Dr. Jerry Pell
Senior Environmental Scientist
Manager, Electric Power Regulation
Office of Coal and Power Import & Export
Fossil Energy, FE-27
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585-0000; USA
Telephone +202.586.3362
Fax +202.318.7761
Saturday, August 30, 2003
To speak at the upcoming public hearings, you will need to contact Dr. Pell and get your name on the list. For dates, locations and times of the hearing, please see the August 28th Federal Register posting (below).
Dr. Jerry Pell
Senior Environmental Scientist
Manager, Electric Power Regulation
Office of Coal and Power Import & Export
Fossil Energy, FE-27
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585-0000; USA
Telephone +202.586.3362
Fax +202.318.7761
e-mail
Dr. Jerry Pell
Senior Environmental Scientist
Manager, Electric Power Regulation
Office of Coal and Power Import & Export
Fossil Energy, FE-27
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585-0000; USA
Telephone +202.586.3362
Fax +202.318.7761
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Public
Hearings for the Proposed Tucson Electric Power Company
(TEP) Sahuarita-Nogales Transmission Line
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of availability and public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the
``Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) Sahuarita-Nogales Transmission Line Draft
Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0336) for public review and comment.
DOE also announces four public hearings on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA
regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and the DOE NEPA regulations, 10 CFR part
1021. The Draft EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action
of granting a Presidential permit for the proposed project and reasonable
alternatives, including the ``No Action'' alternative of denying the permit. The
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S.
Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) are
cooperating agencies in the preparation of this Draft EIS.
DATES: DOE invites interested Members of Congress, state and local governments,
other Federal agencies, American Indian tribal governments, organizations, and
members of the public to provide comments on the Draft EIS. The public comment
period started with the publication in the Federal Register by the Environmental
Protection Agency of the ``Notice of Availability'' of the Draft EIS on August
22, 2003, and will continue until October 14, 2003. Written and oral comments
will be given equal weight, and DOE will consider all comments received or
postmarked by that date in preparing the Final EIS. Comments received or
postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Dates for the public hearings are:
1. September 25, 2003, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Green Valley, Arizona
2. September 25, 2003, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Green Valley, Arizona
3. September 26, 2003, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Nogales, Arizona
4. September 26, 2003, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Nogales, Arizona
Requests to speak at a specific public hearing should be received by Dr.
Jerry Pell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section below on or before September
15, 2003. Requests to speak may also be made at the time of registration for the
hearing(s). However, persons who have submitted advance requests to speak will
be given priority if time should be limited during the meeting.
ADDRESSES: Requests to speak at the public hearings should be addressed to: Dr.
Jerry Pell, Office of Fossil Energy (FE-27), U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington DC 20585, or transmitted by phone: 202-586-3362, facsimile:
202-318-7761, or electronic mail at Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov. Please be aware that
anthrax screening delays conventional mail delivery to DOE.
The locations of the public hearings are:
1. Both hearings on September 25, 2003, will be held at the Santa Rita
Springs Facility, Green Valley Recreation Department, 921 W. Via Rio Fuerte,
Green Valley, Arizona 85614-5711.
2. Both hearings on September 26, 2003, will be held in the County Board
Hearing Room, Santa Cruz County Office Building, 2150 N. Congress Drive,
Nogales, Arizona 85621.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available as (a) the Summary in paper format,
accompanied by a CD-ROM that includes the entire Draft EIS, (b) the entire Draft
EIS in paper format, accompanied by the CD-ROM, or (c) the CD-ROM only; requests
for any of these should be addressed to Dr. Pell at any of the addresses above.
Additionally, the Draft EIS is available on the Internet at
http://www.ttclients.com/tep.
Written comments on the Draft EIS may be addressed to Dr. Jerry Pell as
indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or submitted on the project
Web site at http://www.ttclients.com/tep.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the proposed project or to
receive a copy of the Draft EIS, contact Dr. Pell as indicated in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.
For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact:Carol M. Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000
[[Page 51570]]
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202-586-4600 or leave a
message at 800-472-2756; Facsimile: 202-586-7031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038, requires that a
Presidential permit be issued by DOE before electric
transmission facilities may be constructed, maintained, operated, or connected
at the U.S. international border. The E.O. provides that a Presidential permit
may be issued after a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the
public interest. In determining
consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the impacts of the project
on the reliability of the U.S. electric power system and on the environment. The
regulations implementing the E.O. have been codified at 10 CFR 205.320-205.329.
