Appalachian Power Company Transmission Line Construction- Cloverdale, Virginia, to Oceana, West Virginia. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the New River, and R.D. Bailey Lake Flowage Land. Virginia Counties of Botetourt, Roanoke, Craig, Montgomery, Pulaski, Bland, and Giles and the West Virginia Counties of Monroe, Summers, Mercer, and Wyoming

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Appalachian Power Company Transmission Line Construction-

Cloverdale, Virginia, to Oceana, West Virginia. George Washington and

Jefferson National Forests, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the New

River, and R.D. Bailey Lake Flowage Land. Virginia Counties of

Botetourt, Roanoke, Craig, Montgomery, Pulaski, Bland, and Giles and

the West Virginia Counties of Monroe, Summers, Mercer, and Wyoming

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised Notice--Revises the publication date for the Draft

Environmental Impact Statements; and identifies the dates and locations

for seven public information meetings on the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a draft and final

environmental impact statement on a proposed action to authorize the

Appalachian Power Company (name recently changed to American Electric

Power) to construct a 765,000-volt transmission line across

approximately twelve miles of the George Washington and Jefferson

National Forests, as well as portions of the Appalachian National

Scenic Trail, the New River (at Bluestone Lake) and R.D. Bailey Lake

Flowage Easement Land (at Buyandotte River).

The federal agencies identified a study area in which alternatives

to the proposed action were developed. The study area includes land

located in the Virginia counties of Botetourt, Roanoke, Craig,

Montgomery, Pulaski, Bland and Giles and the West Virginia counties of

Monroe, Summers, Mercer and Wyoming.

The Applachian Power Company (APCo) proposal involves federal land

under the administrative jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service

(George Washington and Jefferson National Forests), the USDI National

Park Service (Appalachian National Scenic Trail) and the US Army Corps

of Engineers (New River and R.D. Bailey Lake Flowage Easement Land).

The Forest Service is the lead agency and is responsible for the

preparation of the environmental impact statement. The National Park

Service and the US Army Corps of Engineers are cooperating agencies in

accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6.

In initiating and conducting the analysis the federal agencies are

responding to the requirements of their respective permitting processes

and the need for the APCo to cross federal lands with the proposed

transmission line.

The Forest Service additionally will assess how the proposed

transmission line conforms to the direction contained in the Jefferson

National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Changes in

the LRMP could be required if the transmission line is authorized

across the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

[[Page 28563]]

The total length of the electric transmission line proposed by the

APCo is approximately 115 miles.

The Notice of Intent for the proposed action was published in the

Federal Register on November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58677-58679). The Notice

was revised on March 13, 1992 (57 FR 8859), April 24, 1992 (57 FR

15049), June 16, 1993 (58 FR 33248-33250), June 21, 1994 (59 FR 31975-

31978), June 9, 1995 (60 FR 30511-30514) and October 3, 1995 (60 FR

51770-51773).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Bergmann, Forest Service Project

Coordinator, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, 5162

Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia, 24019/ (540) 265-6005.

TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE FEDERAL AGENCIES: Write to the George

Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Attn: Transmission Line

Analysis, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia, 24019.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: APCo submitted an application to the

Jefferson National Forest (name changed to George Washington and

Jefferson National Forest in 1995) for authorization to construct a

765,000-volt electric transmission line across approximately twelve

miles of the National Forest. Portions of the Appalachian National

Scenic Trail, the New River (at Bluestone Lake), and R.D. Bailey Lake

Flowage Easement Land (at Guyandotte River) would also be crossed by

the proposed transmission line.

Studies conducted by APCo and submitted to the Virginia State

Corporation Commission, as part of its application and approval

process, indicate a need to reinforce its extra high voltage

transmission system by the mid-to-late 1990s in order to maintain a

reliable power supply for projected demands within its service

territory in central and western Virginia and southern West Virginia.

A study to evaluate potential route locations for the proposed

transmission line was prepared for APCo through a contract with

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI) and West

Virginia University (WVU). The information gathered by VPI and WVU,

along with other information collected during the analysis process,

will be utilized in the preparation of the environmental impact

statement. Information about the transmission line proposal is

available from the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

The decisions to be made following the Federal agencies' analysis

are whether the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers will authorize APCO to cross the George

Washington and Jefferson National Forests, the Appalachian National

Scenic Trail, and the New River and R.D. Bailey Lake Flowage Easement

Land, respectively, with the proposed 765,000-volt transmission line

and, if so, under what conditions a crossing would be authorized.

In preparing the draft environmental impact statement, a range of

routing alternatives was considered to meet the purpose and need for

the proposed action. A no action alternative was also analyzed. Under

the no action alternative APCO would not be authorized to cross the

George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, the Appalachian

National Scenic Trail, the New River or R.D. Bailey Lake Flowage

Easement Land. The alternatives developed by VPI and WVU will also be

considered.

