[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39926-39930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17004]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project (DOE/EIS-0415)

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of 
Findings.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) received a 
request from Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) to 
interconnect its proposed Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project 
(Project) to Western's transmission system. Basin Electric's Project 
includes the construction of a new 300-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired 
combined-cycle generation facility in Brookings County, South Dakota, 
approximately 13.2 miles of new natural gas supply pipeline, a 0.75-
mile transmission line, two water wells, a 1.25-mile water supply line, 
and 1 mile of local road improvements.
    Western considered the interconnection request under the provisions 
of its Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff), along with the 
information in the environmental impact statement (EIS) and all 
comments received, and has made the decision to allow Basin Electric's 
request to interconnect at Western's existing White Substation. The 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service (RUS), also 
received a request from Basin Electric for financial assistance for the 
Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project. RUS is a cooperating agency 
in the EIS process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Mr. Matt Marsh, 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, Western Area 
Power Administration, P.O. Box 35800, Billings, MT 59107; telephone 
(406) 247-7385 or e-mail [email protected] for additional 
information concerning the Project. For general information on the 
Department of Energy's (DOE) NEPA review process, please contact Ms. 
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-
54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

[[Page 39927]]

Washington, DC 20585; telephone (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is a Federal agency within the DOE 
that markets and transmits wholesale electrical power through an 
integrated 17,000-mile, high-voltage transmission system across 15 
western states. Western received a request from Basin Electric to 
interconnect their proposed Project to Western's transmission system. 
Basin Electric's Project is located within Western's Upper Great Plains 
Region, which operates and maintains nearly 100 substations and nearly 
7,800 miles of Federal transmission lines in Minnesota, South Dakota, 
North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and Iowa.
    Western published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the 
project on February 6, 2009 (74 FR 6284). A Notice of Availability of 
the Draft EIS was published by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) on February 5, 2010 (75 FR 6026), and a Notice of Availability of 
the Final EIS was published by EPA on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30022).

Western's Purpose and Need

    Western's need for action is triggered by Basin Electric's 
interconnection request. Western's Tariff describes the conditions 
necessary for access to its transmission system. Western provides an 
interconnection if there is available capacity on the transmission 
system, while considering transmission system reliability and power 
delivery to existing customers, and the applicant's objectives.

Western's Proposed Action

    Western's Federal involvement is limited to consideration of Basin 
Electric's interconnection request for their Project, under the 
provisions of the Tariff. Western's Proposed Action is to interconnect 
the Project to Western's transmission system. This involves adding a 
transformer bay to the White Substation and making other minor system 
modifications within the substation.

Applicant's Purpose and Need

    Basin Electric's 2007 Power Supply Analysis (PSA) indicated that 
additional intermediate capacity would be needed by mid-2012 to meet 
its members' growing energy demand. Based on the PSA, a 700- to 800-
megawatt (MW) capacity deficit is projected in the eastern portion of 
Basin Electric's service area by the year 2014. Basin Electric is 
proposing to meet this increased demand by implementing a resource 
expansion plan that includes 200 MW of peaking generation, 300 MW of 
wind generation, 250 MW of intermediate generation, and 600 MW of 
baseload generation.

Applicant's Proposed Project

    As an intermediate capacity unit, Basin Electric's proposed Project 
would be cycled at low load periods, such as evenings and weekends. The 
unit would be capable of rapidly responding to load swings of the 
system. The Project has been sized for 300 MW in order to meet the 250-
MW intermediate power supply need and have a 50-MW reserve to meet peak 
intermediate needs. The advantage of siting such a project in Brookings 
County is that wind generation on the grid in this area can be 
integrated with the combined-cycle natural gas generation. During 
periods of high wind generation, gas-fired generation can be reduced. 
During periods of low wind generation, the gas-fired generation will be 
available to back up the wind generation.
    The Project would use combined-cycle technology, in which a gas 
turbine powers an electric generator. Under the combined-cycle 
configuration, the exhaust from the combustion turbine generator passes 
through a heat recovery steam generator that extracts heat from the 
turbine exhaust. The waste heat is used to generate steam that then 
passes through a steam turbine generator.