Issuance of the permit indicates that there is no Federal objection to the
project, but does not mandate that the project be completed.
On August 17, 2000, TEP, a regulated public utility, filed an application
for a Presidential permit with the Office of Fossil Energy
of DOE and, on May 18, 2001, supplemented its application with its March 1, 2001
application to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) for a Certificate of
Environmental Compatibility. TEP proposes to construct two 345,000-volt (345-kV)
transmission circuits on a single set of support structures across the U.S.
international border in the vicinity of Nogales, Arizona. Both circuits would
originate at TEP's existing South Substation located approximately 15 miles
south of Tucson in the vicinity of Sahuarita, Arizona, and 1.4 miles east of
Interstate Highway 19 (I-19), south of Pima Mine Road, in Pima County, Arizona.
Near the U.S. international border, the proposed transmission lines would
interconnect with the Citizens Communications system at the proposed Gateway
Substation that would be constructed just west of Nogales, Arizona. South of the
border, TEP would extend the line approximately 60 miles to the Santa Ana
Substation, located in the City of Santa Ana, Sonora, Mexico, and owned by the
Comisi[oacute]n Federal de Electricidad (CFE), the national electric utility of
Mexico.
On July 10, 2001, DOE published in the Federal Register (66 FR 35950) a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the proposed
project. The NOI informed the public of the proposed scope of the EIS, solicited
public participation in the scoping process, and announced public scoping
meetings that were held on July 30, 2001, in Sahuarita, Arizona, and on July 31,
2001, in Rio Rico, Arizona. The public scoping period initially closed on August
9, 2001, but then was extended to August 31, 2001 (Federal Register Notice of
July 27, 2001, 66 FR 39154). Comments received during the public scoping process
were used in preparing the Draft EIS.
Action Alternatives Considered
The action alternatives developed for the proposed project focus on
alternative routes to interconnect TEP's South Substation with the proposed
Gateway Substation. TEP's evaluation of interconnection schemes, scoping
comments, and discussions with DOE resulted in three potentially viable
alternative corridors for transmission interconnection in southern Arizona: the
Western Corridor (the applicant's Preferred Alternative), the Central Corridor,
and the Crossover Corridor. The Crossover Corridor was included for analysis in
this Draft EIS based on public and tribal input received during the public
scoping period and tribal consultations. Another alternative, the Eastern
Corridor, was originally proposed by TEP but was eliminated from analysis as a
reasonable alternative in this Draft EIS at TEP's request for reasons of
reliability, constructability, existing encroachment into the right-of-way, and
visual impacts.
NEPA requires the identification of the agency's preferred alternative or
alternatives in a Draft EIS if one or more exists or, if one does not yet exist
at the draft stage, in the Final EIS, 40 CFR part 1502.14(e). DOE reported in
the NOI (see above) that TEP's Preferred Alternative is the Western Corridor. In
light of TEP's preference and the ACC's decision to site TEP's proposed line
only along the Western Corridor, DOE has designated the Western Corridor as
DOE's preferred alternative at this time. DOE welcomes comments on this
designation. The cooperating agencies have not designated their respective
preferred alternatives at this time but will do so after their review of
environmental information is completed. Identification of a preferred
alternative in the Draft EIS does not preclude selection of a different or
modified preferred alternative in the Final EIS. The final selection of
preferred alternatives will be based on a balanced evaluation of the
environmental consequences, public comment, and consideration of national
policies.
No Action Alternative
The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations require that an
agency ``include the alternative of no action'' as one of the alternatives it
considers, 40 CFR 1502.14(d). For DOE and the cooperating agencies, ``no
action'' means any one of the Federal agencies declining to grant approval for
their area of jurisdiction. Each agency will make its own decision
independently, so that it is possible that one or more agencies could grant
permission for the proposal while another could deny permission.
The Draft EIS analyzes the potential environmental effects, or impacts, of
TEP constructing and operating the proposed project in one of the three
alternative transmission corridors, and also analyzes the No Action Alternative.