In July of 1994, the Federal agencies identified a number of

alternatives to the proposed action in the Virginia counties of

Botetourt, Roanoke, Craig, Montgomery, Pulaski, Bland, and Giles and

the West Virginia counties of Monroe, Summers, and Mercer. These

alternative corridors were modified by the Federal agencies in May

1995. A public comment period was afforded by the Federal agencies on

these alternative corridor modifications between May 25 and Jun3 30,

1995.

The Federal analysis includes an analysis of the effects of the

proposed transmission line along the entire proposed route as well as

all alternative routes which were considered in detail.

The significant issues identified for the Federal analysis are

listed below:

--The construction and maintenance of the 765kV transmission line and

the associated access roads and right-of-way may (1) affect soil

productivity by increasing soil compaction and erosion; (2) affect

geologic resources (karst areas, Peters, Lewis, Potts Mountains,

Arnolds Knob) and unique geologic features like caves through blasting,

earthmoving or construction machinery operations; and (3) result in

unstable structural conditions due to the placement of the towers.

--The construction and maintenance of the 765kV transmission line and

the associated access roads and right-of-way may (1) degrade surface

and ground water quality due to the application of herbicides; (2)

degrade surface and ground water quality because of sedimentation

resulting from soil disturbance and vegetation removal; (3) reduce the

quantity of ground and spring water due to the disturbance of aquifers

resulting from blasting, earthmoving or construction machinery

operation; and (4) adversely affect the commercial use of ground and

surface waters due to herbicide contamination and sedimentation.

--The construction and maintenance of the 765kV transmission line and

the associated access roads and right-of-way may affect existing

cultural resources, and historic structures and districts through the

direct effects of the construction and maintenance activities and by

changing the existing resource setting.

--The operation and maintenance of the 765kV transmission line and the

associated access roads and right-of-way may adversely affect human

health through (1) direct and indirect exposure to herbicides; and (2)

exposure to electromagnetic fields and induced voltage.

--The construction of the 765kV transmission line may adversely affect

the safety of those operating aircraft at low altitudes or from

airports located near the transmission line.

--The operation of the 765kV transmission line may (1) adversely affect

communications by introducing a source of interference; (2) increase

noise levels for those in close proximity to the line.

--The construction, operation, and maintenance of the 765kV

transmission line and the associated access roads and right-of-way may

(1) adversely affect trails (including the Appalachian Trail) and trail

facilities by facilitating vehicle access through new road construction

and the upgrading of existing roads; and (2) reduce hiker safety by

facilitating vehicle access to remote trail locations.

--The construction, operation, and maintenance of the 765kV

transmission line and the associated access roads and right-of-way may

affect hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, boating, and birding

opportunities and experiences because (1) the setting in which these

pursuits take place may be altered; and (2) the noise associated with

the operation of the line may detract from the backcountry or

recreation experience.

--The construction and operation of the 765kV transmission line and the

associated access roads and right-of-way may affect local communities

by (1) reducing the value of private lands adjacent to the line; (2)

decreasing tax

[[Page 28564]]

revenues due to the reductions in land value; and (3) influencing

economic growth, industry siting, and employment.

--The construction, operation, and maintenance of the 765kV

transmission line and the associated access roads and right-of-way may

(1) conflict with management direction contained in resource management

plans and designations; (2) affect the uses that presently occur on and

adjacent to the proposed right-of-way; (3) affect the wild, scenic,

and/or recreational qualities of the New River; (4) affect sensitive

land uses like schools, churches, and community facilities; (5) affect

the cultural attachment residents feel toward Peters Mountain; (6)

affect the scenic and/or recreational qualities of the Appalachian

National Scenic Trail (Appalachian Trail); and (7) result in family

displacement.

--The construction, operation, and maintenance of the 765kV

transmission line and the associated access roads and right-of-way may

adversely affect the visual attributes of the area because the line,

the associated right-of-way, and access roads may (1) alter the

existing landscape; and (2) conflict with the standards established for

scenic designations.

--The construction, operation, and maintenance of the 765kV

transmission line and the associated access roads and right-of-way may

affect wildlife, plant and aquatic populations, habitat, and livestock

because (1) habitats are created, changed, or eliminated; (2)

herbicides are used and herbicides may be toxic; (3) the transmission

line presents a flight hazard to birds; (4) electromagnetic fields and

induced voltage may be injurious.

--The construction of the 765kV transmission line and the associated

access roads and right-of-way may have a disproportionately high and

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low

income populations as indicated in Executive Order 12898.