Alternatives Considered

    The EIS reviewed the options considered by Basin Electric in its 
PSA. Western has no decision-making authority over these options. 
Western's Federal involvement is limited to the determination of 
whether to allow the interconnection of Basin Electric's Project. For 
the purposes of furthering environmental decision making, the EIS 
evaluated three alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, Western 
would not execute an interconnection agreement with Basin Electric. 
Given the lack of a Western interconnection, Basin Electric could not 
construct its Project as proposed. However, as Basin Electric is a 
regulated utility having load growth responsibility, it is reasonable 
to expect that it would construct a similar generation facility 
somewhere in eastern South Dakota. Such a facility may not connect to a 
Federal transmission system, involve Federal financing, or have any 
other Federal nexus that would require a NEPA process.
    Under the Proposed Action, Western would execute an interconnection 
agreement. Basin Electric would construct a 300-MW combined-cycle 
combustion turbine natural gas generating facility and supporting 
infrastructure at one of two alternative sites in eastern South Dakota. 
The EIS analyzed the two alternative sites as White Site 1 and White 
Site 2. The sites were selected because of their proximity to a natural 
gas supply, to a Western transmission line, to a water supply, and 
constructability.
    White Site 1 is located approximately six miles southeast of White, 
South Dakota, in the northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 111 
North, Range 48 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Brookings 
County. The footprint of the White Site 1 power generation facility 
would take up 40 acres of a 100-acre site. To provide natural gas, a 
13.2-mile natural gas line would be constructed from the site to access 
the Northern Border Pipeline in Deuel County, South Dakota. Electricity 
generated by the facility would be transmitted to Western's White 
Substation by a 0.75-mile long, 345-kV transmission line. Cooling water 
would be provided by two wells located near Deer Creek, and the water 
would be transmitted to the site by a 1.25-mile water pipeline.
    White Site 2 is located approximately four miles east-northeast of 
White, South Dakota, in the northwest quarter of Section 2, Township 
111 North, Range 48 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Brookings 
County. In addition to a 40-acre generation facility footprint, White 
Site 2 would also involve substation construction that would occupy an 
additional six acres. To provide natural gas, a 10-mile natural gas 
pipeline would be constructed from the site to access the Northern 
Border Pipeline in Deuel County. Electricity generated by the facility 
would be transmitted from the new substation to a Western transmission 
line located 0.5 miles from the site. Cooling water would be provided 
by municipal water supply. A water line extension of one mile would be 
constructed to the site.
    White Site 1 is convenient to the White Substation, is further away 
from occupied residences, and has better drainage than White Site 2. 
White Site 2 would require construction of a substation for 
interconnection. As a result, Basin Electric selected White Site 1 as 
its preferred site.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), Western has identified an 
environmentally preferred alternative: the No Action Alternative. Under 
this alternative, Western would deny the interconnection request and 
not modify its transmission system to interconnect the Project with its 
transmission system. Under this alternative it is assumed that Basin 
Electric's proposed Project would

[[Page 39928]]

not be built and associated environmental impacts would not occur. 
However, Western must respond to Basin Electric's interconnection 
request under the terms of the Tariff. The Tariff and underlying 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Orders mandating open access to 
transmission systems establish conditions under which interconnection 
requests must be considered, including a NEPA review.
    Under the No Action Alternative, Basin Electric's purpose and need 
would not be met. Basin Electric, as a regulated utility with load 
growth responsibility, would have to find an alternate means to meet 
the increase in intermediate generation demand for electric power in 
the eastern portion of its service area. It is reasonable to expect 
that Basin Electric would construct a similar generation facility 
somewhere in eastern South Dakota that may or may not have a Federal 
nexus requiring NEPA review and consideration of mitigation efforts as 
a part of that review.