CEQ's regulations require that an EIS contain a description of the environmental
effects (both positive and negative) of the proposed alternatives. The
regulations also distinguish between direct and indirect effects (40 CFR
1508.8). Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and
place as the action. Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable effects caused
by the action that occur later in time or farther in distance. Both direct and
indirect effects are addressed in the Draft EIS. CEQ's regulations also require
that an EIS contain description of the cumulative impacts of the proposed
alternatives (40 CFR 1508.7). CEQ's regulations define cumulative impacts as
those that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what
agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts are addressed
in the Draft EIS.
The Draft EIS presents information on the potential environmental effects of
both the proposed transmission line construction and
subsequent operation on land use and recreation, visual resources, biological
resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics, geology and soils, water
resources, air quality, noise, human health and environment, infrastructure,
transportation, and minority and low income populations. The Draft EIS also
includes a Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment, in accordance with E.O. 11988,
Floodplain Management, and E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
Coronado National Forest Plan Amendment
The Coronado National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, has identified the need
for amendments to its Land and
[[Page 51571]]
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) in order to implement any of the action
alternatives identified in the Draft EIS. The amendments needed are for segments
of all (three) action alternative corridor locations and for visual resources.
The public comment period for the amendments will coincide with DOE's comment
period. Comments on Forest Plan amendments should be sent to Mr. John M. McGee,
Forest Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service, 300 West Congress, Tucson, Arizona
85701. Any inquiries regarding the Forest Plan or the amendments should be
directed to the U.S. Forest Service.
Availability of the Draft EIS
DOE has distributed copies of the Draft EIS to appropriate Members of
Congress, state and local government officials in Arizona, American Indian
tribal governments, and other Federal agencies, groups, and interested parties.
Copies of the document may be obtained by contacting DOE as provided in the
section of this notice entitled
ADDRESSES. Copies of the Draft EIS and supporting documents are also available
for inspection at the locations identified below:
1. U.S. Department of Energy, Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room
1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585.
2. Coronado National Forest, Federal Building, 300 West Congress Street, 5th
Floor, Room 5H, Tucson, AZ 85701 (phone 520-670-4527).
3. Nogales Ranger District, 303 Old Tucson Road, Nogales, AZ 85621 (phone
520-281-2296).
4. Rio Rico Public Library, 1060 Yavapai Drive, Rio Rico, AZ 85648 (phone
520-281-8067).
5. Tubac Community Library, 50 Bridge Road, Tubac, AZ 85646 (phone
520-398-9814).
6. Conrad Joyner-Green Valley Branch Library, 601 North La Ca[ntilde]ada
Drive, Green Valley, AZ 85614 (phone 520-625-8660).
7. Nogales-Santa Cruz County Public Library, 518 North Grand Ave., Nogales,
AZ 85621 (phone 520-287-3343).
Comments on the Draft EIS may be submitted to Dr. Jerry Pell (see
ADDRESSES, above) or provided at the public hearings (see DATES, above). After
the public comment period ends on October 14, 2003, DOE will consider all
comments received, revise the Draft EIS as appropriate, and issue a Final EIS.
DOE will consider the Final EIS, along with other information, such as electric
reliability and national policy factors, in deciding whether or not to issue a
Presidential permit.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of August 2003.
Anthony J. Como, Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation, Office of Coal and
Power Import/Export, Office of Coal and Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 03-21885 Filed 8-26-03; 8:45 am]
Hearings for the Proposed Tucson Electric Power Company
(TEP) Sahuarita-Nogales Transmission Line
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of availability and public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the
``Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) Sahuarita-Nogales Transmission Line Draft
Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0336) for public review and comment.
DOE also announces four public hearings on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA
regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and the DOE NEPA regulations, 10 CFR part
1021. The Draft EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action
of granting a Presidential permit for the proposed project and reasonable
alternatives, including the ``No Action'' alternative of denying the permit. The
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S.
Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) are
cooperating agencies in the preparation of this Draft EIS.
