draft Supp lemen t Envi ronmen ta l

Trans mi ss ion Proj ect Return Prior 'lb : November 21 , 1980 (Date) I

'ill.e atta.ched Federal Assistance reques t is fOD-IordeD for your revier.v and o:x:rrents I if any . 'Ihe reVi0.'l should focus eSJ?2c�3.l1y on tlle proj 2ct I s car.pati­ I bility '-litl... rr! e pla".."sI prcgr arns ar.d objectives of YOlc.l age..'l.cy. If rrore infoD1B­

tion is required to cornplete the re'Jie,1 f please contact :

T imo t h y J_ Murray - DOE Tel : (503)234-336 1 ext .461 ] I or �l.is office at (603) 271- 3783. I It is irT'f;OrtiJIlt mat the original corY of this revie.-l re returned to this of£i02 prior to the date shewn aL'Ove f because non-.r.-ece ip t of the revio'/ irnplies tacit CODsent. Should rrore tiJ1'€ be required to ccmplete the revie<.v I pleaSe I c::mta ct this office . I

(X) Consis tent ,,.l ith areawide and/or agencyI s plans and. objectives . I () Inconsis ten t with present and/or fOtential plansI prograrns and ob jec tives . (F��lain below)

() �b �vis tiIlg pl &l or ob jectives re lative to tllis proposal . I

ADOITIOt :.,u, o:::t1:/DfIS : (Use reverse side or sepw:a te sheet if ne02ssary) . ed Draft EIS i d e n t i f i e s al I Fi s h and Game interes ts affected by t h e propos transmiss ion f aci lities . There are specific habi tat a r e as for deer and the pereg rine fa lcon t h at deserve.-ilriority cons ider,Jtion.

ovembe r 2] , 1980 F�'Jie",-er 's Sign2:!tLL.re : (J (;;,>(/J� �R/)J \-<� Da te : N C h a r J es E- . Bar ry m; U8 - Executive D i rector 271 -246 1 Te l. 1'b. : ------�� "------1-/+------

I STATE of.NE.\V HAMPSHIRE

Office of Coordinator of Feder3l Funds ,-,' I STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Slale House. Concord 0330 1 I (603) 271 ·3783

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ProJECT NJTIFlCATICN I To: Wa ter Resources Boa rd Date : October 27, 19Bo Gove rnor's Counc il on Energy

Dep t. Public Wo rks & Highways CH er: NillOO __ �1 �5 �6 �. B� I� ______I �.H. Fi sh & Game Depa rtment *DRED/Fo rests and Lands S�J �b er: NHB J 102201 *DRED/Off H!ghw3y Vehicles I I *DRED/Pa rks and Recreation Applicant : U.S. Depa rtment of En.ergy

*p lease see reve rse side

I Program: Draft Supp lemen t Envi ronmen ta l ------�------�--

Impact Statement-Dickey-LJ ncoln Schoo l Lakes I .' r_ Transm iss ion Projec t Re�� Prior To: November 21 , 19BO I (Date ) 'Jhe attached Federal P.s sistance reques t is forwarded for your review and o::mrnents, if any . 'llle revie.v should focus es�cially on the project 's conpati­ I bility with the plans , prcgrarns and objectives of your agency . If rrore inforrra­ tion is required to complete the revie:..; , please contact : I Timothy J. Murray - DOE Tel : ( 50 3 ) 2 3 4 - 3 36 1 ext . 46 J J (Portland , OR) or tiils office at (603) 271-3783.

I It is irrlfortant that the original copy of this revie:..; be returned to this office prior to the date sha.-m above , because non-receipt of the revie:.v implies tac:it CXl!"'.sent. Should rrore tirre be required to complete the revie:.v , please I contact this office .

CCX1:val'fS: (Oleck. one ) I (r) Consis tent !'vith areawide and/or agency r S plans and ob jectives .