Environmental Impacts

    The analysis in the EIS demonstrated that Basin Electric's Project 
would have no impacts or minimal impacts on geology, farmland, 
environmental justice, recreation, visual, and cultural resources. 
Expected impacts on other environmental resources are discussed below.
    Air emissions from the Project would be those expected from a 
modern natural gas-fueled power plant, and would be less than 
applicable emissions standards for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), and particulates less than 10 microns in 
diameter (PM10). The facility would also not be a major 
source of hazardous air pollutants, and construction-related emissions 
and transportation-related emissions would be minor. Greenhouse gas 
emissions from operation of the Project would be approximately one 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents per 
year. To put these greenhouse gas emissions in perspective, if 300 MW 
of energy were to be produced using a traditional subcritical 
pulverized coal boiler, the emissions of CO2 equivalents 
would increase almost 4-fold, up to a projected 3.8 million metric 
tons. In addition, the Project is being constructed to complement 
renewable generation in the area, specifically wind energy generation, 
which would further facilitate reduction in overall greenhouse gas 
emissions. Electricity from this source would normally be generated on 
an intermittent basis when wind energy is not available.
    Water resources concerns are related to erosion and sedimentation, 
and groundwater. Crossings of streams and wetlands by gas pipelines and 
waterlines have been minimized to the extent practicable by careful 
routing. Where crossings are unavoidable, construction would meet all 
permit conditions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State water 
quality agencies. The impacts to streams and wetlands from the Project 
would be temporary in nature, and were determined to be not 
significant. Construction-site storm-water management would also meet 
all State and Federal regulations. Groundwater for plant cooling water 
would be pumped from the Big Sioux aquifer in the Deer Creek floodplain 
near the Project site. Initial pump tests indicate that Deer Creek 
would not be affected by drawdown. Biological resources concerns in 
this mostly agricultural area are mostly related to small crossings of 
native prairie by the gas pipeline corridor. Two locations contain 
native prairie forb and warm season grass communities. These locations 
are potential habitat for the Dakota skipper, a candidate for listing 
under the Endangered Species Act. Impacts in these areas are expected 
to be temporary and the prairie would be restored following pipeline 
trenching.
    Traffic and noise were also identified as potential impacts. While 
the local road network provides adequate capacity to meet projected 
traffic demands, access to the site would be on unpaved county and 
township roads. Peak traffic is estimated at 360 one-way trips to the 
site. Maximum noise levels are projected to increase, but not 
significantly over background levels. Noise levels would be below U.S. 
Housing and Urban Development guidelines.

Public Involvement

    A Notice of Intent (NOI) describing the proposed action was 
published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2009 (74 FR 6284). The 
NOI announced the intent to prepare an EIS on the Project, described 
the proposal, provided scoping meeting locations and dates, started a 
30-day comment period, and provided contacts for further information 
about the Project and for submitting scoping comments. The public 
scoping meeting was held at White, South Dakota, on February 24, 2009. 
A total of 12 written comments from agencies and two written comments 
from individuals were received in response to the NOI. Western 
responded to these comments in the Draft EIS.
    A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published by the EPA 
in the Federal Register on February 5, 2010 (75 FR 6026). A public 
hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIS was held in White, South 
Dakota on February 25, 2010. While eighteen people attended the public 
hearing, none wished to comment for the record, and no comments on the 
Draft EIS were received from the public during the public comment 
period. Western received comments on the Draft EIS from a number of 
Federal and State agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) indicated that the document adequately disclosed the 
environmental impacts of the alternatives and no further data 
collection is necessary and identified opportunities for additional 
mitigation. While the U.S. Department of the Interior indicated that 
they had no comments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 
concurred that the Project will not adversely affect federally-listed 
endangered and threatened species. In addition, the South Dakota 
Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) provided technical 
corrections to the treatment of state-listed species and their 
distribution.
    Because no substantive changes were needed to the Draft EIS, 
Western did not republish the Draft EIS but instead issued the 
comments, responses, and changes to the document, with a new cover 
sheet, as the Final EIS pursuant to 40 CFR part 1503.4(c). The complete 
Final EIS is composed of both the Draft EIS and the responses to 
comments found in the Final EIS. The mitigation measures for air 
quality recommended by the EPA in their comments on the Draft EIS have 
been adopted. The EPA provided comments on the Final EIS with concerns 
about groundwater withdrawal and monitoring. Additional details about 
groundwater issues are presented in the Groundwater Mitigation section 
below.