DATES: DOE invites interested Members of Congress, state and local governments,
other Federal agencies, American Indian tribal governments, organizations, and
members of the public to provide comments on the Draft EIS. The public comment
period started with the publication in the Federal Register by the Environmental
Protection Agency of the ``Notice of Availability'' of the Draft EIS on August
22, 2003, and will continue until October 14, 2003. Written and oral comments
will be given equal weight, and DOE will consider all comments received or
postmarked by that date in preparing the Final EIS. Comments received or
postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Dates for the public hearings are:
1. September 25, 2003, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Green Valley, Arizona
2. September 25, 2003, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Green Valley, Arizona
3. September 26, 2003, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Nogales, Arizona
4. September 26, 2003, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Nogales, Arizona
Requests to speak at a specific public hearing should be received by Dr.
Jerry Pell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section below on or before September
15, 2003. Requests to speak may also be made at the time of registration for the
hearing(s). However, persons who have submitted advance requests to speak will
be given priority if time should be limited during the meeting.
ADDRESSES: Requests to speak at the public hearings should be addressed to: Dr.
Jerry Pell, Office of Fossil Energy (FE-27), U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington DC 20585, or transmitted by phone: 202-586-3362, facsimile:
202-318-7761, or electronic mail at Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov. Please be aware that
anthrax screening delays conventional mail delivery to DOE.
The locations of the public hearings are:
1. Both hearings on September 25, 2003, will be held at the Santa Rita
Springs Facility, Green Valley Recreation Department, 921 W. Via Rio Fuerte,
Green Valley, Arizona 85614-5711.
2. Both hearings on September 26, 2003, will be held in the County Board
Hearing Room, Santa Cruz County Office Building, 2150 N. Congress Drive,
Nogales, Arizona 85621.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available as (a) the Summary in paper format,
accompanied by a CD-ROM that includes the entire Draft EIS, (b) the entire Draft
EIS in paper format, accompanied by the CD-ROM, or (c) the CD-ROM only; requests
for any of these should be addressed to Dr. Pell at any of the addresses above.
Additionally, the Draft EIS is available on the Internet at
http://www.ttclients.com/tep.
Written comments on the Draft EIS may be addressed to Dr. Jerry Pell as
indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or submitted on the project
Web site at http://www.ttclients.com/tep.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the proposed project or to
receive a copy of the Draft EIS, contact Dr. Pell as indicated in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.
For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact:Carol M. Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000
[[Page 51570]]
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202-586-4600 or leave a
message at 800-472-2756; Facsimile: 202-586-7031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038, requires that a
Presidential permit be issued by DOE before electric
transmission facilities may be constructed, maintained, operated, or connected
at the U.S. international border. The E.O. provides that a Presidential permit
may be issued after a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the
public interest. In determining
consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the impacts of the project
on the reliability of the U.S. electric power system and on the environment. The
regulations implementing the E.O. have been codified at 10 CFR 205.320-205.329.
Issuance of the permit indicates that there is no Federal objection to the
project, but does not mandate that the project be completed.
On August 17, 2000, TEP, a regulated public utility, filed an application
for a Presidential permit with the Office of Fossil Energy
of DOE and, on May 18, 2001, supplemented its application with its March 1, 2001
application to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) for a Certificate of
Environmental Compatibility. TEP proposes to construct two 345,000-volt (345-kV)
transmission circuits on a single set of support structures across the U.S.
international border in the vicinity of Nogales, Arizona. Both circuits would
originate at TEP's existing South Substation located approximately 15 miles
south of Tucson in the vicinity of Sahuarita, Arizona, and 1.4 miles east of
Interstate Highway 19 (I-19), south of Pima Mine Road, in Pima County, Arizona.
Near the U.S. international border, the proposed transmission lines would
interconnect with the Citizens Communications system at the proposed Gateway
Substation that would be constructed just west of Nogales, Arizona. South of the
border, TEP would extend the line approximately 60 miles to the Santa Ana
Substation, located in the City of Santa Ana, Sonora, Mexico, and owned by the
Comisi[oacute]n Federal de Electricidad (CFE), the national electric utility of
Mexico.
On July 10, 2001, DOE published in the Federal Register (66 FR 35950) a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the proposed
project. The NOI informed the public of the proposed scope of the EIS, solicited
public participation in the scoping process, and announced public scoping
meetings that were held on July 30, 2001, in Sahuarita, Arizona, and on July 31,
2001, in Rio Rico, Arizona. The public scoping period initially closed on August
9, 2001, but then was extended to August 31, 2001 (Federal Register Notice of
July 27, 2001, 66 FR 39154). Comments received during the public scoping process
were used in preparing the Draft EIS.
