[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60102-60107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24388]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


South Dakota PrairieWinds Project (DOE/EIS-0418)

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 two 
requests from Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric); one to 
interconnect their proposed South Dakota PrairieWinds Project (Proposed 
Project) and one to interconnect the South Dakota Wind Partners, LLC's 
(Wind Partners') proposed development to Western's transmission system. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service (RUS), also 
received a request from Basin Electric for financial assistance for the 
Proposed Project. RUS is a joint lead agency in the Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) process.
    The Proposed Project includes a 151.5-megawatt (MW) nameplate 
capacity wind-powered energy generation facility that would feature 101 
wind turbine generators; 6,000 square-foot operations and maintenance 
building and fence perimeter; 64 miles of underground communication 
system and electrical collector lines (within the same trench); 34.5-
kilovolt (kV) to 230-kV collector substation and microwave tower; 11 
mile-long overhead 230-kV transmission line; temporary equipment/
material storage or lay-down areas; temporary batch plant; temporary 
crane walks; and 81 miles of new and/or upgraded service roads to 
access the facilities. Wind Partners' proposed development would 
include the installation of an additional seven turbines within the 
Crow Lake Alternative and use a portion of the other facilities 
described for the Proposed Project. Through an agreement between Basin 
Electric and Wind Partners, Basin Electric would construct, operate, 
and maintain the Wind Partners' proposed development.
    Western considered the interconnection requests under the 
provisions of its Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff), 
along with the information in the EIS and all comments received, and 
has made the decision to allow both of Basin Electric's requests to 
interconnect at Western's existing Wessington Springs Substation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Ms. Liana Reilly, 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, Western Area 
Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone 
(800) 336-7288 or e-mail [email protected] for additional 
information concerning the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed 
development.
    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., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (800) 472-
2756.
    For information on RUS financing, contact Mr. Dennis Rankin, 
Project Manager, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Rural Utilities 
Service, Utilities Program, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 
1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone (202) 720-1953 or e-mail 
[email protected].

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.

[[Page 60103]]

Western received two requests from Basin Electric; one to interconnect 
the Proposed Project and one to interconnect the Wind Partners' 
proposed development, to Western's transmission system. The Proposed 
Project and the Wind Partners' proposed development are 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 and RUS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 
EIS on April 7, 2009, (74 FR 15718). A Notice of Availability of the 
Draft EIS was published by the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) on January 15, 2010 (75 FR 2540), and a Notice of 
Availability of the Final EIS was published by the EPA on July 30, 2010 
(75 FR 44951).

Western's Purpose and Need

    Western's need for action is triggered by Basin Electric's 
interconnection requests. 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, under the provisions of the Tariff, 
is limited to consideration of Basin Electric's interconnection request 
for their Proposed Project and the interconnection request for the Wind 
Partners' proposed development. Western's Proposed Action is to 
interconnect the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed 
development to Western's transmission system. This involves adding 
electrical equipment to the Wessington Springs Substation and making 
other minor system modifications within the substation.

Basin Electric's Purpose and Need

    Public policy regarding the electric industry has increasingly 
focused on the carbon intensity of the resources commonly used to 
generate electricity. As a result, incentives and regulations to 
encourage or require the generation of power from renewable or low-
environmental-impact resources are being actively considered and/or 
implemented within the Basin Electric member service areas. With 
members in nine States, Basin Electric recognizes the need for 
additional renewable energy capacity to service forecasted member load-
growth demands and to meet State-mandated RPS. In addition, Basin 
Electric membership passed a resolution at their 2005 annual meeting 
that established a goal to, ``obtain renewable or environmentally 
benign resources equal to 10 percent of the MW capacity needed to meet 
its member demand by 2010.''
    Basin Electric's 2007 Power Supply Analysis (PSA) provided an in-
depth look at Basin Electric's current operating system, future load 
growth and the framework for future expansion, including both supply-
side and demand-side resource expansion. All future expansion 
portfolios include wind energy development. Basin Electric determined 
that a 151.5-MW wind farm would be the best available, least-cost 
renewable resource energy generation option to meet the State-mandated 
RPS and renewable energy objective (REO), meet Basin Electric's 
renewable energy goal established in 2005, and serve forecasted member 
load-growth demands. With the addition of 151.5 MW from the Proposed 
Project, Basin Electric would be able to meet the REO requirements for 
those States that currently have them.