Mitigation Measures

    Through public and agency participation in the NEPA process, Basin 
Electric has altered the design of the Project to minimize impacts to 
the environment. Best Management Practices will be used for sediment 
and erosion control, as described in a Project-specific Storm Water 
Pollution Prevention Plan, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure 
Plan, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 
(SDDENR) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges with Industrial 
Activities, and SDDENR General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from

[[Page 39929]]

Construction Activities. Other Project specific mitigation measures are 
identified in the Draft EIS document for each resource category and in 
the Final EIS response to comments. Basin Electric's Standard 
Mitigation Measures for the Project are listed in Appendix F of the 
Draft EIS. Project-specific mitigation measures, to be implemented as 
conditions of this decision, are listed below.

Air Quality Mitigation

    A dust control plan will be implemented for use of unpaved county 
and township roads in the plant vicinity. The air permit is expected to 
be issued in summer 2010. The draft permit establishes limits for 
NOX, CO, PM10, total sulfur content for natural 
gas and fuel oil to be used, opacity levels, and start up and shut down 
operations. Basin Electric will comply with all conditions and limits 
in the final air permit.

Groundwater Mitigation

    The 2 groundwater production wells will be located approximately 
275 feet from Deer Creek. Based on the typical hydraulic 
characteristics of the Big Sioux aquifer the cone of influence around 
the production wells would be 21 to 112 feet at a pumping rate of 125 
gallons per minute. Only one production well will be in service at any 
given time. A minimum buffer of 163 feet between the edge of the cone 
of influence and Deer Creek will thus be preserved. Two pumping tests 
will determine the actual extent of the cone of influence, which is 
expected to fall within the range identified above. Pumping tests will 
be performed during the initial pumping of the first production well 
and during the period of maximum withdrawal at Project start-up to fill 
the on-site water storage tank. Monitoring will take place at least 
every hour during these testing periods. Two groundwater monitoring 
wells would be left in place between the two production wells and Deer 
Creek. Given the existing data and buffer between the production well 
and Deer Creek, no impacts to Deer Creek are anticipated. If the cone 
of influence is larger than anticipated, Basin Electric will reassess 
the potential for impacts to Deer Creek in conjunction with Western.