--The construction and operation of the 765kV transmission line may

adversely affect astronomical observation activities at the Martin

Observatory (VPI) due to the introduction of obstructions to the sky

(lines and towers), the introduction of light from coronal discharge,

and the disruption of sensitive electronic equipment by electromagnetic

fields.

--The construction and operation of the 765kV transmission line may

adversely affect seismological observation activities at the VPI

seismic stations located near Forest Hill and Potts Mountain.

--The construction and maintenance of the 765kV transmission line and

the associated access roads and right-of-way may affect the cultural

attachment that residents have for the valley between Blacksburg and

Catawba, Craig County, Giles County, Mercer County and portions of

Montgomery County.

The following permits and/or licenses would be required to

implement the proposed action:

--Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Virginia State

Corporation Commission)

--Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (West Virginia Public

Service Commission)

--Special use Authorization (Forest Service)

--Right-of-Way Authorization (National Park Service)

--Section 10 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

--Right-of-Way Easement (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

--Consent to Easement (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

Other authorizations may be required from a variety of Federal and

State agencies.

Public participation will occur at several points during the

federal analysis process. The first point in the analysis was the

scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). The Forest Service obtained

information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State and local

agencies, the proponent of the action, and other individuals or

organizations who are interested in or affected by the electric

transmission line proposal. This input will be utilized in the

preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. The scoping

process included, (1) identifying potential issues, (2) identifying

issues to be analyzed in depth, (3) eliminating insignificant issues or

those which have been covered by a relevant previous environmental

analysis.

Public participation was solicited through contacts with known

interested and/or affected groups, and individuals; news releases;

direct mailings; and/or newspaper advertisements. Public meetings were

also held to hear comments concerning the APCo proposal and to develop

the significant issues to be considered in the analysis.

A similar process of public involvement was implemented by the

federal agencies for the Preliminary Alternative Corridors announced in

July of 1995.

Other public participation opportunities will be provided

throughout the federal analysis process.

The draft environmental impact statement will be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review

by June 28, 1996. This revises the April 12, 1996 date previously

announced. At that time, EPA will publish a notice of availability of

the draft environmental impact statement in the Federal Register.

The federal agencies have established the following public meeting

schedule to explain the analysis documented in the draft environmental

impact statement and to hear comments related to the analysis. The

public meetings will begin at 4:00 p.m. and end at 8:00 p.m. on the

date and at the locations indicated:

July 31, 1996

McCleary Elementary School, Highway 615, New Castle, VA

August 2, 1996

Concord College, Vermillian Street, Athens, WV

August 6, 1996

Blacksburg High School, 520 Patrick Henry Drive, Blacksburg, VA

August 8, 1996

Twin Falls Resort State Park, Route 10, Mullens, WV

August 1, 1996

James Monroe High School, Weikel Road, Lindside, WV

August 5, 1996

Lord Botetourt High School, 755 Roanoke, Road (Highway 220), Daleville,

VA

August 7, 1996

Giles County High School, Route 460 (Business), Pearisburg, VA.

Reviewers need to be aware of several court rulings related to

public participation in the environmental impact statement review

process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must

structure their participation in the environmental review of the

proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.

v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that

could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but

that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental

impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City

[[Page 28565]]

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).

Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those

interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 90-

day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully

consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact

statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft

environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is

also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the

draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft

environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives

formulated and discussed in the statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer

to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at

40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.)

After the comment period ends on the draft environmental impact

statement, the comments will be analyzed, considered, and responded to

by the three federal agencies in preparing the final environmental

impact statement. The federal agencies have decided to await the

decisions of the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West

Virginia Public Service Commission on the APCo proposal before

publishing the final environmental impact statement. It is not known

when the two Commission's will issue their decisions. When these

decisions are made the federal agencies will announce the publication

date of the final environmental impact statement.

The responsible officials will consider the comments, responses,

environmental consequences discussed in the final environmental impact

statement, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a

decision regarding the proposal to cross federal lands with a 765,000-

volt transmission line. The responsible officials will document their

decisions and reasons for their decisions in a Record of Decision.

The responsible official for the Forest Service is William E.

Damon, Jr., Forest Supervisor, George Washington and Jefferson National

Forests, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia, 24019. The

responsible official for the National Park Service is Pamela Underhill,

Park Manager, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, National Park Service,

Harpers Ferry Center, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425. The

responsible official for the US Army Corps of Engineers in West

Virginia is Colonel Richard Jemiola, US Army Corps of Engineers,

Huntington District, 508 8th Street, Huntington, West Virginia 25701-

2070. The responsible official for the US Army Corps of Engineers in

Virginia is Colonel Andrew M. Perkins, Jr., US Army Corps of Engineers,

Norfolk District, 803 Front Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

William E. Damon, Jr.,

Forest Supervisor, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.

[FR Doc. 96-14007 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M