Basin Electric's Proposed Project

    The Proposed Project includes a 151.5-MW nameplate capacity wind-
powered energy generation facility that would feature 101 wind turbine 
generators, operations and maintenance building and fence perimeter, 
underground communication system and electrical collector lines (within 
the same trench), collector substation and microwave tower, overhead 
transmission line, temporary equipment/material storage or lay-down 
areas, temporary batch plant, temporary crane walks, and new and/or 
upgraded service roads to access the facilities.

Wind Partners' Purpose and Need

    The Wind Partners' proposed development would enable local 
community involvement and investment in wind projects. The proposed 
development would also help meet the State of South Dakota's voluntary 
REO of 10 percent.

Wind Partners' Proposed Development

    The Wind Partners' proposed development would include the 
installation of an additional seven turbines within the Crow Lake 
Alternative and use a portion of the other facilities described for the 
Proposed Project. Through an agreement between Basin Electric and Wind 
Partners, Basin Electric would construct, operate, and maintain the 
Wind Partners' proposed development.

Alternatives Considered

    The EIS reviewed the options considered by Basin Electric in its 
PrairieWinds--SD 1 Alternative Evaluation Analysis and Site Selection 
Study (PrairieWinds Study). The PrairieWinds Study determined a wind 
project to be the best available, least-cost renewable resource option 
to satisfy future load and RPS requirements. Western has no decision-
making authority over these options. Western's Federal involvement is 
limited to the determination of whether to allow the interconnections 
of the Proposed Project and the Wind Partners' proposed development. 
For the purposes of furthering environmental decision making, the EIS 
analyzed three alternatives: No Action Alternative, Crow Lake 
Alternative, and Winner Alternative.

No Action Alternative

    Under the No Action Alternative, Western would deny the 
interconnection request(s) and RUS would not provide financial 
assistance for the Proposed Project. For the purpose of impact analysis 
and comparison in the EIS, it was assumed that the Proposed Project and 
Wind Partners' proposed development would not be built and the 
environmental impacts, both positive and negative, associated with 
construction and operation would not occur. However, Basin Electric is 
a regulated utility with load growth responsibility and a need to meet 
RPSs, REOs, and renewable energy goals; therefore, it is reasonable to 
expect that it would construct a similar generation facility elsewhere 
in South Dakota. Such a facility might not interconnect to a Federal 
transmission system, involve Federal financing, or have any other 
Federal nexus that would require a NEPA process.

Crow Lake Alternative

    The Crow Lake Alternative is located on approximately 36,000 acres 
approximately 15 miles north of the City of White Lake, South Dakota, 
within Aurora, Brule, and Jerauld counties, and would interconnect with 
Western's Wessington Springs Substation, located in Jerauld County, 
South Dakota. The Proposed Project includes a 151.5-MW nameplate 
capacity wind-powered energy generation facility that would feature 101 
wind turbine generators; 6,000 square-foot operations and maintenance 
building and fence perimeter; 64 miles of underground

[[Page 60104]]

communication system and electrical collector lines (within the same 
trench); 34.5-kV to 230-kV collector substation and microwave tower; 11 
mile-long overhead 230-kV transmission line; equipment/material storage 
or lay-down areas (temporary impact of 10 acres); batch plant 
(temporary impact of 8 acres); crane walks (temporary impact of 254.6 
acres); and 81 miles of new and/or upgraded service roads to access the 
facilities. Wind Partners' proposed development would include the 
installation of an additional seven turbines within the Crow Lake 
Alternative and share use of a small portion of the other facilities 
described for the Proposed Project. Through an agreement between Basin 
Electric and Wind Partners, Basin Electric would construct, operate, 
and maintain the Wind Partners' proposed development. The Crow Lake 
Alternative would result in a temporary impact to 1,006 acres and 
permanent impact to 190 acres.