Wetlands Impact Avoidance and Mitigation

    The Project site, gas pipeline, transmission line and water line 
have the potential to impact wetlands. The Project area contains 
pothole wetlands, wetland swales (some of which are cultivated) and 
creeks. Construction in wetlands will be avoided to the extent 
practicable. Where impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, construction 
will be performed so that any impacts are minimized. Wetland areas are 
very common in the Project area, so complete avoidance is not possible.
    Construction of Basin Electric's Project would impact 8.74 acres of 
wetlands along the natural gas pipeline and water pipeline alignments. 
In addition, construction of the access road into the power generation 
facility would permanently impact 0.02 acre of wetlands, and 
temporarily impact an additional 0.02 acre. All of the Project impacts 
will occur to drainage wetlands classified as riverine, according to 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service Hydrogeomorphic 
Classification System for wetlands. Similar wetland areas in the 
Project area are often cultivated when located in cropland, especially 
in dry years.
    The following water body crossing procedures will be used. 
Hazardous and regulated materials, chemicals, fuels, and lubricating 
oils would not be stored and concrete coating activities would not be 
performed within 100 feet of any intermittent creek or other water 
body. All construction equipment would be refueled at least 100 feet 
from any water body. All spoil from creek crossings would be placed in 
the construction right-of-way (ROW) at least 10 feet from the water's 
edge, if present. Sediment barriers would be used to prevent the flow 
of spoil material into the water body. Where possible and practical, 
any large wetlands and perennial streams will be horizontally 
directional drilled (HDD). Drilling equipment and bell holes (entrance 
and exit pits) will be placed at least 25 feet away from the edge of 
any waterways and wetlands. Soil excavated from the bell holes will be 
backfilled and stabilized. Where HDD is not used, trenching will be 
accomplished by minimizing the extent of construction equipment usage 
in wetland areas and limiting equipment travel and use to the existing 
ROW. Equipment crossing of wetlands will be completed through use of 
timber mats if rutting in excess of four inches occurs. Impermeable 
material such as clay rich soils or sand bag trench blocks will be 
placed as soil block within the ditch at the entry and exit points of 
each individual wetland complex so as to minimize the potential of 
inadvertent drainage of the wetland area.
    The following is a general list of procedures to be utilized to 
reduce wetland impact in areas where open-cut trench crossings in 
wetland areas will occur. The duration of construction-related 
disturbance within wetlands will be minimized by means of timely 
construction during the historically dry periods of the year, typically 
in the fall. If standing water or saturated soils are present, low 
ground-weight construction equipment will be used or normal equipment 
would be operated on timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or 
geotextile fabric overlain with gravel. Geotextile fabric used for this 
purpose will be strong enough to allow removal of all gravel and fabric 
from the wetland. The top 12 inches of topsoil will be segregated from 
the area disturbed by trenching, except in areas where standing water 
or saturated soils are present. Once the trench has been backfilled, 
the segregated topsoil will be used to cover the trench. Impermeable 
material such as clay rich soils or sandbags will be placed as trench 
blocks at the entry and exit points of each individual wetland complex 
to minimize the potential of inadvertent drainage of the wetland area.
    Temporary sediment barriers will be used to stop or reduce the flow 
of sediment coming into wetland locations. These barriers will be 
constructed of materials such as silt fence, staked hay or straw bales, 
or sand bags depending on conditions present and the most effective 
barrier for those conditions. Temporary sediment barriers will be 
installed as necessary at the base of slopes until disturbed vegetation 
has been reestablished.
    During pipeline installation, the welding of a pipe string will be 
done at the edge of the wetland and the completed section will be 
pulled or pushed across (or under, if HDD is used) the wetland and tied 
into the rest of the pipeline. During wetland disturbance, erosion 
control structures will be placed as necessary to prevent flow of soil 
from spoil piles into undisturbed wetland areas. If the wetland has a 
vegetative mat that can be saved in large segments, the mat will be 
saved for replacement over the backfilled trench to help re-establish 
vegetation more rapidly. Once construction has been completed, wetland 
areas will be restored by grading, which will return the area's 
drainage patterns to pre-construction contours. Excess backfill will be 
disposed of on dry land in the ROW rather than on wetland areas. Excess 
backfill will not be placed on any wetland or floodplain area.
    Restoration will be undertaken for temporary impacts to 
jurisdictional wetlands. Mitigation measures for temporary impacts may 
include placement of a horizontal marker (e.g., fabric, certified weed-
free straw, etc.) to delineate the existing ground elevation

[[Page 39930]]

of wetlands that would be temporarily filled during construction. 
Following construction, mitigation measures will include removal of 
temporary fill, recontouring to the original site elevations, and then 
reseeding using native plant species to reestablish a prevalence of 
hydrophytic vegetation. Revegetation protocols typically will make use 
of plant species currently growing in the affected wetlands.

Biological Mitigation

    SDGFP will be consulted if any active raptor nests were discovered 
within 0.25 miles of any of the Project facilities during construction. 
To ensure that impacts to the Dakota skipper are avoided, pipeline 
construction will not take place in the two locations of Dakota skipper 
suitable habitat during the growth and blooming period for the nectar 
source of the adult butterfly (May-July), which includes the summer 
breeding period of the butterfly. Nesting bird surveys will be 
completed prior to ground disturbance activities in accordance with 
protocols developed in consultation with Western and the USFWS. The 
seed mix and specifications for native plantings in disturbed area will 
be developed by Basin Electric, based on the NRCS-recommended seed 
mixes.

Traffic and Roadway Mitigation

    Traffic signage changes and intersection improvements will be 
implemented to manage the temporary increase in traffic volumes and 
loads during construction and for deliveries that will occur during 
Project operations.