Action Alternatives Considered
The action alternatives developed for the proposed project focus on
alternative routes to interconnect TEP's South Substation with the proposed
Gateway Substation. TEP's evaluation of interconnection schemes, scoping
comments, and discussions with DOE resulted in three potentially viable
alternative corridors for transmission interconnection in southern Arizona: the
Western Corridor (the applicant's Preferred Alternative), the Central Corridor,
and the Crossover Corridor. The Crossover Corridor was included for analysis in
this Draft EIS based on public and tribal input received during the public
scoping period and tribal consultations. Another alternative, the Eastern
Corridor, was originally proposed by TEP but was eliminated from analysis as a
reasonable alternative in this Draft EIS at TEP's request for reasons of
reliability, constructability, existing encroachment into the right-of-way, and
visual impacts.
NEPA requires the identification of the agency's preferred alternative or
alternatives in a Draft EIS if one or more exists or, if one does not yet exist
at the draft stage, in the Final EIS, 40 CFR part 1502.14(e). DOE reported in
the NOI (see above) that TEP's Preferred Alternative is the Western Corridor. In
light of TEP's preference and the ACC's decision to site TEP's proposed line
only along the Western Corridor, DOE has designated the Western Corridor as
DOE's preferred alternative at this time. DOE welcomes comments on this
designation. The cooperating agencies have not designated their respective
preferred alternatives at this time but will do so after their review of
environmental information is completed. Identification of a preferred
alternative in the Draft EIS does not preclude selection of a different or
modified preferred alternative in the Final EIS. The final selection of
preferred alternatives will be based on a balanced evaluation of the
environmental consequences, public comment, and consideration of national
policies.
No Action Alternative
The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations require that an
agency ``include the alternative of no action'' as one of the alternatives it
considers, 40 CFR 1502.14(d). For DOE and the cooperating agencies, ``no
action'' means any one of the Federal agencies declining to grant approval for
their area of jurisdiction. Each agency will make its own decision
independently, so that it is possible that one or more agencies could grant
permission for the proposal while another could deny permission.
The Draft EIS analyzes the potential environmental effects, or impacts, of
TEP constructing and operating the proposed project in one of the three
alternative transmission corridors, and also analyzes the No Action Alternative.
CEQ's regulations require that an EIS contain a description of the environmental
effects (both positive and negative) of the proposed alternatives. The
regulations also distinguish between direct and indirect effects (40 CFR
1508.8). Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and
place as the action. Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable effects caused
by the action that occur later in time or farther in distance. Both direct and
indirect effects are addressed in the Draft EIS. CEQ's regulations also require
that an EIS contain description of the cumulative impacts of the proposed
alternatives (40 CFR 1508.7). CEQ's regulations define cumulative impacts as
those that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what
agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts are addressed
in the Draft EIS.
The Draft EIS presents information on the potential environmental effects of
both the proposed transmission line construction and
subsequent operation on land use and recreation, visual resources, biological
resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics, geology and soils, water
resources, air quality, noise, human health and environment, infrastructure,
transportation, and minority and low income populations. The Draft EIS also
includes a Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment, in accordance with E.O. 11988,
Floodplain Management, and E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
Coronado National Forest Plan Amendment
The Coronado National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, has identified the need
for amendments to its Land and
[[Page 51571]]
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) in order to implement any of the action
alternatives identified in the Draft EIS. The amendments needed are for segments
of all (three) action alternative corridor locations and for visual resources.
The public comment period for the amendments will coincide with DOE's comment
period. Comments on Forest Plan amendments should be sent to Mr. John M. McGee,
Forest Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service, 300 West Congress, Tucson, Arizona
85701. Any inquiries regarding the Forest Plan or the amendments should be
directed to the U.S. Forest Service.
Availability of the Draft EIS
DOE has distributed copies of the Draft EIS to appropriate Members of
Congress, state and local government officials in Arizona, American Indian
tribal governments, and other Federal agencies, groups, and interested parties.
Copies of the document may be obtained by contacting DOE as provided in the
section of this notice entitled
ADDRESSES. Copies of the Draft EIS and supporting documents are also available
for inspection at the locations identified below:
1. U.S. Department of Energy, Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room
1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585.