Winner Alternative

    The Winner Alternative is located on an approximately 83,000-acre 
area entirely within Tripp County, approximately eight miles south of 
the City of Winner, South Dakota, and would interconnect with Western's 
Winner Substation, located in Tripp County, South Dakota. The Proposed 
Project would be similar to that described for the Crow Lake 
Alternative with the following exceptions: it includes 108 miles of 
underground communication system and electrical collector lines (within 
the same trench); 34.5-kV to 115-kV collector substation and microwave 
tower; a 10 to 11 mile-long overhead 115-kV transmission line; 
equipment/material storage or lay-down areas (temporary impact of 40 
acres); crane walks (temporary impact of 530 acres); and117 miles of 
new and/or upgraded service roads to access the facilities. The Winner 
Alternative would result in a temporary impact to 3,187 acres and 
permanent impact to 261 acres. The Wind Partners' proposed development 
does not pertain to the Winner Alternative.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), Western has identified the No 
Action Alternative as the environmentally preferred alternative. Under 
this alternative, Western would deny the interconnection requests and 
not modify its transmission system to interconnect the Proposed Project 
and Wind Partners' proposed development and it was assumed for the EIS 
that the associated environmental impacts would not occur. However, 
Western must respond to Basin Electric's interconnection requests under 
the terms of the Tariff. The Tariff and underlying Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) orders mandating open access to 
transmission systems establish conditions under which interconnection 
requests must be considered (FERC Order Nos. 888 and 888-A).

Agency Preferred Alternative

    Western's Tariff provides open access to its transmission system. 
If there is available capacity in the transmission system, Western 
provides transmission services through an interconnection. Transmission 
studies completed for the Crow Lake Alternative demonstrate that 
transmission capacity is available for the Proposed Project through an 
interconnection at Western's existing Wessington Springs Substation 
without the need to expand the substation. Facility expansion may be 
required at Western's Winner Substation to accommodate interconnecting 
the Winner Alternative. Since transmission capacity is available for 
the Crow Lake Alternative and transmission studies have demonstrated 
that system reliability and service to existing customers would not be 
jeopardized, and taking into account the environmental impacts, the 
interconnection at Western's Wessington Springs Substation was 
identified as Western's preferred alternative in the Final EIS.

Environmental Impacts

    The analysis in the Final EIS demonstrated that the Proposed 
Project and Wind Partners' proposed development (at the Crow Lake 
Alternative) would have no impacts or less than significant impacts on 
geology and soils, water, land use (including farmland and recreation), 
transportation, visual resources, noise, socioeconomics, environmental 
justice, cultural resources, and health and safety. Expected impacts on 
other environmental resources are discussed below. The analysis in the 
Final EIS also demonstrated that Western's proposed action would have 
no impacts or less than significant impacts to all resources since 
modifications required for the interconnection would be confined to the 
existing Wessington Springs Substation.

Air Quality and Climate Change

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of six greenhouse gases 
(GHGs) that contribute to climate change and represents approximately 
84 percent of all GHG emissions in the United States. Wind power 
generates electricity without air emissions, including CO2. 
Within South Dakota, CO2 emissions resulting from fossil 
fuel combustion totaled 13.78 million tons in 2007; of these, 
activities related to the generation of electric power accounted for 
2.96 million tons of CO2. Further, operation of the Proposed 
Project and Wind Partners' proposed development would avoid 726,600 
metric tons of CO2 emissions per year compared to the 
average emissions of fossil fueled generating stations employed in 
South Dakota; thus, would contribute to the national and State efforts 
to minimize GHG emissions. This amount avoided is equal to the annual 
CO2 emissions of approximately 130,000 average passenger 
cars.

Biology

    Avian mortality from collisions with turbines would likely occur. 
Data obtained through baseline avian use surveys and local habitat 
characterization suggest that avian mortality rates are likely to be 
similar to or lower than those experienced at other United States wind 
farms. Based on the anticipated low level of mortality and 
incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), Applicants' Proposed 
Measures (APMs), Operations and Monitoring Plan (OMP), and voluntary 
conservation measures for habitat offsets, impacts to birds would be 
less than significant. Based on existing avian use data from the Crow 
Lake Alternative, bird fatalities are expected to be low compared with 
other wind facilities around the United States.
    Bat mortality from collisions with turbines would likely occur. 
Some researchers have concluded that observed mortality rates do not 
have population-level effects, and no significant difference has been 
noted in mortality rates at lit and unlit turbines. Preliminary data 
from bat call studies in 2009 indicate low bat activity in the Crow 
Lake Alternative; therefore, the frequency of collisions may be low 
based on recently collected bat data. Additionally, the incorporation 
of APMs, BMPs, and an OMP would minimize impacts to bats.

Public Involvement

    An NOI describing the proposed action was published in the Federal 
Register on April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15718). The NOI announced the intent 
to prepare an EIS on the Proposed Project, described the proposal, 
provided scoping meeting locations and dates, started a 30-day comment 
period, and provided contacts for further information about the 
Proposed Project and for submitting scoping comments.