() Inconsi3tent with present and/or pote.l'ltial plans , programs and I ob j ectives . (Explail1 belo.v) I () l'b e.xisting pl an or ob jectivesI.yelativ e to this proposal. I I I /. 1 , I STATE OF_0J�\V HAMPS HIRE Office of.Coord inator of Feder;)] Funds STATE CLE.-\RI:\,CHOCSE I

State HOllse. Concord 0;)30 I (603) �71 -3783 I REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PFDJECT NJTIFICATION I To: Wa ter Resources Boa rd Date : October 27, 1980 Governor's Counc il on Energy Dept. Pub l ic Wo rks & Highways CH � : __� 1�5�6�. �8 �1 ______I N.H. Fi sh & Game Depa rtment �RED/Forests and Lands SAI Nurrber: NH81 1 0220 I *DRED/Off Highway Veh i c 1 es J I *please see reve rse side I Program : Draft Supplemen t Envi ronmen ta l ------��------Impact Sta temen t-Dickey-Lincoln Schoo l Lakes II Transmiss ion Proj ect Return Prior To: November 21 , 1980 (Date ) I The attached Federal Assistance reques t is forwarded for your re--.riew and oorrrnents , if ariy. 'TIle review silo:l..1..d fo cus especially 8n the project I s canpati- bility with the plans , programs and obj ectives of your agency. If rrore inforrra- I tion is required to complete the review , please contact :

Timothy J. Murray - DOE Tel: (503)234- 336 1 ext.461 1 (Portland , OR) I

or this office at (603) 271-3783. I It is i.rrp)rtant t.. 'lat the original copy of this review be returned to this office prior to t.�e date sha.-m above , because non-receipt of the review implies taci t oonsent . Should rrore t.irre be required to complete the review , please ·::-:::!1-:'=.ct �'l i.s C'£fi.c"" . I C'CM-1EN'IS: (C1eck one ) I () Consistent wit.� areawide and/or agency 's plans arrl ob jec tives .

( ) Inconsistent with present and/or potential plans , programs and I ob jectives . (Explain belo..;) � N:> existing plan or ob jectives relative to this proJ?Osal . I ADDITIONAL CCMMEN'IS : (Use reverse side or separate sheet if necessary) . I ·1 I I STATE OF NEJ\' I-L\ :\ [PSI IIRE I Office ofCCoordinalOr of Federal FUllds STATE CLL\RE\,CIIOl:SF

Slate House. COllcord O:l.') () 1 I (603) 271 -3783 I REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PIDJECT tDTIFICATION 'lb: �f{esources Soa rd Date : October 27, 1980 Gove rnor's Counc il on Energy

Wo rks & Highways ______I De�L. P.eb�jc CH �: __�1 5� 6�. �8 �1 ______N.IL F7sh & Game Depa r tment ;'�QRE8;'F8 res ts and Lands SAI Number : NH81 102201 I *�R ED/Off Highway Veh icles · *DRED/Pa rks and Recreation Applicant: U.S. Depa rtment of Energy I *p l ease see reve rse side D ra f t program:______S �up�p�le_m_e_n_t__ E_ n_v_i_r_o_n_m_e_n_t_a_l__ I Impact Statemen t-Dickey-Linco ln Schoo l Lakes Transmiss ion Project Return Prior 'lb: November 21 , 1980 I (Date ) ']he attached Federal Assistance request is forwarded for your review and corrments , if any . The reviB-l should fo cus especially on the project 's cc:rnpati­ I bility with the plans , programs and objectives of your agency . If more inforrra­ tion is required to complete the revie.v , please contact :

Timothy J. Murray - DOE I Tel : ( 503)234-336 1 ext.461 1 (Port land , OR)

or this office at (603) 271-3783. I It is i.rrpJrtant that the original copy of thi s revie.v be returned to this office prior tD the date shCNm above , because non-receipt of the review i.rrplies taci t consent . Should rrore tirre be required to complete the review , please I contact this office . I cc::M1EN'IS : (Oleck. one ) () Consistent with areawide and/or agency 's plans and objectives .

I () Inconsistent with present and/or fOtential plans , programs and ob jectives . (Explain below) I () NJ existing plan or ob jectives relative to this proposal . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS : (Use reverse side or separate sheet if necessary) . I

Revie.-rer 's Signature : Date : I ------

Title : Tel . No. : I ------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I