2. Coronado National Forest, Federal Building, 300 West Congress Street, 5th
Floor, Room 5H, Tucson, AZ 85701 (phone 520-670-4527).
3. Nogales Ranger District, 303 Old Tucson Road, Nogales, AZ 85621 (phone
520-281-2296).
4. Rio Rico Public Library, 1060 Yavapai Drive, Rio Rico, AZ 85648 (phone
520-281-8067).
5. Tubac Community Library, 50 Bridge Road, Tubac, AZ 85646 (phone
520-398-9814).
6. Conrad Joyner-Green Valley Branch Library, 601 North La Ca[ntilde]ada
Drive, Green Valley, AZ 85614 (phone 520-625-8660).
7. Nogales-Santa Cruz County Public Library, 518 North Grand Ave., Nogales,
AZ 85621 (phone 520-287-3343).
Comments on the Draft EIS may be submitted to Dr. Jerry Pell (see
ADDRESSES, above) or provided at the public hearings (see DATES, above). After
the public comment period ends on October 14, 2003, DOE will consider all
comments received, revise the Draft EIS as appropriate, and issue a Final EIS.
DOE will consider the Final EIS, along with other information, such as electric
reliability and national policy factors, in deciding whether or not to issue a
Presidential permit.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of August 2003.
Anthony J. Como, Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation, Office of Coal and
Power Import/Export, Office of Coal and Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 03-21885 Filed 8-26-03; 8:45 am]
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Email comments by Marshall:
We need to meet NEPA criteria so that all inputs are reviewed and tabulated (just opposing really doesn't count with out a reason - so we tell that when we give out Post Cards). You know TEP will look at return addresses, so "closeness" will be essential; however, comments as "my favorite recreation place is ___ which will be ruined by the Western Route" could validate those from ones not living close. Other "comments" could be "need for this project was not established or was only a TEP statement in this EIS, which isn't valid, where is the project cost/benefit ratio?", "why build this before the Mexican Constitution is changed, because it's not even buildable until then" or "how can one propose to cross the roadless area (Central Route) or be near Sycamore Canyon (Western Route)?" or "why not have three 115 kV conductor lines with 60 feet H-frame telephone poles near present lines which costs about $20 million while this project costs over $85 million for its 12 conductor lines at 345 kV?" or "why 2,000 MW of power to support Nogales which has never used more than 57.8 MW?" or "justification for dual circuit never stated or assessed against single circuit," etc. - we could even have a list of a hundred or so they could chose which "short comment" they like.
What the serious replies by letters have to include are something like:
1. Summary.
2. Major Comments on the EIS. (major omissions, errors, corrections, deviations from ACC application, etc.)
3. Review Comments. An introductory and summary paragraph with an Attachment to contain all of the following, paragraph by paragraph, for entire document (including Harris Reports), in a simple format:
Para Number, title, page(s)
Comment:
Reference Source: (if applicable, especially for DEVIATIONS from the ACC Application which means there are "changes" to the present ACC CEC and the TEP Application) - thus such comments also need to go to Ms. Woodhall, Line Siting Chairman and the ACC Docket Control, Parties to Case 111, because it probably will need to be "re-reviewed" by her Committee and the Commissioners
Recommendation: (what DOE, other Federal Agencies, Tetra Tech should do, such as complete the pygmy owl assessment before publishing the Final EIS)
4. Other Comments. (typos, etc. just simple corrections)
5. Conclusions:
6. Recommendations with respect to the Alternatives:
NO ACTION, Western Route, Central Route, Cross-Over Route.
Thanks,
Marshall
We need to meet NEPA criteria so that all inputs are reviewed and tabulated (just opposing really doesn't count with out a reason - so we tell that when we give out Post Cards). You know TEP will look at return addresses, so "closeness" will be essential; however, comments as "my favorite recreation place is ___ which will be ruined by the Western Route" could validate those from ones not living close. Other "comments" could be "need for this project was not established or was only a TEP statement in this EIS, which isn't valid, where is the project cost/benefit ratio?", "why build this before the Mexican Constitution is changed, because it's not even buildable until then" or "how can one propose to cross the roadless area (Central Route) or be near Sycamore Canyon (Western Route)?" or "why not have three 115 kV conductor lines with 60 feet H-frame telephone poles near present lines which costs about $20 million while this project costs over $85 million for its 12 conductor lines at 345 kV?" or "why 2,000 MW of power to support Nogales which has never used more than 57.8 MW?" or "justification for dual circuit never stated or assessed against single circuit," etc. - we could even have a list of a hundred or so they could chose which "short comment" they like.