[[Page 60105]]

The public scoping meetings were held at Winner, South Dakota, on April 
28, 2009, and at Plankinton, South Dakota, on April 29, 2009. Western 
and RUS held an interagency meeting in Pierre, South Dakota, on April 
28, 2009. A total of 77 written comment documents from agencies and 
individuals were received during the scoping period; these comments 
were addressed in the Draft EIS.
    A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published by the EPA 
in the Federal Register on January 15, 2010 (75 FR 2540). Western and 
RUS held an interagency meeting in Pierre, South Dakota, on February 
11, 2010. A public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIS was 
held in Chamberlain, South Dakota, on February 11, 2010. Comments from 
three individuals were transcribed for the record during the public 
hearing and 30 written comment documents were received from agencies 
and individuals. Substantive, factual, and editorial comments were 
incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS; other comments not 
affecting the substance of the document have been noted.
    The EPA published the Notice of Availability of the Final EIS on 
July 30, 2010. The 30-day review period ended on August 30, 2010. Two 
comments were received on the Final EIS (see below for response to 
comments on Final EIS).

Mitigation Measures

    Through public and agency participation in the NEPA process, Basin 
Electric has altered the design of the Proposed Project and Wind 
Partners' proposed development to minimize impacts to the environment. 
As described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, the Proposed Project and 
Wind Partners' proposed development include APMs, BMPs, OMP, and 
voluntary conservation measures for habitat offsets to minimize, 
monitor, and/or mitigate environmental impacts. Generally, the APMs and 
BMPs represent standard measures to minimize impacts associated with 
construction and operation. The OMP provides a framework for post-
construction wildlife monitoring for whooping cranes, bird and bat 
mortality, grassland breeding birds, and avian use. Basin Electric 
included voluntary conservation measures to offset indirect impacts to 
wetland and grassland habitat; the offsets included compensation for 
76.7 acres of wetland habitat and 675 acres of grassland habitat and 
were developed in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS). Furthermore, Basin Electric has committed to identify 
potential effects of the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed 
development on birds and bats and to use the results of their 3-year 
Bird and Bat Fatality Monitoring to identify and incorporate, to the 
extent practicable, measures to minimize bird and bat mortality.
    Western's authority is limited to mitigation associated with the 
interconnection of the Proposed Project and the Wind Partners' proposed 
development. Western will adhere to its own standard mitigation 
measures for all modifications within Wessington Springs Substation.

Consultation

    Western is the lead Federal agency for compliance with section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 479(f)). By letter 
of June 30, 2010, the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer 
concurred with the determination of No Adverse Effect based on the 
stipulations outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding entitled 
``Memorandum of Understanding among Western Area Power Administration, 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Flandreau Santee 
Sioux Tribe, Fort Peck Tribes, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Sioux 
Indian Community, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Santee Sioux 
Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Nation, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 
Spirit Lake Tribal Council, Three Affiliated Tribes, Upper Sioux Indian 
Community, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Wahpetkute Band of the Dakota, the 
South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer, and Basin Electric 
Power Cooperative, regarding Treatment of Archaeological and TCP 
Historic Properties for the South Dakota Prairie Winds Project.'' 
Western will ensure that the provisions outlined in the MOU are 
implemented.
    RUS is the lead Federal agency for compliance with section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536). On February 18, 2010, a 
Biological Assessment was prepared and submitted with a determination 
that the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed development would 
not likely affect the piping plover and is likely to adversely affect 
the whooping crane. The USFWS concurred via a March 16, 2010, letter 
with RUS's determination that the Proposed Project is not likely to 
adversely affect the piping plover and is likely to adversely affect 
the whooping crane. In the Biological Opinion dated July 13, 2010, the 
USFWS concluded that, ``after reviewing the current status of the 
whooping crane, the environmental baseline for the action area, the 
effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the 
Service's biological opinion that the SDPW project [the Proposed 
Project and Wind Partners' proposed development] is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the whooping crane. Critical 
habitat for the whooping crane has been designated in other areas 
within the species' range but not in the action area nor in South 
Dakota; therefore, destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat will not occur.'' Section 7 consultation has concluded and the 
Biological Opinion identified that no terms and conditions or 
reasonable and prudent measures are required for the Proposed Project 
and Wind Partners' proposed development.