Noise Mitigation

    Basin Electric will conduct a post-construction operational noise 
assessment to be completed by an independent third-party noise 
consultant, approved by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, 
to show compliance with the noise levels according to the predictive 
model used in the noise analysis. The noise assessment will be 
performed in accordance with American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) B133.8--Gas Turbine Installation Sound Emissions. The results of 
that analysis will be evaluated by Basin Electric to determine if any 
modifications to the proposed facilities or operations are needed.

Consultation

    Western is the lead Federal agency for compliance with Section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act. By letter of May 10, 2010, 
the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer concurred that no 
historic properties would be affected by the Project. RUS is the lead 
Federal agency for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species 
Act. A biological assessment was prepared and submitted with a 
determination that the Project may affect, but would not likely 
adversely affect listed species. As stated above, the USFWS concurred 
with this determination.

Floodplain Statement of Findings

    In accordance with 10 CFR part 1022, Western considered the 
potential impacts of the Project on floodplains and wetlands. The 
natural gas pipeline for Basin Electric's Project would cross 100-year 
floodplains in eight places. There are no pipeline routes that would 
completely avoid floodplains, given the locations that existing 
pipelines would need to be tapped and drainage patterns in the region. 
As a result, there is no practicable alternative to construction of a 
natural gas pipeline in floodplains. In addition, the wells producing 
cooling water would be located in the floodplain of Deer Creek. Total 
impacts to the floodplain from the well facilities would be an 
approximately 200-foot by 200-foot area for two individual wellheads, a 
monitoring well, and an 8-by-10 foot control building. The access road, 
wells, and control building would be contoured to an elevation of one 
foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Consistent with the 
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program, the building 
would be watertight and utilities would be capable of resisting flood 
damage. Because all other available water well supply sites are located 
in the Deer Creek floodplain, there is no practicable alternative to 
locating this site within the floodplain.
    Permanent impacts to wetlands of 0.02 acres would occur on the 
Project site due to construction of facilities. Temporary impacts to 
wetlands would occur due to construction of the proposed Project 
facilities, including the Project site (0.02 acres), water pipeline 
(5.86 acres), and natural gas pipeline (2.88 acres). Impacts have been 
minimized by changing the site layout, use of HDD, and by construction 
of facilities adjacent to existing linear features such as county and 
township roads. Where unavoidable, impacts are minimized by use of pads 
for heavy equipment and restoration to preconstruction contours. There 
are no pipeline routes that completely avoid wetlands, given the 
locations that existing pipelines would need to be tapped and the 
constraints of the Project site. As a result, there is no practicable 
alternative to construction in wetlands. Project facilities in the 
floodplain would not impound or impede drainage of flood flows, or 
increase the severity of or damage from any flood flows.

Decision

    Western's decision is to allow Basin Electric's request for 
interconnection at the White Substation in South Dakota and to complete 
modifications to the substation to support the interconnection.\1\ 
Western's decision to grant this interconnection request satisfies the 
agency's statutory mission and Basin Electric's objectives while 
minimizing harm to the environment. An interconnection agreement will 
be executed in accordance with Western's Tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Western's authority to issue a record of decision for 
integrating transmission facilities is pursuant to authority 
delegated on October 4, 1999, from the Assistant Secretary for 
Environment, Safety and Health to Western's Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basin Electric has committed to minimize its proposed Project's 
impact on the environment through the Project's design, the use of 
pollution control technology, and the implementation of mitigation 
measures as incorporated in the Project description and summarized 
above. Western will adhere to its own standard mitigation measures for 
all modifications within White Substation. Western conditions its 
approval of Basin Electric's request to interconnect to Western's 
transmission system upon the adoption and implementation of the 
mitigation measures as described in the Final EIS.
    This decision is based on the information contained in the Deer 
Creek Station Energy Facility Project Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0415). The EIS 
and this ROD were prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Council 
on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508), DOE Procedures for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 
1021), and DOE's Floodplain/Wetland Review Requirements (10 CFR 1022). 
Full implementation of this decision is contingent upon the Project 
obtaining all applicable permits and approvals.

    Dated: June 30, 2010.
Timothy J. Meeks,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-17004 Filed 7-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P