What the serious replies by letters have to include are something like:
1. Summary.
2. Major Comments on the EIS. (major omissions, errors, corrections, deviations from ACC application, etc.)
3. Review Comments. An introductory and summary paragraph with an Attachment to contain all of the following, paragraph by paragraph, for entire document (including Harris Reports), in a simple format:
Para Number, title, page(s)
Comment:
Reference Source: (if applicable, especially for DEVIATIONS from the ACC Application which means there are "changes" to the present ACC CEC and the TEP Application) - thus such comments also need to go to Ms. Woodhall, Line Siting Chairman and the ACC Docket Control, Parties to Case 111, because it probably will need to be "re-reviewed" by her Committee and the Commissioners
Recommendation: (what DOE, other Federal Agencies, Tetra Tech should do, such as complete the pygmy owl assessment before publishing the Final EIS)
4. Other Comments. (typos, etc. just simple corrections)
5. Conclusions:
6. Recommendations with respect to the Alternatives:
NO ACTION, Western Route, Central Route, Cross-Over Route.
Thanks,
Marshall
For those who want to order a copy of the EIS; I you can contact Dr. Jerry Pell by email at Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov or by leaving a telephone number 800-430-4046 or 202-586-3362. Information on hearing dates on the EIS will also be available at http://www.ttclients.com/tep/
Here is a quick "cut-and-paste" action post card:
=======================================================
Dear Dr Pell (DOE address on other side) and Dear Mr. McGee (Coronado NF address on other side):
I have reviewed the TEP Transmission Line draft EIS enough to make my decision. I recommend the following Alternative be approved by the Coronado National Forest:
___ NO ACTION (which means no approval any proposed Alternative in the draft EIS)
___ Western Route
___ Central Route
___ Cross-Over Route
The reason(s) for my decision are ____________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(__)or see attached statement or letter.
The following errors, omissions, or corrections are required to the Draft EIS:
________________________________________________________________
(__)or see attached statement or letter.
Name (please print)________________________________
Signature ________________________________________
Street Address ___________________________________
Post Office Box (if applicable) ______________
City _______________, State ____, Zip Code _________
================================================================
This would provide an individual input. If any comments or "omissions, errors" were included, then they have to have comments, including being printed, in the Final EIS.
Using this, or similar cards from various regions, in my opinion, would be better than to have everyone use the same "postcard" which would appear to be a "managed" campaign.
Mail postcards to :
Dr. Jerry Pell
Fossil Energy, FE-27
US Dept of Energy
Washington DC 20585
Comments on Forest Plan Amendments should be sent to:
Mr. John M McGee
Forest Supervisor
US Forest Service
300 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Here is a quick "cut-and-paste" action post card:
=======================================================
Dear Dr Pell (DOE address on other side) and Dear Mr. McGee (Coronado NF address on other side):
I have reviewed the TEP Transmission Line draft EIS enough to make my decision. I recommend the following Alternative be approved by the Coronado National Forest:
___ NO ACTION (which means no approval any proposed Alternative in the draft EIS)
___ Western Route
___ Central Route
___ Cross-Over Route
The reason(s) for my decision are ____________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(__)or see attached statement or letter.
The following errors, omissions, or corrections are required to the Draft EIS:
________________________________________________________________
(__)or see attached statement or letter.
Name (please print)________________________________
Signature ________________________________________
Street Address ___________________________________
Post Office Box (if applicable) ______________
City _______________, State ____, Zip Code _________
================================================================
This would provide an individual input. If any comments or "omissions, errors" were included, then they have to have comments, including being printed, in the Final EIS.
Using this, or similar cards from various regions, in my opinion, would be better than to have everyone use the same "postcard" which would appear to be a "managed" campaign.
Mail postcards to :
Dr. Jerry Pell
Fossil Energy, FE-27
US Dept of Energy
Washington DC 20585
Comments on Forest Plan Amendments should be sent to:
Mr. John M McGee
Forest Supervisor
US Forest Service
300 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)