Floodplains and Wetlands

    In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, Western considered the 
potential impacts of the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed 
development on floodplains and wetlands. The Federal Emergency 
Management Agency has not mapped flood hazards in the unincorporated 
areas of Brule and Jerauld counties. Aurora County has been mapped and 
is designated as Zone D (i.e., areas with possible but undetermined 
flood hazards, no flood hazard analysis has been conducted). Impacts to 
floodplains would be negligible because components would not be located 
in the areas that are the most prone to flooding (streams and wetlands 
[see below for wetland determination]), the impact area represents a 
small and dispersed footprint (190 acres spread across the 36,000 acre 
site), and engineering design and controls would minimize risk to and/
or from flooding.
    Field investigations were conducted to verify National Wetland 
Inventory (NWI) wetlands and map the actual location of wetlands within 
the Crow Lake Alternative. Wetlands that were field-verified (not NWI 
wetlands) were used in the impact analysis because (1) they were 
identified in the field as opposed to NWI wetlands that are identified 
on maps and not field-verified, and (2) field-verified wetlands 
accounted for a larger, more conservative, acreage than NWI wetlands. 
In addition, wetlands (including jurisdictional, non-jurisdictional and 
waters of the U.S., collectively termed ``wetlands'') were delineated 
for the Crow Lake Alternative. Basin Electric has committed to a 
voluntary conservation measure to offset 76.7 acres of indirect impact 
(i.e., species avoidance effects) to wetland habitat. As currently

[[Page 60106]]

designed, the Proposed Project would have no temporary or permanent 
direct impacts to wetlands.
    Some of the Proposed Project components have been adjusted based on 
engineering and resource issues since the original surveys were 
completed; therefore, additional wetland delineations will be completed 
within impact areas after final design with the intent that all 
wetlands will be identified and avoided. Upon final design, if wetlands 
cannot be avoided, further coordination will occur between Basin 
Electric and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Basin Electric 
would obtain the necessary permit(s) under Section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and mitigate for impacts prior to 
construction.
    A similar wetland delineation process will be conducted for the 
Wind Partners' proposed development, prior to the start of 
construction, in accordance with USACE standard protocols to identify 
and avoid wetlands. If final engineering results in layout 
modifications, then additional delineations will be performed within 
the final impact areas to identify wetlands that require minor project 
facility re-routes such that wetlands will be avoided. Although not 
anticipated, if impacts to wetlands (including jurisdictional waters of 
the U.S. [collectively termed ``wetlands'']) are unavoidable, then 
Basin Electric would obtain a section 404 Permit through the USACE.

Comments on Final EIS

    Western received comments from the EPA in a letter dated August 26, 
2010, and comments from the USFWS through the U.S. Department of the 
Interior (DOI) in a letter dated August 27, 2010. Based on a review of 
these comments, Western has determined that the comments do not present 
any significant new circumstances or information relevant to 
environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Project or Wind 
Partners' proposed development or associated impacts, and thus a 
Supplemental EIS is not required. The basis for this determination is 
summarized below.
    EPA noted that the Final EIS addressed many of their concerns on 
the Draft EIS, including cumulative impacts and protection of wetlands. 
Additionally, EPA recommended that the ROD require that wetlands be 
avoided and describe how this will be implemented; outline how Basin 
Electric will comply with the State's construction stormwater permit 
and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan requirements; and outline how 
roads and project features will be maintained to minimize or prevent 
erosion and/or stormwater runoff. Basin Electric has committed to 
avoiding wetlands and has modified the locations of Proposed Project 
components in accordance with this commitment (see above for wetland 
determination). The State of South Dakota issued Basin Electric a 
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction 
Activities on July 30, 2010. Basin Electric will comply with this and 
all other State and Federal laws and regulations. Basin Electric has 
conducted geotechnical investigations and will consider compaction 
requirements for backfill, depth to the saturated zone, slope, erosion 
potential, and other similar factors in the engineering design of 
roadways and other project area features. Grading, drainage, roadway, 
and other project area feature designs will be engineered to manage 
runoff, and minimize/prevent erosion. Long-term stability of restored 
temporary disturbance areas and areas with permanent installations will 
be managed in accordance with the APMs and BMPs.
    DOI's letter provided the following recommended corrections and 
offsetting measures: correct and clarify acres of affected habitat 
(wetland easements); prepare a voluntary Avian and Bat Protection Plan 
(ABPP) in coordination with USFWS; and include recurring costs of 
managing habitat offset lands. The following provides clarification on 
the potential impacts to USFWS wetland and grassland easements. The 
Final EIS correctly notes that the USFWS administers wetland easements 
within 15 parcels in the Crow Lake Alternative. Geospatial data for the 
locations of wetland easements was obtained from USFWS; per this data, 
the agencies included the entire area of the parcels in their 
assessment of wetland easement area estimates (2,718 acres within the 
project boundary or 2,836 acres including the full area for those 
parcels that are bisected by the project boundary). DOI's letter 
provided clarification that the wetland easements pertain only to the 
protected wetland basins within a portion of these parcels and portions 
of the parcels containing wetland easements are actually unprotected 
upland areas. Components of the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' 
proposed development located within parcels containing USFWS wetland 
easements would be located in the unprotected upland areas of these 
parcels. The correct impact estimate is that, while there would be a 
temporary impact of 120 acres and a permanent impact of 22 acres within 
the unprotected upland portions of parcels containing wetland 
easements, the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed development 
would result in no temporary or permanent impacts to USFWS wetland 
easements. As stated in the Biological Opinion, ``Refuges has worked 
with Basin and has determined that there are sites for project 
facilities that would have an acceptably minimal impact on the wildlife 
resources of the area.''
    The DOI letter provided a recommendation that an ABPP be prepared 
in coordination with USFWS before project operations commence and that 
the ABPP provide a process whereby the results of the OMP, ``will be 
used to identify and incorporate, to the extent practicable, measures 
to minimize bird and bat mortality.'' DOI also noted that an ABPP and 
Adaptive Management Plan were identified during prior stages of EIS 
development, but were excluded from the Final EIS. As stated in 
Appendix F of the Final EIS (Comment and Response), the term ABPP was 
used incorrectly in the Draft EIS and was replaced with the OMP, which 
is specific to the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed 
development, in the Final EIS. Basin Electric is preparing an ABPP per 
the Avian Protection Plan Guidelines, developed in part by USFWS. The 
ABPP is a corporate level document that is not specific to the Proposed 
Project and is not yet complete. The OMP contains project-specific 
construction requirements, post-construction monitoring, and reporting 
requirements. Furthermore, Basin Electric has committed to identify 
potential effects of the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed 
development on birds and bats and to use the results of their 3-year 
Bird and Bat Fatality Monitoring from the OMP to identify and 
incorporate, to the extent practicable, measures to minimize bird and 
bat mortality.
    The DOI letter also provided a recommendation to ensure that all 
lands for both temporary and permanent habitat impacts are offset and 
include a source of funds for both acquisition and recurring 
management. The agencies and Basin Electric had discussions with USFWS 
on April 6, 2010, regarding compensatory mitigation and habitat 
offsets. Through a voluntary process, Basin Electric included 
conservation measures to offset indirect impacts to wetland and 
grassland habitat; the offsets included compensation for 76.7 acres of 
wetland habitat and 675 acres of grassland habitat and were developed 
in coordination with the USFWS.

[[Page 60107]]

Decision

    Western's decision is to allow Basin Electric's requests for 
interconnection at the Wessington Springs Substation in South Dakota 
and to complete modifications to the substation to support the 
interconnections.\1\ Western's decision to grant these interconnection 
requests satisfies the agency's statutory mission and Basin Electric's 
objectives while minimizing harm to the environment. Two 
interconnection agreements 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 the Proposed Project and 
Wind Partners' proposed development impact on the environment through 
design and incorporation of APMs, BMPS, OMP, and voluntary conservation 
measures for habitat offsets as described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS 
and summarized above. The Proposed Project and Wind Partner's proposed 
development employ all practicable means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm. Furthermore, Basin Electric has committed to use 
the results of their 3-year Bird and Bat Fatality Monitoring from the 
OMP to identify and incorporate, to the extent practicable, measures to 
minimize bird and bat mortality. Western will adhere to its own 
standard mitigation measures for all modifications within Wessington 
Springs Substation. Western will ensure that the stipulations of the 
MOU are executed in support of section 106 of the NHPA in carrying out 
its decision.
    This decision is based on the information contained in the South 
Dakota PrairieWinds Project Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0418). 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 Part 1022). 
Full implementation of this decision is contingent upon the Proposed 
Project and Wind Partners' proposed development obtaining all 
applicable permits and approvals.

    Dated: September 21, 2010.
Timothy J. Meeks,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-24388 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P